Obfuscating language

[Buck]

I'm guilty of using a lot of lingo and biz-speak or marketing-speak for in-house communications.
I admit it.

But I try to hunt those things down and kill them when it comes to external communications.

Sadly, I don't always have the final say on it, though.

 

[da man]

I'm guilty of using a lot of lingo and biz-speak or marketing-speak for in-house communications.
I admit it.

But I try to hunt those things down and kill them when it comes to external communications.

Sadly, I don't always have the final say on it, though.

One of the beauties of my job is I'm in charge of most of our external communication, including our monthly magazines, so I do get the final say (with a few exceptions).

One thing I've noticed, thankfully, is that "paradigm" no longer seems to be one of the hot business buzzwords.

 

[MisterCreosote]

"Stakeholders."

 

[Buck]

One of the beauties of my job is I'm in charge of most of our external communication, including our monthly magazines, so I do get the final say (with a few exceptions).

One thing I've noticed, thankfully, is that "paradigm" no longer seems to be one of the hot business buzzwords.

I worked a brief stint where I thought I had final say, but discovered that was not the way it was going to work.
I left there.

Now I'm in a position where I knew coming in that I didn't have final say.
Much easier to deal with the situation when all the cards were put on the table during the hiring process.

 

[Bronco77]

Hey, if you're going to start talking about the business world, there isn't enough room on the Internet for that list.

I spent a few years as business copy desk chief with a previous employer, and I'd clash with the business editor almost every day about something her staff would try to slip into the paper. She was generally a pretty good editor, but she thought many of those "bizspeak" terms were OK. And when I'd point out that something went against AP or the paper's style, she'd often express disagreement with the correct style and just keep using the style she wanted.

When quoting sources, she also had her reporters write, "S0-and-so said in an interview." It bugged me and I asked her why "in an interview" was necessary, and her response was that her reporters occasionally got quotes by email instead of in person or over the phone. Well, isn't an email Q&A session between reporter and source still an "interview"?

I'll add "parameters" and "metrics" to the bizspeak list, although "metrics" has crept into far too many newsrooms.

 

[Buck]

"Stakeholders."

'Stakeholder' is a tough one.
I don't like it, but I've learned to live with because I have yet to find a word that covers it's meaning.
It is very useful some times, but it is often used when not needed.

 

[da man]

'Stakeholder' is a tough one.
I don't like it, but I've learned to live with because I have yet to find a word that covers it's meaning.
It is very useful some times, but it is often used when not needed.

Yeah, we use that one fairly often, too.

 

[da man]

I spent a few years as business copy desk chief with a previous employer, and I'd clash with the business editor almost every day about something her staff would try to slip into the paper. She was generally a pretty good editor, but she thought many of those "bizspeak" terms were OK. And when I'd point out that something went against AP or the paper's style, she'd often express disagreement with the correct style and just keep using the style she wanted.

When quoting sources, she also had her reporters write, "S0-and-so said in an interview." It bugged me and I asked her why "in an interview" was necessary, and her response was that her reporters occasionally got quotes by email instead of in person or over the phone. Well, isn't an email Q&A session between reporter and source still an "interview"?

I'll add "parameters" and "metrics" to the bizspeak list, although "metrics" has crept into far too many newsrooms.

Analytics.

 

[Buck]

'Analytics' and 'metrics' are great examples that get over-used, or used intentionally to obfuscate.

Often times, those terms are used in place of 'data,' but they are not really interchangeable.

'Data' implies the information is raw, without real context.
People often say 'analytics' because they want to imply they've analyzed the data when they haven't.
They often say 'metrics' because they want to imply there are benchmarks and a measurement context for analysis when there isn't.

Great examples.

 

[Buck]

I almost forgot my No. 1 most hated word of the past 10 years: Brand.

If I had $1 for every time some dum-dum throws that word around with no regard to its meaning, I'd be rich.
And all the other dum-dums in the room sit there nodding their heads.

 

[MisterCreosote]

'Stakeholder' is a tough one.
I don't like it, but I've learned to live with because I have yet to find a word that covers it's meaning.
It is very useful some times, but it is often used when not needed.

It's also often used to describe people who don't actually hold a stake in what you do.

 

[SpeedTchr]

"XYZ University would like to thank..."

But you're not going to?

That one chaps my chaps.

 

[Bronco77]

One more that often found its way into local news copy at my former paper was "blue-ribbon panel" or "blue-ribbon committee." It was banned by the newsroom stylebook, but people tried to get away with it anyway. I recall the news copy desk chief famously and sarcastically asking an assistant city editor who let it slip through, "Blue-ribbon committee -- does it mean the committee members have to drink PBR?"

 

[Spartan Squad]

One more that often found its way into local news copy at my former paper was "blue-ribbon panel" or "blue-ribbon committee." It was banned by the newsroom stylebook, but people tried to get away with it anyway. I recall the news copy desk chief famously and sarcastically asking an assistant city editor who let it slip through, "Blue-ribbon committee -- does it mean the committee members have to drink PBR?"

I'm curious why Blue-ribbon committee got banned. Was it that people over used it and used it wrongly or was there some other reason for the disdain?

 

[Buck]

I think the assumption is that panels and committees of people with no credentials should not be overseeing anything.
If you are asked to participate, it's assumed you are well credentialed in the subject.

In a news context, if the panel members are extremely well credentialed, their credentials speak for themselves without adding the term 'blue ribbon.'

I'd say from a PR aspect, I guess one might use it to reinforce the idea that these people are the truly the best in their fields, understanding that a reporter or assigning editor on the receiving end of my communications might not be familiar with the professional recognitions in a given field.

On the other hand, it's so over-used that it has probably no 'impact' even if used correctly.

 

[User 11148]

You guys ought to sit in some of the meetings I have to attend ...

The one I get to go to tomorrow will be lead by an Indian associate dean (former professor of accounting) who will, I **** you not, say "in terms of" at least a hundred times in the one hour this meeting's supposed to last.

Then, on Friday I get to go to one with a fellow associate professor who will not only say "as a function of" a hundred times, he'll also punctuate the majority of his sentences with a sharp "Ok?" Further, he'll try to throw a handful of Latin words/phrases in there ... and he'll **** up every one of them. I'll never forget the time he told a senior colleague that he would "deign" to her judgement. Later that day he said we should go to a bar for "an informal colloquia" and he pronounced it "co-lo-kwee-aye."

 

[Killick]

Another one from the business world that sends me on a rant: "Signage." (As in "We invested thousands of dollars with a branding firm to update our signage.")

Uh... you means "signs," asshole.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I posted this on the journalism thread a while back, and it turned into quite a discussion, but I still hate the term "layoffs" when companies cut people.

To me, when I was a kid, "layoffs" meant temporary cuts, where, either if the struggling business improved they would bring people back. Or that they were planned to be temporary, as in someone knew was getting laid off, but they would be back by next season.

Somewhere over the last 30 years or so, businesses began using that term for permanent cuts, in part, so the workers would be able to save some face. But at the same time, it seems like the company uses that term to save face with the public as well.

 

[Spartan Squad]

Another one from the business world that sends me on a rant: "Signage." (As in "We invested thousands of dollars with a branding firm to update our signage.")

Uh... you means "signs," asshole.

You just became my wife's favorite poster.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Has anyone mentioned "facilitate" yet?

Facilitate this.