Infernal Comms

Happy Slapping: when the language doesn't fit the crime

Another day; another assault on an innocent person for the benefit of a YouTube posting. This time, the incident led to the death of grandfather Ekram Haque in front of his 3 year old grand-daughter. The appropriateness of the sentence for the teenagers convicted of this man's manslaughter is a debate for another place. What I'm interested in here is the terminology.

Happy slapping appeared as a term soon after phones gained video technology. Slap your mate while someone's filming it, then have a laugh at their expense as you share the resulting clip. The only happy people were the perpetrators and it was their moniker that stuck; the victims most probably called it something else but those descriptions never got a look in.

Controlling the language around an activity or a behaviour allows people to influence how that activity is seen and makes counter-arguments much more difficult to land. Happy slapping is just a bit of horseplay, isn't it? Only a killjoy would try and put a stop to it. Video mugging would be an altogether more difficult sell.

File-sharing, legal highs, joy-riding: all are the creations of people who want to lay a veneer of inoffensiveness on something that does not deserve it.

So if you can influence the vocabulary of what you do, your competitors and detractors will struggle to make an impression.

When we is for weasels: a Raoul Moat story

There are times when either your message or your audience's state of mind is not what you would want it to be. Perhaps you're announcing job cuts or apologising for a mistake. In an extreme case you might be attempting to build a dialogue with someone who has threatened to kill your employees, as Detective Chief Superintendent Neil Adamson had to do in the recent case of alleged murderer Raoul Moat.

DCS Adamson made a personal appeal to Moat towards the end of the manhunt, and he did that with repeated use of the word "I": "I can assure you," he said. "I'd like you to know ...".

When you want people to listen to you and believe what you are saying, there is no place for the weasel "we". 

Taking personal responsibility for what you are saying and doing helps your audience pay attention to you and your message. They may not like it, but they're listening.

Using a phrase like "we've done what we can to minimise the impact on staff" only sends a signal that you are diffusing responsibility for what's happening so that no-one gets the blame.

Use the mighty "I" and you will at least be seen as a leader. It's not easy, but then it's not meant to be.

Does Your Business Writing Pass the Personality Test?

If you want to take a small but invaluable step towards corporate communication that might actually engage people rather than bore the pants off them, put all your comms through this simple personality test. You need 4 out of 4 otherwise it's rewrite time: 

• is it saying something of interest to the reader

if this is a no, stop straight away ...

• is there any sign of emotion (other than the inane jolliness or relentless falseness that many corporate communicators mistake for humanity)? 

relief, fatigue, anxiety and delirium are all valid emotions in business. Don't pretend; be real

• is there any empathy with the reader?

show some real understanding of issues, concerns or the environment people are in

• could it be read out loud without embarrassment?

too much business writing would never be said out loud by a human being. If it sounds wrong, it is wrong

Building relationships is easier with a bit of personality. It's worth the effort.

Writing a good opening

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that writing in possession of a good message, must be in want of a strong opening.

OK, so it’s a clumsy version of one of the most famous opening lines in fiction*, but the intent is valid. It doesn’t matter how good a story you have to tell, how valuable your offers are, or how insightful your opinions, if your opening lines are poor the good things that follow may never get read.

Openings have three functions:

• grabbing attention. Readers, and particularly busy ones, are always asking themselves whether they are interested in reading on, whether they have better things to do. Anything you produce has to pass this test;

• setting up what comes later. It’s tempting to draw a reader in with something compelling or very topical … but completely unconnected with what follows. Don’t do it. At best it’s naff; at worst, it’s misleading and trust-breaking. Concentrate on making a bold statement or raising an intriguing question that a reader will want to see you support or resolve;

• first impressions. Like a handshake or that head-to-toe glance to take in what someone’s wearing, your opening creates a first impression that will colour your reader’s perception of what you say thereafter. Don’t be afraid to use a bit of personality to start building a relationship, and be interested in your reader if you want them to be interested in you. Remember you should be writing as if to a single reader, so what works in a social setting works in print.

The last thing I’ll say here about openings is that you don’t have to write them first. Get the bulk of the writing done then create the best opening you can. The greatest authors do it; so can you.

* It’s no accident that I picked the opening of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice to illustrate the importance of how to begin a piece of writing. Austen makes a bold statement that “a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.” No messing about there. The idea is the centrepiece of the whole book and isn’t just an attention-grabbing headline. We know quickly what we’re in for, in both style and substance, and what follows does not disappoint. We can all learn from the best.

Stephen Fry: Let it all hang out

If there is one person in the public eye who you'd have down as a language pedant, it would be His Wordship Stephen Fry. Classically educated and erudite, surely he would be first in line to smite apostrophe-abusers everywhere. Well, it turns out that's not the case, and everyone in business should listen to what he has to say.

In a recent podcast, Fry berates the punctuation-whingers and grammar-grumps for nit-picking their way into our attitudes to language. Instead of being intimidated by the fear of getting something wrong, he says, we should be embracing the richness of the english language. And there's no writing in more need of enrichment than business writing.

The unforgiveable wrong committed in most business communication is that all the life is squeezed out of this vast and colourful language we share. More importantly for business, it's commercially disastrous too.

If you use pity or boredom to underpin your sales pitch, doing the writing equivalent of standing quietly in the corner of the room or muttering business-like phrases to anyone passing, good luck to you. People are attracted to the interesting, the interested, those with personality and something different to say.

So build your business with language that entrances, excites and entertains, and remember:

• be clear to be understood

• be interesting to be remembered.

The executive blog: show, don't tell

The leader's blog is spreading like Japanese Knotweed as company bosses look for (but more often than not are dragged into) new ways of communicating with employees. It sounds like a good idea but the results are often miserable.

A company I've worked with has a number of executive bloggers (and it gets very competitive when it comes to readership stats); each has their own style, but the blogs are not as varied as the authors themselves. There's a little too much holding back; not enough risk-taking. One exec's journey is interesting though.

In the beginning his weekly posting was a barely disguised "it's been good so far, now do better" missive. While this is an easy place to start it gets dull pretty quickly, which readers know but writers often don't. With some help he had the confidence to talk more about himself and his job, giving readers an insight into what it is to be him. Not surprisingly it became a much more engaging read.

In fiction and drama this is known as show, don't tell. By sharing his thoughts and actions, rather than telling people what to do, he led by example. 

Try these other tips for a successful leader's blog:

• shed some light on your non-work life - it makes you human (which is a good thing, whatever you may think). Talk about the things that are important to you, that have meant something; it will come through in what you write

• don't shoe-horn tedious domesticity into your blog in order to make some simplistic analogy. The following is NOT good: "I was doing the dishes last night and it made me think about the importance of keeping on top of governance every day, rather than saving it up for a periodic spring clean ..."

• show people what it's like to do your job. They'll respect you for it and will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say. And don't forget to include the stuff you don't like doing - nobody believes "I love every minute" fairytales

• be predictable in your timing but not in your content. If people know when to expect something from you, they're likely to form a reading habit. If they already know what they're going to get, they won't.

If you're not blogging, start soon. And do it well.

Predictors of beaconicity- jargon is more than just a joke

The UK's Local Government Association has today published a list of 200 words and phrases that it wants banned from council communication. Their assertion is that this jargon makes what councils are trying to say difficult to understand. Judging from the list, they have a point.

Predictably there's a lot of coverage of this list: the media love a jargon laugh-in (and I particularly like the phrase that features as the title of this post). What's more interesting is why organisations use this language.

I don't believe councils are trying to confuse people; what would be the point? The following are more likely:

- they believe that it makes them sound sophisticated. Business schools have a lot to answer for here. Trying to impress with language is like using scent without washing. Getting the basics right is much more important.

- to cover up inactivity. This is an old corporate trick: filling up space in a progress report when nothing's actually happened demands real creativity in finding new, involved ways of saying very little.

- because it's what is expected. Well, this is for sheep only. It's very prevalent in big organisations and also in academic circles but that's no excuse. Business writing is for the reader and not the peer group or the ego.

We'll see what effect this jargon banning order has. In truth, only a change in attitude will really make a difference.

Writing with colour - will any hue do?

As Tom pointed out in an earlier comment, it's important to have colour in writing. Dullness just gives your reader another reason to go elsewhere, and few of us have the luxury of a tied reader.

But what is colour, and will any hue do?

The answer is no. Think decor and you will get the general idea of what is good and what isn't:

• colour should highlight and not obscure: the more people notice the colour, the less they notice your theme. Don't overdo it and you will attract the right kind of attention.
• choose well: a little bit of thought can bring out a phrase or description that's a good fit and says something about you. Pick up the obvious roll of woodchip or pot of magnolia and you'll do your writing a disservice.
• try not to mix your decoration too much: a bit of coordination between the images you use or the similes you employ can give nice balance to a piece's readability. Try it and see what happens.

So, no colouring by numbers. Look for opportunities to add something extra to what you write and you will make your writing your own.

Like pulling hen's teeth

On the radio this evening a guy was commenting on the difficulty of reaching consensus on some contentious industrial relations issue: "it's like pulling hen's teeth," he said.

Now being interviewed live on the radio is not an easy way to pass a few minutes, so I'm not criticising the interviewee for his slip. What's worth pointing out though is that similes and metaphors may seem attractive shortcuts to get your point across but they are easy to mess up.

In this case, "pulling teeth" is fine as a way of conveying something that's difficult to make happen. It's a bit old-fashioned now, not least because pulling teeth is anything but difficult.

"Hen's teeth" though are about rarity, and while the idea of combining difficulty and rarity is attractive it just ends up sounding a bit muddled. Not a great brand statement.

Better to keep it simple, say "it's hard", and leave it at that.

Treat what you write like an exclusive club

I'm editing an article written by a consultant. He clearly knows his subject and the structure of the piece is absolutely fine. His problem, and it's a common one, is that he uses too many words. To be precise, he uses too many unnecessary words.

If you want your reader to understand what you are saying, give them the space to think and absorb your words. Telling them twice in the same sentence, repeating yourself, or saying the same thing in different ways, doesn't help. See what I mean?

Editing is a really important step in any writing (I will keep coming back to this subject in future blogs). For now, I'll look at one aspect. When you are rereading what you have written, only keep words that deserve their place. George Orwell suggested that writers should take out every adjective they've written and only put back the ones that are absolutely necessary. For a business piece, try taking out words and phrases in the longer sentences and see what effect that has. Unless your meaning evaporates like taxis on a rainy night, leave them out.

So treat the words you use like members of an exclusive club. No deadbeats or freeloaders, just those that add value and you couldn't do without. If your writing has an open house policy, get some bouncers on the door before it's too late.