And Now For Some Enlightenment at NASA
@DavaExplorer "However many millions we are reaching is not good enough. We need to reach billions" #ISSRDC
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) July 9, 2015
@DavaExplorer "However many millions we are reaching is not good enough. We need to reach billions" #ISSRDC
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) July 9, 2015
In general, I don’t think NASA is reaching millions. Millions is wishful thinking. In the best instances, maybe tens of thousands. It takes a Chris Hadfield singing to go beyond that. In a nation 300 million, with a couple hundred million taxpayers, yes a much larger reach is needed.
@NASA currently has 10,975,179 followers. So yes, by this one social media account alone they reach over “10 million people”. 11 million people have liked their Facebook page … during a mission event (like Pluto) their web traffic reaches into hundreds of millions. Just sayin’
“11 million people have liked their Facebook page”
The way I read it, the NASA Facebook page has received 11 million likes over the course of its existence (whenever it started). They seem to get fewer than 100,000 new page likes a week. This is a pretty big week, I would think with the Pluto flyby bringing in never before seen views daily.Seems like that is a better estimate of how many are reached in a given time period.
Am I reading it incorrectly? If I am reading it correctly then the number being reached is not that big, especially considering that Facebook is used by a billion people a day, 150-200 million in the US.
I do not know enough about Twitter to know how to read their estimates.
I do use Youtube and most of the ‘regular’ NASA videos that come out seem to rank in the hundreds to low thousands. Only on rare occasions, like singing astronauts, does NASA seem to reach a million viewers or more.
It seems to me that if you want to impart meaningful content, Facebook likes in a week or Youtube views would be more useful estimates.
You do not understand how the Internet works or how massive NASA’s Internet presence is. Not worth arguing with you since you have already made up your mind.
Maybe, Keith. But–beginning a discussion, not an argument- among my friends, and I’m an educated person with friends that read the paper and pay attention to public life, only one has mentioned about New Horizons. Another mentioned Pluto in the sense of new visits. It’s just not part of their picture.
Yes, NASA has a massive internet presence; I’ve spent enough time looking for information there.
But reaching millions in the sense that Neal talks about seems like a stretch.
I would love to have a better understanding.
No doubt NASA invests a lot of money in social media and has a massive presence. Is that the best way to reach people? Where else are they investing their communications dollars? What is the ROI? Why is it so poorly coordinated, as NASAWatch has frequently pointed out.
Dava Neumann points out here that NASA is not effective enough. I agree. I frequently run into people who think we are still sending Shuttles into orbit, still sending astronauts to walk on the moon, have sent people to Mars.
By comparison, when I look at average daily circulation of newspapers, I see hundreds of thousands to 2.5 million subscribers, everyday, anywhere from 25 to 100 pages of content. for each of the top 2 dozen papers in the US. So when I add them all up, I get a total of around 15 million newspaper readers everyday.
Hundreds of millions of NASA internet visitors in a week like this week (Pluto)? Maybe. Show me!
You want to reach people? Get Jay-Z, Taylor Swift, or Eminem on a tour around here…Until you get that crowd, yes, that crowd, you aren’t reaching enough people…
Whoever brought @astVintageSpace into the fold for #PlutoFlyby should get a raise.