Today, I spoke with a decent young bloke whose Dublin-based company is starting to offer a product for sale. To illustrate what he was talking about, he pointed me to the company's website and sent me some information about what the product does.
And I could barely understand a word.
All of the literature was crammed with generic IT phrases and descriptions that could apply to dozens of different products or services.
I rang him back to tell him this and he got a bit upset. He has put a lot of work into this launch and the last thing he wanted to hear was that the copy is crap and too generic.
I ended up emailing him a few paragraphs and bullet points on what might be a clearer explanation of his firm's product.
He seemed delighted with this. But all I did was to describe the product's application in the same way that he himself might describe it to his brother or sister (as opposed to an industry contact like me).
Why couldn't he have done this himself? Because business people and IT developers are not especially lucid or clear. They make assumptions about the adoption and use of industry terminology.
Because of this, they often undersell themselves and their services. Their websites, emails and sales pitches are full of nondescript, unfocused, jargon-centric language.
Editors like me get discouraged from trying to figure out what exactly the company does. Half the time, we abandon the search, switching to another, clearer, example.
Don't let your company fall into this trap. Go to your firm's website right now. Get a friend who is outside your industry to read it. Ask them whether they understand what you sell (and ask them to be honest).
If you think your literature needs to be revamped, here are five tips to improve the impact your literature will have on journalists and on potential customers. (If you want more tips on what works for us in the media, I have other posts here, here, here and here.)
1. Use widely understood English
Even the best tech websites in the world use simple English. Because they sell to companies who prefer reading simple English. And they still convey an accurate picture of what it is they do. They don't revert to sentences with 35 words in them. They don't revert to industry jargon. Take a leaf out of their book: don't use sentences such as: "enabling fulfilment processes to be reintegrated into your service-centric departments". It just sounds bland and is applicable to a dozen different technologies.
2. Refer to examples as much as you can
And if you don't have an actual customer case study, write about a model customer. Write in plain English about what the customer does. Explain in plain English at what stage your product enters the scene and what process it replaces. You can rarely have too many examples of your product in action: more than anything, that's what a reader (and, presumably, a prospective customer) want to see to get a handle on what exactly you can offer.
3. Keep things concise on page 1, but give lots of detail on page 2, 3, 4 and 10
We only need the concise overview on the front page (or at the top of the email). But by all means get into specifics -- at length -- deeper into the literature. If my interest is aroused, I will want to discover a lot more about the product or service. And the more specific detail you can offer, the better.
4. Avoid generic pictures on your website
Especially one of some smiling Austrian girl with a headset on. This could have been lifted and shows no effort whatsoever on your part. Even a photo of your office, or your directors, is better than a generic pic.
5. Give us as much information on your background as possible
We want to know as much as possible about the people behind the product. We want to know where they come from, what their business record is, what their qualifications are. This shows a lot of confidence and trustworthiness. And anyway, we'll probably Google you if we're interested.
Nice advice here. Waffling is one of my main problems.
Posted by: Joe Scanlon | May 13, 2009 at 03:14 PM
"I ended up emailing him a few paragraphs and bullet points on what might be a clearer explanation of his firm's product."
That was very decent of you, I suspect most editors wouldn't have bothered. He must have caught you when you were in a good mood, fair dues to him.
Posted by: Orlaith | May 13, 2009 at 03:23 PM
Orlaith,
You're right. Half the time I'd've probably not bothered. But this guy just seemed like he'd poured his heart into it, genuinely. And it took me all of 20 minutes to restructure it. So why the hell not? Hardly a major undertaking on my part.
Joe, fair play to you for your candour (I'm not saying you do waffle, by the way).
Posted by: Adrian Weckler | May 13, 2009 at 05:02 PM
So thank god for PR companies then, eh Adrian?
All you did for that guy is what we do for companies every day.
and yet you routinely treat PR firms like crap...
Posted by: Daniel Coyne | May 14, 2009 at 08:31 PM