Gobbledygook?
April 6th, 2007 by Bob Bly
In the March 2007 issue of Training & Development magazine, the bio of one of the contributors reads as follows (full name not used to protect the innocent):
“CZ provides results-focused learning solutions aimed at providing employees with the essential skills that enable them to optimize their performance and achieve measurable business results.”
I don’t like the jargon (”learning solutions”) even though I have been doing training part-time for decades.
Also don’t like the fancy words (”optimize”) or lack of specifics (”essential skills” … WHAT skills?).
After reading CZ’s bio, I still have no idea what she really does.
I also conclude that she does not communicate very well — not a good sign for someone in the training industry — and that perhaps she is a bit of a stuffed shirt.
Do you agree that CZ’s bio is stiff and unfriendly?
Or do you think she is really speaking the reader’s langauge and getting them excited about her offering?
What specific edits can you suggest to CZ so she can rewrite the bio to make it stronger?
This entry was posted on Friday, April 6th, 2007 at 2:24 pm and is filed under General, Writing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Great example, Bob! I’d start with “CZ helps workers (or employees, or people) do better work.” But the “measurable business results” seems important, so I might say “CZ helps workers do measurably better work.”
April 6th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
And to answer the question:
You can’t answer this question because she’s vague.
Look at: optimize their performance: What does that mean?
Look at: essential skills: What does that mean?
Again: learning solutions: what does that mean?
And the best of all: measurable business results: What does that mean?
There’s no way you can help her unless you know details, but here’s a crack at what I’d do — to create effectiveness.
Again it depends whom this is being sold to:
If it’s to the boss:
CZ enables employees to reduce work-time by 20% or more–thus reducing the need to hire more employees.
If it’s to the employee:
CZ enables employees to reduce work-time by 20% or more–so you’re not always fighting deadlines–and work under far less pressure.
Sean
http://www.psychotactics.com
April 6th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Target audience language doesn’t always appeal to those of us who hate jargon. But there are whole audiences out there who thrive on ‘jargon speak.’
How much is jargon speak valid? Do you have to speak in jargon, or will clear, non-jargon language work better? Most jargon-speakers believe that jargon works better. But I only believe that to be true if you’re speaking about stuff that involves ‘tech-speak’. It’s pointless at a doctor’s conference, if a doctor dumbs down his presentation and doesn’t use doctor-jargon. It’s almost impossible to be at a graphic design conference and not hear ‘tweening,’ or ‘kerning’ or ‘geek talk of InDesignCS2.
That’s a totally different kind of jargon. In fact, it’s not even jargon. It’s a shorthand.
And what we need to distinguish between is: jargon and shorthand. Jargon is just jargon–and often very effective when new: e.g. ‘ISO 9001 rating.’ But it soon meanders into rubbish talk like the example above.
This is someone who can’t communicate well. That’s it.
It’s not a factor of jargon. It’s definitely not shorthand. And therefore it’s pure rubbish.
April 7th, 2007 at 9:09 am
That example is a great illustration of why corporate writing bugs the heck out of me. It’s just a lot of hoity toity vagueness that is either meant to impress or intimidate.
If anybody talks like that inside their own head then God help them!