Know Any Thought Followers? Why the ‘Thought Leader’ Classification Doesn’t Work (And What to Say Instead)

 BFC Blog, Case Studies, Confusing Content, Content Creation, Content Marketing, Social Media, Web Writing, Website Content, White Papers  2 Responses »
Sep 222011
 

The Hidden Dangers of Using Jargon, Example 4

Last week the Content Strategy Google Group (of which I’m a member) discussed the term “thought leadership.”

Everyone in the group (and most people reading this) pegged ‘Thought Leader’ as jargon. Even a client rejected it for a category header.

“My problem is everyone in my industry (other than us) seems to use that term, so my firm is rejecting that outright.”

So, what should they use instead?
Some group members proposed alternatives, like:

  • Knowledge Center
  • Reader Resources
  • [Subject] White Papers
  • Our Publications (I kind of like this one)

Then the conversation swung toward Thought Leadership’s underlying problem: The implications you make if you use the term ‘thought leader.’

Has Anyone Ever Done Business with a “Thought Follower”?

When used, Thought Leadership claims a hierarchical position. Namely, the top.

But nobody claims a “thought follower” position, do they? Of course not. No one would.

Well, we can’t ALL be Thought Leaders. What do we do?

“Thought Leader” as a jargon term tries to claim the high ground. Like everyone else. So the classification goes flat. Being a Thought Leader among thousands is kind of useless, isn’t it?

In the group discussion, one person pointed out that this whole thing is meaningless. Why? Because readers aren’t interested in these kinds of classifications.

At all.

They just want to find information on a specific topic.

Which is the only thing that really matters. Are you able to deliver information on that topic? If yes, then you don’t become a thought leader to the reader.
You become a resource.

Be a Resource Instead of a Thought Leader

If “Thought Leadership” implies a hierarchy that doesn’t really exist, how should we classify ourselves? What will the reader respond to?

If you have the information they’re looking for on a topic, you become a resource to them. So, aim for that!

Try being a resource instead. It’s more specific, and more valuable. For example, you could be:

“A resource for financial management software for HR consultancies.”

This fosters more of a collaborative space online, not an arbitrary hierarchy. Resources share information & audience attention with other resources, instead of competing for every last second.

One resource aids another. One website sends traffic to others. People find more and more information as they go – noting the businesses that PROVIDE those resources.

Readers don’t look for thought leaders. They look for specific resources.

Do YOU go looking for thought leaders? I don’t. I look for information from Kristina Halvorson (for Content Strategy), or John Jantsch (for B2B marketing), or Brian Clark (for Web writing techniques & Internet marketing strategies) or Steve Slaunwhite (for the business of copywriting).

Because these people have made resources of their websites. And by extension, their businesses. Last I checked, none of them are hurting either!

There’s no high ground in the term “thought leader.” Readers don’t care. They DO care about good resources. Look at social media – people share resources all the time, every day. Isn’t that a more powerful marketing approach than using jargon?

Look at your content. Ask yourself: “Is this something the reader can use? How? When?” If your content answers those questions, you have the makings of a resource.

What could your business be a resource for? A product you made? A specific audience? A region?

(DISCLAIMER: I wrote this post as a comment on the CS group discussion. These opinions are my own and are NOT intended as a reflection of the group. It was a great discussion!)

 Posted by at 1:19 pm  Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

What’s a “BOG” and How Does it Relate to Content Creation?

 Confusing Content, Content Creation, Content Marketing, Web Writing, Website Content  No Responses »
Aug 182011
 

I finally decided on what I want to call my “best practice alternative” concept.

I’ll call them Business Operating Guidelines. Or…

BOGs.

This is important because, for one, it’s an easy-to-recognize acronym. Two, it tweaks the brain a little bit.

Admit it, when you read “BOG” you thought of some large murky messy patch of land with lots of vegetation and mud that wants to eat you.

(Come to think of it, that’s a lot like the content on most websites.)

So, to poke a little fun at all the Confusing Content out there, I’m naming my Business Operating Guidelines concept BOGs.

BOGs are an alternative to this scenario:
1. Company puts the phrase “best practices” in their website content.
2. Company doesn’t bother adding details of how they actually work with customers.
3. Company wonders why people ask them how they operate. Over and over.

By creating your own BOGs, your own operating guidelines, you can differentiate yourself in your industry. And carve out the beginnings of trust with your audience.

Next week I’ll post a how-to on creating your own BOGs. And how to avoid getting BOGged down in the details.

(Sorry, had to.)

What do you think? Decent enough term to add to the business lexicon?

 

 Posted by at 12:17 pm  Tagged with: , , , , ,

Is Your Content Too “Integrated” For Readers to Grasp?

 BFC Blog, Confusing Content, Content Creation, Content Marketing, Website Content, White Papers  No Responses »
Aug 112011
 

The Hidden Dangers of Using Jargon, Example 3

Most of my clients are in tech. So you can bet I’ve seen this next term aaaall the time.

Integrated. You’ve seen this too, I’ll bet. It started out in IT copy, with the common perception of “one or more software applications working together.”

Integrated software (MS Office). Integrated database (built into a CMS). Simple, right? It actually makes sense there. You know what to expect.

But now, it shows up everywhere. “Integrated” archive systems. “Integrated” project delivery. I don’t even know what that second one is supposed to mean!

All this variance means one thing. The term “integrated” is now overused. And that’s harmful to your website.

What’s the Harm? How About Mind-Boggling Your Reader?

The hidden danger in using “integrated” is that you force your reader’s thought process to jam on the brakes.

When you overuse a jargon term, it loses the word’s original effectiveness. Especially when taken outside its original industry context. Meaning changes, depending on the new context.

And even that context may not always be clear. So your reader has to stop and think.

Which means you’re dangerously close to losing them.

Integrated Sales Metrics Forecaster? I Just Wanted a Forum Builder. Run Away!

“…integrated software that leans and automates operational, administrative and logistic processes, saving thousands of dollars.”

I didn’t make that up. It came from an actual website. Someone wrote it into their content.

Readers see this sort of thing and think either:

“I don’t know what they mean here.”
OR
“Wait, what? That doesn’t make sense [from my point of view]!”

Either way, what happens?
Their train of thought is derailed.

This is a hidden danger to YOU, not to them. They can just hit Back & look elsewhere.

You have just suffered a lost reader. Who came out negative in this equation?

I Know It Hurts, but Write it Out Anyway

Instead of writing:
“XYZ is an integrated solution for data corruption scenarios, blah-blah-blah…”

Try the long approach in your content. For instance,
“X is a collection of software applications for tackling the data corruption problem.
Application #1 handles file backups…
Application #2 performs a system scan…”
Etc.

You’ll need to write a few more lines. Maybe. But your content will be that much clearer.

The reader’s brain won’t crash into the front of their skull. It’ll just keep chugging down the page.

What’s another example of mind-boggling jargon you’d love to eradicate?

 Posted by at 11:29 am  Tagged with: , , , , ,

Why “Best Practices” Need to Go Away

 BFC Blog, Case Studies, Confusing Content, Content Creation, Content Marketing, Web Writing, Website Content, White Papers  1 Response »
Jul 142011
 

The Hidden Dangers of Using Jargon, Example 2

Early on in my copywriting career, I went to a meeting with a prospective new client. Small software firm. We talked project goals, audience, and so on.

Then my contact (the VP of sales) said, “And make sure to note that we conform to best practices.”

I stopped. “What do you mean?”

I honestly had no idea. I thought he’d explain.

Instead he replied, “Huh?”

I asked again. “What do you mean by ‘best practices?’ Can you describe some of them for me?”

Now I admit, I was fishing here. I didn’t even know what the phrase meant. Apparently, neither did they. He couldn’t give me an answer!

They just expected me to recognize and know the term “best practices.” Jargon alert!

The Danger in Using Best Practices: Assumption

Like this client, if you use “best practices” in your content, you’re assuming. Assuming the reader knows exactly what you mean. So you don’t have to specify your actual practices.

See why it’s a dangerous assumption? There’s no guarantee the reader will know what you mean. You’ve left a hole in their user experience.

What Does “Best Practices” Mean Anyway?

Exactly what ARE “best practices?” I still can’t find a clear example. Best I could locate was a series of infographics in Google. The most common ‘practices’ there were:

  • Find the medium between price, customer service and convenience
  • Stay on top of (our) industry
  • Confidence in our product
  • Make customers happy

News flash. EVERYONE wants to abide by *those* practices!

Nobody wants to have anything less than “best practices.” So why do we use the term? It’s become so universal it barely has meaning. Whatever meaning there was has been flooded away by its rampant overuse in business content.

My thought is that businesses only use it out of fear. Fear of someone out there thinking they’re NOT the best in ALL their practices! Gasp!

No. It’s just jargon now.

Time for an alternative.

The Alternative to Jargon: Clarify Your Actual Practices

Instead of sticking jargon like “best practices” into your content, try this:
Clarify your actual day-to-day practices. Split the whole idea out by industry.

You wouldn’t expect a software development firm to have the same practices as an auto parts manufacturer, would you?

A few industries do this already. Creating practices unique to their products and their standards. This Quora answer by Greg Lindahl is a good illustration of practices for software deployment.

I’d even suggest adopting a new, more specific term. Like, “X Industry Business Guidelines” or “X Corp. Operating Policies.”

That way you have to write things out. Be clear in what your readers (and clients) should expect.

Accountability, folks. It starts in your content. Not in jargon like “best practices.”

 

I’ll expand on this idea in a later post. Maybe write up a set of guidelines…for making guidelines. (Very meta, huh?)

What would be on your ‘industry business guidelines’ list?

 Posted by at 11:34 am  Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

The Hidden Dangers of Using Jargon – Example 1

 BFC Blog, Confusing Content, Content Creation, Persuasion Techniques, Web Writing  No Responses »
Jun 302011
 

I saw this the other day:
How to Use Jargon and the Dangers of Doing So – Bedell Communications

Good list. Covers the basics nicely.

I thought about the terms for a little bit. You could pick any one of them out, ask ten people what it means, and get ten different answers. They seem designed to cause confusion.

But that’s not the worst of it.

Jargon Becomes Dangerous in the Reader’s Mind

Many jargon terms carry certain impressions. Impressions readers automatically call to mind when they see these terms.

Most of the time it’s subconscious. Sometimes it doesn’t happen at all. But either way, you have no control over their reaction.

Only over using the jargon.

With this in mind, I decided to write a post series on jargon. And these ‘hidden dangers’ brewing in readers’ minds.

Hopefully you’ll see enough reason to avoid using them in your content from now on.

(Before I give the first example, let me make a differentiation: I’m talking about ‘marketing jargon’ here. NOT ‘industry jargon’ – sometimes that can be very helpful! Remember, only talking ‘marketing jargon’ here.)

Example #1 – “Industry-Leading”

My first example will be the term “industry-leading.” You’ll usually see it in sentences like these:

* Our industry-leading product line gives you a whole new experience in buying software!
* XYZ Corp. has been an industry leader in plastics manufacturing for 12 years.

Problem number 1.

If you have to make this claim, you’re lying to the reader.

If you ARE the industry leader, you don’t need to say it. Others will say it for you – in mainstream media, in the blogosphere & in social media. Sit back and watch. (Once the customers are happy of course!)

If you AREN’T, and you use the term, this is the impression that forms in a reader’s mind:

“Who are they trying to convince here? Me or them? I don’t buy it.”

Your trust factor just took a hit.

From that point on, there’s a veil of suspicion floating between the screen and your readers’ eyes.

They might even call you out online. Then where are you? Stuck defending an indefensible position.

If you aren’t an industry leader (yet), try one of these approaches:

–Invent a new industry. Characterize your business as the first of a new type. (This takes work – lot of networking, lot of promotion, lot of patience. But it’s done all the time.)

–Go for the underdog position. People DO like rooting for underdogs. Works well for startups.

Think About the Readers’ Impressions

Remember, one purpose of content is to have a conversation with the reader. What kind of conversation are THEY seeing?

Back next time with more dangers hidden…in JARGON! (*Horror film music!*)

 Posted by at 2:13 pm  Tagged with: , , , ,
 Newer Entries
© 2012 Blue Ferret Communications Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha