Infernal Comms

Happy Slapping: when the language doesn't fit the crime

Another day; another assault on an innocent person for the benefit of a YouTube posting. This time, the incident led to the death of grandfather Ekram Haque in front of his 3 year old grand-daughter. The appropriateness of the sentence for the teenagers convicted of this man's manslaughter is a debate for another place. What I'm interested in here is the terminology.

Happy slapping appeared as a term soon after phones gained video technology. Slap your mate while someone's filming it, then have a laugh at their expense as you share the resulting clip. The only happy people were the perpetrators and it was their moniker that stuck; the victims most probably called it something else but those descriptions never got a look in.

Controlling the language around an activity or a behaviour allows people to influence how that activity is seen and makes counter-arguments much more difficult to land. Happy slapping is just a bit of horseplay, isn't it? Only a killjoy would try and put a stop to it. Video mugging would be an altogether more difficult sell.

File-sharing, legal highs, joy-riding: all are the creations of people who want to lay a veneer of inoffensiveness on something that does not deserve it.

So if you can influence the vocabulary of what you do, your competitors and detractors will struggle to make an impression.

When we is for weasels: a Raoul Moat story

There are times when either your message or your audience's state of mind is not what you would want it to be. Perhaps you're announcing job cuts or apologising for a mistake. In an extreme case you might be attempting to build a dialogue with someone who has threatened to kill your employees, as Detective Chief Superintendent Neil Adamson had to do in the recent case of alleged murderer Raoul Moat.

DCS Adamson made a personal appeal to Moat towards the end of the manhunt, and he did that with repeated use of the word "I": "I can assure you," he said. "I'd like you to know ...".

When you want people to listen to you and believe what you are saying, there is no place for the weasel "we". 

Taking personal responsibility for what you are saying and doing helps your audience pay attention to you and your message. They may not like it, but they're listening.

Using a phrase like "we've done what we can to minimise the impact on staff" only sends a signal that you are diffusing responsibility for what's happening so that no-one gets the blame.

Use the mighty "I" and you will at least be seen as a leader. It's not easy, but then it's not meant to be.

30 years of hurt: why Plain English isn't enough

The Plain English Campaign is 30 today. I dread to think how much turgid corporate prose they've had to wade through in that time. They've done a great job, and those of us helping organisations with language need all the allies we can find, but there's a problem.

Sure, there's a lot of rubbish still being written in the name of customer and employee communication, and no-one would expect the PEC to put everything right even in 30 years. It's the target, the aspiration that is troubling: plain english.

While the good fight is being fought against over-complication and obscure vocabulary there's a greater good we can all aim for. Why shouldn't the language of business be rich, entertaining and memorable? Clear is good; dull is not.

So, no apologies from me for coming back to a theme I've covered before. While some can only hope to be plain, do what you can to stick out from the crowd - use language that's alive.