What the YouTube algorithm knows about science communication that researchers don’t

When a scientist wants to capture a decision-maker’s interest in their innovation, it’s the framing that lights the spark. The same story told from a different angle can make or break a business partnership.

My pre-teen son is glued to YouTube again. I’ve told… asked him several times now to put the iPad away, but he doesn’t hear or see me, doesn’t even respond. I walk over, bracing myself for a fight. “But Mom, I’m watching a video about how humans evolved.”

Sure enough, on his screen is a colorful Kurzgesagt animation, explaining in an engaging way the stages Homo sapiens went through and how, over time, we built the complex, technological society we live in today.

I’m thrown off balance. Screen time and YouTube – not good. Science for kids – good. So do I take the iPad away or not?

While I’m weighing the parenting dilemma, my son keeps watching. He’s genuinely fascinated by natural science and history, but the way he absorbs information creates an inner conflict for me: he watches YouTube videos. He does read books too, but the screen clearly wins out. I, on the other hand, grew up reading. To me watching videos feels slow, heavy, even boring, whereas I can skim text quickly, at my own pace.

The generational gap opening up between me and my son mirrors the broader shift in how information travels – a shift that has put science communication in a tight spot in recent years. Scientific content is, by nature, complex, explanatory, and long-form, while today we’re served content that’s fast-paced, visual, and personal. Breakthroughs still make traditional media headlines, but social media’s role has grown significantly in recent years.

Plenty of eyes have moved from the evening news to the Instagram feed or TikTok. Short bites of content lure attention the way a honey jar lures a fly, and the algorithm decides what content lands in front of you.

And yet my son keeps choosing science, night after night, entirely on his own. Kurzgesagt and similar creators have figured out what kind of science content works for today’s viewers: concise, entertaining, and narrative-driven.

It’s the story that works

Kurzgesagt’s driving force is narrative. It tells compelling stories and translates even complex subjects into words and images anyone can grasp.

Brain research shows that strong narrative content makes different people’s brain activity align with each other far more than content without a story does. A story synchronizes thinking in a way that plain information transfer simply can’t.

For science communication, this means framing. Tell the story from the angle that matters to your listener.

Put simply: an engineer is drawn to the technology itself, but a procurement decision-maker wants to know what that technology delivers. An industrial executive isn’t buying electrolysis – they’re buying the certainty that their production plant will stay competitive a decade from now. A hospital’s leadership wants to make sure patients get diagnosed in time, and that’s why they invest in an imaging algorithm.

Narrative-driven science communication helps people understand and connect the dots. When you use storytelling to explain why your innovation works and, above all, what it can achieve, the lightbulb goes on even for someone who barely passed chemistry or physics in school. A clear case for the technology’s benefits opens doors – to companies and funders alike.

Speak the buyer’s language, not the research language

What does this mean in practice for science communication?

Here’s how you reach business audiences who are fluent in the language of economics but for whom scientific jargon is Greek:

• Boil the core message down to one sentence: what the innovation does, for whom, and by when. Skip the overly detailed explanation of how it works.
• Tell the story starting from the problem, not the technology: what’s the situation or challenge the innovation actually addresses.
• Show what happens if the company doesn’t act. Risk and loss tend to speak to decision-makers more powerfully than opportunity does.
• Drop the field-specific terminology and speak the industry’s own language: productivity, cost-efficiency, competitiveness, regulatory requirements.
• Build visibility before making direct contact: industry events, expert panels, media coverage, and a LinkedIn presence all build the trust that lays the groundwork for a deeper connection.
• Repeat the message across channels: a single article or post isn’t enough, but a consistent presence across channels builds recognition over time.

The old days aren’t coming back. There’s no point in me wishing my son would set the phone aside and stick to books alone. Science communicators, too, need to step boldly into the spotlight and paint a picture of the future grounded in their own expertise. It’s time to take ownership of social channels and pursue media visibility with persistence. Because it’s in science’s own interest to become visible – and it’s up to researchers to bring their innovations to the attention of the people who can actually do something with them.

At Netprofile, we can help put even the most complex technology into words and find the narrative that makes it work. Get in touch!