Part One: About "Liars."

In a Keller@Large piece on CBS Boston's website (will-they-stop-using-the-word-liar),  the headline addresses the use of the word "liar," and the article then equates that word with several euphemisms. We think that equation is misplaced.


Mr. Keller's article cited an exchange between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (remember him?).  In the exchange, Newt did everything he could to not call Mitt a liar; he tap-danced all around it but did not use it. That tap-dance is precisely the point.


Our Positively Writing view: the use of those euphemisms clearly demonstrates an unwillingness to use the word "liar." Since we always espouse clear, direct communication, we suggest that NOT using "liar" when warranted is less effective communication. It also implies discomfort with using the word.


We find this discomfort . . . well . . . discomfiting. And amazing, too. Modern politicians will say virtually anything to win a vote. More precisely, they lie incessantly. So why should we focus on their phrasing when we should castigate them for the (mis)information they are providing? They lie. They lie consistently and then look people in the eye and lie again.


But they're loathe to use the word "liar." Their wordsmithery is a bit bizarre. Do they edit themselves because they think calling someone a liar offends that person? While they are lying to us.


How disheartening for the country that we hear their vitriol. And how sad that we are forced to decipher the deceit. We've long advocated that any politician's paid media cannot mention an opponent. Wouldn't that change the political landscape: Force a candidate to talk only about their proposals and worthiness. 


Our two pieces of advice: First, stop pussyfooting. When given a chance to debate or confront, say it. If someone lied, say it. Say "You lied, and here's the proof." If you don't use the precise word you are communicating less effectively than you should be.


Second: Campaign positively. Give everyone credit for their willingness—and perhaps their likelihood—to engage more with a positive message. As marketers we've seen proof that a positive message is more effective than a negative one. And after all, who is more of a marketer than a politician running for office?


If someone lies, yes, label them "liar." If you're the liar, deal with the label. If we all stop lying, the entire issue disappears. Positively.

Death by Infographic?

"Simple" communicates better.

That's always been our Positively Writing philosophy. And we're wondering if the explosive increase in the use of infographics might challenge those who share our philosophy. Even casual observers of the digital-marketing landscape can't help but notice the preponderance (plethora?) of infographics in daily use across the Web. But what's behind the dramatic increase in that use?

Our view is that it's linked both to the presentation of data and to the effect technology is having on our ability to digest said data.

When individuals and companies decide to present us with infographics, they may be simply trying to illustrate—literally—data. By adding color and graphics they may be hoping to make a bigger impact than they would by showing us a bar chart. Good for them. We like interesting much more than we like boring, especially when thinking about data.

We're now also automatically inclined to expect some graphics with virtually every app or platform or online engagement of any kind. We heard an amusing comment recently describing Craigslist as looking like it was "from the invention of the Internet." The point was well taken.

But when the need to "cleverly" present data trumps the data itself, well, we have a problem. A 10-panel vertical infographic with swirling graphics and myriad colors and numbers embedded in endless layout elements? Probably wouldn't qualify as "simple." or "clear." And if it's not clear, it's falling short of it's goal. Simple.

While we're not surprised there's a bandwagon for infographics, we're eager for the wheels to fall off, so to speak. As marketers, we might want to take a step back and remember what our ultimate objective is: clear, persuasive communication.

Period.