Shape of Things

A friend of mine once called someone we know “snubbable.”  He probably meant that this person was too sensitive for his own good, but it could be taken in a positive way: The only way you get snubbed is if you put yourself into the fray.  People standing on the sidelines don’t get snubbed.

Some of my most painful experiences revolve around being snubbed, but I was never sorry for the experiences that preceded the snubs.

Once when working for an association, I developed and executed an award-winning, national PR campaign.  But, I wasn’t invited initially to the awards program.  I knew what was happening: My boss needed to solidify her position, and also justify the six-figure retainer for the PR agency that worked on the project and whose biggest role was submitting the award nomination.

In this case, it bothered me to the point that I spoke calmly, but forcefully, to my boss about my role in the project and my desire to receive recognition for it.  I received an invitation to the awards program and a small version of the Heisman-like trophy given to my boss and the agency.  The biggest consolation was that I always knew what I had done.

Another snub happened just after I started my own business and took on the PR job for a regional conference.  I put in so much work that I was probably being paid the equivalent of $10 an hour by the time it was over.  Still, the conference director didn’t mention me when handing out credits in his opening speech.  This time I said nothing.  I knew I didn’t want to work with that organization again, and I learned a good lesson about what kind of projects to take on.

In both cases, I was glad I put myself in a position to be snubbed.  After the pain, came some wisdom and a lasting pride in a job well done. 

Ever hear of Bill Simmons? I hadn’t until last week when I saw that his The Book of Basketball: The NBA According to The Sports Guy was number one on the New York Times non-fiction bestseller’s list. 

Simmons’ success in traditional publishing stems from his millions of followers on espn.com, where he made his name as The Sports Guy. The appeal is that he’s like any other sports fan, except perhaps a bit more obsessed and a better writer and self-marketer.

Simmons doesn’t write in-depth analysis, go on the road with a team, do psychological profiles, or any of the other things great sports writers have done in the past. He’s not a reporter; he’s a fan. He taps into the common obsessions of fans. Who’s the best basketball center, Wilt or Russell? What football player do you hate the most? He’s fueled by lists, emotions, biases and statistics– just like every other fan.

Like it or not, this is where communications is going — think of twitter, Facebook, YouTube and blogs.  The majority don’t want an authoritative voice; they want someone like them, or at least, someone like the best vision of themself.

What does this mean to the PR person, the marketer, the publisher, the corporate communicator?

It means you have to stop making proclamations from on high and communicate from the trenches.

You have to speak with your customer’s voice, in terms he or she can relate to.

You have to bring customers’ stories to the forefront of your communications.

You have to establish an ongoing dialog with customers and help make them part of a community.

You have to forego marketing generalities and get into the nitty gritty of your customers’ everyday jobs. 

You have to elevate conversational approaches and downgrade pronouncements.

In short, you likely have to change everything you’ve been doing for the last couple of decades. 

Future posts will deal with how corporate communications and marketing can be revamped to get in synch with how customers want to be engaged. This isn’t theory anymore; it’s a mandate. In the words of David Bowie, “This ain’t rock and roll, this is genocide.”

Marketing and PR people say a lot of stuff that they don’t really believe. Or, that they’ve convinced themselves is true. And when it gets into the public’s hands, it invariably rings false.

How often do you see a press release or marketing piece that describes a technology product as “robust,” “intuitive,” “flexible,” or “setting a new paradigm?” Or a corporate announcement larded with exec-speak that obscures any meaning and annoys the average person?

Here’s a little exercise the next time you’re working on a press release, marketing brochure or corporate speech: Make believe you’re talking to your most cynical friend. The friend who brings you thudding to earth when you get too grandiose or preachy. The friend who has no compunction about telling you that you’re full of it.  Now write something that this friend can swallow and digest — possibly even enjoy.

You have little to lose but your pretension.

 

In software development, it’s called “feature creep.” Here’s how it’s defined in Wikipedia:

Feature creep is the proliferation of features in a product such as computer software. Extra features go beyond the basic function of the product and can result in baroque over-complication rather than simple, elegant design.

Increasingly, the equivalent of feature creep is invading our written communication. It comes in the form of annoying traits that have embedded themselves like killer algae in our text. Here are my 10 creepy things in no particular order. I’d love to hear yours.

1. Those annoying quotation marks everywhere. Thanks to Lynne Truss for telling the world about this in Eats, Shoots & Leaves, and to Seth Godin for reminding us recently.

2. Improper use of apostrophes (thanks again, Seth).

3. Turning nouns into awful verbs. Don’t incent me, please.

4. Avoiding the active voice.

5. Misleading headlines and hard-to-identify jump heads.

6. Typos – they’re everywhere despite (or probably because of) spellcheckers.

7. The 50+ word sentence and 20-line paragraph.

8. Indirect sentences stacked up like planes at LaGuardia.

9. Excessive adverbs and exclamation points.

10. Jargon-filled corporate speak that only insiders understand.

When organizations let these things happen – in brochures, on web sites, in press releases, blogposts and tweets – one can only surmise that they don’t care whether people think they are stupid, careless and insensitive. You are what you communicate.

This is part 2 of a primer on editing.  Much of this comes from a Folio magazine seminar taught by Peter Jacobi more than 25 years ago.  Jacobi is now professor emeritus at the Indiana University School of Journalism.

 

What to avoid

Delaying the subject in a sentence

      Bad:        The goals and objectives of writers…

      Good:      The writer’s goals and objectives…

The passive voice

      Bad:        The purchase of hardware is a tedious chore.

      Good:      Buying hardware is tedious.

Excess adjectives

      Bad:        The Internet-enabled, scalable and robust X14AB is a good tool.

      Good:      The X14AB works on the Internet and is able to expand to fit users’ needs.

Hyperbole

      Few actions are outrageous, cities are rarely paralyzed and very few things are vital.

Clichés

Trash high-scalability, high-performance, highly interactive, state-of-the-art and other meaningless phrases.

Pretentious language

      Away with paragon, parameters, debilitate, facilitate.

Newly minted “verbs”

      In general, any word with “ize” and “ate” at the end could be dangerous.  Don’t

      synergize, hypothesize, strategize or caffinate.

Needless words

“he is a man who hunts” should be “he hunts”; “the fact that” is a term we can do without.

Exclamation points

      Except for “World at War!,” there are very few causes for this punctuation.

Using quotations for easily documented facts

      “PlutoView costs $3,000 for a license,” says Joe Magnum.

Backing into sentences

      Bad:        When it comes to electronics, he is an expert.

      Good:      He is an electronics expert.

Non-sequiturs

      His hair flowed majestically, making him a good candidate for the space program.

 

What to embrace

Direct, short sentences

Repetition, if it makes a sentence simpler

Common words used in a conversational tone

Reinforcing messages by phrasing them in different forms

Using a semicolon for forcefulness:

      Her romances are entertaining; they are full of exciting adventures.

Being specific:

      Bad:        They work on computer models containing millions of polygons.

      Good:      They work on computer models containing 10-million polygons or more.

Sentences in positive form:

      Bad:        He was not very often on time.

      Good:      He usually came late.

 

You have the power…be good with it

Editing gives you the power to shape messages in a way that will interest, inform and entertain your readers.  Power has its responsibilities, of course.  You must be a benevolent ruler, always keeping in mind the needs of your readers and being gentle with your writers.  May the editing force be with you.

 

References:

The Art of Editing, Floyd K. Baskette and Jack Z. Sissors, 1971, The Macmillan Company, pp. 418-419

The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, Addison-Wesley Publishing.

 

 

Editing is a lost art, or at least a misplaced one.  It used to be rare to see a typo or grammatical error in the New York Times; now, it’s almost a daily occurrence.

 

Although it might seem a bit anachronistic, good editing matters.  How many times have you left a website because of poorly written text or typos? Poor writing and editing often precede the sound of business walking out the door.

 

I could go on, but the importance of editing is something people get or they don’t.  For those who do, here’s a two-part primer.  It’s no Strunk and White, but it’s a start.  Much of this comes from a Folio magazine seminar taught by Peter Jacobi more than 25 years ago.  Jacobi is now professor emeritus in the Indiana University School of Journalism.

 

What is Editing?

Editing is selection – knowing what to put in, what to take out, and how to prioritize information.

 

What is an Editor?

·         A creative planner

·         A visionary

·         A procurer and selector

·         A researcher

·         A conscience

·         A utility person

·         An understudy

·         An enforcer

·         A protector

·         A big-picture person

·         An attention-to-detail person

·         A servant

·         A trench worker

·         A voice

·         A cynic

·         A learner

·         A benevolent dictator

·         An unsung hero

 

Editing: The Two-Headed Monster

Micro-editing – helping the writer by concentrating on words, meaning, style, structure

Macro-editing – serving the reading audience by setting the agenda, tone and image

 

10 Ways to Become A Great Editor

1.      Read

2.      Write

3.      Perceive

4.      Appreciate

5.      Analyze

6.      Study

7.      Practice

8.      Be curious

9.      Learn from mistakes

10.  Be helpful

 

Begin at the Beginning

Know your audience: who they are, what they do, what they know, what they want to know, how they want to find out.

 

What Every Reader Wants

·         Information – as succinctly and clearly as possible.

·         Interpretation – what does it mean and how does it relate to my world?

·         Entertainment – yes, even technically oriented material should entertain.

 

What We Don’t Want to Do…

·         Assume that the audience is captive and that the message is a must for the reader – no story has a divine right to be read.

·         Write for the masses – each story goes out to an individual; picture the lonely engineer in the windowless cubicle and bring some light into his or her day.

·         Get into a rut – give readers change before they realize they want it.

·         Bore your reader – stay unique, focus on being different, lively.

 

The 6 Cs for Success

1.      Clarity

2.      Concise

3.      Complete

4.      Constructive

5.      Credible

6.      Conversational

 

Oh, and a Couple More

Consistent

Captivating

 

Part 2:  What to avoid and what to embrace.

 

References:

The Art of Editing, Floyd K. Baskette and Jack Z. Sissors, 1971, The Macmillan Company, pp. 418-419

The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, Addison-Wesley Publishing.

 

In January 1969 the Beatles went into the studio to prepare for a live concert and a new album.  Recording sessions were filmed and almost everything – from musical noodling to offhand comments to deep discussions – was captured on audio tapes.  The resulting film and record were named after the song “Let It Be.”

 

A blow-by-blow account in the book Get Back: The Unauthorized Chronicle of The Beatles’ Let It Be Disaster, documents the painful end of a decade-long relationship.  It also offers lessons to business managers about paying attention to the changes their organizations are going through.

 

By “Let it Be,” George had become a major songwriting talent, but John and Paul refused to acknowledge his remarkable ascent.  In many ways, he was still seen as the adolescent kid of the group.  George reacted according to casting: bitter, sarcastic and uncooperative.

 

John, who formed the band and was its leader for most of its history, had become withdrawn and uncommunicative. His new obsessions: Yoko and hard drugs.  He was barely an active participant in the sessions.

 

With John’s abdication as a leader and George’s recalcitrance, Paul had to take on too much responsibility.  He pulled out every trick – cajoling, pleading, joking, challenging – but to no avail.  He ended up coming off shrill and egotistical.

 

Ringo, well, was Ringo.

 

“Let it Be” was a train wreck.  But, could it have been avoided?

 

Maybe — if someone had filled the leadership void left by Brian Epstein’s death.

 

Maybe — if someone could have figured out the now-conventional approach of letting individual members of a band record solo albums to give them a creative outlet for passions not shared by the rest of the group.

 

Maybe — if The Beatles could have taken a step back from their commitments and tried to define a common goal and sensible timetables.

 

What they did instead was to ignore much of what was happening around them and try to conduct business as usual.

 

The events leading up to The Beatles breakup are eerily familiar to anyone who has managed a business: Employees growing on divergent paths, at different rates, or not at all.  Wasteful spending. Scattered priorities. The perceived need to do more, more, more. An organizational structure riddled with cracks.  Without continuous monitoring, discussion and adjustments, companies can find themselves in the same situation as The Beatles in January 1969.

 

Let it be at your own risk.

 

Life would be hard without assumptions.  We assume people can understand us when we speak.  Otherwise, we’d have to get painful verification one….word….at….a….time.  We assume if that engine light doesn’t come on our car is running OK.  We assume we’ll be allowed a certain amount of behaviorial leeway from friends.

Sometimes within companies, however, we can assume too much, especially when it comes to our internal language.  The same lingo that greases the skids inside our companies might bring communication to a screeching halt in the outside world.  I was speaking to a phone rep today and he was telling me that I would need to call back when “my order was provisioned.”  Huh?

This style of tribal language runs rampant within technology companies.  A suggestion: Anytime you are communicating something to the outside world, run it by a few friends or customers to see if it makes sense.  Doesn’t take much time, and it could prevent a big assumption gap.