Totally agree and well said. You've hit on my major frustration with both Fried and Seth Godin. It's almost snobbery. Expecting a level of fun and "humanness" from ALL businesses when really that only applies to a scarce few.
That's why we see the same few examples over and over again.
Cupcake stores, sneaker companies, farms, trendy software firms, design companies, etc. etc.
Of course they are going to have interesting language; they're emotional products and services.
But that's not applicable to server technology, serious consulting firms, medical, accounting, law, 99% of B2B and a slew of other types of companies.
The examples he gives are "fun" and "human" but the point he makes can be broadened out. Much business writing is simply lazy and cliched. This is compounded by the fact often a company won't want to describe its products in simple, accessible terms because the products need to be made to sound complex, mysterious, worth a lot of you money. So you tend to get terminology inflation.
If you're going to be that literal about it, all businesses are run by and comprised of humans, so how could they be anything other than human?
I'm talking about the idea that everything needs to be friendly, personal, casual, charming, quirky, and the like. The reason that it shouldn't be that way is that it's not always appropriate or useful.
Because what constitutes personal and friendly is context dependent and highly variable from one person to another.
Neutral is often the right way to go.
What kind of language should the American Cancer Society use? What about the Department of Justice? How about an industrial farming equipment manufacturer?
What some would find amusing, some would find a waste of time and frustrating, and some would find insulting or offensive. That's fine when your target market is pretty much on the same page about that stuff. Just go after them and offend all the others.
But it's not as good when that market is not.
With certain types of businesses, the target market is easier to cluster around some style choices. With other types, either the market or the subject-matter doesn't lend itself to friendly and personal.
In general, the writing across the board for this stuff could be BETTER but that's not the same thing as it being more personal and more friendly. That link to Epic below shows some good copywriting that's not either, but it's clear and forceful and just the right tone.
I can point you to a lot of people who would never go to Woot because they feel uncomfortable with that particular brand of quirky. They are losing out on sales because of it, but they are hoping that the sales they gain will offset the ones they lose.
They can do that because they have no aspirations to be amazon.com. Microsoft cannot do that. ERPs shouldn't do this - quirky is not what makes you comfortable when dealing with business-critical software. Heck, personal and friendly may not be! (If you've ever used IFS...)
Comments
Totally agree and well said. You've hit on my major frustration with both Fried and Seth Godin. It's almost snobbery. Expecting a level of fun and "humanness" from ALL businesses when really that only applies to a scarce few.
That's why we see the same few examples over and over again.
Cupcake stores, sneaker companies, farms, trendy software firms, design companies, etc. etc.
Of course they are going to have interesting language; they're emotional products and services.
But that's not applicable to server technology, serious consulting firms, medical, accounting, law, 99% of B2B and a slew of other types of companies.
The examples he gives are "fun" and "human" but the point he makes can be broadened out. Much business writing is simply lazy and cliched. This is compounded by the fact often a company won't want to describe its products in simple, accessible terms because the products need to be made to sound complex, mysterious, worth a lot of you money. So you tend to get terminology inflation.
True, but that's a different post/article that he didn't write.
In fact, your final sentence there would make for a much more interesting article than, "Business language suuuucks."
Why shouldn't "humanness" be a part of all businesses? Last time I checked, humans make up the majority of your business' customers.
I have it in quotes for a reason.
If you're going to be that literal about it, all businesses are run by and comprised of humans, so how could they be anything other than human?
I'm talking about the idea that everything needs to be friendly, personal, casual, charming, quirky, and the like. The reason that it shouldn't be that way is that it's not always appropriate or useful.
The reason that it shouldn't be that way is that it's not always appropriate or useful.
Why not? I hate dealing with companies that aren't personal and friendly. I am not a robot.
Because what constitutes personal and friendly is context dependent and highly variable from one person to another.
Neutral is often the right way to go.
What kind of language should the American Cancer Society use? What about the Department of Justice? How about an industrial farming equipment manufacturer?
What some would find amusing, some would find a waste of time and frustrating, and some would find insulting or offensive. That's fine when your target market is pretty much on the same page about that stuff. Just go after them and offend all the others.
But it's not as good when that market is not.
With certain types of businesses, the target market is easier to cluster around some style choices. With other types, either the market or the subject-matter doesn't lend itself to friendly and personal.
In general, the writing across the board for this stuff could be BETTER but that's not the same thing as it being more personal and more friendly. That link to Epic below shows some good copywriting that's not either, but it's clear and forceful and just the right tone.
I can point you to a lot of people who would never go to Woot because they feel uncomfortable with that particular brand of quirky. They are losing out on sales because of it, but they are hoping that the sales they gain will offset the ones they lose.
They can do that because they have no aspirations to be amazon.com. Microsoft cannot do that. ERPs shouldn't do this - quirky is not what makes you comfortable when dealing with business-critical software. Heck, personal and friendly may not be! (If you've ever used IFS...)