Writing

• Trick #1: Is this communication really necessary? We’re communicators: we default to wanting to share information. But we need to take that extra second to consider what the people we’re trying to reach really want from us. If it’s that analytical guy mentioned earlier: he can hardly wait until you send more data, so go ahead! But what if it’s someone who already received hundreds of emails a day—and is unhappy about it?

Do we need to send the email with a bit of information this morning, another with some more this afternoon, and a third tidbit tomorrow morning? Sometimes it’s better to wait until you have it all and can send just one. Why risk annoying the person you’re trying to reach?

• Trick #2: Is this the best way to communicate? Back to that endless email—like those mythical fruitcakes at the holidays that circle the globe. One of the main reasons this happens is no one picks up the phone and has a five-minute conversation—or even worse, people won’t walk down the hall and poke their heads into someone’s office for a quick decision. Ask what’s the most efficient way to get something done—rather than what’s the easiest way for you—and take that approach.

•  Trick #3: Am I really adding value? This is my beef about e-newsletters and e-zines. I understand the theory: provide some good information to showcase the value my company offers, which encourages potential customers to contact me. But most of the ones I see seem to scream “me, Me, ME!”

They may begin with a chit-chatty tidbit about what the author has been up to lately. They may follow up with a project they just completed, which they thought was interesting (so you should, too). They may give you platitudes about your industry to show they know it (aren’t you tired of reading about “what you can do in a difficult economy”—which begins with hiring their firm?). The best ones—and the only ones anyone really reads—are the e-newsletters that give us ideas we can use to make improvements right away. So when you’re doing this, put the value up front—and save the happy talk about your latest holiday for a Twitter or Facebook posting.

• Trick #1: Do Your Homework. It’s so simple but often the first thing we forget. If you’re trying to reach a publication (print or electronic), then spend some time reading it. (Thank goodness for the Internet—we had no alternative but the library or asking publications for copies before it.) Apply the same approach if it’s a television or online program. If you’re trying to reach a person, find out what you can about him or her first. Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter: you can gather all sorts of information. If it’s someone in your organization—or another organization where you have connections—talk with people who know that person.

 If it’s a company—a potential client or employer, perhaps—then check out its Web site (particularly the news releases) and competitors’ sites. And if it’s a public company, read its financial reports, quarterly financial conference call transcripts or analyst research reports.

This will separate you from all the other folks who have just done a cursory job, or haven’t even bothered. It also will fulfill the need of those you’re trying to reach: the belief that we’re all unique and the world should only send us messages tailored to us.

•  Trick #2: Show You Know. Now that you have this intelligence, weave it in to your communication.

1.   Explain why the story you’re proposing would be of interest to the publication’s readership or program’s viewership. (This shows you know who reads it/watches it and what they want.)
2.      Reference an important point you discovered about the person from your online research or from people who know him or her. (This shows you value that person’s ideas, opinions, feelings, etc., which helps to create a bond.)
3.      Mention the issues you know the company faces and how you have addressed them for other firms. (This shows how you can reduce the company’s risk in working with you—because you already know and have applied the information these people need.)

• Trick #3: Take Your Ego Out of the Equation. Let’s face it: even though you’re reaching out to this person or organization for your own purposes, as far as the recipients are concerned, it’s all about them. Focus any communication on their needs. Editors and producers want good stories: to keep their readership/viewership up and advertisers happy. Businesspeople and organizations want good ideas, or to improve their implementation: so their departments or operations are stronger, more cost-effective and competitive. Give them a taste of how you can solve their problems—rather than a dose of how wonderful you are.

The truth is that not every pitch you toss will be a homerun. You often have no control over the reasons why the batter won’t take a swing. But if your approach is well-crafted, you’ve eliminated the most common reason for being turned down—and sooner or later, your proposals are going to connect.

• Trick #1: Know What You Want. How many times have you fired off an email response or returned a phone call and not thought about what you hope will happen? The next time, spend that extra few seconds before and actually answer this question: “What do I want people do after this?” If you believe in visualization, picture them taking the action you’d like. Then ask yourself some simple questions:

1. What problems will my approach solve for them? (Once again—people run away from pain faster than they run toward features and benefits.)
2. What will they need to know so they can agree with me?
3. What barriers would prevent them from taking the actions I want?
4.  How can I include information—in this communication or somewhere else—that will overcome these?

By knowing what you want—and how you can make others want the same thing—you’ve automatically increased the chances your reader will be persuaded by what you propose.

• Trick #2: Write with “Yes” in Mind. Have you ever had to write a memo and thought, “They’ll never sign off on this!” And, of course, you were right. It’s the reverse of positive thinking. When you’re sure your ideas will be rejected, that negativity will leak out in a million ways: the words you choose, the way you organize the information, and how much time you spend answering possible objections in advance.

 If you can’t write with the belief that your ideas will be accepted, then do something else until you can. Listen to Henry Ford: “If you think you can do a thing or you think you can’t do a thing, you’re right.” Don’t shoot yourself in the foot before you begin. If this is an important communication, also know when is a good time to write it. If you’re a morning person, don’t start at 3:00 in the afternoon when you’re at low energy.

• Trick #3: Include the Call to Action. Tell your readers what you want them to do—and how to do it. If it’s a proposal, media “pitch” letter, or formal communication, the call to action falls at the end. You have used the rest of the piece to present your case so they will agree with you, and now you tell them how this should look.

If you’re writing an email, then put the call to action at the top. You may even want to put it in the subject line. This presumably is a shorter communication, so let your readers know right away what you want and then provide the (brief) details. Most people scan their emails. If your request falls at the bottom, they may not choose to scroll down several paragraphs to find out what you want and might miss it.

By the way—don’t make this a “call me if you want to discuss this further.” You have no idea what else is on their plates, how important this is to them, or how many other things are hanging fire on their desks. Let them know when you will call to discuss the ideas—and then follow up.

Judy Gombita spotted this list of Great Literary Taunts:

• “A modest little person, with much to be modest about.” — Winston Churchill (about Clement Atlee)
• “I’ve just learned about his illness. Let’s hope it’s nothing trivial.” — Irvin S. Cobb
• “He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.” — William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway)
• “He had delusions of adequacy.” — Walter Kerr
• “They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.” — Thomas Brackett Reed
• “I didn’t attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.” — Mark Twain

Thanks to the onslaught of technology and our need to constantly rush through everything, our grammar has gotten worse. Emails, text messages and other corporate communications are being sent without a thorough and professional proofreading, and using poor grammar in the workplace can have some negative impacts on your business.

It causes confusion.

If you use poor grammar in the workplace, you could end up confusing those people who need to read what you write or listen to what you say. Causing confusion will negatively impact your company’s productivity and require additional communications to clear up the confusion.

It makes you look unprofessional.

Poor grammar makes you look unprofessional. Nobody wants to do business with the company that has spelling and grammatical errors in their marketing materials, and no client wants to do business with the representative who doesn’t know the difference between their, there and they’re.

It hinders productivity.

Read full article on Every Marketing Thing

Ian Lurie’s Conversation Marketing blog zeroes in on the keys to writing a headline for an online news story.  Follow three rules:

Length isn’t (as much of) a constraint. In print, you have to make your headline fit a certain number of column inches. Online, you can add a word or two. Or three. Or even four. Don’t keep a headline short and uninformative.

Make the headline descriptive. It should stand completely on its own. It’s a micro-summary of the story. If written on a blank sheet of paper, it should tell the reader exactly what they’re going to learn in the rest of the story. Your headline will show up everywhere: In links, in search, etc.. Make sure it works in all those places.

Remember the search engines. Make sure your headline includes the words that folks will use to find the story. You don’t need to be an SEO pro to figure out that folks are more interested in ‘bank bailout’ than ‘Paulson stock purchases’ (keep reading for the full story on that example).

Continue reading: How to: NOT Write an Internet-Ready News Headline

When you get right down to the nitty-gritty, only two things really count when striving for the perfect tweet:

1. Maximum readability
2. Maximum retweetability

These are both vital, but neither should be tailored at the expense of the other. For maximum benefit, each needs to be perfect every single time.

1. Think Like Your Readers

This is a bit of a no-brainer, but it’s easily overlooked. For your tweet to be perfect, it needs to appeal most to your readers, to the majority of your network, and not to you.

Unless you’re a world-famous celebrity or brand with millions of devoted followers, adopting an attitude of ‘they’ll know what I mean’ or ‘everybody likes this!’ will almost always backfire.

You have to take the time to craft your tweet accurately and pleasingly, thus ensuring that it will be appeal to the highest number of readers.

2. Use Consistent Excellence To Stand Out From The Crowd

Take a moment to peruse your Twitter feed. Refresh the page. Who stands out? Why?

Through prolonged Twitter use we all become tuned into paying attention to certain things in our timelines, notably the avatars and usernames of our favourite profiles. But a friend or valued associate sharing new content isn’t always enough to make us click on that link. We trust their judgement, and we have liked some of the things they’ve shared in the past, but this hasn’t turned us into a robot, automatically clicking on everything they tweet.

Real full article via AllTwitter – The Unofficial Twitter Resource

One of the dangers of writing is that we can fall in love with our words. Even the wrong words. And like a bad boyfriend, these ill-suited words are clung to even though they do us no good and our friends can’t figure out what the heck we’re doing with them.

I know I am guilty. Some of my drafts have included phrases that made me beam with pride at how clever I could be. That pride stayed even as I was editing and could see that said cleverness actually stood out like a big, fat salmon in the lettuce crisper. I knew it was stinking up the place and making the greens inedible. Oh, but how can you not love salmon?

The harsh reality is that sometimes, even the good, clever ,Omega-3 laden stuff needs to get cut from our work. If we want to write well, we can’t be too precious about our words.

I was thinking about this while listening to Bernie Taupin’s audio blogs on songwriting. He has written the lyrics to some of the most iconic and enduring songs of the last 30 years. If his name doesn’t ring a bell, perhaps you are familiar with his main songwriting partner, Elton John?

While discussing how he co-wrote “Don’t Let the Sun Go Down On Me” he admits he has a “really bad memory of my own work.”  He proves this by telling the story of watching a game show on TV where one of the categories was his own lyrics. “I believe there were five questions,” Bernie says, “and I got four of them wrong.”

Now that is the epitome of not being too precious about your words!

Be like Bernie. Don’t get too invested in your every word, especially the ones you suspect (or know but don’t want to admit) don’t really belong. The delete key is your friend. If that seems too painful, create a separate file where all the bits you’ve edited out can live and commiserate with one another about how they were unceremoniously cast out of the final draft.

Of course, I might be reading too much into Bernie’s comments.  He’s terribly prolific, so maybe there are just far too many words for him to keep track of. Well, that’s a good goal, too.

You can hear Bernie for yourself at his website.

Barbara Govednik launched 423 Communication in 2001 to helps its clients tell their stories through freelance writing services, coaching and editing services, and employee communication consulting and implementation. Read Barbara’s Being Well Said Blog.

Remember when Robert Novak (surprise, surprise) became upset with something James Carville said, blurted out the word “bullshit,” and stormed off the set?

Well, I’m no friend of Novak’s, but I was amused at what reporters were saying he said on that occasion. Few dared to use the actual word, “bullshit.” My, how inappropriate for our sensitive readers. One writer got it pretty close. He said Novak used a barnyard term. Not bad.

But others said he cursed. Swore. Used obscenities. Even used profanities. I don’t know whether anyone wrote that he used vulgarities.

Now as a person who has taught general-semantics for a couple of decades, I know perfectly well that words can mean whatever you want them to mean. Nevertheless, normally we do expect people to use words in their generally accepted meanings.

For eight editions of News Reporting and Writing by the Missouri Group (I’m a co-author), I’ve struggled to make some distinctions in the following words in a chapter on using quotations and attributions:

* When people curse, doesn’t that mean that they want someone to go to hell, usually by damning them? I admit, most of the time people just “damn it,” whatever “it” is.

* Swearing involves taking an oath or calling upon the deity or at least someone regarded as sacred to witness to the truth of what we’re saying. We’re expected to swear in court though I’m not sure why, other than if we lie in court, we can be convicted for perjury.

* An obscenity is a word or a phrase that usually refers to sexual parts or functions in an offensive way. Most people can’t imagine, for example, using the “f” word in an inoffensive way.

* A large number of people are always offended by profanity. There’s a commandment about that – taking the name of the lord in vain. Using a word or phrase referring to the deity or to beings regarded as divine, even if only done carelessly and thoughtlessly, is regarded as sacrilegious.

* And then there are vulgarities. I like to call them “bathroom” words. We’re talking about excretory words or phrases used in a less-than-polite way.

Does all of this make sense? There are some words that I don’t know how to classify. “Hell” is one of them. I once asked a person, “What the hell does that mean?” And she said, “Well, you don’t have to start cursing.”

So often we use words in all of the classifications above because we can’t think of anything else to say. So often they demonstrate our real dearth of vocabulary. You know, it’s cold as hell; it’s hot as hell. What the hell do those statements mean?

But who can deny that sometimes a good “damn” just feels right. And so does a good “bullshit.”

So, all you writer and readers, get off Novak’s case. You’ve all said much worse in similar circumstances. And if you want to attack Novak, there are much better reasons.

Don Ranly

Let’s rein in reign!

Have you noticed how often you see these two words confused?

Here’s a sentence from Dan Brown’s best-selling The Da Vinci Code:  “Chartrand rushed forward, trying to reign in the camerlengo.”

From a sports-page headline: “Walsh might seize reigns as president.”  That’s former 49ers coach Bill Walsh, rumored to become president of the 49ers.

From the National Catholic Reporter in a story about Deal Hudson, publisher of Crisis magazine:  “While Hudson was taking over the reigns at Crisis, Cara Poppas consulted an attorney.”

In scholar John Merrill’s wonderful book, Existential Journalism, in which he describes the existential journalism professor:  “He will insist on personalism, not impersonalism; he will encourage diversity in his students, not conformity; he will try to give free reign to creativity, not imitation.”

And in a column in the Columbia Missourian in which Merrill is condemning the “No child left behind” program, he writes:  “What we need is an emphasis on ‘No child held back,’ or ‘Give free reigns to the gifted child.’”

I think we should not only rein in “reign,” but we should also rein in “rein.”  It’s used so often and so needlessly.  Besides, I wonder how many people really understand its roots.  Once when a graduate student of mine used “reign” in place of “rein,” he asked me what in the world a rein was.

As a former farm boy whose father still had a team of horses, I think I can describe reins without looking the word up in the dictionary.  I can still see those long strips of leather that dad held in his hands to get the horses moving or to get them to turn right or left (“gee” – right, and “haw” – left, he used to shout) and to get them to stop.  If the horses were going too fast, he would pull on the reins that went right to the harness over their heads and to the bits in their mouths.  He would tighten the reins.  If he wanted them to trot, he would loosen the reins (give them free rein?).  And if he wanted them to stop, he would pull hard and rein them in.

Granted, the word has also come to mean  “a restraining influence, a curb or a check.”  But again, it’s so overused, and it’s so often replaced incorrectly with “reigns.”

At least think twice before you use “rein” or “reins” again!

Don Ranly

Refined Wisdom: Here’s what I think about making verbs into nouns.   Usually, there are so many better, simple words that we can use.

It seems months ago by now (and it is) that, strangely enough, I found myself listening to Condoleezza Rice testifying before the special committee investigating the events surrounding 9/11.  Not once, but several times Rice said various people “were tasked” to do something, and I’m quite sure she also said “we were tasking” that at a certain point in time.

Then I read this quote from Richard A. Clarke in The New York Times:  “All 56 F.B.I. federal offices were also tasked in late June to go on increased surveillance.”

So, there was a lot of  “tasking” going on.  So also was there a lot of  “verbyfying” nouns, to use the word Edwin Newman coined for the phenomenon.  Well, it might have been William Safire.

I looked up the word in Webster’s Third, quite confident “task” was never a verb, but I was wrong again.  The first meaning listed is “to tax,” but it says that usage is obsolete. “To impose a task upon,” it says in the second meaning, and then it quotes John Dryden using it that way.  The third meaning, also obsolete, is “to reprimand.”  And the fourth meaning is “to oppress with great labor.”   I was just with a staff of a software company in North Carolina, and a sharp copy editor there defended the use of the word in the passive  — “was tasked.”  Sounds like cruelty to me. 

Well, it does bring up the whole question of turning nouns into verbs.  There’s no disputing that many verbs we now use were once nouns (was “progress” first a noun or a verb?), and some would say, what’s the big deal anyway?  We have verbs such as “maximize” and “minimize,” so what’s wrong with “parameterizing”? 

(I once had a phone conversation with the father of a student whom I had failed in a magazine-editing class.  The father assured me that he and his daughter “now had matters parameterized.”  I almost told him that I would never have failed her had I known she had been paramaterized.)

 Here’s what I think about making verbs into nouns.   Usually, there are so many better, simple words that we can use.  Even if it takes a few more words to say something, it’s better than appearing pompous or pretentious with overblown, made-up words.  In the end, it comes down to clarity.

Why would we want to “utilize” something when we can just “use” it?  I like to say that if we don’t stop “utilizing” the English language, we’re going to “finalize” it.  I don’t really believe that, but if you or your boss is verbyfying nouns, stop it already.

Don Ranly

• Trick #1: Whose purpose does it serve? Does our deathless prose actually help readers understand the point we’re making—or is its point to make us look good?

Let’s be honest: anyone who writes something for others must have a bit of an ego—otherwise she wouldn’t be able to write. But let’s keep the emphasis on “bit of” rather than “an ego.” It’s quaint to read Victorian novels that address us as “dear reader,” reminding us that the author has an active role in what we’re reading. However, it’s death to a communication or piece that’s meant to persuade when our writerly fingerprints smear the important points.

• Trick #2: Do others’ suggestions improve what we’ve written? This is perhaps the best test of the amount of ego in your writing. Spend that extra second asking, “What will my readers better understand: my presentation or the new one?” And if it’s the new one, make the change. (Then find a way to work your beloved phrase into a conversation with friends who will appreciate it.) When your purpose is to communicate with others, their needs trump yours.  

Sometimes the suggestion doesn’t improve the text, and your approach is the better solution—then keep it. Some people don’t believe they’ve done their job unless they change something they’re reviewing, so know when this is happening to you. (We’ll get to “The All the World’s a Frustrated Author Theory” next time …)

• Trick #3: Don’t argue about it. If you are (inwardly) jutting out your jaw as you explain to someone why your words are better than theirs, then you’ve already lost the battle. There’s no way you can come off as anything but defensive or egotistical—calling your credibility into question. It’s just not worth it. Over your career, you’ll create many wonderful communications—if you don’t antagonize the people who pay you to do this. Live to write another day.

There are many wonderful people living the Gospel of the One-Pager that we can all learn from. A few examples:

Strategy to Performance Dashboard  Downloadable, this SlideShare tool from BlueOcean gives you 9 pages of templates to fill in.

One Page Business Plan from lifehacker.com

One Page Job Proposal for getting a new job

23 Amazing Single Page Websites

Build a One Page WebsiteTo find more on your own, simply Google “one page (fill in the blank)” for whatever you’re seeking. Somebody out there has created a one-pager for just about everything!

Don’t Just Copy the Templates: Develop a One-Pager Skillset
To truly live the Gospel of the One-Pager, don’t just search for specific one-pagers. Look across all that you find for patterns:

• What do all these one-pagers have in common?

• How do the get to the crucial stuff while editing out the noise?

• How are they packaged?

• etc.

Among other things, you’re likely to find:
• They all have one key point, and no more!
• Everything else is compelling storytelling to support that key point
• They target the audience’s head (thinking), heart (feelings), and hands (action)

Once you begin to practice what most one-pagers have in common, you will have forever harnessed the Power of the One-Pager. And that’s a superpower that will serve you well, everywhere!

When you try to be persuasive in writing or speaking, you probably spend a lot of time crafting the message, but you might be overlooking something that is more important than your content.

An audience often decides how it will respond to a persuasive appeal based not on the message itself but on whether the communicator is credible. Credibility, according to psychologist Dan O’Keefe, is the audience’s assessment of whether you are believable. If your audience does not view you as credible, strengthen your image by working on three things people usually consider in judging credibility.

1) Expertise – Be an expert in your field, because people are persuaded to do things when they view the communicator as an authority in the field. And it doesn’t only apply to people. Consumer Reports magazine is the leading source of trusted information when people want to buy a product. Why? Because they view it as credible.

2) Trustworthiness – Be fair, be honest, be a good listener, and be respectful of your audience. A major reason people are not persuaded to do something or to believe something is because the communicator was rude, sarcastic, condescending, or, in some other way, disrespectful.

3) Confidence. Carrying yourself with confidence is reflected in the way you dress (be a sharp dresser) and in the way you speak. Don’t use hedging language because when you hem, haw, and ramble, you don’t sound like you have control of the message (in writing or speaking), and you do not come across as being confident.

By Ken O’Quinn, Writing With Clarity

Reading from a screen isn’t the same as reading from a piece of paper. I say this at the risk of a) telling you something you already know and b) sounding like a curmudgeonly Luddite who can’t cope with new-fangled technology.

Many of us intrinsically know this is true. There is more scanning, and in many instances, more distraction to skip to someplace else. Turns out that science backs up the hunch.

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education (which I read online), an article was published in the Journal of Research in Reading (which I didn’t read at all) that highlighted the research of Anne Mangen. She gets all metaphysical and says that “digital texts are ontologically intangible,” so we have a different physical relationship to them, it influences our immersion into the material and other outcomes.

The best bit is this line from the Chronicle quoting Mangen: “One effect, Mangen maintains, is that the digital text makes us read ‘in a shallower, less focused way.'”

We accepted this truth about our shallow, scanning and skipping audiences long ago. And we’ve worked to adjust for it as writers. But I had to wonder if I was fully embracing it as an editor.

In the name of efficiency and environmentalism, I generally edit electronically using any of the available markup tools Microsoft Word offers. This puts me squarely in the audience’s skipping and scanning shoes. It lets me make sure that the text accommodates this arms’ length relationship and that the main points can be plucked here, there or anywhere.

But I also have a responsibility to make the work correct and complete. The writer’s little mistakes and near-misses need to be ferreted out and corrected. I can’t do this well if I am skipping and scanning on screen. That requires immersion.

Which means I either need to let go of my resistance to killing trees and marking up a hardcopy with the old red pen or learn to buck nature and immerse myself in my laptop. Although the latter sounds kind of scary and Tron-like. (E-mail me if you are less ancient than I and don’t understand that reference.)

When editing a piece meant to be read on screen, editors play a dual role. We have to experience the content as the reader will, and we have to bring a critical, detail-oriented eye. What do you do to accommodate both?

Barbara Govednik launched 423 Communication in 2001 to helps its clients tell their stories through freelance writing services, coaching and editing services, and employee communication consulting and implementation. Read Barbara’s Being Well Said Blog.