There are two problems with writing in a way that is complex and self-serving.
The first problem is that people will not understand.
The second problem is that people will not raise their hands to tell you they did not understand. You’ll go home thinking everything is clear. And you’ll be left wondering why you are not achieving what you were expecting to achieve.
Imagine if you would have to act as the perfect employee to impress your boss and at the same time as a lazy employee to get along with your peers. If you would have to pretend to be the family man at home and at the same time the ruthless playboy with your friends. If you would have to be sloppy and quick at work and at the same time meticulous and detailed in your free time.
At best, everyone (including you) would have some serious issues figuring out who you are.
This is the same impression many B2B companies give.
They have one story for the investors, one for the customers, one for the partners, one for the analysts. Each department tells it in a different way, using different language, and focusing on different themes. The result is total confusion.
If you want your brand to be authentic, define what that means, check regularly whether the definition is still relevant, and stick to it.
We are social. And we are used to communicate through speaking. We talk to those we know, we catch hints on their understanding, we monitor their behaviour, their eyes, their face, their expression. We are asked to clarify when something is not clear, and we can then continue.
With writing, though, everything is more complicated. The reader exists only in our imagination. And to ensure that communication actually happens, we need to take some extra care.
It is not about following a list of rules and directives.
It is about having a good understanding of the make-believe world in which we pretend to communicate.
To achieve such understanding, classic style can be helpful.
The guiding metaphor of classic style is seeing the world. The writer can see something that the reader has not yet noticed, and he orients the reader’s gaze so that she can see it for herself. The purpose of writing is presentation, and its motive is disinterested truth. It succeeds when it aligns language with the truth, the proof of success being clarity and simplicity. The truth can be known, and is not the same as the language that reveals it; prose is a window onto the world. The writer knows the truth before putting it into words; he is not using the occasion of writing to sort out what he thinks. Nor does the writer of classic prose have to argue for the truth; he just needs to present it.
Steven Pinker, The Sense of Style
Classic style makes the reader feel like a genius. The goal is to make it seem as if the writer’s thoughts were fully formed before they were put into words.
Classic style is about:
Cutting an argument to its essentials;
Narrating it in an orderly sequence;
Illustrating it with analogies that are both familiar and accurate.
This is made more difficult by the curse of knowledge, and particularly by chunking – when we put together ideas and concepts so that they are easier to memorize -, and by functional fixity – the more we become familiar with something, the less we think about what it looks like and what it is made of.
We are primates, with a third of our brains dedicated to vision, and large swaths devoted to touch, hearing, motion, and space. For us to go from “I think I understand” to “I understand,” we need to see the sights and feel the motions. Many experiments have shown that readers understand and remember material far better when it is expressed in concrete language that allows them to form visual images.
Steven Pinker, The Sense of Style
There are things we can do to become better writers.
Reading is the essence of good writing, and we should take the habit of lingering over good writing when we find it – what makes it so good and memorable?
Have somebody, possibly from your audience, read what you wrote.
Read what you wrote out loud.
Re-read what you wrote after some time has passed.
Right-branching – In Sophocles’ play, Oedipus married his mother.
Left-branching – Admitted Olympic skater Nancy Kerrigan attacker Brian Sean Griffith dies.
Center-embedded construction – The view that beating a third-rate Serbian military that for the third time in a decade is brutally targeting civilians is hardly worth the effort is not based on a lack of understanding of what is occurring on the ground.
Before adding something to a sentence, make sure that what comes first is clear – keeping sentences open for too long puts a strain on the reader. Also, save the heaviest for last (topic, then comment; given, then new).
Use similar sentence structures to make it easier for the reader – e.g., avoid changing the subject from one sentence to the other, or going from active to passive voice.
Ensure coherence throughout the text by
introducing the topic early;
stating the point (what you are trying to accomplish) early;
using indefinite (e.g., an Englishman) first, then definite (e.g., the Englishman, him, he) to refer to the same;
using the same form to refer to the same thing – being mindful of avoiding too much repetition;
connecting ideas and thoughts with examples, explanations, sequences, causes, effects.
Look things up, as memory is fallible.
Have sound arguments, that can easily be verifiable independently by the reader.
Don’t confuse an anecdote or personal experience with the state of the world.
Understand that disagreement and criticism are ok, and it is not the role of the writer to prove everybody wrong, or lazy, or stupid, or motivated by the wrong values and principles.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is an extremely popular experiment in social psychology. It featured normal people taking on the role of prisoners and guards. And most importantly, it featured fights, abuse, dehumanization, nervous breakdowns, bullying, and more. Despite a series of dubious practices, for decades it was considered a legitimate study.
The BBC Prison Study is a not-quite-as-popular experiment in social psychology. It featured normal people taking on the role of prisoners and guards. And most importantly, it featured camaraderie, compassion, some moderate conflict over food, negotiation, the institution of a commune, and long discussions on how to govern the whole group. Despite the fact it was reality TV, it led to a number of academic papers that were eventually accepted in official psychology curricula.
The point is, not always the story that is closer to facts and reality is the most popular. A story just has to be repeated enough times to become plausible, and when that happens, it is very difficult to later convince people it was a hoax, and actually things work in a different way.
This is something we know.
And it is our responsibility as marketers, advertisers, communicators, and change-seekers, to use such power with great care.
Who do you go to when a new page needs to be added to the website? When a campaign is not performing well and needs changes? When you do not know if a campaign is performing well? When your new service might benefit from a repositioning? When you are considering whether to enter a new market? When a new policy needs to be reviewed?
The point is, it can’t be always the same person. That creates bottlenecks, and at the end of the day one person cannot have all the answers. Also, it can’t always be a group of people (typically the same, the management team). Seeking buy-in from everybody is in itself a bottleneck, and somebody who is good at product development is probably not the best person to advise on brand strategy.
Who is responsible for what – that is something that, as a leader, you need to figure out early on.
Once you have done that, once you have trusted somebody to make decisions, once you have agreed on how you are going to be kept in the loop, once you have defined the metrics to track to measure progress.
Just get out of the way.
"There. That is much simpler." – says no one after having the whole executive team share their opinion on the homepage headline.