Already a member?
Sign in
Welcome! Wikis are websites that everyone can build together. It's easy!
Home
The Harvard Business Review receives hundreds of unsolicited pitches each for articles year from companies that are in the business of giving advice --- consulting firms. Perhaps in no other industry has the move to an information economy changed the style and volume of business writing.
In the consulting industry, clear business writing can affect the bottom line and good marketers are out to prove it.
In a recent study by the Bloom Group, 109 consulting firms rated strong intellectual capital as the highest ranking success factor for marketing effectiveness. As as a term, intellectual capital basically means "the superior ideas we have that others don't." Marketers identify real intellectual capital and turn some of these ideas into marketing communications or thought leadership. (For more about the study, see "Consulting Magazine", Consultants on Consulting -- It's-The-Thought-That-Counts)
Despite the importance of intellectual capital, most companies participating in the study rated themselves as only average at producing thought leadership pieces (in any form) that actually help to sell business. Part of the trouble is that in such a mass-customized market, finding new and relevant messages for each audience is much more difficult than it has been in the past. Another factor is that many of these firms are structured as partnerships where the oversimplification of complex issues may put the firm at risk for litigation, or worse, make the consultants seem like they do not understand the complexity of their clients.
Among consultancies, the strongest companies track the performance of their thought leadership pieces such as leads generated, win/loss contributions and revenue contributions. Accountability, however, is likely to mature even among the weak as it becomes easier to track the flow of information out to clients and back again.
For consultancies who have both strong ideas and can communicate them effectively, the success rate is notable. According to the study, up to 58 percent of those who have strong intellectual capital feel they are very effective at using thought leadership to generate awareness and business leads. (See chart for comparison)
A few questions for the class to consider: Where is the real source of the problem with business communications? Is it that the business writing itself is so bad? Or, that companies do not have anything good to say, but hire writers to make them look like they do?
Also, if you check out the wikipedia references, note how vague many of these terms really are.
In the consulting industry, clear business writing can affect the bottom line and good marketers are out to prove it.
In a recent study by the Bloom Group, 109 consulting firms rated strong intellectual capital as the highest ranking success factor for marketing effectiveness. As as a term, intellectual capital basically means "the superior ideas we have that others don't." Marketers identify real intellectual capital and turn some of these ideas into marketing communications or thought leadership. (For more about the study, see "Consulting Magazine", Consultants on Consulting -- It's-The-Thought-That-Counts)
Despite the importance of intellectual capital, most companies participating in the study rated themselves as only average at producing thought leadership pieces (in any form) that actually help to sell business. Part of the trouble is that in such a mass-customized market, finding new and relevant messages for each audience is much more difficult than it has been in the past. Another factor is that many of these firms are structured as partnerships where the oversimplification of complex issues may put the firm at risk for litigation, or worse, make the consultants seem like they do not understand the complexity of their clients.
Among consultancies, the strongest companies track the performance of their thought leadership pieces such as leads generated, win/loss contributions and revenue contributions. Accountability, however, is likely to mature even among the weak as it becomes easier to track the flow of information out to clients and back again.
For consultancies who have both strong ideas and can communicate them effectively, the success rate is notable. According to the study, up to 58 percent of those who have strong intellectual capital feel they are very effective at using thought leadership to generate awareness and business leads. (See chart for comparison)
A few questions for the class to consider: Where is the real source of the problem with business communications? Is it that the business writing itself is so bad? Or, that companies do not have anything good to say, but hire writers to make them look like they do?
Also, if you check out the wikipedia references, note how vague many of these terms really are.
Assumptions about language and globalism
If you assumed that English was going to become the main language of the globalization era, you might be surprised… Yes, the idea of using one language for the myriad of cultures existing on our planet is not a new concept. Individuals have been trying to find a unified tool of communication for centuries. For instance, in 1200, Dante Alighieri, with its revolutionary ouvre, De Vulgari Eloquentia, tried to unify Italy's hundreds of dialects into one simple language for the masses, versus the more difficult and élitarian Latin. Dialects in Italy, though, exist to this day. Nowadays language diversity is fostered by the globalization phenomena. Fluxes of people are constantly moving around the globe following unpredictable currents of migrations. This evolution in a multicultural demography is the source of a continuous language shift. For the above reasons, companies eager to ride the wave of free trade should consider that "global reach or the ability to cross both geographical and cultural borders is something that should presumably include knowledge of and sensitivity to linguistic diversity." (Kelly-Holmes[1], 2006) Companies seeking international development cannot demonstrate a lack of this sensitivity, which might cause ambiguity, incomprehension and consequent obstacles to the company's potential growth. Corporate communication, both on an internal level (within the company's offices located in different countries) and an external one (towards the consumers with instruments such as the internet) has to embrace language diversity. Internal communication, in this contest, defines any sort of language interaction a given company has with branch offices located in a different country. English native speakers cannot assume or expect that the business jargon they commonly use can be completely understood and correctly interpreted by non-native English speakers. As an Italian-born citizen living in an English speaking country and working for an Italian company, I experience instances of communication loss due to misuse of the English language. A simple example is the use of common acronyms that do not translate into the message-receiver mother tongue. Although it might seem shocking, the expression "FYI" is not universally and automatically recognized. Additionally while references to American sports are well accepted in corporate America, they might have a negative impact on translations for international companies. Here is a good example:
The assumption that paper can universally mean newspaper is incorrect. It is unlikely that people living abroad, unless particularly interested in American football, would know the Bears. Idiomatic expressions such as "turning the double play" should not be used in business English, just as complex phrasal verbs can easily be misunderstood. Given that English is the language of conversational business, one might assume that English is also the lingua franca on the internet. However, a study conducted by Professor Holmes at the University of Limerick shows that "while English performs a limited hyper-central function on commercial websites, its prevalence is outweighed by other languages (…). The main challenge to the hyper-centrality of English appears to come from smaller languages which are showing up more frequently in the profile of websites offered by global brands. It is the central languages, particularly of Europe, that are being noticed everyday on the commercial internet website." Holmes noted that "when I began looking at these [global brands'] websites, McDonald's had no website in Arabic at all, however, within a few months, that situation had changed, and the McDonald's Arabia site had appeared (www.mcdonaldsarabia.com). While global brands see the internet as the key to 'conquer' different cultures and markets, they should also realize that one of the effect and condition sine equa non of globalization is language diversity. In conclusion, "language choice and use in multilingual contexts show individuals and communities to be very active agents, whose language practices reveal an incredible capacity to empower themselves where and when it matters most." And most of all "primitive man or speech community, monolingual and monocultural at the core, with ordinary and predictable language and social behaviours is a dying species " (Djité[2], 2006)
Departmental Jargon: Fodder for Silos
Other metaphors are rampant in business. Among the most popular is the silo.Silos are everywhere in business today and many a book and management class exist about how to break them down. Our own beloved IMC program rests on the principle of integration. We have high hopes of breaching the walls that create these silos and prevent departments from working together effectively. Are we succeeding? Upon driving to work on a recent morning, I didn’t see a single tall cylinder popping up amongst the skyscrapers against Chicago’s city landscape.
Silo is defined as the following.[1]:
1. a. A tall cylindrical structure, usually beside a barn, in which fodder is stored. b. A pit dug for the same purpose.
2. An underground shelter for a missile, usually equipped to launch the missile or to raise it into a launching position
The second definition might be a realistic representation of the animosity felt between organizational departments. However, it is the first definition that is actually the most adaptable to our modern-day workplace that rarely sees livestock or real weapons on the premises. The silo is one of modern businesses’ beloved metaphors. It is the conceptual tall cylindrical space to which a particular department’s work is confined. But perhaps the definition is more accurate than it seems. While the barn may be missing, the fodder is not.
Departmental lingo stays particularly fresh within the confines of the silo. As the graduates of IMC champion their way through organizations, breaking down barriers, infiltrating silos, it would behoove us to consider the language we are using to do so. While we are certain to pick up some impressive marketing jargon during our tenure at Northwestern, trendy terminology is the quickest way to reinforce those silo structures and ensure lack of cooperation. The more we talk to the IT department about relationship management, the less likely they are to leave us with any bread crumbs on the web site, no wonder HR is appealing to a headhunter, and the research department is looking for a new logic model altogether.
The primary reason silos exist is poor internal communication. Departments are like miniature countries with their own foreign languages in an organization. As marketing communication professionals, we have a responsibility to promote clear communication, not flaunt our newly acquired words. Integration of marketing across the organization will never truly happen unless we destroy the silos by removing the need for a departmental jargon storage place.
Acronyms clutter corporate communication
| Original statement made by an American speaker based in Chicago | Actual meaning perceived by Italian counterpart based in Venice. |
| "Ok Stefano, I am not going to bring the client the paper every day, because I can get sales from him thanks to the fact that he is a Bear's fan. I will be turning the double play because with one call I will get him and his other partner hooked up with our product -got that?" | OK Stefano, I am not going to bring the client a piece of paper every day, because I can receive sales from him thanks to the fact that he likes bears. I will play twice with him because with one call I will catch him and his other partner hanged up with our product-do you have that? |
[1] Multilingualism and commercial language practices on the internet by Helen Kelly-Holmes, department of Languages and Cultural Studies, University of Limerick, Ireland, 2006.
[2] Shifts in linguistic identities in a global world by Paulin g. Djité, chair of the division of Languages and Linguistics of the University of Western Sidney, 2006.
 You can contribute to this site. Just click EasyEdit and type! Sports talk in the workplace can keep you in the game  While sports may be confusing for cross-cultural communications, knowing your sports lingo can be a competitive advantage in communicating in the regional workplace. Everyone wants to hit a home run for the company. However, one must first keep their eye on the ball and pay close attention to sports analogies in the workplace. Like anything else in life, practice makes perfect. Don't worry if you you sometimes drop the ball. Effectively learning sports analogies is like running a marathon. You need patience because its a long journey to be a master of sports lingo. Also, you may experience a few curve balls and hurdles. Just remember to roll with the punches and keep fighting to effectively communicate your sport metaphor. Sports metaphors can work as long as both parties understand the context. |
Departmental Jargon: Fodder for Silos
Other metaphors are rampant in business. Among the most popular is the silo.Silos are everywhere in business today and many a book and management class exist about how to break them down. Our own beloved IMC program rests on the principle of integration. We have high hopes of breaching the walls that create these silos and prevent departments from working together effectively. Are we succeeding? Upon driving to work on a recent morning, I didn’t see a single tall cylinder popping up amongst the skyscrapers against Chicago’s city landscape.
Silo is defined as the following.[1]:
1. a. A tall cylindrical structure, usually beside a barn, in which fodder is stored. b. A pit dug for the same purpose.
2. An underground shelter for a missile, usually equipped to launch the missile or to raise it into a launching position
The second definition might be a realistic representation of the animosity felt between organizational departments. However, it is the first definition that is actually the most adaptable to our modern-day workplace that rarely sees livestock or real weapons on the premises. The silo is one of modern businesses’ beloved metaphors. It is the conceptual tall cylindrical space to which a particular department’s work is confined. But perhaps the definition is more accurate than it seems. While the barn may be missing, the fodder is not.
Departmental lingo stays particularly fresh within the confines of the silo. As the graduates of IMC champion their way through organizations, breaking down barriers, infiltrating silos, it would behoove us to consider the language we are using to do so. While we are certain to pick up some impressive marketing jargon during our tenure at Northwestern, trendy terminology is the quickest way to reinforce those silo structures and ensure lack of cooperation. The more we talk to the IT department about relationship management, the less likely they are to leave us with any bread crumbs on the web site, no wonder HR is appealing to a headhunter, and the research department is looking for a new logic model altogether.
The primary reason silos exist is poor internal communication. Departments are like miniature countries with their own foreign languages in an organization. As marketing communication professionals, we have a responsibility to promote clear communication, not flaunt our newly acquired words. Integration of marketing across the organization will never truly happen unless we destroy the silos by removing the need for a departmental jargon storage place.
[1] silo. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/silo (accessed: May 21, 2007).
Acronyms clutter corporate communication
Companies do have a lot of interesting things to say. The problem is that they are making their communications hard to understand. The use of technical jargon and acronyms clutters the communications to the point that it is too difficult for the reader to fully understand.
In the prescription drug industry, consumers look to companies to obtain disease-related information on various illnesses and disorders. In this quest for knowledge, consumers hope that they will find something that will help resolve their specific issue.
This process takes consumers through a variety of touch points with companies. Interactions can occur via websites, product brochures and press releases. One can see that the informational sites, such as Web MD, use language that is easily understandable by the majority of the public. Problems arise once we look at the company developed communications.
In an industry where it is assumed that the acronym FDA is understood (it is rarely spelled out in any text), companies have peppered enough acronyms throughout their copy to make an illegible mess out of important information. A visit to one site, www.prevacid.com, shows us the extent of this communication breakdown. Prevacid is a prescription drug to treat heartburn and on its homepage for patients one can find the following acronyms: GERD, NapraPAC, NSAIDs and PREVPAC. Do these acronyms help communicate the benefits and risks of Prevacid? I think not.N Amazon.com offers an intriguing sidelight to its books for sale. You can find out how difficult a book is to read.
Dense sentences prevail
In the prescription drug industry, consumers look to companies to obtain disease-related information on various illnesses and disorders. In this quest for knowledge, consumers hope that they will find something that will help resolve their specific issue.
This process takes consumers through a variety of touch points with companies. Interactions can occur via websites, product brochures and press releases. One can see that the informational sites, such as Web MD, use language that is easily understandable by the majority of the public. Problems arise once we look at the company developed communications.
In an industry where it is assumed that the acronym FDA is understood (it is rarely spelled out in any text), companies have peppered enough acronyms throughout their copy to make an illegible mess out of important information. A visit to one site, www.prevacid.com, shows us the extent of this communication breakdown. Prevacid is a prescription drug to treat heartburn and on its homepage for patients one can find the following acronyms: GERD, NapraPAC, NSAIDs and PREVPAC. Do these acronyms help communicate the benefits and risks of Prevacid? I think not.N Amazon.com offers an intriguing sidelight to its books for sale. You can find out how difficult a book is to read.
Although corporate copywriters may think that they are saving readers’ time by condensing certain phrases, they may actually be turning patients away. A 2001 study that was published in JAMA (yes, I will spell it out – The Journal of the American Medical Association) concluded that high reading levels are required to comprehend web-based health information.1 Spelling out acronyms may not completely solve this problem, but it is definitely a start.
By the way, the Flesch-Kincaid readability scores for the overview of GERD on WebMD and www.prevacid.com are 9.9 and 11.5 respectively.
References: 1. Berland GK, Elliott MN, et al. Health Information on the Internet: Accessibility, Quality, and Readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001; 285: 2612-2621.
By the way, the Flesch-Kincaid readability scores for the overview of GERD on WebMD and www.prevacid.com are 9.9 and 11.5 respectively.
References: 1. Berland GK, Elliott MN, et al. Health Information on the Internet: Accessibility, Quality, and Readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001; 285: 2612-2621.
Dense sentences prevail
Let’s try a book on communications, a fancy name for what we used to call writing. Here’s the “Harvard Business Review on Effective Communications,” a pertinent title and a great university. Amazon’s statistics show that it has a so-called "fog index" of 14.5, meaning that its reading level is at the middle of college, with 12 being the level of a high school senior. Of Amazon’s books 63 percent promise easier reading than Harvard's. Eighteen percent of its words are complex, and its sentences average 18.5 words. That sounds OK, especially for a book on communications.
Now let’s look at something more difficult, such as “Ulysses.” It’s an 800-page novel published in 1922 by the Irish author James Joyce. Many educated people, perhaps even a few Harvard graduates, have declared “Ulysses” too difficult to read. So what do Amazon’s readership statistics show?
Joyce (who didn’t go to Harvard) gives us a fog index of 9, meaning that his book reads at the ninth-grade level. Among Amazon’s books only 20 percent are easier to read. Complex words for Joyce: just 10 percent. Sentence length: a puny 12.2.
The two examples provide an ironic commentary on the state of business writing today. James Joyce's prose, said to be too dense, is easier to read than a Harvard book that tells us how to communicate.
A key to the paradox may be that complex material requires simple writing. Joyce is difficult not because of his writing—"Mr Bloom walked unheeded along his grove by saddened angels, crosses, broken pillars, family vaults, stone hopes praying with upcast eyes, old Ireland's hearts and hands. More sensible to spend the money on some charity for the living. Pray for the repose of the soul of. Does anybody really?"—but because of his layers of complexity.
To enjoy Joyce one needs to be able to read at a ninth-grade level, to be sure. But to enjoy it one needs to arrive with background in Homer’s Odysseus, mythology, Irish history, Catholicism, Judaism, modern Celtic culture, etc. To enjoy reading about business one needs to know . . . well, never mind.
Fog index of the last seven paragraphs? 8.7.
Too Dense or Too Much? Before You Hit Send
The fog index may help businesspeople to write more clearly and concisely, but does it matter if no one reads the message?
Advances in technology have given businesspeople more communication options than were previously imaginable. While many of these advances have helped us to stay connected, in other ways, they have caused us to drift further apart. Electronic communication has become the medium of choice. But spam, carbon-copies and forwards have created e-mail and voicemail “in-boxes” so cluttered that messages are often lost in the shuffle. Even e-mail subject lines marked ominously with “IMPORTANT,” “URGENT” and “RESPONSE REQUIRED” and adorned with red exclamation points, ticking clocks and other icons of urgency often go unread.
What is a businessperson to do to manage and make sense of all of these communications floating in cyberspace? The telecommunications industry would argue that “unified communications” will provide a solution.[1] Communication technology vendors like Alcatel, Cisco Systems, Ericsson, IBM and Microsoft are peddling technology that will convert voicemail, e-mail, faxes and other electronic messages to one unified format and one central “inbox.” They have effectively created technologies to manage the very technologies that were designed to help us communicate more efficiently. While IT managers may rejoice at the associated job stability, will “unifying” our communication tools really help us to convey messages more efficiently?
Most likely, the answer is no. The real problem may lie not in our lack of technology or in our ability to write clearly, but in our misjudgments on how and when to send messages. Sometimes, a one-minute phone conversation can accomplish the same goal that 10 emails drawn out over two days will accomplish. As companies increasingly spend time and money developing systems to handle the large volume of electronic communication, and training employees about professional communications practices, perhaps they should encourage them to ask two questions each time they prepare to press “send.” Does the reader need to know this? And, is there a more efficient way to communicate this?
Postcards Pack the Perfect Punch
In the world of direct mail, the postcard is the business equivalent of the office memo. Like the memo, the postcard has a specific audience and sends a single idea to its readers. The mantra in direct mail has always been, the bigger the package the better the response rate. But with companies looking for more cost effective ways to market to consumers, the postcard proves cheaper and, some would say, more effective.
Think about it. When you come home from a long day of work and have to sort through the daily mail, what appeals to you more: opening up the traditional envelope package, unfolding the letter as a buckslip falls out and clutters your floors, and then reading through a brochure that virtually repeats everythign you just read in the letter-OR- reading a simple postcard. No paper cuts opening the envelope. No pesky buckslips you have to pick up off the floor. No heavy verbiage to have to read and reread to understand. And no pressure. Because the job of a postcard is to drive consumers to the next step, not to close the deal.
With regard to the actual writing, there are a couple of rules. Any marketer should have a basic understanding of psychology. Not just because of the unreal deadlines or pushy clients that drive us to insanity; but also because it is pschology that helps us to understand why so many people skip to the "P.S." line first. Or how merely personalizing the salutation makes a person feel more connected to the brand.
Furthermore, some experts recommend keeping words down to 1 or 2 syllables. That's a hard skill to master. My last sentence followed the rule. So did that. Ok, this is the last one, I promise. But my point is that if a return to brevity is desperately needed in business communication, the postcard, due to its space constraints, absolutely mandates brevity and conciseness. The challenge is in doing it on a 4x6 piece of paper. Under a 48 hour deadline. With your boss hanging over you. And your client wanting it yesterday. Happy writing. (Under 2 syllables again).
Too Dense or Too Much? Before You Hit Send
The fog index may help businesspeople to write more clearly and concisely, but does it matter if no one reads the message?
Advances in technology have given businesspeople more communication options than were previously imaginable. While many of these advances have helped us to stay connected, in other ways, they have caused us to drift further apart. Electronic communication has become the medium of choice. But spam, carbon-copies and forwards have created e-mail and voicemail “in-boxes” so cluttered that messages are often lost in the shuffle. Even e-mail subject lines marked ominously with “IMPORTANT,” “URGENT” and “RESPONSE REQUIRED” and adorned with red exclamation points, ticking clocks and other icons of urgency often go unread.
What is a businessperson to do to manage and make sense of all of these communications floating in cyberspace? The telecommunications industry would argue that “unified communications” will provide a solution.[1] Communication technology vendors like Alcatel, Cisco Systems, Ericsson, IBM and Microsoft are peddling technology that will convert voicemail, e-mail, faxes and other electronic messages to one unified format and one central “inbox.” They have effectively created technologies to manage the very technologies that were designed to help us communicate more efficiently. While IT managers may rejoice at the associated job stability, will “unifying” our communication tools really help us to convey messages more efficiently?
Most likely, the answer is no. The real problem may lie not in our lack of technology or in our ability to write clearly, but in our misjudgments on how and when to send messages. Sometimes, a one-minute phone conversation can accomplish the same goal that 10 emails drawn out over two days will accomplish. As companies increasingly spend time and money developing systems to handle the large volume of electronic communication, and training employees about professional communications practices, perhaps they should encourage them to ask two questions each time they prepare to press “send.” Does the reader need to know this? And, is there a more efficient way to communicate this?
[1] “Will 2007 be the year of unified communications? Four leading experts offer their view of where the UC market and technologies are headed in the coming year,” Business CommunicationsReview, March 1, 2007.
Think about it. When you come home from a long day of work and have to sort through the daily mail, what appeals to you more: opening up the traditional envelope package, unfolding the letter as a buckslip falls out and clutters your floors, and then reading through a brochure that virtually repeats everythign you just read in the letter-OR- reading a simple postcard. No paper cuts opening the envelope. No pesky buckslips you have to pick up off the floor. No heavy verbiage to have to read and reread to understand. And no pressure. Because the job of a postcard is to drive consumers to the next step, not to close the deal.
With regard to the actual writing, there are a couple of rules. Any marketer should have a basic understanding of psychology. Not just because of the unreal deadlines or pushy clients that drive us to insanity; but also because it is pschology that helps us to understand why so many people skip to the "P.S." line first. Or how merely personalizing the salutation makes a person feel more connected to the brand.
Furthermore, some experts recommend keeping words down to 1 or 2 syllables. That's a hard skill to master. My last sentence followed the rule. So did that. Ok, this is the last one, I promise. But my point is that if a return to brevity is desperately needed in business communication, the postcard, due to its space constraints, absolutely mandates brevity and conciseness. The challenge is in doing it on a 4x6 piece of paper. Under a 48 hour deadline. With your boss hanging over you. And your client wanting it yesterday. Happy writing. (Under 2 syllables again).
| You can contribute to this site. Just click EasyEdit and type! Communication via text messaging Common text messaging shortcuts: Anything - NTHING Are you OK - RUOK? Are - R Ate - 8 Be - B Before - B4 Be seeing you - BCNU Cutie - QT Date - D8 Dinner - DNR Easy - EZ Eh? - A? Excellent - XLNT Fate - F8 For - 4 For your information - FYI Great - GR8 Late - L8 Later - L8R Lots of love/laughs - Lol Love - LUV Mate - M8 Please - PLS Please call me - PCM Queue/cue - Q Rate - R8 See/sea - C See you later - CU L8R Speak - SPK Tea - T Thanks - THX Thank you - THNQ To/too - 2 To be - 2B Today - 2DAY Tomorrow - 2MORO Want to - WAN2 What - WOT Work - WRK Why - Y You - U There are now entire Web sites dedicated to helping people decipher text messaging lingo. With the proliferation of text messaging and endless abbreviations, how can we expect our young people to converse professionally. We are encouraging an entire population of poor communicators with limited vocabularies. With no end in sight, our only hope is to remind those we can of the beauty of the written word and the power of the English language. |
Latest page update: made by k-kortenkamp
, May 24 2007, 9:15 PM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by k-kortenkamp
27 words added
10 words deleted
view changes
- complete history)
Edited by k-kortenkamp
27 words added
10 words deleted
view changes
- complete history)
Keyword tags: None
More Info: links to this page
(Showing the last 5 of 7 - view all)
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| jenni07 | Hello and welcome | 0 | Jan 11 2008, 7:21 PM EST by jenni07 | |
|
Thread started: Jan 11 2008, 7:21 PM EST
Watch
cool site, very proffectional, lots of links
Do you find this valuable?
Keyword tags:
new starter
|
||||
| maddog1381 | member | 0 | Oct 27 2007, 3:47 PM EDT by maddog1381 | |
|
Thread started: Oct 27 2007, 3:47 PM EDT
Watch
do you want to be a member of the NSF (Nickells Supreme Fort)
come visit my site http://www.nickellfort.wetpaint.com and visit the page named join today. From:Vice President of NSF |
||||
| sstewar2 | Hi, hello and how do you do | 0 | May 30 2007, 11:22 PM EDT by sstewar2 | |
|
Thread started: May 30 2007, 11:22 PM EDT
Watch
Today in the fiercely competitive business arena, etiquette is simply another tool you need. While etiquette alone won't get you anywhere, it will give you that extra edge that could make all the difference. How you greet someone is literally their first impression of you, and the way you take leave of them, could be their last.
|
||||
| DHildy | Business jargon | 0 | May 24 2007, 10:28 PM EDT by DHildy | |
|
Thread started: May 24 2007, 10:28 PM EDT
Watch
All-hands meeting
Away day Availability Just some of the words we use at work. Check how many business jargon terms your office uses everyday. If we continue along the jargon theme, this site might be helpful. http://www.theofficelife.com/business-jargon-dictionary-A.html |
||||
| ccushman | Acronyms Clutter Corporate Communications Part 2 - Follows Dee's Entry | 0 | May 16 2007, 7:12 PM EDT by ccushman | |
 |
Thread started: May 16 2007, 7:12 PM EDT
Watch
Although corporate copywriters may think that they are saving readers’ time by condensing certain phrases, they may actually be turning patients away. A 2001 study that was published in JAMA (yes, I will spell it out – The Journal of the American Medical Association) concluded that high reading levels are required to comprehend web-based health information.1 Spelling out acronyms may not completely solve this problem, but it is definitely a start.
By the way, the Flesch-Kincaid readability scores for the overview of GERD on WebMD and www.prevacid.com are 9.9 and 11.5 respectively. References: 1. Berland GK, Elliott MN, et al. Health Information on the Internet: Accessibility, Quality, and Readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001; 285: 2612-2621. |
|||
(Showing the last 5 of 7 - view all)