So where does bad copy come from? Sometimes it’s bad writing. Sometimes it’s a bad brief.

Quite a lot of the time, it’s bad attitude. If whoever is reviewing or signing off the copy is thinking solely about what’s great about the product and/or has very rigid views about how things should or should not be written, the effect on clarity can be severe. And somewhere between the first and the final draft, the copy gets beaten up. It’s a bit like the tree swing diagram, which can be adapted for just about any creative discipline from advertising to software engineering.

Because we can’t draw,  we thought we would have a go at doing a written illustration of what happens to make good business writing go bad. It’s a fictional, highly simplified but not entirely unrealistic example of what we could impolitely call the ‘bullshitification’ process.

Here’s the first draft, which the copywriter thinks pretty much nails it:

CustomerLocate clean

And here are the comments, from an internal executive who we’ll call ‘John Doe’. As you’ll see, John has strong views about the first draft. Too much about benefits, not enough about the product. And a flip tone of voice that just doesn’t convey the gravity of the company’s serious products.

CustomerLocate commented

And the finished article, delivered to a delighted John Doe by a weeping copywriter.

CustomerLocate final

Next time come you across some impenetrable marketing copy, an overlong and self-congratulatory press release or website that makes you wonder why you visited it, chances are it could be because ultimately, the customer is always right.

As in years past, hapless organisations are made to stand in the naughty corner for their terrible crimes against language. This year it’s the Foreign & Commonwealth office’s turn to wear the dunce’s cap, with this somewhat verbose job ad copy:

“Maintenance and development of the UK narrative around FCO and its value proposition, using insights from research and evaluation as well as knowledge of the evolving FCO strategy to inform resonant messaging.”

Showing instant remorse in the face of its public beasting, the FCO admitted that what it really meant was:

“Work out better ways of telling people what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does.”

Thing is, do we all really want to live in a world that’s as plain as this? ‘Plain’, to me, means clear to its audience. Sure, there are times when universal clarity of meaning is the primary concern. Public notices or instruction manuals for nuclear warheads, for example.

There’s a risk, though, that by boiling everything down to the plainest common denominator, we make language dull.

This all may sound a bit rich coming from the co-founder of ‘Plain’ Text. But we’ve evolved a bit from our original ‘all jargon is bad’ standpoint. We accept that language is dynamic and some of its rules are there to be broken. Most importantly, in our business of commercial writing, we know that different readers respond to different styles. What’s barely comprehensible to one person may be music to the ears of another, as I’m reminded when reading high-octane erudition in the London Review of Books .

Anyone in the communications business would know exactly what the FCO wanted with its job ad (although personally I’d have added a comma after ’strategy’). Does it really matter that the Plain English campaign has a problem with it? Would the FCO attract better candidates with its ‘Janet and John’ version?

It’s just boring to reduce language to its simplest possible form. Being interesting is a better way to stand out. And that means tailoring your words to your audience, not to everybody.

OK, so we once thought otherwise (that post actually dates back to 2002) and had fun at its expense. But it’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 here, and  here for examples) is getting really dull.

And also because it’s a bit like the Dawkinsian view of religion, with its unavoidable subtext that all practitioners are stupid. Yes, there are some daft people in corporate life — but no more so than anywhere else.

Why should we now embrace office jargon? Because it’s nothing more than useful shorthand, ensuring that things are quickly communicated and understood. Take ‘reach out’, as in ‘I’ll reach out to Jim about this’. *God* I hate that phrase. However it means a lot more than just ‘contact’; and a little bit more than ‘get in touch with’. It’s actually quite handy, if you can bear to use it – and in a largeish organisation, once everyone’s accepted it, it no longer grates. Only when such terms escape into the outside world do they cause alarm.

Check out this list of business-speak terms, found in an idle Google search. The ‘translations’ clearly show that many of the dreaded buzzphrases are pretty efficient at conveying meaning. Whilst I’m no fan of ‘low-hanging fruit’, it’s surely preferable to ‘the bits that can be done quickly and easily but still have an effect.’

Are we jumping the shark? Net net, I’d say we’re just going forward.