<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Plain Text &#187; Business jargon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.plain-text.co.uk/category/business-jargon/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.plain-text.co.uk</link>
	<description>Copywriting that means business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:39:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Dissing office jargon is so last decade</title>
		<link>http://www.plain-text.co.uk/dissing-office-jargon-is-so-last-decade</link>
		<comments>http://www.plain-text.co.uk/dissing-office-jargon-is-so-last-decade#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:28:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul W</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business jargon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plain-text.co.uk/?p=444</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Business jargon is good. There, we've said it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Business jargon is good. There, we&#8217;ve said it.</p>
<p>OK, so we once <a href="http://www.plain-text.co.uk/business-speak" target="_blank">thought otherwise</a> (that post actually dates back to 2002) and had fun at its expense. But it&#8217;s time to take a fresh look. Particularly because the annual procession of flimsy PR campaigns built on lazy digs at the latest business phrase (see <a href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Jargon-Lets-Cut-To-The-Chase-And-Get-Back-To-Normal-English-Office-Workers-Urged/Article/201001215516908?f=rss" target="_blank">here</a>, and  <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/push-the-needle-you-desk-jockey-a-guide-to-office-speak-760164.html" target="_blank">here</a> for examples) is getting really dull.</p>
<p>And also because it&#8217;s a bit like the <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/055277331X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1264692464&amp;sr=1-1" target="_blank">Dawkinsian view of religion</a>, with its unavoidable subtext that all practitioners are stupid. Yes, there are some daft people in corporate life &#8212; but no more so than anywhere else.</p>
<p>Why should we now embrace office jargon? Because it&#8217;s nothing more than useful shorthand, ensuring that things are quickly communicated and understood. Take &#8216;reach out&#8217;, as in &#8216;I&#8217;ll reach out to Jim about this&#8217;. *God* I hate that phrase. However it means a lot more than just &#8216;contact&#8217;; and a little bit more than &#8216;get in touch with&#8217;. It&#8217;s actually quite handy, if you can bear to use it &#8211; and in a largeish organisation, once everyone&#8217;s accepted it, it no longer grates. Only when such terms escape into the outside world do they cause alarm.</p>
<p>Check out this<a href="http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/bizphrases.php" target="_blank"> list of business-speak terms</a>, found in an idle Google search. The &#8216;translations&#8217; clearly show that many of the dreaded buzzphrases are pretty efficient at conveying meaning. Whilst I&#8217;m no fan of &#8216;low-hanging fruit&#8217;, it&#8217;s surely preferable to &#8216;the bits that can be done quickly and easily but still have an effect.&#8217;</p>
<p>Are we <em>jumping the shark</em>? <em>Net net</em>, I&#8217;d say we&#8217;re just <em>going forward</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.plain-text.co.uk/dissing-office-jargon-is-so-last-decade/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
