Business Week Article Bombs with Bad Tone
September 28th, 2008 Dina at Wordfeeder.comRegular readers of mine will recall that I talk a lot about tone in copywriting. It’s important — even critical, I would say– to adopt the appropriate voice as you write, as a means of conveying your brand in the appropriate light.
This morning I came across an article in Business Week that displayed inappropriate tone. Admittedly, this is journalistic writing, which is not persuasive so much as informative. But, nevertheless, the tone should be serious and respectful. Instead, we get flippant and cavalier.
Here’s the first paragraph:
Towns That Could Be Hit Hardest by the Financial Crisis
How many former Lehman Brothers bankers or AIG executives are likely to be buying a Park Avenue apartment or a home in Darien, Conn., this year? Most likely answer: not many at all.
(Why is this inappropriate? Because you’re talking about something serious - people losing their jobs and homes, and the author of this article opens with snarky commentary. And if you wanted to still give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that the above wasn’t meant to be offensive, then you can read on for confirmation):
As anyone who works on Wall Street, invests in the stock market, or just reads the newspapers knows, the past few weeks for the financials sector have been as ugly as Frankenstein’s sister. People have seen their net worth eviscerated, if not obliterated completely.
Comparing the nation’s finances to Frankenstein’s sister? That is HORRIBLE writing! Not because the grammar is wrong, and not because Frankenstein’s sister isn’t the epitome of ugly - she is. The problem is that subject is serious, but the comparison is comical. When such an incongruence occurs in writing, one might conclude that:
a. the person who wrote the article is not very intelligent, or,
b. the person who wrote the article is perfectly intelligent, but they just don’t care.
If Business Week had paid more attention to the wording of this article, they might have done a little editing on it. Sometimes it’s hard to find a better analogy than “Frankenstein’s sister,” but if you can’t make it work, then take it out and just do straight-up reporting instead.
Have you thought about the “tone” that is portrayed in your business communication? What kind of picture does it paint about your company?
Popularity: 6% [?]
Posted in Copy Wrong, Writing Voice | No Comments »Headline Gone Wrong?
May 21st, 2008 Dina at Wordfeeder.comI was just over on Technorati, checking my stats, when I came across this headline:
Man Arrested With Explosives at Swedish Nuclear Plant
I know what they mean, but the order of these words implies that the man AND the explosives were arrested.
I feel this could be improved simply by moving a few words around, so that it reads:
Man With Explosives Arrested at Swedish Nuclear Plant
What’s your take? Tell the copywriter how you’d edit this one.
- Dina at Wordfeeder.com
Popularity: 24% [?]
Posted in Copy Wrong, Headline How-To | 2 Comments »The Have-To Rant
April 29th, 2008 Dina at Wordfeeder.com
I’m going to permit myself the “have-to” rant today. This has been in the back of my mind for a long time, but I’m finally going to let it come bubbling up to the surface. This is going to feel GREAT.
The phrase that I just stumbled across was this one:
“For clients with limited budgets who ‘have’ to have guaranteed results…”
Aggghhh! I despise it when people say “have to” in place of “must.” It’s such a weak and mealy-mouthed substitute for a small but mighty word. And a double whammy offense when you say “have to have.” Eeeyew. (spitting)
(And yet I’d be lying if I said I didn’t occasionally say “have to” in my clients’ copy if the phrase fits their manner of speaking. BUT STILL…)
You can say this so many other ways.
“For clients with limited budgets who ‘must’ have guaranteed results…”
“For clients with limited budgets who ‘insist’ on guaranteed results…”
Do people cock their heads to the side, slacken their jaws and roll their eyes about before telling someone that they “have to” do something?
Why not just spell it “hafta?”
And while we’re being total dorks here, we may as well just add an “OMG.”
“OMG… you HAFTA take a look at what this amazing search engine optimization program offers. It’s like, soooo good.”
Ahh, I feel much better now that I got that one of my chest. Thanks for listening. You didn’t… hafta.
Dina at Wordfeeder.com Copywriting and Marketing
Popularity: 26% [?]
Posted in Copy Wrong, Grammar Issues, Proofreader, Punctuation Peeves, Writing Voice | No Comments »Copywriting Tip: Do Away with the Fluff Filler
March 18th, 2008 Dina at Wordfeeder.comWhen you get hit with bulk article assignments, it’s tempting to write the articles in a wham, bam, thank-you, ma’m fashion.
If you’re looking to speed up your article production, hey, that’s super. But beware the tendency to create “fluff filler copy” when you’re in too big of a writing hurry. Trust me, nobody wants to read this junk!
I’ll give you an example of what I mean. Let’s say you’re writing an article titled “How to Eat Better When You’re Constantly Pressed for Time.”
Popularity: 25% [?]
Posted in Article Marketing, Copy Right, Copy Wrong, Copywriting Techniques, Wordfeeder Copywriting | No Comments »Credibility Thieves in Your Copy: Improper Grammar and Punctuation
July 2nd, 2007 Dina at Wordfeeder.comBack in April of this year, I published an article called Bad Copy, Good Copy: A Show-By-Example Guide to Writing Stronger Web Content.
Next, I invited my readers to contribute to a discussion on my marketing blog, Blogfeeder - Grammatical Pet Peeves. The topic was inspired by foolhardy bloggers who can’t or won’t take the time to proofread, spell check, and/or consult with the nearest linguistic expert, thereby desecrating the language and making themselves look foolish in the process.
Popularity: 22% [?]
Posted in Copy Wrong, Grammar Issues | 1 Comment »