Word Gadfly, and Proud of It
Image via WikipediaSocrates was the original gadfly. He spent his time asking Athenians annoying questions and boxing them into logical corners, exposing the fatal flaws in their thinking. Eventually they overcame his arguments by poisoning him with hemlock.
One of my fears is that someday a client is going to poison me with hemlock. Although I am not particularly detail oriented in general, when it comes to writing, I am relentless. When reviewing Web content and other messaging for clients, I have a nasty habit of pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies that usually go unnoticed, the flaws and inconsistencies nobody wants to think about, let alone correct.
And yet, to my way of thinking, these flaws and inconsistencies must be fixed, because they undermine branding and understanding. So here are some gadlfy questions - please take a swat at them, not me.
- Do you display your Web address consistently? Or is it www.wordsellinc.com or www.WordSellInc.com, depending on the weather or time of day?
- Do you append the same signature to your email every time, and does it include just the important information, no less, no more?
- Do you display phone numbers on your Web site, business cards, email signature, printed materials, etc., in the same format? Or is it (630) 845-1778, 630-845-1778, 630.845.1778, or 630 845 1778, again depending on weather or time of day?
- Do you insert a thoughtfully composed subject line in your email, or do you deal with that all-important box of information as the spirit moves you? (I learned the importance of this one from no less an authority than Liz Strauss.)
- For your branded products, do you display them the same way, with the same capitalization, the same positioning of the trademark or registration symbol, the same font, and the same color? (This may seem obvious, but it is regularly overlooked by small and medium size companies.)
- Do you read sentences out loud to determine if they make sense? Do you run key passages by sounding boards to see if they might be misinterpreted? Do you replace hastily chosen catch phrases with meaningful words that convey the precise meaning you’re after? (I can’t tell you how many times I’ve pointed out a perplexing passage to a client and heard them say, “What I mean is … customers will understand.” Will they? Don’t count on it.)
I could go on. And on and on and on. Chore that it is, I believe it pays to attend to these matters. To the extent your brand is consistent, people will remember it. Variations, even subtle ones, work against you more than you might think. Visual memory is powerful. Short, simple, and coherent messages become more powerful when they are remembered, and that is where consistency comes in.
What say you? Does the minutae of messaging concern you, or is “close enough” good enough?
Brad, ouch and thanks!
I agree that we need to be relentless in our consistency…and sometimes it helps to have someone remind us. 
I received a project offer from a new client last week to redesign web copy. The existing copy used the opening two paragraphs to explain the company’s name. Um, yeah, not a great sign. So I would also add, consider the name of your company from the customer’s perspective in relation to what you’re selling. Funny thing is they were a sales consulting company.
Karen, You know, there’s a good lesson in your story. Sometimes you can’t see the forest for the trees. I’ve talked to lots of people in marketing who say they have the hardest time figuring out their own branding and writing their own copy. I’ve had that experience, too. I’ll bet if your sales company had a client whose name took that long to explain, they’d spot the problem immediately. Of course now that they have you, their worries are over!
Those little details can be so frustrating sometimes, but still you must get them right, since mistakes on small matters can damage your credibility.
I feel that with any form of important written communication, proof reading is especially important, particularly if you are (like me) not too much of a stickler for small details.
Personally, I send the majority of my posts to my mother for proof reading (good old mum!). In business, a useful tip would be to have all important documents proof read by a reliable secretary, colleague or employee.
Often others can spot small things which are missed by the original creator of the written masterpiece.
Cheers
Andrew
Sorry for the double comment, but Karen’s comment was posted whilst I was writing my original comment above.
I love the last point Karen made about the gaffe from a sales company. Isn’t it funny that you often see phenomena such as a sales company making mistakes in promoting themselves, or an accounting firm having the financial affairs of their client in perfect order but their own books in a mess?
Andrew, Thanks for the reminder - I need to employ a proofreader more often. It’s an easy step, and also easy to overlook. My dad still helps me out with proofreading once in a while, and there are other writers I know who are top notch proofreaders if you ever need one.
Good old parents, eh?
I think you’re right about attention to detail - but also that it’s ridiculously hard to apply that discipline to our own work.
Hope your clients keep enjoying and benefiting from your eye for what counts - and steer well clear of the hemlock!
Joanna
Joanna, it’s good to hear another writer make that observation - it is indeed hard.
I used to work for a consulting firm long ago and I remember our boss telling us once that a misspelled word on a report was a fireable offense. Never found out if he was serious or not, but I fer durned sure never gave ‘em the chance to prove it!
I agree wholeheartedly, and it’s like the world coming to an end for me when I see a misspelled word on my own site. I mean, even after proofing it fifty ways from Sunday, an occasional bloop still makes it through!
Hi Brad - you’re definitely at risk of being poisoned. But I guess these things are really important.
I must confess that I don’t read things out loud as often as I should. Maybe I should make a point of doing it to make sure it reads well.
Robert, I’ve worked for people who would choose not to do business with a firm because of a typo. (I must confess I’ve done that myself on occasion.) Misspelling a company name or a person’s name in business correspondence can be a fatal mistake - should have mentioned that. Cath, reading out loud is the best way I’ve found for checking clarity - do you have any other suggestions?
I agree that the details are crucial, and I also concur that it’s much easier to spot someone else’s errors than it is to catch our own. The more eyes that look over an important document, the better.
Hi Lillie, Do you think it’s possible to get too much input on a document?
Yes, Brad, it is possible to get too much input. “The more eyes, the better” isn’t always right.
I guess I was thinking about input on books - there aren’t that many people willing to read an entire 75,000 or 100,000 word novel or nonfiction book, and those who do won’t catch everything. So it’s highly unlikely that an author would get too much input. And I’ve never read a book that didn’t have a few errors in it.
However, when you’re talking about a blog post or an article or other short document, you can definitely get too much input. In those situations, one or two people is probably enough. Otherwise, you’ll start getting lots of different opinions on minor details and end up making the piece worse instead of better.
It depends on the kind of document. A shorter document doesn’t need (or even benefit from) input from many people, whereas a very long document or one with a lot of details that need to be verified would benefit from more input.
Lillie, Thanks for elaborating. I always wondered how a large book was edited. Sounds like very much a team exercise. In business web copy, editing by committee leads to the same problems you describe in shorter documents. One or two trusted sounding boards seems to work much better.
Brad,
My novel that will be released later this year has had more input than you can imagine. I actually wrote it several years ago and got feedback from a critique group (three other authors) during the writing stage (which included several rounds of self-editing). After it was finished, two published authors read it and commented. After it was accepted by the publisher, the editor and I went through it together twice and each of us has edited it again separately. I asked for readers on my blog and had five different writers and editors volunteer to read. They all gave me a little input–not much at that stage but a few helpful ideas.
The editor and/or I will read it again after the layout is done to look for any errors that crept in during that stage, and the printer’s proof will be reviewed … and based on past experience, there will probably be a few corrections at that final stage.
My guess (because I didn’t keep track of how many times I edited it) is that it will have been read more than 20 times by about a dozen people from the time I finished writing it until publication.
And I’ll bet as soon as the book is published, someone will find an error.
Brad,
You make many excellent points in this post. As you know, I am of the mind that, in writing, selling, and branding, minutae matters! In a professional context, close enough is never good enough. Careful attention to detail is what separates the professional from the amateur — or at least the professional image from the amateurish one.
I’ve had an interesting experience with rewritten web copy which I think underscores your point about “editing by committee.” Not too long ago, after I’d rewritten several pages of web copy for a client’s rebranding campaign, the company apparently decided to get further “input” and make numerous additions/changes to my rewrite. While the majority of the work remained as written, I have to admit that I wasn’t too happy with some of the changes that had been made. But, since I’d sold the copy outright, it really wasn’t my place to object.
While admittedly some of the changes improved the finished product in one sense (i.e., by adding further clarification of the company’s services), these changes and others lowered the overall writing quality immensely — and with it the company’s image — through clumsy phraseology — which was too bad. (I can only say that this is one instance where I’m glad my name isn’t on my work!)
If this company continues to use the “round-robin” approach to “improving” its web copy, after it’s already been satisfactorily completed and posted to its website, one hopes that, during one of its many rounds of “editing,” someone will finally hit upon the right words! I can’t say I’m optimistic that this will happen, though.
Sometimes, you just have to leave well enough alone; because too many cooks can indeed spoil the broth!
Jeanne
Jeanne, Your story rings true; I imagine many readers of your blog and mine have experienced the same thing. It is very hard to combat, because it requires extraordinary persuasive skills not everyone has. It would be interesting to hear how people overcome the “writing by committee” problem.
Brad and Jeanne,
Let me clarify one thing - on all the edits of my book, no one made changes except the editor and me. And I got to approve her changes. I agree it’s disaster to let a lot of people actually revise the document. When I recommend a lot of eyes, I mean to review and comment for the author to consider … not revisions.
Lillie, That’s an important distinction - glad you cleared it up.
Brad,
Here’s the funny thing: I probably wouldn’t have had very much trouble convincing them to make a few changes to their changes, since they’d been receptive to my prior suggestions about other less-than effective changes that had been made to my work previously. But, it became a question of just how much time and effort I wanted to put into a completed project — after having already gone put in far more time than I’d been paid for — simply because they didn’t seem to know when enough was enough. So, I decided not to pursue it further.
Lillie,
Your point is well-taken. Reading, reviewing, and commenting on a manuscript are not quite the same as editing or revising it.