THE CAIN'T BRIGADE

There’s something about bad grammar that, for many of us, is way too memorable.

University professors and columnists, especially, all cry “foul” when the basic rules and regs of English writing are violated. 

Even dating site Match, after asking 5,000 users if language mattered, discovered it did.  Big time.  Eighty-eight percent of women, 75 percent of men agreed that the proper syntax was far more important in a prospective date than confidence or good teeth.  [Gnaw on that one for a while.]

Depending on who responds, the blame goes to social media, where gaffes are as common as abbreviations like ‘soups awk’ [you guess].  On the educational system … but never aimed at a particular teacher.  On contemporary “it’s gotta be Millennial” qualities like laziness, carelessness, inaccuracy, even inconsiderateness.

Let’s stop here.  And agree:  It’s our responsibility as language gurus – communicators, brand experts, marketers – to frame the dispute.  After all, there is an informal English, one that we speak and message and tweet.  Punctuation might be absent, at times.  Abbreviations, dominant.  And dialects become noticeable. 

The other practice?  Emails, memos, presentations, and all the other accoutrements of corporate and marketing and brand communications, from annual reports to Web sites.  There, though informal lingo might be present, the rest of the grammatical snafus need to be gone.

Then there’s Oklahoma’s Ado Annie …

WORD SIMPLE

Recognize our headline? 

We (ahem!) borrowed it from a well-known tech company’s marketing campaign.

After all, the same sort of principles apply when talking simplification, whether in work or in words.  At least, we think so.  Route out the extraneous and the unnecessary (according to customers and users) and streamline, right?

Not.  So.  Fast.

Ownership of words within corporations tends to be (pick one) 1) mandated by the brand, 2) dominated by corporate functions like marketing and HR, 3) supervised by leaders, and/or 4) required by message stewards.  When interminably long documents and three-paragraph sentences dominate, it’s clear that someone isn’t paying attention to the eight-second rule.

Which is now the length of our attention span.

There are all sorts of reasons why business text is so hard to understand.  Like these:

“Defensive compliance” (consider annual reports and 10Ks)

“Bureaucratic tradition” (think government forms, even do-it-yourself instructions)

“Mindblindness” (the term psychologists use when folks are numb to their own knowledge).

What we know for sure is that someone (perhaps the author, maybe not) isn’t checking with his/her prospective readers, calibrating reactions, answering questions, and ensuring that at least a handful of audience members understand the points.  And when the average 10K in 2013 accounted for 42,000 words, someone, somewhere just didn’t want to be understood.

Mark Twain had us at this:  “I would have written that shorter, but I didn’t have the time.”  [Or was it Blaise Pascal?]

THE TYRANNY OF MESSAGING

At one point or another in our careers, we learn the importance of “messaging.”

“It’s the foundation of everything we do,” proclaim senior communicators.  “We need to ensure that we’re consistent and accurate in our statements,” insist agency brethren.  “And it’s the best way to spell out our uniqueness and differentiate us from the competition,” underscore marketers.

Sometimes the cry for re-messaging starts because of one specific event, say, an executive’s speech or a major presentation.  Other times, it’s the re-thinking of what to say about a company and its products/services, prompted by a merger, acquisition, reorg, new C-suite, and similar changes.  Or:  It’s simply time for a refresh.

Then … wordsmithing and architecting begins.  Reviewers, many of them, weigh in.  And go through many rounds until, voila!  Messaging is complete.

Not quite yet.  To us, the application of messaging often gets lost after the crafting’s done.  It’s all too easy to plonk down the messages in the middle of a blog or speech or Town Hall.   Recycle it, in other words.

But ask yourself first:  Does it ring true?  Is the leader’s quote plucked almost verbatim from the platform?   Could you imagine someone reading (or talking like) this?   Can you readily pick out key messages … simply from the exact words used and not the meaning?  How powerful, in short, is the conversation? 

One last question:  Does messaging control us – or do we control it?

BUY THE BOOK ...

The casual era of business may soon be gone.

[Except, of course, for Silicon Valley.]

Suit jackets are the new ‘hoodie.’  Remote workers are being asked to spend at least one or two days in the office.  Face to face conversations are gradually replacing texting … and smartphone emails.

One thing that isn’t changing (and one we believe should change):  Overly formal, non-conversational, stiff writing.

How to recognize it?  It won’t sound like a real person.  It quietly screams ‘I’m self-conscious about what I say.”  And it relies on our favorite consultant-ese to communicate.  [Let’s vote out phrases and words like ‘best practices,’ ‘leverage,’ even ‘iconic.’  See our previous writings on those subjects.]

Understand, please:  We’re not advocating the loose lips kind of communication, where texting reigns and periods are invisible.  Or the type that insists on using abbreviations and emoji for delicate topics.  Buttoning up way-too-informal dialogue is okay by us.

What we are promoting is communication that is clear and reflects how people talk, write, and interact.  A narrative that tells a story, in language accessible to everyone.  A document that sells, yet sticks to the facts.  Video that is simple, compelling, and causes us to do or believe something. 

Seriously.  Is that harder than we think?