How “broad strokes” can dilute your outcome

Edwin Newman, the longtime NBC newsman, died August 13 in Oxford, England. Described by Margalit Fox in her New York Times obituary as “genteelly rumpled” and “genially grumpy,” she called him “a stalwart defender of the honor of English.”

Newman wrote two books on the language, Strictly Speaking: Will America Be the Death of English? (1974) and A Civil Tongue (1976), in which he warned that our language was “falling prey to windiness, witlessness, ungrammaticality, obfuscation and other depredations.” And while some would argue that Newman’s strict constructionist approach to English was pedantic or even self-righteous, it’s hard to deny that we have gotten, at best, a little sloppy, and at worst, flagrantly violative when it comes to how we talk and write.

This argument is purely academic until it starts to cost us money. When it does, then it becomes serious business. 

The Scottish mathematician Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson called numerical precision “the very soul of science.” In business the final numbers are very often dependent on how precise we are with the language when defining our numerical or financial goals. As such, linguistic precision, to appropriate Sir D’Arcy’s words, is the very soul of marketing.

Take, for example, the word “synergy.” This word has crept into common business language (and granted, it is in the Oxford English Dictionary), no matter how distasteful it might be to those who rail against “business-speak.” But the problem with synergy isn’t its overuse by those whose vocabulary also features words like “optics” and “bandwidth.” The problem is how often it is used broadly, without the benefit of measurable expectations attached to it.

Has a manager or client ever asked you to make sure that your team has synergy with theirs? And, if so, how is this synergy supposed to deliver to the bottom line? An informal poll would probably reveal that this “synergistic” approach is meant to ensure that everybody gets along without the kinds of snafus that different perspectives can bring about. In other words, everybody’s on the same page, has their eye on the ball, and is myopically focused on flawless execution!

While it is hard to imagine how a “myopic focus” on flawless execution could deliver a positive result, given that myopia describes a visual defect in which distant objects appear blurred (but that’s beside the point), this definition of synergy is not only imprecise and unmeasurable; it is wrong.

The Oxford English Dictionary, which is the world’s accepted authority on the English language, defines synergy this way: the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects. Clearly, the word can only be applied to situations in which the corporate results are measurable against the sum of the individual results.

To allow synergy to be described without requiring measurable results is to do disservice to the bottom line. After all, aren’t we paying these people? If we actually are committed to synergy in an organization, we have to be able to prove we have it, and that would involve strict measures of productivity, output, sales revenues, brand recognition, anything to which real numbers can be attached.

By the way, the adjective form of the word is synergetic. According to the OED, there’s no such thing as “synergistic.” As Casey Stengel used to say, “You can look it up.”

Of course, improper usage (or even word invention) isn’t really the point, is it? The point is that it’s impossible to deliver a return on investment when the words we use to describe the return have no measurable aspect to them. And, even if you allowed a little wiggle room, as in “positive impression of the brand” or “clearer understanding of the value proposition,” the connection of these broadly defined phrases to the bottom line is tenuous.

Mark Twain famously equated the difference between the almost-right word and the right word to the difference between the lightning bug and lightning. It’s the same with defining a return on investment. When we define an expected return on investment precisely, with a particular eye on whether it is realistic, relevant to our organization and measurable, our marketing plan has all the ingredients of marketing lightning.  When we don’t, our efforts, like the unfortunate insect, may wind up illuminating the inside of an old pickle jar.

Only when we are very precise in describing our desired return on investment can we begin to determine what changes in behavior our audience will need to exhibit in order for us to achieve that return. Only when we have precisely defined the specific changes in behavior we’re after can we begin to craft the content and color of the messages we deliver to our audience.

So, precision is very critical at every stage. And here are four ways to make sure you achieve it:

1.     Avoid broadly defined words when describing your desired return on investment. If, for example, you are running a sales meeting at which “ability to present the new product line” is a desired outcome, be sure to define what “ability” actually means. Must they know every feature of every product by heart and be able to describe it effectively in a role-play with their managers? That’s proficiency, which suggests a higher level of expertise and which can only be defined by you relative to knowing 100% of the details about every product.

2.     Avoid adjectives that are not actual numbers. Mark Twain also said, “If you meet an adjective, kill it.” Adjectives are rarely helpful to describe a desired outcome or return on investment, because they are subject to interpretation. Numbers and percentages are hard to misinterpret. Ask anyone who attended your last trade show whether the turnout was “great” and you may get a wide variety of answers. Ask whether the number of people who visited and stayed in your exhibit for more than 5 minutes increased 10% over last year, and there’s only one true answer: it’s either yes or no.

3.     Be precise in identifying changes in behavior in your target audience. An audience member can be defined as “engaged” only if he or she is betrothed to be married. Engagement is a relative term, subject to interpretation. The best way to measure “engagement” is to define it in terms of an audience member’s willingness to do something. That means precisely defining  an action, rather than a state of being. The audience member “attended a product demonstration” or “registered for an online community.”

4.     “Clever” doesn’t necessarily equate to “compelling.” When it comes to the actual message you are communicating to your audience, don’t presume that they will make the connection between a clever message and what you’re trying to get them to do. Clever turns of phrase may be fun, even memorable, but they aren’t necessarily effective when it comes to getting a group to behave in a certain way. They can be both (“Just do it”) but only with careful crafting that balances catch-phrase with call to action.

Rest well, Edwin Newman. You were right. Precise language is important. Not only does it add to the richness of our culture; it’s critical for our businesses as well. And if we’re “stalwart defenders” of precise outcomes and the messages that deliver to them, it will add to our bottom lines as well.