A poetic plea for human communication

One of my aims in this blog is to highlight the obtuse, jargonistic, obfuscatory language so often used by business and Government.

This sort of language is annoying and off-putting in commercial writing. When you’re a public authority, and your audience is one trying to deal with complex and sensitive issues, it verges on the unethical.

Thanks to the wonder of Twitter (specifically writer @davidbdale), I came across this lovely poem by poet Elspeth Murray, about communications aimed at those dealing with mental health.

I couldn’t have said it better (or even anything like as well) myself.

Filed under: General chat, Good words

Infernet, surely?

Just thought I’d share this with you. I saw it on Graham ‘Father Ted’ Linehan’s Posterous.

It’s funny in itself, but also I fear I may be consigned to Circles 4 and/or 5. (Click the image to see a bigger version.)

Filed under: Amusing tangents

It’s not ‘laying people off’, it’s ‘synergy-related headcount restructuring’

I’m afraid I’m recycling an old post from an old blog here, but I think it bears repeating.

Thanks to my friends at writing association 26, I was alerted to this quite extraordinary bit of corporate language-mangling by Nokia Siemens Networks.

And that’s just the first paragraph.

I’m not sure what people feel is gained by this sort of language. We all know what they mean, so why not be straight about it?

They’ve merged, which means they don’t need so many people. It’s an unpleasant fact of corporate life, but it is a fact and we all know it.

Jargon like this makes the brand look silly – surely they don’t think anyone is fooled by it? It also makes them look pretty shifty and evasive, unprepared simply to stand by their actions.

Listen to this, from further down the release: ‘At the completion of the planned synergy-related headcount restructuring activities, Nokia Siemens Networks expects to have in the range of 7,000 employees in Finland, from an initial base of approximately 9,200.’

Seven stodgy paragraphs in, and they’re still not letting go of that enormous phrase, ‘synergy-related headcount restructuring’. In fact, they’ve added to it, tacking that entirely redundant ‘activities’ on the end. And they’ve also tied themselves in linguistic knots trying not to say, ‘We’re cutting about 2,200 jobs.’

We can all do the maths; we can all see through the smoke. So why bother?

All this reminds me of a News Quiz show on Radio 4, in which Jeremy Hardy ruminated that new jobs are always ‘created’, but cut jobs are simply ‘lost’, as if it was something that just happened. ‘Sorry, Bob, your job’s lost. We’ve looked everywhere – can’t understand it. Anyway, bye.’

Filed under: Downright ugly, Jargon, Tone of voice, Verbiage, Nokia, PR, Siemens

Saying nothing, twice.

Sarah Porretta of Cadbury has found time in the midst of being eaten alive to send me this message she got from Facebook.

In case you can’t read it, the message says:

Could not post to Wall The message could not be posted to this Wall.

It annoyed Sarah not, she says, ‘just because of the copy itself, but because Facebook are unable to explain to me either why I could not post to wall, or why the message could not be posted to this wall.’

Refusing a request without any explanation is bad enough. In this case, Facebook has decided to do it twice. Which does seem unnecessarily rude.

Filed under: Confusing, Contributions, microcopy, Tone of voice

Not the greatest

Elaine Gibb (I don’t have a link for you Elaine, sorry) sent me this ridiculous typo, which she spotted on a poster in a bar.

Elaine saw it. I can see it. You can see it. So why didn’t whoever produced the poster see it?

‘I saw it in a bar at Christmas time,’ says Elaine, ‘but I don’t think that’s any excuse. Maybe he was afraid of getting decked in the halls…’

I can’t think of a better joke than that one.

Filed under: Contributions, Typos

Confusification

Designer Gareth Hammond tweeted me with this picture from the Twitter settings page.

‘Is this even a word?’ asks Gareth.

Well, I suppose it’s a collection of letters you can (just about) vocalise, and you have a sense of what it means.

But the answer is, clearly, no.

Filed under: Confusing, Contributions, Downright ugly

I know, let’s use a rape victim’s screams!

There’s no doubting the importance of this message.

But I can’t believe this expression of it got past (presumably) quite a lot of people without anyone saying, ‘Hang on everyone, I know we’re trying to be clever but this is just a crass, exploitative idea that seems almost to make some sort of sick joke of the whole issue.’

Filed under: Downright ugly, Tone of voice

Ploughman’s missing appendage

I know I said I wouldn’t be doing apostrophes – but come on.

I suppose one could argue that ‘Ploughmans’ has, through usage, become a noun in itself, as in, ‘I’ll have a Ploughmans.’

But one would be wrong.

Filed under: Punctuation, label, ploughman's

Some good words from the New York Times

Copywriting agency Polon tweeted a link to this useful blog from the New York Times, which seems to be doing something rather similar to me. So I thought I’d tell you about it, as a break from the whingeing.

Filed under: Useful

Cry God for Harry, England and Our Primary Aim

On a family trip to the Abbotsbury Swannery (which is lovely, as long as you really like swans), I spotted this sign at the entrance.

It’s one of those cases where there’s nothing technically wrong with the writing – it’s just dull.

‘Our Primary Aim’. It’s hardly inspiring, is it? Difficult to imagine the hearts of swan-lovers swelling with pride as they contemplate Their Primary Aim.

Vision and Mission are greatly overused words these days, but even one of those would be better, I think.

The Aim itself seems a bit obvious: ‘to conserve the swans and other wildlife in this very special environment’. Well, yes. (‘Very special’ – almost got a bit carried away there.)

And then, ‘Your visit will help us to achieve this aim.’ Well, hurrah.

Not something like, ‘Thank you for helping us care for the swans and other wildlife in this wonderful environment.’

Or, ‘We’re working hard to conserve the swans and other wildlife in these beautiful surroundings. Thank you for your support.’

There are lots of possible ways, as ever, to write something like this. And you don’t have to be a brilliant writer to do it. You just have to stop and think about how the words will sound to human being reading them for the first time.

So much writing we encounter seems not to have been produced to be read, but rather to satisfy the requirements of an internal committee.

‘Item 2b on the Agenda – Communicating Our Primary Aim. I believe Sheila has generated a form of words commensurate with the founding principles of the organisation. All those in favour?’

Like the sticker on the hotel book, this bit of writing seemed quite at odds with the reality of the organisation. I have no doubt the Swannery is run and staffed by people who truly love nature (especially swans), and go about their work with passion and delight.

What a shame all of that disappears into this dry, bureaucractic writing as soon as they put up a sign.

Filed under: Tone of voice