Infernal Comms: the Write the Talk blog

Redundancy does more than "affect staff"

I read earlier today about the sudden redundancies that have been announced at Budelpack COSi, a company based in Maesteg, Wales. The administrators (Grant Thornton) are in, and the job losses appear to be unavoidable. It's tough for these people, and there were tears.

Here's what the Grant Thornton rep said:

"We are working closely with workers' representatives and a number of public agencies to ensure that everything is done to support the affected staff at this difficult time."

It's a great example of how dumb-speak has taken over from human communication. It has the unmistakeable dull clank of the committee-scripted announcement. I have a particular problem with "affected staff"; it's the way you would refer to people who have been mildly inconvenienced by a change in the car parking arrangements.

When talking about redundancies, let's not try and mask the unpleasantness of what's being talked about by using neutered language. Rather than "affected staff", I'd like to hear about "the men and women who have lost their jobs today": it's truthful, strong, and more respectful.

Anti-business bias

On the radio this morning I heard as good a reason as any for big business to get much better at communicating on a human level.

One of the presenters of BBC Radio Five Live's Breakfast show was interviewing a couple of young people. They had just returned from overseas trips where they had each spent time with a multinational company to see how business worked abroad. When one of the interviewees enthused about his time at B&Q in Shanghai, the presenter suggested he'd been brainwashed.

If we are to avoid a generation of young people believing that a positive impression of big business can only come about as a result of mind control, we need to make sure that the language of business is real, relatable and human. Bias is a difficult enemy to fight, but the answer isn't spin: it's honesty.

And some retraining for prime-time broadcasters wouldn't go amiss either.

Grammar isn't something to be afraid of

There will be some who will feel the urge to correct that title: surely, it should be " ... something of which to be afraid"? Well, no.

It was only yesterday that I heard the latest book on correct grammar being plugged on the radio (My Grammar and I by Caroline Taggart). Now I have no objection to books like these (I'm working on a practical grammar e-book ...), but there is a problem.

The message that we are fed regularly is that there are two types of grammar (right and wrong) and two types of people (grammar pedants and stupid). It's no wonder that people are wary of writing.

The most important thing about writing is meaning. Grammar and punctuation are there to make meaning clear. If you concentrate on that, you won't go too far wrong. So yes, people were once taught not to leave prepositions (like "of") at the end of sentences. But did you struggle to understand what I was saying? I didn't think so.

Don't be put off by a fear of getting it wrong. Just make yourself understood.

Synergy: Business School Gobbledegook?

Drafting a document for a client earlier today, I was faced with a choice: synergy - embrace it or avoid it?

Why Does the I in IT Stand For Impenetrable?

Thanks to the guys at SoftExpert for providing the material for today's post. I've been getting their monthly email for a little while now - I don't remember signing up but I'm glad I did. Much as I'd lke to tell you more about what SoftExpert do, I have to say I'm not entirely sure. That monthly email announcing the latest news on sales successes and new product launches is, well, unreadable. Here's a quote from a company director talking about an event the company's running in Spain shortly: