Category: language

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, language Tagged with , , , ,

My friend Paul Krupin of Direct Contact PR sent me this memo from the Deepwater Horizon recovery team. Even if the Gulf of Mexico weren’t drowning in BP’s oil–a situation in which you’d expect the form letters would at least act grateful for the advice–this is one of the worst examples of corporate messaging I’ve ever seen.

From: horizon.support@oegllc.com [mailto:horizon.support@oegllc.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 10:08 AM
Subject: An Important Message from Horizon Support

Dear Paul Krupin,

Thank you for your submission to the Alternative Response Technology (ART)
process for the Deepwater Horizon MC252 incident. Your submission has been
reviewed for its technical merits.

It has been determined that your idea falls into one of the following ART
categories: Already Considered/Planned, Not Feasible, or Not Possible, and
therefore will not be advanced for further evaluation. To date, we have
received over 80,000 submissions with each submission receiving individual
consideration and priority based on merit and need.

BP and Horizon Deepwater Unified Command appreciate your contribution
and interest in responding to this incident.

Michael J. Cortez
Technical Manager
Alternative Response Technology Team
Deepwater Horizon Call Center – Houston, TX

Tell me what you think (in the comment space below. Then scroll down to see what I think.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Here’s what I think it’s bureaucratic, it’s off-message, it’s downright snotty, it doesn’t even mention the specific idea submitted before dismissing it, and it doesn’t even give a brief recap of what else they’re trying or why the submitted plan doesn’t work. Oh yeah, and how about that highly specific and targeted subject line NOT? If this came to my mailbox, I’d have assumed it was spam. Eeeeeeew! Couple this with the combination of hubris, selfishness, corner-cutting, and cluelessness shown by BP from Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg and CEO Tony Hayward on down, and it doesn’t paint a pretty PR picture. Is there any wonder the company’s lost half its market cap? They don’t give much confidence in their ability to solve the problem, their understanding of why this is important, and the steps they might be taking to make sure it doesn’t happen again at a different well.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Diversity, General Commentary, language, Shel's Personal Life, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , ,

Copywriter Ryan Healy had an interesting post today discussing the reasons why people unsubscribe from his blog. Not surprisingly, many had to do with e-mail overload. But quite a few had to do with Ryan’s openly conservative Christian mindset.

I’ve been reading Ryan’s stuff for a couple of years now, and I’m very far from either conservatism or Christianity. But I still read him. Here’s the comment I posted on his blog that explains why:

I get some posts like those as well. And Ryan, while you and I are poles apart politically (I think Obama has sold out to the conservatives), and while I do consider myself a person of faith, I don’t happen to be a Christian, or particularly religious. But for me, those are not reasons to unsub. You always keep a civil tone, and I think core disagreements force me to rethink my positions, justify them to myself, and sometimes find them wanting and shift. If you were nasty about it, that’d be different. (I don’t read much of Dan Kennedy anymore because he’s way too shrill in his conservatism. I do read Clayton Makepeace, and have even contributed a few articles to his conservative news site as “The Unabashed Progressive”–but I tend to turn off when he goes political).

Anyway, in spite of my ultra-crowded in-box, I’m continuing to read your stuff even as I’ve cut back on a lot of others 🙂

And I love both your commitment to ethics (which I share) and your copywriting/marketing smarts.

I trust also that if you read my blog, you wouldn’t be turned off by the unabashedly progressive positions I often take.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

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

In the Great Advertising Debate, branding vs. direct response, I’ve always come down on the side of direct response. Every marketing message (not just ads) should have a call to action, a way of moving the reader/viewer/listener forward.

With the Internet making it very easy to remove material from its original context and share it, I see a lost opportunity in this spoof ad by an environmental group attacking Royal Bank of Canada for its funding of highly polluting and environmentally destructive oil extraction from Canadian tar sands. Here is this stunning video, as flawlessly produced as anything from Madison Avenue.

On the original page, the action is clear:

Email RBC’s CEO Gordon Nixon and ask him to stop financing dirty tar sands oil and start funding a clean energy future.

But inevitably, there will be versions of this video circulating by e-mail or posted on other websites. All they needed to do was have a slide at the end with the URL to take action. That chance will be lost. People will see this video, with no action step at the end, and they won’t know what to do about it. They’ll be a bit more educated on the issue, but will have no place to channel their new concern.

Also, the letter text itself is another lost opportunity. Mired in passive language and bureaucratic tone, it takes some doing to extract (pun intentional) the actual message. Yes, there’s the opportunity to edit the letter, but the complete rewrite that’s called for will be too time consuming and most people won’t bother. I confess, I didn’t bother.

Here’s the first paragraph; tar sands don’t even come up until paragraph 2:

Amidst an unprecedented transformation in the banking sector, RBC clings to the outdated idea that social responsibility is separate from core banking activities. This letter is to encourage you to update its social and environmental practices to meet modern standards.

This was probably a deliberate choice, to talk to a banker in banker’s language. But I think it’s a wrong choice. I’d have gone for a much more direct lead, like

RBC’s continued funding of environmentally devastating tar sands oil extraction is not acceptable to stakeholders, and won’t be acceptable in the courts.

I’m going to use the email contact on their website to send these suggestions, so the page may have been fixed by the time you see it. If so, more power to them. I think Rainforest Action Network does great work, and my goal is to educate, not to embarrass. I’m dong it publicly because I see many worthwhile messages and opportunities similarly lost in the inability to step out of the branding mindset. Next time you send out a political action message, I hope your call to action will be clear and thoroughly integrated.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

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

This is not about politics; it’s about communication style, using a politician as an example.

My wife teaches business communication (with a heavy focus on international dos and don’ts), and she and I both give Barack Obama high marks for his sensitivity to other cultures.

Two quick examples among many:

  • For his state dinner last night with Indian Prime Minister Singh and his wife, no only did the menu have many Indian touches (and was mostly vegetarian, since the Singhs don’t eat meat), but Michelle Obama’s gown was designed by an Indian-American designer, and her preview outfit was the work of different Indian-American designer
  • When he went to Shanghai, he didn’t just learn how to say hello in Chinese, but he actually learned the correct pronunciation in the local Shanghai dialect

    • In the campaign, too Obama was consistently on message, able to deflect all the name-calling from the other side, and consistently able to turn attention back to the real issues.

    So what I’m wondering is why, since he does have such awesome communication skills, he seems totally unable to focus on his message. Issue after issue has gotten bogged down, and he’s fallen into a rut—abandoning the very successful organizing and communication strategies he used so well during the campaign, and continues to use well in his international contacts, in favor of overly nuanced, bureaucratic, uninspiring policy-ese. I think he could move his agenda forward a lot more successfully if he went back to building support among the American people, and organized them to be a force influencing their own legislators to push the change he was elected to bring.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in language, Web 2.0/Social Media

    One of my pet peeves is professional communicators who can’t communicate.

    Today I followed a link to an interesting-sounding article about why businesses could benefit from managing multiple Twitter accounts for different purposes. As a social media strategist (among other hats I wear), I figured I could get some fresh perspective.

    What I got instead was a load of jargon so thick that I could barely (and with great effort) figure out what they were talking about. An example:

    Drivers are the perceived need for audience community segmentation strategies… message volume… and/or native language requirements, among others. What should be balanced is multiple account need v. management complexity, a particularly difficult line to walk given that Twitter tools remain very fluid with functionality still evolving.

    I have 37 years in communications, journalism, and public relations and I barely have a clue what the writer is talking about. I think the average small business owner would be unable to extract any useful nugget at all from this. But if you want to see for yourself, here’s the link: https://scoopdog.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/1092/

    Folks…if your job is to communicate, you should communicate so that other people can understand you. This stuff may as well be written in Martian. I can’t even tell if I agree with the central premise (I think I don’t, but I’m not sure).

    Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as a citizen’s arrest or big fine for jargon–but I’d write the ticket if I could.

    PS: If you’re interested in a much more accessible approach to maximizing social media, I recommend the free webinar I’m hosting with George Kao and Allison Nazarian on September 22: “Success with LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook in 15 Minutes Per Day” – I’ve been on three calls with George this summer, and I love his clarity and focus.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Advertising, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, People Helping People

    I love this!

    Troy White writes about a 97-year-old macho cowboy event, the Calgary Stampede, and how organizers got these touch cowboys to benefit breast cancer research by wearing pink.

    Be edgy and/or challenge them – “Are you tough enough to wear pink?” This was the campaign they ran this year – everyone who bought a pink western shirt (yes – for the guys) was donating a percentage of the shirt price to breast cancer research. This was a HUGE success for them … in the parades – everything was pink … at the bars – half the guys were wearing pink … at the midway grounds – pink, pink, and more pink. Major success – and for a very good cause.

    It reminds me of the long-running “Don’t Mess With Texas” campaign, also as macho as they come–and what you might not remember is that it’s an anti-littering campaign!

    I love the idea it’s possible to reframe very progressive messages in ways that resonate with a cowboy crowd. The reverse is probably also true. I’m a very un-macho guy with a strong progressive streak. What kind of message would reach me for a conservative cause? Either direction, this method makes for a lot of food for thought in marketing.

    I do spend some time discussing how to frame in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First,by the way. Please see elsewhere in this newsletter for a deep-discount offer on that life-changing book.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in language, People Helping People Tagged with , , , , , ,

    Along with a similar campaign around business ethics, I’ve long been on a campaign to reclaim “family values” as a value that progressives can rally around. And to me, that means seeing the family as inclusive. I am not concerned about whether a family has two parents, whether it has different genders or where/how/if that family chooses to worship–and much more concerned that a family be a place of peace, love, support, and very deep connection. And the Left needs to take a firm position in favor of these true family values-to say unequivocally that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, domestic violence, and the ludicrous don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy are NOT in keeping with our family values.

    And therefore I was delighted today to get a bulk email from none other than Michelle Obama, touting a 2-minute video of Barack Obama (and another father with four children) celebrating “responsible fatherhood”. Barack Obama noted once again that his father was largely absent in his life, and because of this, he’s made an intense commitment to be there for Sasha and Malia. Of course, Obama is a master marketer, and this video is an example of his marketing prowess. It shows him as not only charismatic but enormously likable.

    Oddly enough, I just finished re-reading the complete Harry Potter series. Harry’s parents are killed when he’s a year old, and late in the series he castigates another character for wanting to stay and defend Harry rather than being there for his newborn child. Harry tells him that if he can be his child, that’s where he should be.

    Anyway, the video is very sweet.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Copywriting, Energy & Sustainability, language, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

    From a Starbucks press release–the second sentence in the first paragraph, and within the quote, I’ve linked to the full press release:

    With the goal of prioritization and agreement on criteria for a comprehensive recyclable cup solution, discussions will address obstacles and opportunities.

    Who writes this crap? I’m sorry, but that’s not English. Will someone please tell Starbucks that the purpose of a press release is to communicate, not to obfuscate? Especially when there actually is real news buried under the blather: First, that the chain is committing to 100% recyclable cups within three years, and second, that systems theorist Peter Senge will moderate a summit on the topic.

    So why not say so without making people dig for it? If it had been my assignment to write this press release, you can bet it would have gotten right to the point and been understandable by ordinary people.

    Starbucks of course is not the only offender. But a press release like this is useless. You want to tell the story, not hide it.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics: General, language Tagged with ,

    Call me old-fashioned, but I reject the transition of “pimp” form a negative noun–a man who rents out the bodies of women he controls (and a verb to describe that action)–to a positive verb, to make something look classy and flashy by adding gizmos and gewgaws and bling.

    I don’t like it. Pimping is not a “virtue” I choose to support. I’m a wordsmith for a living–so let me propose some alternatives. We’ve got great nouns like swank or swanky, chic, glitzy, snazzy–can we turn them into verbs?
    Swankify? (awkward-sounding). Chicken? (um, no, that’s taken). Snazz (I like that!). Sparkle? (already a verb, sure, why not). Glitter? Glisten? (ditto)

    Let’s use our rich, rich language and banish “pimp” as a “good” verb. It’ll take some work. The phrase “pimp my” brings 10,900,000 search results, and I’m guessing almost all of them from the last two years. I’m not a language purist, believe me, but let’s put this one back in the bottle.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics: General, language, People Helping People, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , ,

    Bad enough that Arkansas State Senator Kim Hendren called Chuck Schumer ‘that Jew’–but even worse is the anti-Semitic trash talk from so many readers of the New York Daily News story about it.

    Eeeew! In 2009, we should be better than that! In fact, that kind of racist crap should have been unacceptable in 1809. No matter what ethnic or racial group is being denigrated, the message needs to go out that this is unacceptable. I’m not blaming the Daily News for having an open comments page, but I wonder about these narrow-minded bigots who are posting.

    Mind you, I’m one Jew who does NOT believe in “Israel right or wrong.” But I do believe in treating every person civilly, and in condemning racist behavior.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail