Ever send a super clever, funny, smart email, and then re-read it and realize you sound like a jerk? Or bat-dip crazy? Or full of yourself?
It’s not your fault! It’s email’s fault.
WHY IT’S EMAIL’S FAULT
Email is a tricky medium, because:
1. It’s crude.
In person, you convey information through:
1.Words
2.Vocal intonations
3.Facial expressions
4.Body language
5.Visual aids (e.g., PowerPoint slides)
6.Vibes (according to hippies)
Over email you convey info through:
1.Words
Communicating through email is like painting with one big, fat brush. Rendering subtleties—such as sarcasm and self-deprecation—is a tough, messy, and often impossible task.
2. It’s easy.
Sending a birthday card is a full-blown process. You go to the store. Rifle through a bunch of cards. Buy one. Think out what you want to write. Grab a pen. Find a flat surface. Then, finally, put pen to paper.
Email’s free. And easy—just type and hit send. Because it carries no cost and requires little thought, people often don’t put much care into their emails. It shows.
THREE TIPS FOR GREATER EMAIL SUCCESS
Writing clear, courteous emails ain’t rocket science. Just stick with these three common sense tips:
1. Keep it simple, silly. The fewer—and less fancy—words you use, the less likely you’ll be to confuse (or, worse, offend) your recipient. Avoid sarcasm, irony, metaphor, obscure references—all the fun stuff that gets you in trouble. Need an example? Okay.
Instead of saying:
“Thad, you broke a leg—and two arms! You’ve got the charisma of a young Ronald Reagan.”
Say:
“Thad, you did a really great job.”
See? Not as creative. But less chance of confusing/offending/creeping out the recipient.
2. Listen to your gut.
You know when you read something you’ve just written, and it doesn’t sit quite right? Listen to that feeling. Remember, once you hit “send” you can’t take it back. So what’s the rush? Go grab a pretzel stick from the office kitchen. Take a walk. Whatever. Any excuse to get away from your words for a few minutes.
When you return, you might be surprised by how quickly you pinpoint what’s off. “Gee, maybe I shouldn’t tell the client he reminds me of Larry King … ”
3. Ask, “Why?”
Before sending any email, ask yourself why you’re sending it. Or, better yet, ask what your recipient will get out of it. Will it inform, amuse, or reassure them? If you can’t think of even one little ol’ benefit, you probably don’t need to send it.
Remember, too, email isn’t always the answer. Would your recipient prefer a text message or phone call? Or—gasp!—a face-to-face chat? Why labor over an email to a coworker when you could quick pop over to their desk?
Finally, word to the wise: Sending YouTube videos over five minuteslong is just bad form.
Seriously, people. Nothing’s that funny.
HOW TO DEAL WITH EMAIL SNAFUS
So now you know how to stop yourself from writing bad emails. But what if you’ve already sent one? You have two options:
Say sorry.
When to say sorry:
Your coworker or boss says in very definite terms, “Wow, you’re a jerk.”
What to say:
“Wow, I’m a real jerk. I meant to be <funny/sarcastic/goofy/whatever> and I totally flubbed up. Please forgive me, yo!”
Say nothing.
When to say nothing:
Your aunt or friend seems put off, but doesn’t actually say so.
What to say:
Nothing. Let it blow over. Just make sure you take care with future emails. Chances are, in a few weeks, things will be just fine. What you don’t want to do is cram your foot any deeper into your mouth.
YOU’RE NOW AN EMAIL JEDI MASTER
Feels good, doesn’t it? You want to test your skills right now, don’t you? Well, what are you waiting for? Go!
Writing error messages and instructional text isn’t exactly a sexy undertaking. Which is part of the reason it often gets left to the last minute.
Here’s an example of why that’s a really bad idea. I recently encountered this screen while reviewing my domain name renewal information (click on the image to enlarge):
I spent about two minutes here (which was about a minute and 45 seconds too long) trying to decipher the phrase “Bad username and/or password.” Because although I definitely had an account with the company, I couldn’t recall whether I’d previously activated my online customer service profile.
So I wasn’t clear on whether A) this was the place to create a username/password for that account and my entry wasn’t strong enough, or B) the username/password I entered simply didn’t match what I’d used to create the account.
Furthermore, I couldn’t tell whether the culprit was my username or my password, thanks to the clear-as-mud “and/or.”
Your users don’t notice your content unless it’s not working.
When you don’t take the time to carefully craft these seemingly dull and insignificant pieces of content, you end up with vague instructions and dead-end words like “bad.” And before long, you’ve got customers like me who are ready to jump ship.
On the other hand, when this kind of supporting copy is carefully planned for and constructed, it disappears completely into the experience. Your users don’t even notice it’s there. And that’s a good thing.
Remember: Your users expect perfection online. Or close to it, anyway. Why? Because nobody’s there in person or on the phone to guide them as questions arise. Which means your content has to anticipate those questions and provide answers at every turn. Make sure you’re always one step ahead with clear, actionable copy.
So, make your content work harder.
If this all sounds like a big job, well, it is. Writers agonize over stuff like error messages, links, and headlines every day. Unfortunately there’s no silver bullet for writing killer instructional copy. Finding the right words depends on factors such as your audience, your business goals, your user needs, and your brand voice.
If you don’t have access to the kinds of metrics or processes that provide concrete insights, you can still cover many of your bases by asking yourself:
What questions does our current copy raise as users are trying to complete a particular task?
What are the implications of changing this word or deleting this phrase?
In how many different ways could this message be interpreted?
How can we minimize ambiguity?
How can we simplify or streamline?
Would a graphic be more helpful here than a word or sentence?
Even without tangible data to back up your changes, you’ll catch many of those careless copy oversights that frustrate your users and undermine business goals.
How DARE he hide his content behind the iron curtain of non-indexing?
Murdoch isn’t stupid. (Old and confused, yes. Stupid? Not so much.) He’s talking about making a seriously bold move, here, in the interest of keeping his empire from crumbling. So why are people freaking out?
It’s JUST WRONG. Right?
When the religion of the Web is that you can find anything you want, from anywhere, at any time, Murdoch’s plan is straight-up blasphemous.
With this in mind, our faithful interviewer asked, "One of the key, underlying principles of the Internet is that anyone from anywhere in the world can access information freely. Wouldn’t this change mean people have to afford it?"
Murdoch replied, "They’re already paying for newspapers. And anyone can afford a newspaper, they’re the cheapest things in the world. Electronically, it will be even cheaper."
(This cracks me up, because, of course, the majority of the world’s population either can’t afford newspapers or simply don’t have access to them … at least, newspapers that offer unbiased, quality reporting.)
Here’s what Rupert thinks you should do.
Generally, Murdoch wants you to know that his content is actually Quality Content because he employs real reporters, real writers, and real editors who offer experienced, insightful points of view. Which, of course, is true. However, this argument also implies that people shouldn’t go looking for "quality content" on search engines. No, no. You should go straight to an established publisher’s website.
Unfortunately, the internets don’t care so much about the "should"s. There’s a reason Google gets about a bajillion times more traffic than every publication website in the world … combined.
More than anything else, Murdoch is counting on his current readership’s loyalty to his brands. He admits, though, that he’s not sure what that’s going to look like in five, ten, twenty years… which means that this ends up looking more like a Hail Mary pass than anything else.
Rupert, dear, you can’t kill search.
Online readers typically know what they’re looking for, and they want the fastest way to get it. They want to be educated or entertained. They want their questions answered, their lives made easier. They have the Google or Yahoo! or MSN toolbar built into their browsers. They’re going to use it.
Murdoch doesn’t seem to get this, or care. The rest of the world, of course, does. Including you. You’ve been obsessed with SEO and page rankings for years. You don’t have the option of breaking up with Google.
However, you also shouldn’t be so obsessed with Google that you neglect to remember this all-important fact: getting your content indexed by the search engines isn’t enough to win eyeballs that matter. Just because your users can find your content doesn’t mean you’ve won your battle.
Content first. Google second.
Here’s where you can take a page from our friend Rupert and start placing significant value on content people will care about. Editorial oversight. Quality research. Quality writing. These things actually do matter. They inspire trust and motivate action.
Getting to quality content is worth your organization’s investment: time, budget, people. Because once your readers arrive from Google, they’ll either like what they see and stick around for a bit, or lunge for the back button.
Remember, people: If you have a website, you’re a publisher. If you participate in social media, you’re a publisher. If you create emails, help text, product descriptions … you’re a publisher.
You may not be selling content, but your content is selling you. Google won’t solve your problems. Of course, ignoring Google won’t, either … sorry, Rupert.
P.S.
I just have to add this little gem: In the interview, Murdoch says that public broadcasting should be of the highest quality, which commercial broadcasting can’t afford to be. Then he tells us that " most of the stuff [public broadcasting does] is stolen from the newspapers now. And we’ll be suing them for copyright. They’ll have to spend a lot more money paying a lot more reporters when they can’t steal from newspapers."
Recently, our IT company sent us an email alert about "scareware" messages, warning that clicking on any of these messages could install some nasty malware on our computers.
Here’s what they look like:
"The text reads: Warning!!! Your computer contains various types of adware and viruses.
"Your system requires immediate anti-viruses check! Personal Antivirus will perform a quick and free scanning of your PC for viruses and malicious programs. "
"The text reads: Your computer remains infected by threats! They can cause data loss and file damage and need to be cured as soon as possible."
Graphically, these warnings look legit, like they were created with Microsoft or another professional anti-virus company, right? It’s enough to scare people into clicking immediately.
The Copy Test
Fortunately, there’s a simple trick for detecting scareware: Take a look at that copy.
Do legitimate warnings ever work to inspire this much fear and urgency? Do they scream "emergency" with multiple exclamation points and words like "malicious" and "infected"?
No. And that’s what gives them away. Legit error and warning messages are rarely this exciting.
While it’s not great writing, the writers of this scareware copy understand their readers and their fear of computer viruses. Many "for real" error and warning messages don’t work because the writer isn’t thinking from the readers’ point of view.
On this week’s calendar: the Autumnal Equinox. Or as I like to say, the beginning of the end. Now that it’s fall, my mind drifts to dazzling topics like, raking leaves, saying "sayonara" to the sun, and that hard-coded alarm I still hold on to … first semester. Since nobody wants to read my complaining about Minnesota weather, I’d like to celebrate fall learning with a couple of content tips.
Tip #1: Content is more than copy. Around here, we love words. But what we really love is content — and there’s a difference. When we talk about content, we consider copy, meaningful imagery, metadata, user-generated, error messages, video, audio, graphs, charts, etc. You know who illustrates this concept well? TheNew York Times. Check out the Multimedia page and you’ll find photos, interactive graphics/features, text, audio, video and a lot of other cool stuff.
Tip #2: Speaking of graphs and charts, consider infographics. Bring together words with visuals. Do it to inform, entertain or inspire. We have a resident infographics junkie on staff. Her name is Christine. And she finds and circulates some goodies. Here’s where we go hunting: GOOD’s FFFFOUND! page incorporates the best of the web and the Transparency archive is a "graphical exploration of the data that surrounds us." Flowing Data "explores data visualization" in the Infographics Archive.
Tip #3: When I said "a couple" of tips, I really meant it.
At lunch the other day a friend asked me, "Where can I find somebody smart, but really cheap, to be my ghost-tweeter?" A guy next to her obviously thought she was loony. Not me; I’m used to it.
Twitter-as-content-commodity was a new twist, but her conundrum was very familiar. What she was really saying was, "I know I need smart content, but I don’t want to pay for it." On a grander scale, many organizations have the same attitude.
Most people understand that content has value. Big value. They just can’t prove or measure the ROI. And, therefore, they have no concept of how much content is worth.
Proving and measuring the value of content is complex. But, as content professionals, we have to do it. I have some ideas about how to do it, but before I even go there, let’s talk about why everybody is so confused in the first place.
Brace yourselves, content folks. We’re going to talk economics. I promise there will be no math involved.
1776: Defining product value, Adam Smith style
I’m no expert in economics, but I know this much: Adam Smith was a smart dude. Back in 1776, he wrote The Wealth of Nations, a book that basically defined economics as we know it. His ideas still influence the way we assign value to things today.
For the market economy to work, Smith said products of value have three characteristics:
Excludability: The seller can "exclude" you from owning or using the product unless you pay for it; the product is difficult to replicate so you have to buy it from the seller.
Rivalry: It’s more expensive for two people to use the product then one person (So, I can buy a pair of shoes for $10, but if we both want to have shoes it’ll be $20).
Transparency: Customers can see exactly what they’ll get before they buy the product.
These rules work pretty darn well for things like apples, shoes, or kazoos. Those are the kind of tangible products people bought in 1776. (Well, kazoos weren’t invented yet, but apples and shoes surely were.)
1956: A funny thing happened on the way to the factory
Smith’s theories worked pretty well for 180 years, but in 1956 something happened that would have surprised Adam – in the U.S. the number of white-collar jobs surpassed blue-collar jobs.
So, instead of people working in factories and farms making tangible products, people were sitting behind desks making … information. Accountants creating reports, lawyers creating legislation, advertisers creating TV spots, etc., etc. In 1956, content/information was red hot. The first computers were up and running (Check out the photo below of a home computer in 1956 for proof). Heck, Marilyn Monroe even married Arthur Miller, a playwright (you may have heard of him).
The industrial age was over. The information age had begun. Information was in demand in a way it had never been before — and Smith’s three pillars of economic value had started to blur.
1990s: Content breaks all the rules
Until the 1990s, Adam Smith three pillars seemed to be adequate, if not perfect, even for content. Before then, if you wanted some information, you bought a book or newspaper (tangible items). Sure, you could lend your book to a friend, who would get the content for free, but content creators were largely paid for their work.
But, with the advent of the internet, the pillars of value for content collapsed.
Excludability: Content is now easy to create, use, and replicate.
Rivalry: When content is posted online – even if you make me pay for access – I can easily share it with millions of friends without paying a cent.
Transparency: Once you’ve looked at content in-depth, you really don’t need to buy it, do you?
Simultaneously the business importance of good content went sky-high AND the value of content tanked (according to Adam Smith). On top of it all, the internet movement suggested that all content should be free. And society agreed.
2009: Classical economics is toast
So, let’s recap. Today, content is one of the most important business assets in the world. AND, according to traditional economics, content has little value. AND people expect to get it for free (see newspaper industry stats). AND we’re experiencing the worst recession in 80 years.
The economic system is just plain out of date.
I wish I could tell you about the economic model of the future. (Not only would that be nice for you, but I’d make zillions.) Lots of brilliant economists have been trying to figure it out for years.
No wonder people are confused about what to pay for content strategy and creation.
COMING SOON: The Value of Content, Part 2 (The Sequel)
Here’s what I do know. Content makes money. Content saves money. And, ROI of content can be measured. That’s what my next blog post will be about in a few weeks. (It’s just like when the Brady Bunch went to Hawaii – two whole episodes of non-stop fun! Just. Like. That.)
Until then if you have any great examples or ideas about content ROI, send them my way (melissa.rach@braintraffic.com). I’d love to hear about them, and I’ll include them in the blog when I can.
Hiya. I figured that since the book has been finished for, oh, two months now, that I didn’t really have an excuse not to start blogging again.
Anyhow.
So, earlier this week there was a little Twitter exchange that began in response to j. boye’s post, Who Should Be on Your CMS Shortlist? (Because j. boye is a "vendor neutral" consultation firm, its findings are very well-respected throughout the EU and beyond.)
Initially, there was a flurry of responses from people who thought one CMS or another really sucked. I also had people asking me which CMS I would recommend, which was kind of weird, as I obviously have no idea about their organization’s content management needs.
But here’s my point. While the CMS Shortlist is useful in many ways, it’s certainly not the best place to start when trying to solve your content problems. No matter what your CMS vendor tells you.
I’m a big fan of iSite’s The CMS Myth (and wish they would post more often!), whose central tenet is this: In reality, CMS success hinges on your plan, your people, and your process behind your web content management initiative.
That’s content strategy, folks. No matter what CMS vendors promise, no matter how "powerful" a CMS is, a CMS is not going to help make your content more useful, usable, or relevant to your end users. Moreover, a CMS isn’t going to solve anything for anyone in your organization who struggles with the day-to-day realities of content creation, delivery, and governance.
Don’t try selecting a tool until you really understand what you’re trying to build, and for whom. Start with your content strategy.
Here are two related posts by j. boye analyst Dorthe Raakjær Jespersen, well worth reading:
One last thing: I’m really excited to be a part of the j. boye Conference in Aarhus, Denmark, November 3-5. Tagline: "A knowledge sharing summit for online professionals." Bring it.
Kristina’s book, Content Strategy for the Web, arrived in the Brain Traffic office this week. (Psst: You can buy it here.) Watch the unveiling:
So, what are we going to do now that Kristina published a book? The same thing we do every day, of course: Try to take over the world! Congratulations, Kristina!
Web writers have to adopt appropriate voice and tone while remaining pithy. Fake celebrity Tweeters have to adopt appropriate voice and tone while remaining super pithy—and telling pudding jokes. It’s a hard job.
“Even though he looked like a wax figure, Mr. Jackson could do a strange backward jig, the likes of which I’ve never seen. He will be missed!” @HalfPintIngalls
“zippity hippity dop! zooba shawow! with the people, and the places, and the ohhh try some jello pudding. it’s such a good snack SHEBOP!” @JelloPudding
