A quick search on Google for the word Bitcoin will throw up results that will paint the image of some form of currency that is speculative, used by gangsters and the underworld and one that governments across the world is trying to come to grips with. Bitcoin as a digital currency is today more infamous and few actually know how it operates, the underlying technology and what it can do.
The problem around technology is that few understand the need to control the narrative and create the right perception. Controlling the narrative is a public relation skills, which involves communicating in a way masses understand. This is important because there is always a risk of someone else talking about it – in a way that may be damaging in nature. For example, early articles around Bitcoin in the media, mainly related to how it was a security concern, how banks were being circumvented, no checks and balances and who was the creator of the technology.
This leads me to my second point. Inherently scientist and technologists are not good at communicating. They are most happy to be confined to their labs and coming up with disruptions and innovations and care less about letting the world know what’s at stake. This then means it is often left to people who understand very little about the technology to take charge of what gets out to the public and in what form. The problem with such narration is that what gets said initially tends to stick and a narrative starts to form around it. It is very important for people developing and invested in the technology to get a grip on the messaging and ensure public knows which way the wind blows. After all, what use is a disruptive new technology if there are no adopters?
What prevents people getting a clear understanding about something new in the technology world is that it’s mostly very complex. Basic Science is often boring and the principles behind it are generally very difficult to grasp. When basic science becomes technology, it gets a tad easier but not significantly. People behind technology often fail to communicate the benefits and the advantages the innovation is going into usher in, which then leaves space for confusion. The key here is to get people to understand the use case and how the technology will significantly make things better.
For example, if I was to explain the technology and the code behind our P2P platform, no one would understand it and no one would be interested. On the other hand, if I tell people P2P can significantly reduce the cost of your loan, people can immediately relate to it and identify with it. People are not interested about the code behind our platform, they are just happy that their interest rates are much lower and costs have come down. This has allowed us to enable greater adoption of P2P as an alternative source of finance and broken barriers.
Another aspect to keep in mind is the financial implications you technology can have. If your innovation is contrarian to established order, be ready to be questioned. When big banks and financial institutions tend to be at the receiving end of the technology, it would be foolish that they would sit quietly. On the other hand, if technology can bring in the big bucks, you can expect the big multinationals to get behind it. For example, the Internet was being used by scientists at CERN years before it reached the public. However, when big computer companies realized its potential, a narrative on how revolutionary it could be was quickly built around the power of the Internet.
However, it is equally important to understand that the means and mediums to communicate have also changed. Merely writing a press release and getting coverage in the newspaper is not enough. The Internet is a far powerful and superior tool and social media has proved to be a new animal altogether. Corporates have understood that traditional mediums of marketing and advertising do not have the same power and scientist and innovators would have to learn this quickly.
Newspapers and media houses are no more the gold-standard of reporting and what gets around on social media is equally persuasive and believable. Shaping opinion is easy now, which is both good and bad for new technology. It is easier and more affordable to make yourself heard, you are equally open to distortion or people misconstruing what you have to offer.
A recent article in the Atlantic talks about the time when personal computer first became ubiquitous in the 1980s, some people found it so terrifying that the term “computerphobia” was coined. The article goes on to explain that a recent survey that ranked respondents fears in the US across 88 different items on a scale of one (not afraid) to four (very afraid) were averaged out, the fear technology came in second place, right behind natural disasters.
Technology is difficult to understand, control and benefits are often never black and white. This scares people and sometimes even the best of technologies find substantial resistance. Every technology is not bad and similarly every technology is not good. However, it is important for pioneers to tell the masses about technology and control the narrative around what gets told. As they say, from the horse’s mouth, will dramatically alter public perception of technology.