Quotes About Communication

People can see themselves in a story much easier than they can see themselves in a hypothetical situation that a brand might present to them. So telling stories to build a relationship with your audience is usually far more effective than other methods of marketing or publicity.

There are very few good ways to get publicity for a dictionary.

If an artist is going through a lot of bad publicity, I don't want to ask them about that. If they want to talk about it, I'll make them comfortable enough where they can bring that up on their own. Not only do I want them to feel comfortable, I want them to come back.

It is worth asking if advertisements are ever an effective counter against negative publicity. International experience shows that it depends on the issue.

The words we use have weight. Whether it's in a conversation with a friend or something said publicly on stage or broadcast. And as performers, we know that because that's why we choose the words we use - that's the whole point of comedy.

It's always a tough call deciding whether, as a scientist, you should argue publicly with the creationists. It's a dilemma that I encounter frequently in another subject area: Does it make sense to bandy words with someone from the UFO community?

It is difficult for someone raised in my world to learn to express emotion. We are taught early to hide our feelings publicly.

If you disagree with the way a colleague did something, call him up, invite him out for a coffee, talk about it. But don't do it publicly.

I think social media brings another dynamic to running for office so publicly.

Once you publish a book, it is out of your control. You cannot dictate how people read it.

For example, the philosophers who were interested in logic were probably rather logical for mathematicians. But the ASL got us together, so we could talk to each other and publish in the same journal.

I was talking to my dad, who's a neurosurgeon. He had this academic paper he wanted to publish. Journals take about 18 months to publish a paper, and he just wanted to get things up there.

If you want to publish data, you should do it to share knowledge.

To me a book is a message from the gods to mankind; or, if not, should never be published at all.

There is a certain belief that so long as something is published in cyberspace there is no need to respect the laws of contempt or libel. This is mistaken.

Once a discovery has been published, there is no way of un-publishing it.

It's an awful feeling to write something that you feel is really important... and to feel that you're being published by people who really don't get it and/or don't really care.

Blogs are for anoraks who couldn't get published any other way.

I've written a lot of prose. I just haven't published it.

I never liked the idea of giving interviews. One says many things, but when they are published, they become shortened, condensed. The ideas lose their meaning.

I feel like every single time I've published a book, there's some little light in me that goes out. I've seen the way people can misunderstand or misinterpret things, if not maliciously, then without a lot of sensitivity.

My first published writings were trying to take scientific concepts and make them clear for a general audience.

I was writing for myself, not to be published. I was writing diaries, even letters, to myself or to anyone I was angry at. Sometimes they weren't to a person, they were just to the universe - a bit like penning daydreams or isolated thoughts.

The publisher has told - you know, if these editors, Andres Martinez and Nick Goldberg, were the least bit honest about this, they would tell you the publisher has told them he wants the editorial page to be conservative.