"Comprised of": point/ counterpoint

It seems like we're constantly changing this.

It seems like we're constantly changing this.

Hey, all you grammatical pedants out there: Check out this article about a Wikipedia editor named Bryan Henderson, who has made it his mission to eradicate "comprised of" from our favorite online encyclopedia.

Then, here's The Guardian's David Shariatmadari offering his viewpoint on why Henderson's efforts are misguided.

After you've finished reading both, please stop writing "comprised of". For example, America comprises 50 states; it is not comprised of 50 states. Use it like you would use "include": The bigger thing includes, or comprises, the smaller things. You wouldn't say "is included of", would you?

And then go grab a beer. It's Friday.

 

Fun with collective nouns!

Nobody's business but the ferrets.

Nobody's business but the ferrets.

Want to impress guests at your next dinner party? Pepper your stories with collective nouns, like the ones found in James Lipton's book "An Exaltation of Larks". People say "school of fish" and "pride of lions" -- so why haven't "parliament of owls" and "knot of toads" achieved the stickiness they deserve? It's not just animals that get to have all the fun, either. What do you call a group of jurors? Appropriately, a "damning". How about jugglers? A "neverthriving" (probably owing to their career prospects). So, get cracking like a hastiness of cooks and click through....

Is this literally, or figuratively the best invention ever?

Hey Google Chrome users: You can now download an extension that changes the word "literally" to "figuratively" on the websites you visit, since 99% of the time that the former is used, the latter is what is really meant.

For instance, a quick Google News search for 'literally' turns up the following headlines, modified by the browser extension to a state of unintentional accuracy:

The internet is awesome. 

Why your boss should NOT have final approval.

No link today. Just a gripe.

There's always time.

There's always time.

CA writes a lot of things like press releases and annual reports – valuable pieces of corporate communication that get distributed to all sorts of influential people. Usually, the final document that goes public looks different from what we initially sent to the client, and this is normal. Increasingly senior executives have input as a document moves up the chain of approval. Items that are deemed too sensitive get removed. Important key messages are tweaked, and tweaked again.

What’s NOT all right, though, is when changes result in bad grammar, spelling mistakes and poor word choice – and these blights don’t get fixed before the document goes out and becomes part of a company’s permanent communications record.

When we do media training, we advise clients to think like journalists. Reporters are busy, so present them with information they need. Do it in a way that gets right to the point. Give them figures. Respect their deadlines. Help them help you.

Clients would also do well to remember that reporters have editors, and that the last step in the news reporting process is the proofread. Any outlet worth its salt never lets a story go out with typos and grammatical mistakes. They know it’s one of the easiest ways to kill your credibility as a well-run organization.

These days, appearance is just as important as content. So why would a client spend good money to have something professionally drafted and edited, only to let it go out looking like they don’t know how to properly communicate in the international language of business?

Whether it’s CA, or another consultancy, or someone in-house with the skills to proofread, always, always, ALWAYS make them the last gatekeeper. You’ll look so much better for it.



The media it is a-changin'...?

The State of the News Media 2014 report is out, and there's lots of interesting information about how the landscape is evolving ... or, in some cases, not. The ones that stand out for us at CA:

You've come a long way, baby.

You've come a long way, baby.

  • Print advertorials have long been a client staple. They're cheaper than straight ads, offer the freedom of more text, and are sometimes mistaken for "real" magazine and newspaper articles. Now we are seeing the rise of the online advertorial, or "native ad". From Pew Research: "The New York Times, The Washington Post and most recently The Wall Street Journal have now begun or announced plans to begin devoting staff to this kind of advertising, often as a part of a new 'custom content division.' eMarketer predicts that native ads spending will reach $2.85 billion by 2014." 
  • Online subscription is still a tough sell. Print media may be struggling in the digital age, but people are more likely to pay money for it.
  • Despite all the new ways that companies and brands are communicating with stakeholders, the press release is still the most-trusted source of company-generated news -- over ads, and even blogs and op-eds "penned" by executives.

What aspects of media evolution do you find most interesting? The rise of clickbait? Online video consumption? How social media might be strangling our news consumption?

For grammar nerds and English students only.

Take a look at these five commonly misused words. I come across the "continuously vs. "continually" one the most. The latter is almost never what the client actually means.

Others that I get a lot:

  • "impact" vs. "impact on":  This generally comes down to the use of "impact" as a verb or noun. The action of something impacts something else. It doesn't impact ON something else. "On" is only included when "impact" is used as a noun. VERB: "Unfavorable market conditions negatively impacted XYZ Corporation's business." NOUN: "Unfavorable macroeconomic conditions had a negative impact on XYZ Corporation's business."  I probably make this change at least once or twice a week. Easy fix, but still.
  • "leverage" vs. "leverage on": Basically the same thing, though I can think of even less practical use for the "on".
  • "selected" vs. "select": These are just completely different words. "Selected" = "picked". "Select" = "first-rate", "cream of the crop", etc. If you're introducing a product only in your very best stores, you want to use "select" to define those stores. Often something is selected because it is select, but let's not give ourselves brain freeze here.
  • "As of" vs. "As at": This is a peculiarity of financial writing that I had to learn. "As of" = "from [date]". "As at" = "up to and including [date]".

Ten-yard penalty, false Tweet.

In case everyone thinks this is just boring American gridiron talk – well, a lot of this article is, but bear with us – it’s also an interesting PR study. 

Sometimes it's better to hold off on hitting "Tweet".

Sometimes it's better to hold off on hitting "Tweet".

Nutshell: The San Francisco 49ers and Cleveland Browns apparently held talks about the Browns obtaining 49ers head coach Jim Harbaugh in exchange for draft picks and cash. This is a big story because star coaches like Harbaugh are rarely traded, and such talks would mean that Harbaugh and his superiors in San Francisco probably aren't getting along.

Check out the following excerpt, which outlines how 49ers CEO Jed York tweeted a denial of the talks, only to be inadvertently outed later on by Browns owner Jimmy Haslam:

Pro Football Talk reported on Friday that Cleveland ‘nearly pulled off a trade’ to send multiple draft picks to the Niners for Harbaugh, but that Harbaugh decided to stay. Other reporters jumped to quash the rumor, citing their sources denying it ever happened. (One of those sources was undoubtedly CEO Jed York, who tweeted the report ‘isn't true.’) (Emphasis added.)

But a funny thing happened. After Browns owner Jimmy Haslam went on the record to say ‘there was an opportunity there, and it didn't materialize,’ York walked back his denial. He told SI today that ‘the Browns reached out to me, and we had no interest in pursuing it.’"

It’s possible Jim Harbaugh himself sprung the leak. He's no dummy; it would gain him a lot of leverage in his upcoming contract negotiations with the Niners. The point, though, is that York could have looked less foolish with some decent PR advice. 

Lessons learned: 

  1. When discussing a deal, companies need to keep their comms people firmly in the loop during highly sensitive negotiations, to manage information AND prevent leaks.
  2. Twitter can be dangerous in all but the most skilled and/ or cautious executive hands.
  3. Always, ALWAYS assume that a big story – big enough that it requires a cover-up – is going to get out. And when it gets out, you'd better have a plan.