Our Blog
Archive for March, 2010
I had an interesting twiscussion with my favorite grammar guru Grammar Girl the other day. Take a look:
(click to see full size image)
The error of our ways
Many people in the business of creating websites think of error messages (and other user interface copy) as back-end technology mumbo jumbo, and therefore somebody else’s job. Not true! Error messages are content, too.
As such, they deserve the same attention as any of the other user-facing words on your site. Grammar Girl’s puzzlement over her readers thinking she writes the error messages raises an interesting point. Especially because she goes on to say that “marketing” writes "a lot of the user-interface text."
Why interface copy but not error messages?
I put those two things in the same category: Content that’s often written with the back-end systems in mind, rather than the end users, and content that gets ignored until the last minute. In other words, content that leaves programmers scrambling to whip something up quickly before a site goes live. Left to scramble, programmers don’t have time to think about what would really help the user do whatever it is they came to your website to do.
I would like to amend my comment to Grammar Girl that suggests programmers shouldn’t be the ones writing error messages. I actually don’t think it matters who writes them as long as they are focused on users needs.
And I’ll be the first to admit planning for and writing error messages is not the sexiest of web writing tasks. But it can be one of the most important. A frustrating experience on your website just gives users an excuse to hit the black button or click on that red x.
Blast from the past
This brief exchange with Grammar Girl reminded me of this gem of a
blog post that Brain Traffic’s Erin Anderson wrote last year showing the differences between bad and pretty awesome error messages. You’ll find tips like these to help ensure your error messages are carefully crafted with the user in mind:
- Tell users what the problem is.
- Follow up with what they can do to fix it (if anything).
- Avoid alarmist phrases like “failure” and “fatal.”
Check it out!
Posted in Content Strategy, Uncategorized, Web Writing
You spend weeks writing your client’s site. And it pays off. Your messaging is dead on. Your copy is fresh, clear, and active. Deliriously tired but satisfied, you email the document to your client.
Two days later you get the document back. You open it.
MAMA SAY WHAAAATTTTT?!
She. Butchered. Your. Document. Butchered it! Using track changes, she reformatted your beautiful bulleted lists into gigantic paragraphs filled with run-on sentence after run-on sentence. She added “dynamic” and “synergism” to the home page intro. As an overall comment, she requested you please “change all the links to ‘click here’, so people know to click.”
This feedback is bad. Very bad. But she’s the client. What do you do?
First, let’s clarify something.
This article is about dealing with bad feedback. Not dealing with negative feedback. Bad feedback and negative feedback are two different things.
Negative refers to how the client perceives your work.
Bad refers to how the client expresses their perception (negative or positive) of your work.
For my fellow visual learners, a chart:
Now let’s talk about types of bad feedback—and how to deal with them.
Below, a profile of four popular types of bad feedback accompanied by coping tips:
1. Jargon-y feedback.
Your client: “I’d like the copy to be more delightful.”
You: “Sure! No problem! I’ll make it more delightful!”
Wrong move, buddy.
When a client uses subjective, vague terms in feedback, you MUST call her on it. Right away. Even if you know stopping to dissect and analyze her feedback is going to take extra time and effort. Even if you have to revise schedules.
In the long run, you will save time, the content will be better, and your client will be happier. Promise.
If you can, help your client see the flaw in her logic. If she wants the intro to be more “robust,” respond with an open-ended question such as, “What does ‘robust’ mean to you, exactly?”
Also, make sure you get examples—ask the client to email you “robust” copy samples. That way you have something tangible to work with.
2. Vague feedback.
She says, “Looks great!!!” And that’s, like, it.
Your client read all 87 pages of your copy deck and had no changes? Riiiiiggghhht.
I’d bet my bellybutton this is what’s really going on: your client didn’tactually read your whole content doc. Or at least not thoroughly. She’s so busy worrying about the site’s design/other projects/her newborn octoplets she didn’t have time to read it.
So she’s cool with it. For
now. That is, until her site is four hours from launch and she calls you for a boatload of last-minute revisions.
Do yourself and your client a big favor and make it very clear she needs to provide feedback now (remember, do so nicely!) or forever hold her peace.
Say something like, “I’m so tickled pink you went through ALL the content and you don’t haveANYrevisions. I’ll go ahead and send you the invoice and close out your project. It was great working with you!”
If she responds with, “Wait! Wait! I might still have some revisions!” you can firmly (but nicely!) remind her of the feedback process you agreed to when the project kicked off.
Tip: Include one or two questions using the comments feature in your document when you send it to the client. That way, if she gives you the ‘ol, “Looks great!” you can respond by asking if she had any further thoughts about your questions.
If she has no idea what you’re talking about, or if she responds with, “Oh, right. We’re going to have to change that,” you know she didn’t look it over thoroughly. Proceed with caution!
3. Contradictory feedback.
She says, “We only call ourselves ‘managers’ internally. Please don’t use that term in the copy.’”
You say, “Okay.”
What’s so contradictory about that, you ask? You’re right: It’s perfectly straightforward direction. Until you get your document back from your client and see she added ‘managers’ to the company tagline, home page headline, global navigation, footer, and image ALT tags.
Clearly, you need to clarify what your client wants.
But, for the sake of your working relationship, you also need to be careful not to put her on the defensive or make her feel foolish. There are many ways to proceed. For instance, you could say …
“Earlier you said I shouldn’t call you ‘managers.’ But throughout the document you inserted the word ‘managers.’ What exactly would you like me to do?”
There’s nothing wrong with that approach. I guess. But doesn’t this just seem friendlier …
“Hey! Thanks for the feedback. I had one quick question regarding the word ‘managers.’ I see you’ve added it in a few places—is it okay to use that term now? Thanks!”
See? Nicer. Generally, clients like it when you’re nice to them.
4. Nonsensical feedback.
Maybe she’s high on coffee. Or she prefers expressing thoughts verbally. Or maybe she’s been up all night watching Lethal Weapon and its sequels. Whatever the reason, sometimes your client will give feedback that, well, makes absolutely no sense.
“Could you please add another future verb to this entire beginning of copy paragraph? Thanks!”
Huh?
“I talked to Janice and she said Tom’s player copy doesn’t need any more action-oriented dropdowns (except maybe for twice?). Thanks!!”
Whazza who?
“Legal review. Stakeholders. Danny Glover. Thanks!!!”
Mmm.
If you have no clue in sweet heaven what she’s talking about (it does happen), schedule an in-person interview with her—over the phone works, too—so you can walk through her, um, “points.”
Start by reading a couple of her comments back to her. Hopefully, she’ll stop you after a couple minutes and say, “Geez. I wasn’t making any sense! I meant to say blah, blah, blah.” Or whatever. If she doesn’t, hopefully you’ll be able to glean some insight into her state of mind through verbal cues.
Finally, a request.
It’s easy to roll your eyes when a client gives you slick, vague, contradictory, nonsensical feedback. But you know what? She’s likely juggling a billion things, from wireframes to babies to Lethal Weapon DVDs. Your copy is just one of them. Cut her some slack. And remember, she’s not a writer. If she were, she wouldn’t need you.
If you’re willing to have patience and put forth a little extra effort, you can help your client. You can educate her about content best practices. You can show her examples of successful websites with great content. You can take time to really understand where she’s coming from, so you can put her feedback in context.
In the end, your content will be better. And your client will be grateful. So, what do you say, ‘ol chum?
Posted in Editorial Strategy, Uncategorized, User Experience, Web Content, Web Writing
Using personal pronouns may sound like a simple, common-sense web writing best practice. Speaking directly to users with the word “you” is something most companies get on board with easily enough. But those same clients often ask us to avoid self-referential pronouns like “we,” “our,” and “us” in their web copy.
Granted, sometimes there are legitimate legal considerations that keep companies from getting personal with their web copy. (I’ll get into these legalities later.) Other times, it’s simply a matter of being overly cautious or old-fashioned.
Why use personal pronouns in web copy?
In my experience, many larger corporations have trouble breaking free from the formal business communications style they’ve been using for years. But guidelines that limit the use of personal pronouns should be reconsidered now that we’re in the digital age. These days, content needs to speak to users clearly and directly. It needs to compete for their attention.
A simple way to grab your users’ attention is by using personal pronouns in your web copy. Why? Personal pronouns reflect the way real people write and speak.
For example, most of us don’t refer to ourselves in the third person. We use first-person (me, we, our, us) and second-person (you, your) pronouns in our email exchanges, Facebook statuses, and Twitter feeds—channels that compete for your users’ attention every day.
Using these first- and second-person pronouns on your corporate website will:
- Help users connect with the content
- Help users understand the content
- Identify who owns the content
- Make writing the content easier
What happens if you DON’T use personal pronouns in web copy?
Not using personal pronouns forces you to repeat your company’s name throughout your website. This approach creates awkward sentences that are tedious to read and to write. The repetition can also set off keyword stuffing alarms. At the very least, your website ends up sounding unnecessarily formal and stuffy.
Worse yet, the bland third-person pronoun “it” may creep into your web copy and force you into using awkward sentence constructions. For example, something simple like “Content strategy is all we do. And we do it well” becomes “Brain Traffic believes its focus on content strategy is an advantage.” Blech.
Coupled with company name repetition, “it” creates confusion around who is speaking. It’s hard to tell who owns the content when it’s written so generically. (Right?) And if you want your users to feel connected to your brand, it’s important they know you stand behind your content.
When legal reasons prevent personal pronouns
Of course, sometimes there are legitimate legal grounds for not using personal pronouns. For example, we work with a few clients who sell cobranded products. Their legal departments strictly forbid the use of personal pronouns in order to avoid making sweeping statements about the collective “we.”
To illustrate what I mean, let’s say White Castle partnered with Holiday station stores on a special line of slider-scented gasoline. (Ok. That’s gross. But it’s the first thing I came up with from a quick glance out the office window.)
Anyway, if White Castle/Holiday created a website dedicated to this cobranded product, legal teams may advise against using “we/our/us” in the content. Value statements and “about us” sections get a bit more complex when cobranding. Maybe Holiday wouldn’t like being lumped together with White Castle on general statements about what “we” as a company believe in. Or, vice versa.
Large corporations with many divisions may also have legal concerns about using personal pronouns. Insurance companies are a good example. While Division A offers products similar to those of Division B, the products may have completely different rules and regulations restricting their features and use.
Let’s say Acme Insurance Company uses personal pronouns on their website when describing their products. If a Division B customer purchases a plan based on benefits they saw on a Division A product page, the customer may have grounds for a legal complaint. But by avoiding personal pronouns and only using the specific division name in product descriptions, Acme reduces their chances of getting sued.
So, to be safe, it’s better not to make broad “we/our/us” statements when there’s this type of product overlap.
How to prevent legal issues with personal pronouns
To avoid finding out the hard way, ask your client for any legal restrictions surrounding the use of personal pronouns at the start of the project. Because I can tell you from experience, going back and rewriting copy decks to eliminate all “we/our/us” statements is not fun.
When to use personal pronouns on your website
Unless legal guidelines prevent you from using personal pronouns, go ahead and get personal with your web copy. Using this type of plain language will make your web writing process easier. Even better, your users will more quickly connect and engage with your web content.
Personally, I think it’s a great style choice.
Posted in Uncategorized, User Experience, Web Content, Web Writing
On Monday, Altimer Group Partner Jeremiah Owyang published an article titled:
Make Your Corporate Websites Relevant by Integrating Facebook, Google, MySpace, Linked In, or Twitter
The post provides a detailed list of "feature attribute benefits of social integration," as well as "who offers what" for "social networking integration features." It’s a beautifully constructed post, the kind of post thousands of marketers will likely print and refer to as a daily resource when planning their social media initiatives.
Now. I am a reasonable person. I fully recognize that Owyang is one of the leading, most well-respected social media analysts in the world. He blogs for the Forbes CMO Network, he speaks internationally about social media, and is an all-around highly influential guy. This reputation is likely well-deserved.
However. When one wields such powerful influence over powerful people, one must wield said influence responsibly. And, in my opinion, this is one irresponsible article.
Three years ago…
Monday’s post is presented in the context of an article Owyang wrote three years ago, titled "How To Evolve Your Irrelevant Corporate Website." Why did Owyang think our websites were irrelvant? Because most of the content on those websites was "an unbelievable collection of hyperbole, artificial branding, and pro-corporate content" that utterly failed to support any part of the customer sales lifecycle. Especially from the customers’ perspective.
Owyang’s position at the time was that the corporate website, as we knew it, was a lost cause. In fact, Owyang suggested that the only way we could ensure our websites remained relevant was to collaborate with our customers as equals in planning and producing content.
I remember this post well, because his "disruptive" ideas struck me as ridiculous. If we apparently still hadn’t figured out how to effectively plan for, create, deliver, and govern our own website content, how the hell were we going to incorporate user-generated content into the mix?
Obviously, I was in the skeptical minority. And skeptics are never sexy.
And then the world blew up.
Of course, conversations about social media exploded. Our customers were talking, and, if we were going to survive over the coming years, we needed to listen. So we rushed to find out where our customers were, what they were saying, and to engage them in conversation about our products and services. Simultaneously, CMOs demanded brand presence on YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter. Never mind why. Just get us there.
Now, look. It’s not my intention to downplay the importance and omnipresence of social media. Like anyone else who has a pulse, I believe in the power and potential of well-planned, well-executed, corporate social media initiatives. I believe it is our responsibility (and an unprecedented business opportunity) to meet our customers where they are, to listen, and to engage.
Social media, itself, is not the problem.
Here’s the problem, and it’s a doozy: to support our social media initiatives, we churned out content. Meanwhile, our marketing teams continued to publish content. Corporate communications, advertising partners, public relations, product and service managers… the flood of content continued.
And it continues today. Unchecked. Unmonitored. Unable to be measured. Inconsistent. Outdated. Out of control. More of the "hyperbole, artifical branding, and pro-corporate content" Owyang rightfully criticized as "irrelevant."
Content that no one cares about.
And now, this. As of Monday, Owyang appears to have forgotten about the content part of things altogether. Because now what he is proposing is that website "relevance" can be achieved by using "products that allow thriving communities of buyers and prospects to connect with static corporate sites."
The same static corporate websites that, for all intents and purposes, likely still suck.
Now we come to the irresponsible part.
CMOs and their counterparts looooove this kind of post. It’s well-researched, more or less comprehensive, concise, and well-constructed. I’m sure this has already been circulated (634 retweets to date!), printed, and discussed in meetings all over the country, if not the world. It’s an attractive post because it more or less sums up what we need to consider when choosing social media features for our websites. As Owyang puts it, the matrix is a resource to "fast forward research activies." It’s a matrix that, if referenced judiciously, Owyang promises will help us to make our corporate websites relevant.
He’s wrong.
By focusing solely on social media’s features, Owyang continues to perpetuate the pervasive illusion that, if we choose the right tools, our customers will converse with us, talk about us, and share our content.
You know. The "hyperbole, artifical branding, and pro-corporate content" most of our websites still feature.
The relevancy of our corporate websites is not dependent whatsoever on which social media widgets have been deployed throughout the site. Its relevancy is driven by our site content, no matter who is creating it. And that content requires as much, if not more, strategic planning and consistent oversight as do our social media initiatives.
Hey, CMOs: I’m talking to you.
It’s time for executive leadership to stop being distracted by social media features, "disruptive technologies," and the like. These are bright, shiny objects that pull focus from what makes or breaks every corporate website: whether or not your customers can find, use, and act upon content they care about. The stuff they came for. The stuff they want. The stuff they need.
Make your corporate website relevant by having a well-founded, sustainable content strategy. Let that content strategy inform the kind of content you create and share, how you share it, how you engage, and how you react. Define process. Allocate resources to content creation and maintenance. Align on content governance policies and guidelines.
So, go ahead. Print up that article. But take a big Sharpie and cross out the title. In its place, write this:
Social Media Features To Consider… Once We Have a Content Strategy
Kristina Halvorson is the CEO/Founder of Brain Traffic and the author of Content Strategy for the Web. Follow her on Twitter.
Posted in Uncategorized
So your website is up and running, and your content is in good shape—in English. But when your company decides to enter the Indian or Nigerian markets, what gets lost in translation? Your website can become a cultural minefield, but here are some ways to avoid those “mines.”
Say the right thing, the right way, in the right language
Most people think that globalizing content means hiring a translation firm. But one thing we often miss is localization. It’s the magic spice that ensures your content is culturally acceptable, your brand remains consistent, and what you said in English stays relevant in Hindi or Cantonese.
We’ve all laughed at global companies’ faux pas. For example, KFC’s slogan “Finger Lickin’ Good” was translated literally as “Eat Your Fingers Off” in China. And the American Dairy Association was very successful with its “Got Milk?” campaign, but the literal translation, “Are You Lactating?” didn’t go over well in Mexico. They’re funny, sure. But you can bet those “mines” did some brand damage and cost a lot of time and money to correct.
Who’s doing it right? The most recent McDonald’s campaign featured the slang phrase “I’m lovin’ it.” In French Canada, it’s translated as “C’est ça que j’m,” meaning literally “It’s that which I love.” “J’m” is slang for “J’aime” or “I love,” so it’s not a literal translation. The catchphrase is made meaningful and relevant to the culture, thanks to localization.
A final warning about publishing your site in English in a non-English-speaking country. As a general rule of thumb: don’t do it! Sites that are not at least partially translated into the local language risk being dismissed as irrelevant and ethnocentric. Even in countries where English is a widely spoken second language, users may find it tedious to read a non-native language.
Show and tell (the RIGHT story)
Pictures and graphics can complement your copy and reinforce your message. But, on global websites, they can also be “mines” that can blow up in your face. In Indonesia, Iran, or Malaysia, that shot of a woman in a sundress won’t work. In many Muslim countries, it’s unacceptable for a woman to show skin besides the face and hands. In many areas of the world, it’s not appropriate to use only Caucasian models. It’s better to use models that reflect the ethnicity or diversity of the target culture. To take it one step further, photography using American models may not work for Europe, even if there’s appropriate diversity—certain types of clothing, style, and environments scream “American!” to a Dutch or Danish audience.
Symbols in photography and graphics can also cause problems. A thumbs up gesture might mean “Great!” or “OK!” in Western countries. But in the Middle East? It’s obscene. Animals can be risky, too. Cows are sacred in India and dogs are considered unclean in some parts of Asia. And using an animal that doesn’t live in the target geography, like a walrus in Ethiopia, may result in confusion and frustration.
Your brand’s perception can suffer from cultural missteps or gain from cultural sensitivity. So invest time and thought when selecting pictures for your global audiences.
It’s a Small World After All
Bottom line? Thanks in part to global brands, our world is shrinking. So why not protect your brand by ensuring that foreign language content is done right the first time? Even if your company is a startup entering only one foreign country, translation and localization are a worthy investment. By ensuring your content resonates with your audiences and conveys your brand’s tone accurately, you’re protecting your brand experience. Which if you’re Coca-Cola or Toyota, is worth billions of dollars. And even if yours isn’t, localization shows your customers that you take them seriously. So, say what you mean, and mean what you say … in Farsi, Taiwanese, and Swedish.
Posted in Brain Traffic, Content Strategy, Web Content
