Category: language

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Energy & Sustainability, Green Business, Green Marketing, Innovation, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Marketing Trends/News, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , ,

A blogger on Sustainable Business, Marc Stoiber, wonders why a major sustainability milestone achieved by Translink, the Vancouver, British Colombia transit system, went almost unnoticed by local and national media.

The funny thing is…transit systems control their own media, one that reaches the two most important audiences they have. If I were the company’s marketing director, I’d put inside placards on the front and back of both sides of every bus and subway (four signs in each car) to reach the actual riders—and exterior signage to reach the next-most-important constituency: Vancouver-area residents not yet using public transit.

The interior placards would not just brag about the accomplishment—they’d say thank you to the riders for their part. And those exterior signs would recruit new riders to join the tribe, e.g., “become part of the greenest commute in North America.” And I’d supplement this with a nice social media campaign, which itself could be a subject for exciting press releases, etc.

Then, the local media and perhaps the national media would almost certainly pick up the story—but even if they didn’t, the message would be out there, and if done right, ridership would grow.

Stoiber goes on to discuss the very creative marketing of another transit advocate, Jason Roberts—who put up a website for the a nonexistent light-rail transit line in Dallas, Texas called the Oak Cliff Transit Authority—and was able to organize so effectively around this public vision that the project actually got funded! You might call Roberts’ story “If You Dream It, They Will Come—IF You’re a Marketer and Organizer Who Can Create and Gather a Tribe.”

Vancouver Transit execs: I’d love to consult with you on how to build big awareness. I already have one Vancouver-based green company as a client.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Copywriting, language, Marketing Trends/News Tagged with , ,

Yesterday, I blogged about the combination of vision, engineering, and marketing that made Apple and some other companies so successful. And for years, I’ve been a champion of putting reasons in your marketing.

This TED talk by Simon Sinek goes a step farther. Again using Apple as an example, he says it’s not enough merely to include the because; you want to lead with it. If you put your reasons why—your higher purpose—right at the top you immediately attract the people who are falling-all-over-themselves-eager to be part of your dream and your mission. This, he says, is why we don’t buy MP3 players or tablets from companies like Dell, but we salivate at Apple’s every product release—because Apple leads (and has led, since at least the original Macintosh introduction in 1984) with the deeper why.

Another of his examples is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech; King, he notes, did not say, “I have a plan.”

However, King’s speech actually had a bit of a slow build. The first 351 words (of 881, total) are about the plight of black people in this country from the Emancipation Proclamation to the day 100 years later when he gave his speech. Only then, more than a third of the way into his speech, does he move into his vision of the race-neutral future.

Still, I think Sinek is right—but I think it also has to hit on the benefits to the individual, unless you’re speaking only to the driven. I’ve often used this technique in my copywriting without consciously thinking about it. From now on, I will do it consciously.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, language, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , , ,

Either Mitt Romney is trying to add comedy to his repertoire or he’s gone delusional on us.

At least twice last week, he made off-the-wall statements accusing Obama of Romney’s own much-indulged-in behaviors and attitudes.

Here’s the Wall Street Journal’s report on Romney calling Obama “out of touch.”

Let’s see…Romney is the man who revels in being in the One Percent, talks about the Cadillacs, plural, that his wife drives, brags about firing people, jokes about factory closings, and thinks that corporations are actually people (to name a few of his bizarre statements). Not since Dan Quayle have we had a probably major-party nominee for national office so good at cramming his foot into his mouth..

And then a day or two later, Romney said Obama repeatedly undergoes “a series of election-year conversions” on his issue positions. It’s true, Obama has a disturbing tendency to back off anything remotely controversial once a little heat is applied by the opposition, and this is a continual disappointment to progressives. But retreating under fire is not the same as shifting with the wind. Romney changes positions so often, his own campaign strategist Eric Fehrnstrom created the wonderfully apt metaphor of the Etch-A-Sketch campaign: shake it to reset.

I live in Massachusetts and I lived here under the Romney  administration. He was very much in favor of the healthcare plan that was passed during his time at the helm, despite its strong resemblance to the Obamacare he claims to hate. I remember when he was at least somewhat protective of women’s reproductive rights. I remember a lot of positions he has abandoned and then turned around and actively trashed. People keep talking about his integrity; I see a candidate who will sacrifice any principle for votes.

So, Mitt–do you actually believe this stuff you’re spouting, or are you just trying to bring some humor into the campaign trail?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, language, Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

In the 1970 movie, “Love Story,” Oliver has the famous line, “Love means never having to say you‘re sorry.” It was bad advice then and it’s still bad advice.

When you do something wrong, the right response is to apologize, sincerely and without a lot of waffly “but” language or excuses. Maybe you even do something to make it up to the wronged party. Unlike Oliver, I apologize to my wife when I’ve been wrong about something or behaved badly, and she does the same to me when she’s the one who screwed up. And I apologize to other people if I’ve done something that inadvertently hurt them.

Will someone please tell Newt Gingrich that this is how mature people, and mature countries, behave? Gingrich is upset that President Obama apologized because the military in Afghanistan accidentally caught up some Korans in a batch of papers they were incinerating.

I’m betting Gingrich would stridently demand an apology if someone of another religion burned copies of the New Testament. Why does’t he see the need for an apology when someone else’s holy book is destroyed.

Or does being Republican now mean “never having to say you’re sorry”?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies Tagged with , ,

I received this tweet from a stranger today:

@shelhorowitz , please follow me, and check me out. Thank you. [URL]

To which I tweeted back:

Give me a reason

As a marketing consultant and copywriter, that’s one of my mantras. I think “because” is one of the most important words in marketing. I’m always probing the why with my clients, and using that to create compelling marketing strategies and materials.

The days of “oh, look at me, I’m so cool, I have a website” were probably gone by about 1996, if not before.

Your prospects are busy people. They want to know why before they click on your link. They want to know why before they give up even 30 seconds of their time.

Specifically, they want to know the benefit. Will you make them laugh? Give them a tool they need? Solve a problem? Give them celebrity gossip? Help them go green (as I do)? Make a specific offer. They will thank you—and some of them, the right ones, will visit.

This will serve you well in any marketing medium: advertising, freebie information, socialmedia, and lots more, as well as your website.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, propaganda Tagged with , , , , , ,

In my post yesterday on oil-industry and think-tank funding of climate deniers, I deliberately used the term “catastrophic climate change” instead of the more common phrase, “global warming.”

You may be wondering why:

  • “Warming” is a joyous word, with happy connotations. Think about “warm-hearted” friends or a “warm lead” in sales—but climate change is nothing to be joyous about
  • “Warming” implies a gradual shift, nothing to be very concerned about, just a natural evolution—rather than the reality of intense and cataclysmic storms
  • The weather patterns are not all heat-related—right now, for example,  millions of people are freezing in Europe
  • It’s hard for many people to make the connections between rising temperatures and the major weather events they influence—such as the human interventions that turned Katrina from a “normal” hurricane into one of the most destructive storms ever, only to be surpassed by the Indian Ocean tsunami a few months later

As change activists and marketers, we need to own the language we use, to frame today’s realities in messaging that is easy to grasp and hard to distort. (George Lakoff, among others, has written very eloquently on this.)

I heard one speaker several years ago suggest that “global roasting” would be more appropriate—his graphic description of what we can expect is essential reading for climate activists for the wreckage that our planet will become—but even that doesn’t do the problem justice.

Even the phrase, “climate change,” is not enough. “Catastrophic climate change,” with its extra alliterative power and clear focus on potential disaster gives people a frame they can grasp. I suggest we use this term in our messaging.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, language, Marketing Trends/News, Politics, propaganda, Transparency vs. Secrecy, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Want to buy a scientist?

When you find a scientist who claims to show that human-caused catastrophic climate change either isn’t real or isn’t a problem or doesn’t really exist, you usually find a money trail leading to one of the worst polluters (usually, oil giant ExxonMobil, sometimes, petrochemical magnates and right-wing darlings Koch brothers).

But ultra-right-wing think-tanks play in this sandbox too. Friday, TriplePundit posted leaked secret anti-climate-change strategy documents from Heartland Institute; they actually have the chutzpah to put $100,000 toward developing a K-12 school curriculum to

…show that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

Oh yes, and they’ve also set aside $18,000 a monthly to fund pundits who present the climate-change-is-not-a-problem viewpoint.

Hmm, that sounds a lot like the attempts by creationists to throttle the study of evolution and biology. When science can’t back up your position, influence young kids with the Big Lie technique that was so beloved by Nazi propagandists. And the get television news commentators to present a “fair and balanced” approach, pitting your purchased experts against objective scientists as if they were equally credible, and sow doubt in the public mind.

To climate skeptics, I say “look out the window.” In my own area of Western Massachusetts alone, we’ve experienced the following just since June 1:

None of these events are the normal weather pattern around here.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, language, Politics Tagged with ,

Who would have expected this ad from quiet, quirky Ron Paul? It’s edgy, active, engaging and very young-seeming. And it makes a very bold promise.

His son Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s influence, perhaps?

NOTE: sharing this ad is not in any way an endorsement of Dr. Paul or his drastic remedy. While I actually agree with about 20 percent of his positions as he’s expressed them over the years (particularly the parts about cutting military spending), that leaves 80 percent where I strongly disagree. (And concerning Rand Paul, I’m not aware of a single point of agreement.)

Living in a state that will go big for Obama without any help from me, I’ll probably vote Green Party.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in censorship, Democracy, Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Media Ethics, National Conference on Media Reform, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Publishing, Social and Economic Justice, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An Oregon judge ruled that blogging is not protected as journalism under the state’s journalism shield law. If allowed to stand, this sets a truly terrible precedent.

Here’s what the law says:

No person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by … a judicial officer … to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise … [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public[.]

Notice—there is nothing here about working for a recognized mainstream media outlet. By my reading, a guy in a clown suit standing on a milk crate in the park and haranguing a crowd of random passers-by would not have to disclose sources.

Yet here’s what U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez wrote:

. . . although defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law

Hello! Since when does being a journalist require working for mainstream media? This country has a history of independent writers serving a journalistic role going back to those 18th-century “bloggers” Tom Paine and Ben Franklin—those guys didn’t write for the London Times, but started their own publications. Are you going to tell me that Daily Kos, Huffington Post, RedState, Drudge Report, Washington Spectator, and even the legendary I.F. Stone’s Weekly of the 1950s and 1960s have no place in the world of journalism? That the thousands of indy-media-istas who attend the National Conference for Media Reform are spitting in the wind?

And meanwhile, investigative blogger Crystal Cox is facing a $2.5 million judgment because she would not disclose her sources. Out-bloody-rageous!

Shame on you, Judge Hernandez!

Abraham Lincoln said, “It is a sin to be silent when it is your duty to protest.” I am protesting. And I hope voices with more clout than mine, such as FreePress.net, the National Writers Union, Authors Guild, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way, National Coalition Against Censorship, and opinion journalists working for mainstream media (like Rachel Maddow) jump in and protest as well—with amicus briefs filed for the appeal.

 

Kris Miller Law is a respected and trusted  criminal defense attorney ready to help you with your legal needs.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Copywriting, Green Business, language Tagged with , , ,

Remember those old ’30s movies where some cigar-chomping newspaper editor screams into the phone, “Get Me ‘Rewrite!'”

Today, I followed a link to a webpage that made ME want to scream, “Get Me ‘Rewrite!'”

Try to digest these three paragraphs (the first two are next to each other; the third is a few paragraphs down) and tell me what you think they mean:

The Danotek high-speed PMG system’s attractiveness to investors is based on a uniquely efficient stator-rotor configuration, as well as its existing relationships with wind industry manufacturers and developers such as Clipper Windpower and DeWind.

The BWP low-speed PMG system’s attractiveness is based on an innovative PMG concept that gets away from expensive rare earth metals and creates efficiencies that BWP says can make wind power competitive with traditional sources of electricity generation without the need for incentives…

One of the most distinguishing characteristics of the BWP PMG design is that its magnets are part of an axial flux air core machine which operates at relatively low temperatures and are made with a rare earth metal called neodymium. More commonly, PMG magnets are part of iron core radial flux machines like Danotek’s, operate at relatively high temperatures and require a rare earth metal called dysprosium.

OK, what is the writer trying to say? He talks about “stator-rotor configuration” and “axial flux air core machine” as if we automatically know what these things are. He says this new technology is a move away from rare-earth metals, except that it actually isn’t; it just uses a different kind. I don’t believe in dumbing things down, but I do think a reasonably intelligent person ought to be able to understand the gist of a piece of writing.

The “translator” acquaintance who posted the original link summarized it as “they can do unsubsidised wind for cheaper than coal.” (Thank you, Ian Gordon.) I guess we can extrapolate that from “make wind power competitive with traditional sources of electricity generation without the need for incentives.”

So why didn’t they say so in the first place?

The purpose of written communication, IMHO, is to communicate. While I’m not a techie or an engineer, I am reasonably familiar with the concepts of alternative energy; I’ve been reading about it for more than 30 years after all. And this one left me scratching my head.

In fairness, this appeared on a green technology trade journal website, where, presumably, many of their readers will be familiar with at least some of the jargon. But I think this one is over the top. Someone just beginning to research the field ought to be able to read the article and have some idea of what it’s about. Without Ian’s help (or five or six readings), I would have very little clue. Someone new to the field would be lost entirely.

Get me “Rewrite.”

(If you’re struggling to create a piece of writing that’s understandable without talking down to your reader, I’d be glad to help. I do that for a living, at reasonable prices. Contact me here.)

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail