When facts fall flat

It’s easy to understand why many STEM companies default to logic-heavy messaging. When your daily work is built around precision and technical rigour, it makes sense to communicate with that same structure. Data feels safe. Facts are defensible. But in public relations, a purely rational approach rarely resonates. It may carry authority, but it often struggles to land.

“John F. Kennedy told students at American University in 1963, five months before he was assassinated, “In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal,” explained Charles Duhigg in his book Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection.

Duhigg is making the point that every point of communication depends upon a core emotional resonance, founded on a fundamental feeling. For instance, we buy certain brands because we know they are safe. If your factory or application uses mainly SIEMENS, you probably won’t lose your job if you buy SIEMENS product. You could buy VIPA products, which are compatible and, in my opinion, of good quality, but if they go wrong, it’s your fault. The emotion at play is fear.

STEM communications often lean heavily on logic, shaped by the mindset of those creating them. Engineers and technical specialists are trained to approach problems with discipline, and their messaging reflects that mindset, shaped by the need to be precise. Content can be detailed and accurate, but if it doesn’t show why the work matters, it’s easy for people to tune out.

This disconnect isn’t about the content itself, it’s about the absence of emotional storytelling strategy in supporting it. Afterall, people don’t absorb messages in isolation. They respond to them in context, and that response is shaped not just by facts, but by how the information feels.

Read the rest of the article on the Stone Junction website