By Francis Moran
Any regular reader of this blog will know that inmedia is a shop that prides itself on its writing chops. Indeed, several of us willingly self-identify as grammar geeks.
When someone is looking to work here, I now ask three questions that immediately sort the writers from the rest. First, I ask candidates to rate their writing talent on a scale from one to 10. The real writers don’t hesitate to put themselves eight or higher. But posers will blow air into their answers to this one, so it’s not terribly definitive.
Next, I ask them what other people have said all their lives about their writing. This is the key question. Really good writers stand apart from the crowd and have been hearing ever since they were in school that they are exceptional. The question is not the least peculiar to them; they know exactly what I mean and they answer it right away and without so much as a blush of false humility. It is perfectly ordinary and everyday for their writing to be praised.
Finally, I ask them to name three writing or grammar reference books that they use consistently. I don’t really care what titles they give me so long as they offer them up with very little hesitation. While the posers will hum and haw, the real writers know that this craft is a complex one that regularly requires pulling down dictionaries, thesauruses and other reference guides as we strive for excellence. Besides the first two, I’m really looking for someone who cares enough about their craft that they own and can effortlessly recall at least a couple of standard writing, grammar and editing references such as the Chicago Manual of Style, about which I’ve written before, Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style, The Reader Over Your Shoulder by Graves and Hodge, or a little tome that actually became a best-seller a few years back, Eats, Shoots and Leaves by Lynn Truss.
If my candidate has ever taken a university-level writing course in any Canadian or American school, The Elements of Style, which two weeks ago marked the 50th anniversary of its original publication, is almost always cited. Although I own a copy from my own undergraduate days, it’s not a reference on which I have ever heavily relied. I have always been somewhat confused by what I have found to be its bewildering rules about passive versus active voice. I have always put my confusion down to the fact that I think I am better at writing well than I am about explaining writing well. In other words, I seem innately to know how to do it properly; I can’t always explain why or how I’m doing it properly.
Now, thanks to a linguistics professor at the University of Edinburgh, I perhaps have an explanation for my confused reaction to The Elements of Style. In a damning article in the April 17, 2009 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Geoffrey Pullham regrets the “50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice” he says has been peddled to American students by William Strunk and E.B. (Charlotte’s Web) White. He takes particular umbrage at the guide’s admonition against employing the passive voice, writing that its authors didn’t know what they were talking about and usually identified as passive passages those that were, in fact, active. Much relief over here, I can tell you.
On another front, though, I have always credited Strunk and White when I dictate that adverbs should be avoided. At least, they should be avoided as cheap modifiers of adjectives. For example, it’s just lazy writing to stick a spare “very” in front of an adjective to convey a greater degree of whatever the adjective itself is describing; come up with a more potent adjective that can do the job without a modifier. Where the professor and I agree that Strunk and White were overly doctrinaire, however, is that adverbs are perfectly fine for the modifying of verbs and quite acceptable when conveying particular emphasis on adjectives. Note my use of the adverbs “perfectly” and “quite” doing yeoman duty modifying the adjectives “fine” and “acceptable” in that last sentence!
Happy 50th anniversary, Elements, but, like the professor, I probably won’t be throwing any parties. I’ll still accept you as an answer to my third question, though, so long as it comes without hesitation.
By Francis Moran
I understand very well that setting up straw-man arguments just to knock them down can be a useful presentation tactic and a powerful rhetorical device but at some point, if that’s the only way you can prop up your case, you run the risk of sounding as vacuous and intellectually dishonest as the bleating sheep in George Orwell’s seminal “Animal Farm.”
I’m afraid that’s the chief reaction I was left with following this morning’s Social Media Breakfast Ottawa where presenter Chris Greenfield of Toronto’s Clever Communications had an argument that regrettably distilled into the single phrase, “Old way bad; new way (by which I mean my way) good.” He got a lot of chuckles from the crowd and several tweets hailing him as a fresh-thinking skeptic merely by highlighting the most egregious failings of traditional marketing and communications practitioners and then showing how the brave new world of social media is totally different from how those dinosaur hacks operate.
Here’s the thing, Chris: Many — dare I say, most — of us old-school marketing practitioners understand very well that the opportunity to communicate effectively lives at an intersection of interest between the participants in the communications process. We have been working our entire careers either to build those intersections or to meet our customers at the intersections where they already gather. By definition, this means we must engage — one of your most repeated terms but not an alien concept to the rest of us — in a bi-directional conversation characterised by honesty, openness and the fair exchange of value. For most of us marketers, a social-media strategy is a potent new tool we add to a complete and integrated campaign when they deliver the ability to bring us to the intersections where our customers gather.
For all his social media eagerness, Greenfield seemed to be peculiarly derisive about one tool, Twitter, with an argument that simply left me confused. On the one hand, he told us that social media tools were superb at distributing content through trusted channels to where customers can actually interact with that content. On the other hand, he was critical of Twitter because too many tweets simply parrot content available elsewhere. Huh?
Maybe I started with a chip on my shoulder because I walked in a little late but in time to hear him say that “ad agencies are just like print shops.” They have made themselves undifferentiated commodity propositions that “aren’t partners (with their clients) any more.” Only social media agencies can play that role, apparently. Tell that to the countless stand-out agencies — and yes, Chris, I think there are even some in Toronto! — whose people are creating brilliant, compelling and breakthrough campaigns, many of them effectively deploying social media elements, that are creating massive value for their clients’ brands as well as their own.
Finally, I have to comment on one piece that I think exposes Greenfield’s whole proposition that what he is doing is somehow new and different. “We use 30-second equivalents” to measure the effectiveness of social media engagement, he said, suggesting that perhaps 10 minutes spent on a web site is equal to a 30-second television ad. For as long as I have been a communications practitioner, I have railed against the common and popular but downright wrong and misleading practice of measuring media relations results by calculating ad-value equivalencies. Now Greenfield suggests we take one of the very worst and most discredited practices in measurement and apply it to social media, an approach that fails to recognise that the objectives of the social media component of a campaign are simply not the same as the objectives of the television advertising component of the campaign.
Sometimes, both four legs and two legs can be good. Even Orwell’s sheep eventually found that out.
By Francis Moran
Two inmedia clients were among the finalists in their respective catagories in this year’s awards program by the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation and at last night’s awards dinner, both came away with top honours. So our heartiest congratulations go to PIKA Technologies Inc., whose WARP Appliance, an open-source platform for the development of voice applications, won product of the year, and to Vocantas, which was recognised in the Technology Partnership Commercialisation category for the patient-messaging system it developed for the Ottawa Hospital’s thrombosis clinic.
By Francis Moran
If last night’s standing-room-only three hours of drinking-from-a-firehose delivery of hard-core business education was anything to go on, Ottawa’s entrepreneurs are hungry to learn from experienced veterans just how to manage, finance and market their companies.
Entrepreneur’s Edge, or e2, is a professional-development program that the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation has offered for four years. In an inspired cross between effective promotion and community outreach, program manager Peter Fillmore decided to offer a stripped-down version of the five-day curriculum. That gave rise to last night’s staging at TheCodeFactory of e2-Lite, an intensely concentrated introduction to the joys and perils of founding and managing a technology startup.
More than 50 people took up every available seat in the room, and all but a very few stayed right through to the end of a trio of presentations by Jim Roche, Rick O’Connor and Rick Norland. While the condensed nature of the content meant that bits of it were somewhat fractured and the presentation slides were densely packed, the staying power of the audience was testament to both the quality of the material being delivered and the ready appetite for it.
By Francis Moran
I just got back from CNW’s excellent “Breakfast with the Media” featuring reformed journalist and now digital marketing and social media consultant Mark Evans along with the Ottawa Citizen‘s own Vito Pilieci, who covers business and technology and so is on speed dial here at inmedia. Both had a lot of value to contribute, and you can see a full Twitter stream of their better pointers here.
The bone I want to pick is not with Evans and Pilieci who shared a lot of excellent counsel about, in Mark’s case, what the new social media tools are and how to make best use of them and, in Vito’s case, how best to engage with him as he toils in a more traditional newsroom. Hint: Don’t send him a fax to draw attention to the email you sent to remind him about the voicemail message you left alerting him to the news release you couriered over! It pains me grievously as a 30-year veteran of the journalism and PR game to think there’s anybody in our business still operating like that but apparently there is!
Equally painful, though, were some of the questions from self-professed communicators in the audience who utterly betrayed their abject grasp of the most fundamental principles of effective communications.
Here’s the crux of the issue.
Everybody seems to agree that you can’t engage bloggers and other social media channels in a spray-and-pray approach that spams your messaging out to hundreds or even thousands of targets. Everybody seems to agree that it’s essential you adopt a personalised approach based on a clear understanding of what your target is actually interested in and how that intersects with what you’re pitching. Evans put it well when he said you need to “understand the motivation” of your target blogger who “wants to feel some love.”
What has me utterly gobsmacked is the number of public relations professionals who believe this is a brave new way of doing things and who are having trouble adjusting!
Here’s your knock on the head, people: If you’re finding it a real wrench from how you used to do things to engage on a personalised basis in a two-way dialogue with your target audience, you’ve been doing it wrong all along. How dare you waste your employer’s or your client’s money by reaching out to even a single journalist without first establishing their clear interest in what you have to pitch.
One poor woman talked about her role monitoring media coverage of her organization and how that now needs to be expanded to include bloggers, of which there are many, many more. How, she asked plaintively, do you figure out which bloggers are worth the effort? Well, exactly the same way we always determined who the genuine influencers were in our marketplace, whether they were journalists, analysts or other stakeholders. It’s called “research,” people, and there are no shortcuts and — Knock on the head warning, again — there never have been.
It is not a brave new world out there. But not because there aren’t exciting new communications channels and tools that we all need to learn about and integrate as appropriate into our strategies. It’s not a brave new world because those communicators who have been doing it properly all along are having absolutely no difficulty extending their capabilities slightly to accommodate these exciting new tools.
One final note: Please don’t confuse adopting a personalised approach with a requirement that you have a personal relationship with the target journalist or blogger or whoever. I went up after the session to introduce myself to Vito, whom I’ve never met. In short, he couldn’t pick me out of a line-up. I have no personal relationship with him. But he knew exactly who I was and he knows every one of my consultants here at inmedia because of the personalised manner in which we pitch our clients’ stories to him. We know what he writes about. We know his information requirements. And when we think it’s in his and our client’s interests that he be pitched, we pitch him. It’s the only way we know how to do it, and we’ve been doing it since long before the first blogger ever put pixel to screen.
Update: There is one important way in which the new environment differs from the past. In the old days, if you were a spray-and-pray artist, the peeved journalists whose time you were wasting merely ignored you. Today, you’re going to be publicly outed as the spammer you are.
