Proposed Agenda and Questions for Discussion with Brooke

Item	Description	Notes	How Long?
Introduction	Meet and greet + background about this project	Background: media relations and my role.	3 minutes
Review communication goals	What do you think are the most important communications goals for Learning Collider?	Problem: a lot of people don't understand what LC is or what we do. That's partly because LC is trying to find it's product-market fit. Brooke plays around with different ways of talking about it at conferences. The answer depends on the answer. e.g. Policy people are familiar with research labs and social sciences - and Brooke can talk about LC is doing different. In the private sector, it's been more challenging to position LC.

We have a real opportunity to articulate what we do.

Biggest goal: let people know how we can help them.

What seems to click for people: we're a group of data scientists. Clear, compelling pitch of LC's value add and how to differentiate LC from other labs.

Unique selling point: Subject matter - screening algos (but doesn't want to lock into that). There are decision-makers in positions of power about how to allocate resources and who to allocate them to. Those tools contain inherent bias, are unfair. LC focuses on solving this problem. (Doesn't like "screening algos” term.)

Approach is also unique. Normally people apply for a grant, find a partner, and then do the research. It's very project-based work. LC is different b/c they build deep relationships with providers. LC isn't just trying to do an impact eval of your current performance, but we're trying to improve outcomes - collaborating to build, test solutions. LC has a product-centric approach to this. Brooke's presence is a testament to that with her tech product background.

Theory of change is unique - private sector and not just public policy changes. Commercial viable solutions implemented by for-profit companies or nonprofits that serve the private sector. | 5 minutes | | Discuss measures of success | Which of the following metrics resonate with you? If we made meaningful progress on any of the following, which would make the most meaningful progress for the organization? Are there are measures that are missing?:

Established relationships with a suite of reporters, both for warm pitching and receiving inquiries from the press. (How many?)
Number of inquiries from reporters
Number of pitches to reporters
Number of published articles / references to LC
Capitalizing on existing opportunities, like panels and conferences, to advance communications goals
LC’s work is used by policymakers and/or staff to inform their work.
Op-eds pitched
Op-eds published
Traffic from blog posts
Blog posts published with partners | Short term: is it not going to take 20 min to explain what I do. People start meetings by saying, “I looked at your website. I think I understand what you do, but it would be useful fleshing that out.”

Brooke is focused on new partnerships and funding.

These metrics to the left indirectly impact success. Media mentions helped build validity and legitimacy, which help with funding, etc. Metrics focused on legitimacy are helpful. Because LC is a young start up., people sometimes don't want to take a chance on you. You have to show that you produce results, you know what you're doing, people entrust you with their money, etc.

Establishing ourselves as a more legitimate brand would be helpful.

Example metrics: number of potential partners that results from media coverage / number of funders that approach from media coverage. (None yet.) | 5 minutes | | Best-case scenarios | If you could write any headline about Learning Collider’s impact, what would it say? Which publication would it be in?

Which communications initiative has been most successful for the organization? What led to its success? And what did Learning Collider gain from it?

Are there any other organizations - labs or otherwise - whose communication efforts you admire? If so, what resonates with you and why? | Best-case headline Publication: Tech Crunch or newsletters about impact entrepreneurs. Getting in front of them would be really cool. "This Week in FinTech” but in EdTech, Workforce, and Housing newsletters. Headline: Position LC as cutting edge and adding value to tech platforms (not just startups - more established). "LC partners with affordablehousing.com to launch new dashboard that transform public housing agencies make decisions.” Pair LC with legitimate tech platform that people respect and talk about LC's impact.

Best comms initiative Brooke hasn't been part of a comms initiative with Abbey. Brooke's job focuses on housing. She's been heads-down on strategy and initial traction. Brooke feels wary of overpromising and underdelivering.

The briefs we did for the White House, which happened before Brooke joined, may not be illustrative of the type of future work that LC wants to do. Doesn't focus on new technology.

Other orgs with admirable comms Turner Center - housing operation out of Berekley. Ferman Center - housing lab in NYU. Both are different. They're not focused on quantitative impact evals. Lots of qualitative and policy briefs.

Newsletters, featured in the media, are the go-to experts in housing. Should they be emulated?

The Urban Institute in Boston as well.

J-PAL has the gold standard for branding for rigorous research. | 7 minutes | | Communications vision and branding | What is your elevator pitch for Learning Collider? Are you happy with it? If yes, why? If not, what would you like to convey that you’re not?

How do you currently balance communicating about your various research areas (education, workforce, tech, housing) and ensure a cohesive organizational message? | Elevator Pitch (to private sector) - We're looking to partner with tech platforms that are growing or are operating at scale to improve the fairness of their products without sacrificing their bottom line. We look through your data and work with your product to brainstorm new interventions that we can test that optimize for impact. Because we're a nonprofit organization, we bring funding to the table to support software development where there's a need. We can use those funds to build prototypes, and the private companies can scale it.

Cohesive communications Challenging. Still trying to figure out the focus. Maybe pivot away from housing, education, and workforce? Building fair technology is the tie that binds everything together. It's just incidental that we've chosen to focus on housing, education, and workforce. Does that distract from building and scaling fair-screening technology? If so, it could apply to many other sectors as well. | 7 minutes | | Communications planning | How much of LC’s communications work is proactive vs reactive? What would the ideal scenario look like?

How do you currently integrate communications planning into your overall project and research processes?

What challenges do you face in translating complex research findings into accessible content for different audiences (media, public, policymakers)? | Communications planning No communications planning yet. Brooke has started talking with Abbey about integrating communications planning earlier into the process. Brooke has some retisence about doing more comms until there's more clarity about mission and vision.

What crystalized for Brooke in the past year? In much the same that Brooke had trouble explaining the mission and vision, and how tech and housing intersect, to others - she had trouble internalizing that and determining LC's unique value.

Making research findings accessible Brooke talks about researching findings as product. Talking about RCT as A/B testing, for example. | 7 minutes | | Media relations | Does LC have a dedicated spokesperson? If so, what would that person ideally do? Who should they sound like? How would their role impact LC’s communications goals? | Spokesperson Peter is so good. People love listening to him. He draws really interesting parallel between academia and the real world. It's rare to have academics who can understand how their research can be appleid in the real world.

The Executive Team is gelling and starting to hone in our pitch. Everyone is uniquely capable in their own ways, own specializations and angles. Riddhima has a great background in academia. Brooke has a tech and business background, and has received good feedback when she's spoken in public. Nitya is also very kick ass. Brilliant.

Brooke things the Executive Team is ready. | 5 minutes | | Loose ends | Is there anything else we should have discussed but didn’t? | Joseph should talk with Peter. There are some instances - maybe just getting his input on Slack. Especially about which research labs he admires, most of the questions.