<?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; Structuring copy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.plain-text.co.uk/tag/structuring-copy/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.plain-text.co.uk</link>
	<description>Copywriting that means business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:20:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>One way to make web writing work better</title>
		<link>http://www.plain-text.co.uk/one-way-make-web-writing-work-better</link>
		<comments>http://www.plain-text.co.uk/one-way-make-web-writing-work-better#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:57:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul W</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Great writing picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web copy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Powerful copywriting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Structuring copy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plain-text.co.uk/?p=692</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Monday Note's layout has lessons to teach us all about how to make online writing compelling.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Plain Text has long been a fan of<a href="http://www.mondaynote.com/" target="_blank"> Monday Note</a>, the blog run by writer and consultant Frédéric Filloux and VC/former Apple exec Jean-Louis Gassée. It&#8217;s a lot to do with the writing, of course, which is stylish, compelling and provocative. And it covers subject areas of interest to any Mac-using former media biz employee who&#8217;s looking for some reliable, interesting insights.</p>
<p>But what also sets Monday Note apart is its formatting. Perhaps here at Plain Text we just don&#8217;t read enough blogs, but I don&#8217;t recall seeing others that use this one&#8217;s simple technique of starting paragraphs, and major points in the story, with a sentence or a few words in bold.</p>
<p><strong>It&#8217;s simple, but using bold this way really works.</strong> Having it at the start of the para makes it somehow more convincing, more credible than if it were a subhead. And Gassée and Filloux make sure that whatever&#8217;s in bold is also properly interesting, usually a short, attention-grabbing sentence. It draws the eye down the page and through the argument.</p>
<p>Maybe it&#8217;s the weight of what they write that makes it work. But these bold beginnings, together with some choppy paragraphs and a smattering of images, make their long, involved posts a joy to read.</p>
<p>Contrast this with &#8216;<a href="http://www.economist.com/node/17723223" target="_blank">traditionally&#8217; formatted pieces</a> (or my personal pet peeve, the <a href="http://" target="_blank">multi-web page mega-article</a>) where no matter skillful the writer, it still seems harder to appreciate their words online than in print.</p>
<p><strong>Let&#8217;s hope they haven&#8217;t been pesky and copyrighted the technique.</strong> Because it really works &#8211; and could maybe help businesses to cheer up some of their &#8216;thought leadership&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.plain-text.co.uk/one-way-make-web-writing-work-better/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Issue 7, May 2003</title>
		<link>http://www.plain-text.co.uk/issue-7-may-2003</link>
		<comments>http://www.plain-text.co.uk/issue-7-may-2003#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2003 22:26:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul W</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Plain Text Gazette]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Structuring copy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plain-text.co.uk/wp_cms/?p=233</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[================================================
THE PLAIN TEXT GAZETTE &#8211; Issue 7, May 2003
================================================
Contents
&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;
* Editorial
* Order, order! The importance of structure in business writing
* Words We Hate: the list begins
Editorial
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;
Welcome to the springtime Plain Text Gazette. In the spirit of the season&#8217;s theme of new growth and new beginnings, the Gazette will henceforth be taking a new tack. We&#8217;ve exhausted [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>================================================<br />
THE PLAIN TEXT GAZETTE &#8211; Issue 7, May 2003<br />
================================================</p>
<p>Contents<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;</p>
<p>* Editorial<br />
* Order, order! The importance of structure in business writing<br />
* Words We Hate: the list begins</p>
<p>Editorial<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;</p>
<p>Welcome to the springtime Plain Text Gazette. In the spirit of the season&#8217;s theme of new growth and new beginnings, the Gazette will henceforth be taking a new tack. We&#8217;ve exhausted the &#8216;When Communication Doesn&#8217;t&#8217; series, having briefly written about six different types of written business communication: <a href="http://www.plain-text.co.uk/the-plain-text-gazette-issue-1-september-2001">press releases</a>, <a href="http://www.plain-text.co.uk/issue-2-december-2001">presentations</a>, <a href="http://www.plain-text.co.uk/issue-3-may-2002">case studies</a>, <a href="http://www.plain-text.co.uk/issue-4-september-2002">brochures</a>, <a href="http://www.plain-text.co.uk/issue-5-december-2002">web writing</a> and <a href="http://www.plain-text.co.uk/issue-6-march-2003">letters and emails</a>. .</p>
<p>From this issue on, we&#8217;ll take a look at different themes in business writing, starting with some observations on the importance of structure. We also indulge in some much-needed catharsis (&#8217;a purging of the effects of a pent-up emotion and repressed thoughts&#8217;, according to Chambers) as we let rip in a reasoned, yet spirited way, at words we hate.</p>
<p>Before we kick off, though, it&#8217;s been encouraging to note that the issue of good writing in business seems to be getting more attention. In an <a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,953281,00.html" target="_blank">interesting piece</a> subtitled &#8216;Firms must ditch jargon and do some plain speaking&#8217;, Simon Caulkin of the UK&#8217;s Observer newspaper makes a connection between the death of old-style, &#8216;broadcast&#8217; marketing and the need for companies to pay more attention to language. He points out a contradiction that we continually cite: &#8220;(organisations) spend billions on advertising and brand building. Yet so often their words destroy the carefully constructed image.&#8221;</p>
<p>Keep it plain,</p>
<p>The Editors</p>
<p><a id="structure" name="structure"></a>Order, order! The importance of structure in business writing<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-</p>
<p>Is it just me, or is the weather forecast always boring? I&#8217;m a cyclist and motorcyclist, occasional gardener and a practitioner of outdoor pursuits. The weather forecast is therefore of great importance and should hold my attention like a gripping thriller. Yet no matter how animated and eccentric the presenter, or how apocalyptic the projected weather conditions, I almost always drift off half way through. What&#8217;s going on?</p>
<p>I think the weather forecast bores me (and many others) because it ignores the primary concern of its audience. We want to know one simple thing: what&#8217;s the weather going to be like where we are now, or where we&#8217;re going? The weather people, however, don&#8217;t seem to want to tell us this. They&#8217;re focused, understandably, on meteorology, which in the British Isles is a mightily complex and unpredictable thing. They want to tell us about anticyclones and Atlantic lows; they want to share the bigger picture with us. So every forecast is organised differently. Sometimes it starts with the weather in the west; sometimes with the situation in the south.</p>
<p>The upshot is that we get bored waiting to guess when our local area might be mentioned, go out without an umbrella, and get soaked.</p>
<p>But what&#8217;s this got to do with structure? Or business writing, for that matter?</p>
<p>Some of the most effective communications have a recognisable, familiar structure. Think of a newspaper, with its carefully designed layout; a good web page, built so you can find your way around easily; or even a well-delivered presentation, with a beginning, middle and end. With all of these, you always know where you are. With a traditional weather forecast, however, you don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the Plain Text answer. Get the &#8216;big picture&#8217; stuff out of the way first with a quick overview of all that technical meteorological stuff. This will keep the weather geeks happy and can be ignored by everyone else. Then, having chopped the country up into a small number of regions, tell the weather story, region by region, in the same order, every day. That way, we&#8217;ll all know when to listen and when to tune out.</p>
<p>A radical solution? No, we stole it from some other weather people. The UK <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/shipping.shtml" target="_blank">shipping forecast </a>has been done this way for years, illustrating that even when information is a matter of life and death, structure is crucial.</p>
<p>The lesson for business writing is simple. If you&#8217;re communicating regularly with an audience, and you want them to listen, a little bit of structure goes a long way.</p>
<p>Words We Hate: the list begins<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;</p>
<p>Performant, adj, (normally of IT &#8217;solutions&#8217;), meaning: &#8216;it works&#8217;<br />
- &#8211; - &#8211; - -</p>
<p>Is it fair to hate &#8216;performant&#8217;? After all, it&#8217;s been used in French since 1968, largely to denote a computer system with high performance, which is pretty much its intended usage and meaning in English.</p>
<p>Its proponents &#8212; and there seem to be a few in the technology world &#8212; would probably defend it as an example of a justifiable neologism, saying that there is no single word that does the same job. They might say that such linguistic development is a necessary accompaniment to the development of things that need to be described.</p>
<p>We don&#8217;t care. You can&#8217;t just go around slapping on suffixes and brazenly expect the world to say &#8216;Of course!&#8217;. Especially when the world also contains large numbers of people who will say &#8216;Noooooo!&#8217;. Where will it end? Deliverant? Valuising? Serviceative?</p>
<p>Performant is wrong for that reason and many more. It implies something special when all really says is: &#8216;it works&#8217;. It looks silly. But most of all, it implies a secret knowledge on behalf of its user that the humble reader is left to divine: in other words, it&#8217;s jargon. Use it in meetings (when your writing agency is not present), but keep it out of print.</p>
<p>Solution, n (and sometimes v), meaning: &#8216;the answer to a problem&#8217;<br />
- &#8211; - &#8211; -</p>
<p>We know, we know. It&#8217;s a soft target. But we can&#8217;t not hate it. The dreaded &#8217;s&#8217; word plagued the business world well before the technology boom, when it was introduced in order to justify things being more mysterious and/or expensive. Here&#8217;s where it fits in the hierarchy of things companies do:</p>
<p>Product = a thing produced</p>
<p>Service = a product received and paid for on a regular basis, accompanied by some customer support</p>
<p>Solution = a service that has been sprinkled with magic consultancy dust</p>
<p>The problem, of course, is that everything is a solution now. From the postal company&#8217;s &#8216;Delivering Solutions&#8217; &#8212; you know it&#8217;s a play on words but you want scream &#8220;You&#8217;re delivering letters, for @*!% sake!!&#8221; &#8212; to the inspiring &#8216;Solutions for Palletized Distribution&#8217;, we&#8217;ve reached solution saturation point.</p>
<p>Once a word means too many things, it&#8217;s time to move on.</p>
<p>And with that, we&#8217;ll close this issue. As always, keep your comments and suggestions coming and please pass the Plain Text Gazette on to friends and colleagues.</p>
<p>Paul &amp; Paul</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-oOo&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-</p>
<p>© Plain Text Ltd 2003 all rights reserved</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.plain-text.co.uk/issue-7-may-2003/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

