NASA is Still A Potent (If Underutilized) Brand
Keith’s note: ExxonMobil TV commercial about Shiva Hafezi, a young woman (now an engineer) who was motivated as a student to strive for excellence by a chemistry teacher who had once worked at “NASA”. The use of “NASA” seems to be the ultimate qualifier of – and compliment for her teacher’s qualifications. The NASA brand, however inconsistently and inefficently used by NASA, still has some clear value and meaning to the public. If only NASA were truly willing and capable of using that brand identity to its fullest. Shiva Hafezi is on Facebook
Pardon my skepticism, but I don’t read anything here that would signal NASA as an “ultimate qualifier of – and compliment for her teacher’s qualifications”. (The video now reads “currently unavailable”, so I didn’t get a chance to look at it.) Her teacher worked for NASA … at one time. Did that work somehow brand this teacher with some huge inspirational capability that carried over into his or her teaching? Her teacher “once worked” there. If that teacher were still working there, would Shiva Hafezi have been inspired by that person? Did that teacher decide at NASA that he or she could do more useful work in the classroom?
Sad to say, this kind of “branding” is vaguely insulting to the large number of creative, innovative, hard working, and yes, inspirational teachers who never worked at NASA. I know you didn’t mean it this way, but still …
Perhaps Hafezi is really saying that she’s proud of her teacher because he or she decided to teach, and NOT to work at NASA!
Helen,
If you get to watch the video, she clearly said, in passing, that her teacher used to work at NASA, because she thought that made him somewhat special. I think a lot of people, even if they don’t understand a lot about NASA, would consider that someone who once worked there had to be pretty good at what they do, because NASA is high-end. The truth is irrelevant I would say; it’s a perception thing. Either way, it’s complementary to NASA and NASA people, so it could qualify as branding.
Steve
Thanks. That wasn’t clear that the work her teacher did at NASA made him special to her. NASA is certainly a “high-end” outfit, and the U.S. public should take great pride in that. But I still think that what is more important here is an engineer who was inspired by a teacher, and not so much that the teacher once worked for NASA. We’ve all had teachers who inspired us, and precious few ever worked for NASA.
It is of some interest that a person who worked at a “high end” outfit like NASA decided to work instead as a teacher. Perhaps it’s the profession of teaching that is a brand identify that should be more honored.
And Keith, I don’t think accusations about anti-NASA personal bias are constructive here. Your point about branding is an interesting one, and deserves discussion that rises above such accusations. I was just questioning your own projection.
Huh? You go off stating that a “large number of teachers” are insulted by a nice video like this and you think I am not being constructive. Color me baffled.
wow … what is all that ..
A baseball player can be inspired by some obscure player that played in the bigs for the Yankees. It really doesn’t matter what it took .. that individual … at that point in time .. heard YANKEES . and that is all that mattered .. it caused the spark.
This individual heard the word NASA .. and that was the spark. A million school kids can hear that .. read it .. have an astronaut as a guest speaker and … one? two? None in that group in that particular point in time?
One person is relating THEIR story. Not a story that NASA is like fairy dust and anyone who hears it wants to excel in STEM.
I think you’re overthinking it in the wrong direction.
The key point is that “NASA” still gets used as a keyword for “smart people who do great things”.
That’s all brand power is; it’s positive when you bust out the word. If someone at the studio were to say “whoa, don’t say NASA, people’ll think we’re idiots”, than that would mean it has a bad brand.
Imagine a woman on an Exxon ad saying “I learned how to prevent accidents at BP.”
It’s not insulting that a teacher might’ve not worked at NASA. There’s a wide variety of possible good things a teacher might have about her.
“NASA” is a word that gives a whole lot more good feelings than FEMA, the IRS or even DARPA.
““NASA” is a word that gives a whole lot more good feelings“
Agreed. In spite of all the song and dance that disappoints us here at NASA Watch where we look at details, to the general public, I think NASA is still very much synonymous with smart, high-tech, state-of-the-art, even cool. I mean, this stuff is rocket science to the average person. Hopefully this will continue to remain the case.
Steve
Get a grip. Seriously. You are just projecting some sort of anti-NASA personal bias into the video – and you haven’t even watched the video.
Hey Helen, you’re confusing the hell out of me. If you didn’t get a chance to look at the video, how can you form an opinion on it, say the branding is insulting, or guess what Hafezi is saying when you haven’t heard what she did say, or even be skeptical about the whole thing?
I don’t understand what you mean when you say “… that what’s more important here is an engineer who was inspired by a teacher, and not so much that the teacher once worked for NASA.” I take it that you’re declaring that teachers and teaching is the critical focus – and viewers should not be distracted by NASA or any other contributing factors. Is that the case?
I think the ad is very straight forward, the mention of NASA, teachers, inspiration, and the overall message, is simple and clear. Then I read your assessment – even given you said you couldn’t view it – and I read a convoluted mess of thoughts. Care to explain?
ExxonMobile?????
Being held in awe by some segment of the population is a very low bar to judge NASA by.
NASA is about science and space exploration. Outreach is a byproduct, or a parallel track. The main track is to achieve things, and so the ultimate test of NASA is whether it advances the cause of science and technology, and whether it advanced mankind’s (ok, the US’s) position in space.
It is not whether people think that working for NASA means you’re uber-smart.
The impression that people have of NASA and what impresses them about NASA is that it is – their impression – and that is the basis upon which they form opinions. Whether it is the right view to have (as you suggest) is not important. It is what it is. Good education and public outreach plays upon an organization’s strengths to promote and explain those strengths while seeking to explain other aspects of what the organization does and why. If people admire the people who work at NASA then NASA should be using its people – all of them – as ambassadors and explainers to the public in whatever capacity they can.
meekGee,
I think you have to consider this sort of thing as good news. Many of us who look closely at NASA events have become quite disappointed with some people at NASA, and even more so with some of the people who work with or against NASA (like certain members of Congress). But what we have in this commercial is a passing comment by someone completely unrelated to NASA and/or the government who sees a NASA association as something positive, even impressive. To me, this says that people out there in the real world may not all be excitedly promoting NASA, but neither are they against NASA. I think it’s easier to live with the massive indifference when we see that there are those in the general public who are still impressed by what NASA is and what it represents. I’ve never seen or heard tell of a commercial that in any way bashes NASA (unlike the political campaigning). I find comments like the one Ms. Hafezi makes encouraging, especially because it will be casually viewed by many other people who would not have had a positive NASA thought on their own, and now, for at least a couple of seconds, all those people will think about NASA when they otherwise wouldn’t have. We should be happy to take what we can get.
Steve
I have no foot in the technical waters whatsoever, other than a lifelong passion and a fair amount of personal research, and a limited, but much higher than average background in science and mathematics. I am a citizen-space junkie, and I can say with certainty that the NASA cachet is alive and quite well amongst the people I know, formally and informally, none of whom are technical or have worked at NASA.
Apocryphal story (and true): I bought a couple of T-shirts at the Kennedy store a few years ago. When I wear them to the beach I’m asked, with obvious awe and admiration, ‘You work for NASA?’
See what I mean? NASA is admired and LOVED, acclaimed as the core of our national technical prowess. Yes, we all know that the country has Argonne and the Energy Department and god knows what else. We have technical and scientific excellence in dozens (hundreds, probably) places in the US.
In the public mind, NASA stands out. Those other places are just invisible.
I read this website because it is populated by insiders, mostly, or people with technical careers. You guys need to understand just how storied NASA is in the public mind.
msadesign,
I concur. I’ve had my NASA T-shirts so long that they’re growing holes (mine came from the HQ store). I wear them often, anywhere and everywhere, simply because I’m a NASA fan.
It’s not unusual for strangers to shift their glance long enough to read my shirts. Most don’t actually say anything, but the recognition is clearly there. A number of people have asked me over the years if I work for NASA, usually with a smile or even wide eyes, (I don’t) and I live in Ontario, Canada, several hours drive from the nearest NASA facility.
So, despite all of the disappointing things that we who look closely see, I’d have to say that NASA’s reputation is alive and well in the world and people still associate NASA, and its people, with impressive and special accomplishments. It’s a shame the various PAO groups can’t figure out how to make use of that. It might do more for NASA’s budget and self-management status than 20 Neil Degrasse Tysons.
Steve
Apocryphal story (and true)…
Inigo Montoya:
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Today NASA does not permit its name or symbol to be used in any way that might appear to be an endorsement of a commercial product. However this wasn’t true in the early days, and I assume that’s how Tempur-pedic used “NASA” in its ads for mattresses. However even they apparently don’t do it anymore.
The lack of pizzazz doesn’t worry me. I don’t think NASA has to be “inspiring” any more than DOE, FAA, FEMA, NIH, NIST or any of the dozens of federal agencies that handle critical tasks every day. If spaceflight is ever to be practical it will have to be economical, frequent, and routine. I also think NASA needs to work more closely with the aviation industry, which produces more in jobs, economic growth and exports than spaceflight.
vulture4,
I agree with you in principle, but to be honest, I think there is one significant difference. With those other agencies, which I think are generally less well understood than NASA by the public, if the general population was indifferent towards them, or even against them for some reason, I can’t imagine any government changing how they deal with or fund these other agencies.
NASA, I think, is a different case. The average person understands enough about what NASA does (or at least thinks he does) to actually have an opinion about whether NASA is important, what it should be doing, and whether spending on it should be increased or decreased (without even knowing what the current spending is).
In the NASA case, I can imagine politicians using public input (from those misleading polls), at a time when NASA is not seen by the public as worth spending all that money on, to slash the budget above and beyond whatever else may be affecting it. And once cut, it’ll never be uncut. I think we’re at a point where NASA’s continued existence is no longer a sure thing, so I think NASA PAO (as the only NASA entity who can) should be doing every allowable thing in its power to foster, and in fact rebuild, that NASA “brand.”
For a time, NASA was one the prime movers in the technical world, and it can be again, to everyone’s benefit. So while I agree with you about the lack of pizzazz not being a worry, and inspiring not being a major responsibility, I feel strongly that public outreach, for the purpose of better educating the public about what NASA does and needs to be doing, and why it is essential to our future existence, is something that PAO (and any other interested entity) should be doing to the best of their individual and collective abilities.
I say this not as a space nut (which I certainly am, of course), but as a person who, like most of us, has descendants living on this planet — a planet that represents us giving our children and grandchildren less than we received instead of more, the exact opposite of one of the prime responsibilities of all parents. Revitalizing NASA (and its sister agencies in other countries) is one thing we can do towards giving back some of what our generation has indiscriminately and selfishly used more than our share of.
Promoting STEM and all that other stuff is a nice idea if you can get it without spending a ton of money, but public outreach (to people of all ages and backgrounds) for the purpose of properly educating them on what NASA is doing, needs to be doing, and why, must be an essential ongoing exercise, or else NASA will continue to become increasingly impotent and the human race will continue on the inevitable decline which has already begun. In all seriousness, if we don’t turn things around while we still can, how will we explain it to our grandchildren?
Steve
I think NASA should go Mass Market with a primetime network reality show. Something like a STEM oriented competition to ride the Dragon to the ISS for a crew rotation.
James,
Who do you think might sponsor this project?
Steve
I think Hanks’ Playtone would be a good company to produce it, allthough I don’t think they’ve done something like that on network tv. If the ratings are good corporate america will pay. I guess we’ll have to see what the ratings are like for the Cosmos sequel on Fox.
Looks like reality shows are about $1M per episode to produce. How much is a seat on Dragon? $7M?
James,
I’ve been waiting (somewhat) patiently for the new Cosmos. I think right now, when NASA news is at low ebb and there’s no Shuttle or Hubble in the popular news, would be an ideal time for trying to interest “new” people, as opposed to those of us who are already in the know, in NASA and all things space and science. I find it’s hard to predict what the popular mood will be like next year when/if Cosmos runs.
I hope someone else picks it up and shows it as well, instead of just Fox. I’ve seen commentary suggesting that some people don’t ever watch Fox just on principle, because of all the mistakes and nonsense that have, rightly or wrongly, been associated with Fox. I have to admit, in my mind, science on Fox does seem like an oxymoron.
Steve