The Pre-Roll Experience

We wanted to watch an online video news clip. So we clicked. And we were forced to sit through a Cadillac commercial. Ugh. 

But you know what? we thought. Not this time. We'll move onto some other content on this site and skip the video. So we move our mouse over the bottom of the video to stop the commercial. But there's no way to stop it. There's no pause or stop button.

So we clicked off the site. Not the video. The site. Gone. We'll find that content elsewhere.

This incredibly entertaining (!) anecdote is not simply about a website risking loss of traffic by pushing (a key word here) pre-roll video ads down a visitor's throat. It's about something bigger than that. It's about intentionally creating a negative user experience. It's about ignoring what the Internet is all about.

Yes, we know advertisers will find us online. Everywhere online. But when we click to watch a video, we want to watch the video, not a commercial. But sites (i.e., brands) don't care, as exploding online video ad revenues prove. (Online video is the fastest growing ad format in 2012 with nearly 55% growth—eMarketer, January 2012). Online marketers are putting themselves before the consumer. Again. And it's turning the internet into another interruptive media experience. Simply, that makes it a less positive experience than could be.. 

Deutsch's David Van Praet raises another really good point in a new FastCoCreate piece. Just by using the word "consumer," marketers are making a huge mistake. They're assuming that stimulating consumption should be their goal, instead of improving people's lives. 

Bad idea? Skeptical that helping people can make money? Okay, see "Apple, Cupertino, CA." 

Should consumers be worried about their desired content taking a back seat? We say yes. DIgital- and social-media measurement techniques improve continually, and they provide the rationale for the integrated marketing programs that reach out and touch us—unwelcome as some of those touches might be. So marketers likely will continue to step over the fine line between strategic engagement and advertising overkill. 

But there is hope, saddened,worried "consumer." Some of us remember that it's the person who comes first. Maybe we should all remember to remind each other about that.

Linguistic (In)competence, Social and Otherwise

We've written about how ultra-casual communication through technology has affected our ability to express ourselves. John McWhorter's NYT piece argued that texting and e-mailing are not in fact methods of writing; he calls them "written conversation" and "fingered speech." It's an interesting distinction and one worth exploring because it affects individuals and brands. 

For us here at Positively Writing, McWhorter misses a key issue: the culture of exceedingly casual communication. Because social media affects popular culture in such a massive way, its associated behaviors now exist well beyond its boundaries. Twitter-talk happens over dinner. OMGs become titles of television programs. Texting shortcuts creep into journalism.

Is that a problem?

Well yes, because this underlying culture impacts issues much larger than capitalization and acronyms. It's not about simply messy chatting; it's about messy thinking. And now the people who are paid to report news approach their work the way they approach communication with friends. It's not that  communication with friends is careless but that there is less care taken with friends. 'If I misstate something, no big deal' seems to be the prevailing notion.

We're so disappointed with "the media" because we've seen so much evidence of this—in social media and elsewhere. And this evidence suggests that less care equals less accuracy. 

And that's unacceptable.

Where do you get your news?  A USA Today headline told us baseballer Barry Bonds said Detroit's Miguel Cabrera is "not as good as me." Simply not true (the quote). Bonds said Cabrera doesn't match him in MVP awards or statistics. And he was responsible enough to add the qualifier "yet." 

If a universally acknowledged steroid-user (i.e., cheater) Bonds is more careful with his words than USA Today is, do they deserve your readership? 

In another sports story, almost every prominent media source reported Indiana Pacer head coach Frank Vogel called the Miami Heat (the Pacers' playoff opponent at the time) "just another team." Simply not true. Vogel said his team is "competing for a championship and they (Miami) are just the next team that’s in our way." Even worse, the hometown Miami Herald exacerbated the error by saying Vogel "flip-flopped' when he simply restated his words. . . and they did this after acknowledging he was misquoted. 

These examples raise the question (no, they do not "beg" the question) "Where is accountability?" Well, we think it's in the same place as accuracy: nowhere. As a culture we not only tolerate it, our lack of outrage or action indicates we don't care. So it happens more frequently. So it doesn't jump out at us. So it gets ignored even more frequently. Ugh.

When CNN and the New York Post disgraced themselves with their incomprehensibly irresponsible reporting on the Boston bombings, the social mediascape called them on it. Their response? They didn't apologize, they rationalized. And by giving excuses, they sidestepped accountability.

We freely admit that we here at Positively Writing are sticklers. We cringe when announcers misuse words and newspapers slant their stories with sly wording (we cringe a lot). We can't begin to list the number of times ESPN talking heads mispronounced the names of athletes that may not be considered mainstream (often soccer players). This is their only job—to communicate their subject matter—and they make outrageous mistakes with shocking regularity. We acknowledge we're in the minority and that precise language simply does not matter to most people. But we're appalled that news organizations seem to be leaning in that direction, too, because it doesn't suggest carelessness, but rather incompetence. 

And are we really okay with incompetence. From any quarter? 

We shouldn't be. We've all seen "the power of social media." It can literally create social movements that change societies. So let's create the "Accountability in Media" movement. Let's have a million people rain down their outrage when a newspaper or network blatantly ignores facts or tries to create a story that doesn't exist. If we create real accountability—and affect, say, employment—maybe we'll see a positive change. A change that can only benefit our culture and us. All of us.

Deal?

Part Two: "In Nothing We Trust"

We lied to each other so much
That in nothing we trust

My friends, this is what it's come to: We need to look to a band called Megadeath to summarize our current state of mind. Dave Mustaine's lyrics from 1997's "Trust," echoed by a number of more "mainstream" writers, crystallize the single most important issue for marketers: Nobody seems to trust anyone.

Think we're overstating things? Take a look at Marc Fisher's Washington Post piece, "Romney's tax returns, Obama's birth certificate and the end of trust." It's not merely political 
claims that cause distrust, Fisher writes, rather "we're cynical at the very nature of facts." (The italics are mine, for emphasis.)

So maybe even facts can't counteract our predisposition to trust nothing And maybe that's not such a novel idea. Fisher's piece cites philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, who said that the more we demand evidence, the more we create doubt. 

What the heck does that mean? That we shouldn't use facts as our basis for believing something? As a prominent financial-services marketer and good friend of ours says, "Aye aye aye . . . " 

We say let's be a little more positive and re-frame for a second. Let's go back to basics and start with respect for our customers and consumers in general.

And once again the shining example of customer respect is Apple. Why does financial site The Street flatly state "Apple's Customer Trust Tough to Beat"? By doing simple, smart things that most other companies don't do. From CRM guru Don Peppers comes this:

"If you accidentally try to order the same song twice from iTunes, you’ll be warned that you already own it. Not because it would be illegal or unethical for Apple to profit from your forgetfulness. There’s a clear busi­ness reason: the leaders of iTunes realize there’s no better way to make you trust them than to be totally honest when you least expect it." (Again, my italics) Honesty equals trust. Simple.

Yes, it can be so. So says another group of loyal customers, those of financial-service giant USAA, the number one-ranked firm in the 2102 Temkin Trust Ratings. Why is USAA so trusted? Perhaps it's because they've received two J.D. Power awards for superior customer service. Better service equals more trust. Simple.

Fisher's article quotes market researcher Flint McGlaughlin: “The Post-Modern Consumer just doesn’t believe us anymore. They have endured too many empty promises, too many exaggerated benefits, and too many artful disclaimers. The predisposition now is to doubt every claim.”

Whew. Every claim. That doesn't leave too much room for error does it? It only heightens the need for every marketing organization to follow the lead set by the likes of Apple and USAA: Earn trust by respecting the relationship with customers. By delivering consistently superior service. Unqualified service. Real service. Respect.

                                    * * * * * * 

And wouldn't you know it, just before "press time," we learned about another reason that "nobody trusts anybody." Melky Cabrera, a heretofore likable baseball player for the SF Giants, was having the best season—by far—of his career. He was selected as an All-Star, even won the MVP of the All-Star game, and was among the NL's leading hitters at an amazing .346, or nearly 60 points above his career average. 

MLB just suspended Melky for using testosterone.

Trust. So elusive. But for those who embrace it as a real and lasting value, trust can be earned. And inevitably, good things will follow. 

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.

On Resilience

1: the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress;  2: an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change.


We were inspired by the cover story in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine about kids' success. Specifically, about the value in failure and learning how to deal with it.

The piece also questioned whether focusing on perfect performance is overvalued, and cited some illuminating results of multi-year studies among middle-school kids and their longer-term success . . . or lack thereof. The gist: Kids who scored higher for traits like resilience (i.e., "grit") were more likely to attain more lasting and meaningful success than kids with higher grade-point averages and standardized test scores.

This sounded a lot like the central message of the famous Ken Robinson TED talk, in which he so brilliantly called for schools to rethink the fundamental principles of education itself. He states, convincingly, that we're teaching kids to fear making mistakes, and that fear systematically stifles creativity.

Think about it. A young child of say, four, will often make up the wildest, weirdest answer to a question that baffles. Ask a tough question to a 12-year-old, and the likely answer is "I don' know." Older kids have been taught to not take a chance on an answer that might be wrong; it's "safer" for them to shut down and not try to conjure up an answer.

If the education system focused more on rewarding kids for their strength of character—for overcoming obstacles with relentless dedication—we might be better served. The kids, certainly, would be better served, as the research in the Times piece makes clear. Grit makes good.

Here at Positively Writing we notice the companies, especially in our field of advertising/marketing, who make it a point to state they employ "nice" people. Polite. people. Respectful. This hits home for us (especially the notion of respect), because it speaks to the character of a person, not just his or her experience or college or industry awards. For us, the companies that hire people who will run through he proverbial brick wall are better positioned for long-term success than those who "require" MBA-level job candidates.

We tend to over-dramatize mistakes in business, perhaps because the spectre of money—or potentially losing money/clients—looms. Wouldn't it be more productive, for employees and companies alike, if mistakes were acknowledged as a way of life and we emphasized the value of learning from mistakes . . . and we did not imply that the mistakes had better not happen again?

Answer? Yes it would. We would all be better off long term and we'd be happier, too. Fear of failure can become insidious and can have deeply negative effects on a company's culture and on its employees. We know from painful experience: Going to work in a decidedly negative, threatening environment is a stifling, debilitating experience that makes people feel disrespected.

Our advice to the job seekers out there: Seek out companies with truly collaborative cultures that value the ideas that come from all of their employees—not just the "idea" people. And if the spirit moves, take a run at that proverbial brick wall once in a while; strange as it might sound, it couldn't hurt.

More Proof the "Me" Plan Does Not Work—From Baseball!

We were awed by the drama and excitement of the final day of baseball's regular season: three remarkably dramatic wins that determined playoff teams and, in two of them, historic events that truly defied all logic and probability.

Today, the day after, we read quotes from players reacting to the games. And we were struck—once again, unfortunately—by the self-centered attitudes of these athletes. But upon further review, we realized those selfish thoughts may not be unrelated to losing.

Three Boston players offered shockingly selfish reactions to their loss and, moreover, their team's amazing September collapse. Two were mentioned in Boston Globe sportswriter Dan Shaughnessy's piece today.

Carl Crawford had a chance to prolong last night's game but missed a sliding catch on the game-ending hit; he evaluated the play this way: “If I should have caught it, I could have caught it." 

Huh? 

Putting aside the fact that this may not in fact be English—it certainly isn't coherent thought—Crawford doesn't come close to taking responsibility. Not really my fault, is what he's essentially saying in a disturbingly bizarre way.

Adrian Gonzalez took the "higher" route to irresponsibility: "“God has a plan,’’ he said. “And it wasn’t God’s plan for us to be in the playoffs.’’ Shaughnessy's one- word reaction to this: "Wow." We can't say it any better.

The Globe also reported that 45-year-old pitcher Tim Wakefield, when asked if he would play again next year, said he wanted to come back to break the record for most wins in team history. He said nothing—not one word—about helping the team win.

Hmm. Three key players saying nothing about their roles and responsibilities as teammates . . . and then their team goes out and loses in an epic way. Coincidence? We think not.

Perhaps the most shocking lack of character was shown yesterday by the Mets' Jose Reyes, who asked out of a game in the very first inning so he had a better chance of winning the batting title. Reyes' act is indefensible; his level of arrogance and disrespect, to teammates and fans alike, tells you everything you need to know about him. (The Mets season was marked by rampant losing and organizational disarray.)

When your team includes players who are more focused on individual priorities, your team chemistry suffers. By definition, you're playing as less of a team. 

We won't suggest reasons for the "Me First" approach because there may be societal, economic and personal forces in play here. We will suggest, however, that when you put on a uniform (or join a company of any kind) you might want to think big picture first. Why? It's simple: If the team wins you win. How that could be considered anything but a positive outcome, for the group and for the individuals, escapes us. 

Our Positively Writing view is, always, that you get what you give. So we always strive to do the respectful thing, the selfless thing, and we persevere with positive expectations. Always. And when we witness events that are so unexpected, as we did in these baseball games last night, we feel more justified than ever in our approach.

Baseball as a life lesson? Why not? The universe once again is showing us that by giving we'll all be getting what we want—happiness. 

Simple and satisfying, isn't it?

Sports For Dummies?

We love sports. But watching—and especially listening to—sports broadcasts requires the viewer to accept language that is brutally inaccurate, inappropriate and often just plain dumb. Perhaps this is why European football (aka "soccer," around here) increasingly appeals to us here at Positively Writing. England's Premiership announcers use language more correctly, precisely, and more cleverly than do the announcers of American sports.

It's almost too easy to point out silly announcer errors; the web site Awful Announcing has built a business by doing that. So let's go deeper; why do viewers evidently accept the consistently incorrect use of language during games?

We cite three primary reasons. First, let's turn things around and look not at the announcers, but at the viewers. No need to tense-up sports fans; just keep an open mind.

Many (perhaps most) sports fans are not overly concerned with announcer syntax during games they watch. We would venture that highly precise language might in fact distract viewers. Here's why: Sporting events are decidedly informal gatherings. Alcohol often is consumed; massive amounts of alcohol often are consumed. When that happens, the brain, the nervous system, and general awareness levels are operating on less-than-optimum levels. Larger stimuli will logically make an impact; more subtle stimuli do not.

So if an announcer states "The Cowboys offensive line has three first-time starters, which begs the question . . . " most sub-optimized viewers don't particularly care that "begs the question" is completely misused. They (the Cowboys haters) instead salivate at the thought of their team's defensive-line stunts that will confuse those new starters and KO Tony Romo for another season. Larger stimuli.

The viewers are into the experience, not the framing of the experience with precision language. So the announcers and their networks do not receive negative feedback, even though it is warranted in many, many cases. Hence, thorough elucidation not required.

The second reason: Many announcers are ex-athletes who have not, shall we say, matriculated with particular urgency at their respective institutes of higher learning. The true scholar-athlete—the Bill Bradley or the Pat Haden—is not merely the exception. He is scarce to the point of near non-existence. So we'll not get a seriously studied delivery from the athlete-announcer . . . which fits just fine into the aforementioned "informal" game-time experience.

The third reason language gets abused during sports broadcasts: Language also gets abused in the surrounding media environment (i.e., advertising pre-, during, and post-game). Advertisers are pretty good at targeting their messages, especially those in sports-related broadcasts. They, too, know that informal is better. In this case, informal sells better. So they keep the language loose and focus on monitoring sales, not monitoring Twitter comments about misplaced modifiers in their :30 commercials. If the brand is thriving, the language is acceptable, they seem to be saying.

To be sure, some sports writing is highly competent and technically correct. But it is striking how infrequently we see it; the almost incomprehensible, sheer volume of sports banter across all media channels is staggering, so even if 10% (we're skeptical) is done well, it's swallowed by the typically insipid, bombastic blather of the sporting media landscape.

So it seems we purists might pay more attention to Man United–Chelsea matches that the Yankee–Red Sox games. (For the record we'll restate a recent Tweet of ours: Barcelona's Lionel Messi is approaching a "greatest ever" level, one that may surpass Gretzky, Jordan, Montana and all the rest.) And while we'll always advocate for strong, clear communication, we recognize it's not a high priority for the average sports fan. That's too bad, because we're all for doing the right things, and we view respecting the language as one of those right things.

Final thought sports fans: You win with fundamentals, correct? Well, what could be more fundamental than communicating correctly? As the new NFL season approaches, think about that. Right after you stop thinking about Tony Romo getting sacked again. And again. And again . . .

So to Begin . . .

Have you noticed a dramatic increase in the number of people who use "so" to start a sentence?

We have. And we've unearthed a fair number of articles and blog postings arguing pro and (mostly) con about it. As always, our Positively Writing approach centers on clarity, so (heh-heh) we sit squarely in the "con" camp.

When these article and blog writers address the subject, one thing they don't address is this: People use "so" verbally but almost never in their writing. Why? People seem to readily use other conjunctions to begin sentences when writing; "because," "but," even "and" can be found easily when analyzing writing styles. But not "so."

So why is this (heh-heh)? Our answer is much more direct than most of the theories we've found. In one theory, Anand Giridharadas of the New York Times traces the origins of using the word "so" to start sentences, and its widespread adoption.

So, it is widely believed that the recent ascendancy of "so" began in Silicon Valley. The journalist Michael Lewis picked it up when researching his 1999 book The New New Thing: "When a computer programmer answers a question," he wrote, "he often begins with the word 'so.'" Microsoft employees have long argued that the "so" boom began with them.

This logical tinge to "so" has followed it out of software. Starting a sentence with "so" uses the whiff of logic to relay authority. Where "well" vacillates, "so" declaims.

Our theory: It's become an affectation. It is now, simply, a habit. And a bad one—especially in business—because if the first word of your answer or statement is unnecessary and distracting, you've just moved one step away from clarity. You're complicating, or at the very least, delaying, your thoughts. So by definition (though not in this sentence, because it's drawing a conclusion) you're being less clear than you could be.

Deeper in that Times article, Michael Erard, the author of “Um…: Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders, and What They Mean” echoes our view when he positions "so" as a new symptom of "our chopped-up and discontinuous communication and conversation."

We further suggest it reflects a struggle to think in an organized way. It tells listeners, I've got an awful lot bouncing around in here, and I'm now going to communicate a thought, but I need to try and reframe first so I'll start with "so." It's a re-grouping mechanism for the speaker—not for the listener. Clearly it's there only as a crutch. In no way does in make the communication better.

Could "so" as a sentence starter become commonplace and, eventually, acceptable? Yes it could, since language evolves. But we at Positively Writing endorse the adoption of new uses of language when they evolve out of necessity or accuracy. Not when they evolve from error.

"So" is not the way to start a sentence. So don't do it (heh-heh) unless you're concluding or perhaps composing poetry. Be direct and you'll be more clear.

Value=Sharing the Wealth AND The Responsibility

Last week a friend asked this question: If you were starting a business, what athlete would you choose first? This wasn't a trick question; it was a question about the characteristics we deemed most important in a key employee.

After telling him I had a few "hazy" options that I couldn't immediately identify, I went with Derek Jeter. I told him that Jeter, along with Don Mattingly, showed more respect for his profession than any other athlete we were privileged to watch. For us, respect is the ultimate driver of business success, especially in the area of relationship building.

The other hazy options did come to us afterwards. And both are, incredibly (give me a moment . . . I'll get this out . . . ) Boston athletes. Bobby Orr and Larry Bird possessed the magical ability to improve the performance of every player around them (a point my friend cited as the trait he considered most valuable).

One statistic demonstrates this better than all others: assists. Orr has the third highest assists-per-game average in NHL history. That his number approaches Gretzky's and Mario's is literally incredible, since he played defense. His physical skills were clearly superior to virtually everyone who ever played hockey on planet earth, but that he used those skills largely to assist others—and not simply to take off on one end-to-end rush after another—proves his value. Others benefited from his skills. Indisputable, in black and white.

Bird? Maybe even more unbelievable. He averaged far more assists than the other two greatest forwards in NBA history, Julius Erving and Karl Malone. His assists were double Malone's, while he averaged virtually identical points and rebound numbers. All three of Bird's numbers outpaced Erving's. Bird's assist number almost matches Lebron James' to this point. And we'd all agree James may be the most freakishly gifted physical specimen in the history of sports; Bird was, umm, not quite that physically gifted.

Yes, Bird was perhaps the most clutch player (Jerry West?) in NBA history, but his ability to set up other players sets him apart.

And a word about all these assists. Let's make the grandiose assumption that after a pass was made, the other player had at least a modicum of work to do before a goal or point was scored. The other player had ultimate responsibility for completing the play successfully. So Orr and Bird weren't merely helping others, they were handing off serious responsibility.

And isn't that a cornerstone of teamwork? Giving each player increasing responsibility, so the player can grow and prosper . . . as the team will, collectively. And isn't that one of the definitions of valuable? (Actually, it is; valuable means, literally, of great use or service.)

So bring your "A Game" guys. And be prepared to outwork the other guys. And then work some more. And never, ever lose your focus on racking up those assists. Because what is one other thing that Jeter, Orr and Bird have in common?

They win.

Communication 101 . . . in 2011

Biggest communication firestorm so far this year? Easy. The Jay Cutler injury diagnosis/character annihilation via Twitter on Sunday. This piece in the Chicago Sun-Times recaps the blizzard of negative comments.

Our Positively Writing view of all this, not surprisingly, is how immediacy of communication increases the need for more thoughtful, precise language. If your thoughts are going to fly around the world as soon as your synapses finish firing, you'd better be accurate.

But several NFL players were decidedly not accurate when they accused Cutler of wimping out without having any—ANY—information about his injury. They couldn't possibly be accurate without medical information. They made judgments based entirely on what they saw. So they made poor judgments.

Cutler was in fact hurt, though by (admittedly surreal) NFL standards not severely. The Twitter squad real-time reacted to Cutler's behavior on the sidelines. And without question he looked uninterested, unenthusiastic, and displayed no sense of leadership. Our Positively Writing opinion is that he absolutely oozed negative energy.

When we write negatively without supporting facts we risk receiving the negative input we send out to others. If just one of the players who blasted Cutler had Tweeted "Don't kno how badly Jay is hurt, but needs to pump up his mates," that Tweeter would be viewed far more positively. So, "you get what you give" applies once again. As ever.

Take a second or two—literally just a couple of seconds—and you're far more likely to create a more thoughtful communication. Don't be a knee-jerk accuser; we seem to have far, far too many of those these days. Focus on facts . . . then integrate those facts into your opinion. Skip the facts and subject yourself to lowered universal opinion.

Your choice.

"There Is No FInish Line"

The American obsession with winning threatens to rob us of a massively important fact: getting to "done" is just as important as actually being done. 

One of our brightest and most insightful friends gave us the five words in our title, above. (Thanks JM.) Those words are amazingly important. Because when we focus on doing, and we stay in the moment, we not only increase the likelihood of performing our task more effectively, we achieve something else that's pretty important.

We're happier. 

It's fact. As reported in a study published in the journal Science, a big predictor of who's happy (and who's not) is how often peoples' minds wander, says study author Matthew Killingsworth, a doctoral candidate in psychology at Harvard University. "The more often they take themselves out of the present moment, the less happy they are."

(A cool additional fact: The researchers used a novel approach to get real-time snapshots of what the 2,250 study participants were thinking and how they felt throughout the day. They developed a free iPhone app that buzzed volunteers, whose average age was 34, several times a day asking them how they were feeling.)

So it's clear. Stay focused and you'll do a better job . . . and you'll do a better job of being happy. And try to start off your day with this in mind: Research also suggests that those who practice a little mindfulness in the morning have a better ability to stay focused throughout the day. 

Remembering to not focus on the end result will enable us to focus better on performing the task. Now, is the end result important? Yes; often vitally important. But the outcome is dictated by the effectiveness of performance. So focusing there—right there—seems like your best bet. Doesn't it.

Now, overlay the happiness benefit. And it doesn't just seem like your best bet. It's your only bet.

We here at Positively Writing are confirmed advocates in approaching every task in a positive way. And we're now just as clear about the importance of appreciating the value of simply performing that task. Our advice: make the "finish line" your second (or third or fourth . . ) priority. Make the moment your first.

Now You're Talkin' . . .

For those of us in the advertising business, The New York Times provides this exceptionally positive start to the year:  After Two Slow Years, an Industry Rebound Begins.

Yes, music to the ears of many of us. But perhaps an even bigger gift is the simple, positive statement about the state of our business . . . rather that a "Good Riddance" story about the exceptionally difficult 2010 (and 2009) business conditions we've endured. 

We here at Positively Writing completely understand the inclination to view things through a negative prism after such an overwhelmingly widespread, difficult period. But here's a great example of focusing on the good to come . . . and not on the bad that's gone.

And that's our short, sweet initial post of 2011 . . . 

A Culture of the Uncultured

Our admitted sensitivity to living a positive life notwithstanding, we will confidently compare our objectivity with anyone's. But the stimuli we've endured just this week is irrefutable proof that we're wallowing, as a collective culture, in some seriously deep mire. 

1. We held a door for a young lady walking out of a bank when we could have walked in before she left. And we received ZERO acknowledgment. No "Thank You," not even the perfectly acceptable New York "Glance of Gratitude." Nothing.

2. We quite diligently pursued our thrice-weekly exercise routine, and while on the good old elliptical machine, we observed this: a crumpled newspaper had been thrown on the floor between machines; a magazine (someone still reads a magazine??!!) thrown randomly on the other side of the machine; no wipes had been placed in the dispenser, so we needed to track down some papers towels in the far-off locker room to wipe down the machine when we finished; barbells, mats, exercise balls and benches were strewn all over the room, never having been put back into their racks, designated areas, etc.; and while watching a monitor during exercise, we observed Prince Charles and Camilla's car attacked by British students trying to win friends and influence people in their tuition battle.

3. We held another door, undaunted, for a "gentleman" as we exited and he entered Staples. Nothing.

4. We read an excellent Wall Street Journal piece entitled "Why Narcissism Defines Our Time." It tells us that four million American adults list fame as their number-one life goal and 2% of individuals are “consumed” by their desire to be a star. In a 2007 survey, the Pew Research Center found that 51% of 18-to-25-year-olds said their first or second goal in life was to "become famous." Incredible.

5. We overhear a young lady in cell-screaming mode saying " . . .  I was just sort of, like, umm . . . " before the door slams and she mercifully leaves the coffee shop.

6. We've been plowed into—full-on, shoulder-to-shoulder hits the NFL showcases weekly—by men AND women, both in the subway and on the street (yes, we're quite aware this is New York City, thank you). And we have gotten exactly the same feedback from those people. Nothing.

Then we read this quote this morning from a VERY high profile "student"-athlete at one of America's finest universities: "I am a person that has did nothing wrong . . . ". 

We went on to read a The New York Times editorial on the United States Senate blocking consideration of help for tens of thousands of emergency workers and volunteers who became ill from the ground zero cleanup after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Notice they blocked "consideration" of the bill; they won't even consider voting on it. That is almost beyond comprehension. The Times rightfully calls it "callous," "harrowing," and states yesterday's Republican-driven votes resulted in "one of the most shameful days in the modern history of the Senate."

Whew.

Feeling a bit challenged, all you positive thinkers? Well, we here at Positively Writing certainly understand if you are. But inevitably, after observing and enduring another week of self-centered behavior and scary syntax, we feel good about ourselves. If we continue to act as we always do, with consideration for others and general thoughtfulness, we'll be rewarded. Not with fame or money, but with the consideration and respect that will surely come our way. And that's plenty for us, thank you very much.

When someone simply does "the right thing," they stand out as the exception, don't you think? In reality they should be the rule. How did things get flipped on their heads? 

We've had two recent instances when blatant lies—about our own behavior—were thrown in our face as if we were not even in the room. What is happening to our culture when people think nothing of telling another person "no, you did not just do that"? 

I guess we could always say "I has did nothing wrong . . . " But that is a bit cynical, so apologies for that. (Look we just apologized without prompting!) Despite it all, we do hold out some hope that attitudes improve as our economy does likewise, and that people look less in the mirror and more toward the horizon. 

Yes, let's absolutely live in the moment and bring the energy to make every day exceptional. But let's maintain some perspective on where we're all going, and remember we're sailing there in one big boat. If you rock it too much, we'll all go overboard. We're here to help you maintain the balance you need. Are you willing to offer that, as well?

Is Facebook, like, the Culprit?

A New York Times article (Sunday, November 28) described the rigorous physical aspects of Natalie Portman's role in her newest film "Black Swan." It also contained seven examples of Ms. Portman and others using "like" in very distressing ways.

For us at Positively Writing, reading repeated inappropriate uses of "like" both astounds and appalls us. And we wonder if FB's ubiquitous "Like" button is the insidious enabler of this absurd usage. After all, with "Like" now top of mind, dropping it randomly into otherwise acceptable discourse seems logical . . . even predictable.

But what's most troubling is this: "Like" now serves as a "vagueness indicator," among other things. Perhaps another way to describe it is a "laziness" indicator. And Positively Writing readers very likely understand the deep aversion we have to anything approaching lazy.

People now use "like" to suggest that what they are about to say is only in the neighborhood of what they want to say. "It's close to this, but not really this" is what "like" is flagging for us. So we're giving ourselves permission to be vague. And we're simultaneously announcing "I'm not going to make my best effort to communicate precisely here; saying something "like" what I really want to say is good enough. You figure it out."

Hmm. You figure it out indeed. Onus now on you, listener, not on me, even if I'm delivering the message. A close relative of "like," also prominent in the NYT piece, is "kind of." As used there, it also adds a vagueness that completely quashes the communication. Ms. Portman says " . . . my body was KIND OF in emergency mode." So evidently we have "kind of" an emergency here. Well, do we have one or not? This isn't someone telling us it's kind of sunny outside; this person is trying to indicate a very serious condition . . . but then tells us that maybe it is an emergency, or maybe . . . 

Ugh.

Guys, please "Like" everyone you see fit to like on Facebook. Just don't inject "like" into your language, whether as a hedge, a pause, a filler, or, like, whatever. It doesn't help us understand you. And it causes us to question how much effort you are making to connect with us . . . especially when we don't have a "Like" button to show us the way.

The Pwr of Wrds

Do words have energy?

A number of very credible people make the case that in fact words do vibrate energy. Certainly they can transmit tremendous emotional power, but do words themselves—a series of adjacent letters—exude a kind of power. A real energy?

We at Positively Writing think this is a highly relevant question in this age of 3,300 teen texts per month. Texts that often contain no words at all, but rather abbreviations, acronyms and other abbreviated versions of actual words. 

Let's consider two strong words. First: Hate. 

Now consider this word: Peace.

You very likely have definitive, tangible reactions when you read these. And it's just as likely those reactions are vastly different. But do you have equally different feelings when you read "laughing out loud" and "lol"? Hmm . . . 

In the advertising world, good copywriting occurs when the words "bounce," when they have their own energy, When they move the reader along and make him anticipate what comes next. Sometimes with short sentences. Very short. Only to be followed by longer, more detailed sentences that provide the final, persuasive thought that answers the preceding ideas. Yes, good copywriting comprises substance and style; you'll deliver a message with greater impact if it contains the right information and it's delivered with positive, energetic words.

When we're not in work mode, we're far more informal with our language. Slang has become the default norm; street talk has moved curbside and right into the house. We're not chastising here, but simply illustrating another evolutionary turn of the language. And as always, we think some consideration should be given to the benefits of correct, complete communication.

The issue of communicating with words vs. texting with abbvs is one issue we think should be given more consideration by the MSM (Mainstream Media—what, you didn't know they had their own abbv?). Why? Because eliminating words, or reducing them to pieces, takes us one step further from each other.

E-mail and texting can be efficient, effective methods of communicating, often less intrusive than telephone calls. They also eliminate voice mail messages, which can be quite lengthy and, frankly, annoying. But the phone does give us one thing this digital duo cannot: a person.

When you speak with someone, they're there (at least their voice is there). When you e-mail or text, you're seeing digital representations of someone tapping on a keyboard. No voice. You're left to your own, sometimes completely erroneous devices, when interpretation of those words is necessary. If you're on the phone with someone, the odds that you'll misinterpret their words is low. Very low.

But it's the way of the world, you say. Well, yes it is, to a greater and great extent. But one of our goals here at Positively Writing is to be a voice of vigilance. So we think it perfectly appropriate to remind all of us that words—real, actual words—can do things that all the OMGs in the world cannot. They are much better equipped to deliver emotion, often subtle, nuanced, and complex.

So if you can handle digital delivery of a communication in 45, not 15, seconds, send us your words. In nicely constructed sentences. With punctuation. And chances are you'll make us happy. Because you'll help us feel some things that you very likely want us to feel. And that kind of connection is most definitely a good thing.

Now just don't comment on this post with "AYSOS." That will most definitely not make us very happy. So . . . C4N!

(No, I wouldn't leave you wondering. AYSOS=Are You Stupid Or Something, and C4N=Ciao For Now!)

Trust Yourself/Earn Trust

On the heels of our post that mentioned that lack of follow-up is becoming shockingly common, we were encouraged to see today's post by Andy Robinson in his Executive Coach blog.

Andy writes that keeping promises to others has a direct impact on your own self-esteem and sense of integrity. This is because any promise you make is, first, a promise to yourself. Break it, and take a hit to your self-respect and self-confidence. That simple.

In the agency business earning a client's trust in the first job of any good account person. In this setting, you can understand how hyper-critical it is to trust yourself . . . then earn the trust of a client. In fact we can sum up exactly how important in just one word: money. Want to make money for your employer—and yourself? Earn your client's trust.

But in this scenario, just following up appropriately may not be enough, though it certainly is vitally important. Clients actually deserve more than follow-up. They deserve proactive account management. Which means ideas. Energy. Positive energy. When you demonstrate to a client that your team—your team, not only you—is committed to learning more about their business every day, you're on the way to earning their trust. It's a great first step. (About client's deserving more: they are paying the bill, after all) 

Pretty interesting that you need to be true to yourself before you can truly be a valued resource (friend?) to others, don't you think?

We at Positively Writing were struck by another blog posting today that speaks directly to self-respect . . . and doing the right thing. In Erin Schreyer's piece on the Authentic Leadership blog, she emphasizes the need for employees to give their "A" effort because they are getting paid to do so. It made us wonder why this seems to be a concept that's foreign to some workers—especially with economic conditions an ongoing, threatening force.

So bring your "A" game folks. Every day. Every single day. And go beyond. We've half-joked in the past with our agency teams that every day is "Another day, another opportunity for greatness." And although we were met at times with typically cynical New York snickers and sneers, we actually meant it.

Question: Why can't we accomplish something truly great today? Every day is a clean slate. That simple fact is one of the reason we loved, and still love, Nike's thunderous, directive, amazingly positive slogan (which for some reason many ad types seem to think is now "quaint"):

Just Do It.

What Happened to . . . Energy?

A perfectly consistent behavior these days is . . . nothing. Doing nothing. Or at least not doing what you told someone you would do. We here at Positively Writing have seen this with alarming regularity, and we're compelled to address it now.

Yes, you can certainly make the case that the sky has indeed fallen at some point during the last two years. We've since been bombarded with an unstoppable, overwhelming flood of negative information, rumor, forecast and "analysis." Often we are provided this input by people whose sole purpose seems to be that of doomsayer—at precisely the time when we need the opposite.

I'll reprise the line, from an earlier blog posting below, which remains the single best description of where we are right now as a society. It's from an article about irrational, dishonest negativity by The Wall Street Journal's David Wiedner: "It's one thing to call the glass half empty, but these days we deny the existence of tableware."

We see two main reason for this intensely negative climate. One, some truly serious, negative things have happened to millions of people. Two, these people—and virtually everyone else—have been further beaten down by the banal talking heads and others in the media who focus incessantly on the negative.

One consequence of this, in our view, is that seemingly automatic behaviors have disappeared. Why is this? Why does a colleague or business contact tell you they'll get back to you and then . . . nothing? Why do you find out information after the fact, when prior knowledge could have made a major (positive) difference to you? Why do ostensibly standard initiatives now take 10 times longer than they should?

We've had friends and colleagues describe myriad instances like these. And we've formed an opinion about why they happen. First, your memory does get affected by "too much information." Research demonstrates a heightened difficulty at navigating basic tasks when the brain is overwhelmed by information, stress, and other items that demand attention. And when your short-term memory is hindered, so is your ability to operate efficiently. You slow down.

Second, social media and electronic communication have enabled a decidedly informal way to communicate. So informal, in fact, that communication itself has become sporadic. Somehow it's now "okay" to not follow-up, keep someone in the loop, or tell someone you don't yet have a piece of information they need. This, friends, is not good. It's not respectful and it can negatively affect someone else's job performance . . . or even worse, their life.

Third, because (in general) we're not particularly happy, we're not laughing very often. What does laughter do? Among other things, it stimulates enzyme production in the body, increases circulation, delivers oxygen to blood cells, and can even act as an anesthetic—it can actually relieve pain. 

So, energy . . . you've been trumped by . . . a lot of stuff. But now that we understand the negative impact all this stuff can have on our brains and bodies, maybe we can re-frame a bit and start helping ourselves. 

Turn off the computer, And the TV. And the iPhone. For a few solid chunks of time, every day. Give yourself a break from all the information you've been trying to process. And maybe take with a grain of salt the gloom and doom of the irrational boors that have your ear. And, yes, laugh a little. (Okay, you can start by just smiling if the whole laughter thing feels like too big of a leap.)

Then maybe you'll feel a bit more energy creeping back into your bones. Your psyche. Your heart. And that will be a very, very positive thing. For all of us.


Don't you think?

Pitfalls of the "Me" Plan in the Social Age

Are you on the "me" plan? 

When someone asks "how you are," do you tell them? I mean, really tell them? Or when you ask someone how they are, do you listen for a second or two . . . and then tell them how you are?

Then you probably are on the "me" plan. It's the plan that tells the world that everything, pretty much, is all about you. Now, a healthy sense of self and strong self-confidence are important; we here at Positively Writing acknowledge and endorse that fully. But in excess, they spread a negative image of yourself, and send negative signals to your "friends" and everyone else around you.

Egocentric people make little effort to empathize or understand your feelings. Their feelings are paramount; often they are the only ones that exist. When these people talk, they reveal their focus. They speak of their "accomplishments" or the "cool" things they do, and they exaggerate these things to reinforce their egos, to convince themselves their lives are extraordinarily important.

We're all for independence, independent thinking, standing up for ourselves. Who could argue against those? But extreme self-centerdness has the effect of separating individuals from all those around them. And, trite as it may sound, we really are all in this together.

So we're here to campaign for  a little humility. And a sense of community. And to ask those on the "me" plan to take a breath—take a deep breath—and actually listen to someone. We talk and talk and talk about being "connected" via social networks and blogs and microblogs and online communities and . . . wouldn't it be nice to exchange a warm, real moment with someone?

So to all you digital dudes and doyennes, a humble suggestion: Take the next critical and most telling step in your connectedness: feel what that someone is telling you. Don't just tell them how you feel, truly connect with their feelings and tell them what you understand about them. That could be the first step in getting onto the "we" plan. And very simply, it's just the right thing to do.

Branding, and Brand-Speak's Negative Effects

Nissan hires Robert Downey Jr. to do voice-overs and in one of his first spots, he has to say "sport-cross" when describing a new vehicle. Sport-Cross. This absurd hybrid descriptor not only tries much too hard to position the vehicle as something that doesn't actually exist, it clearly does this by attempting to create a term that "sounds like something." But it doesn't. As cool a guy as Downey is, it's just a poor and truly misguided attempt at branding.

(Lexus actually created the term "sportcross" in 2001 for a product that failed. Miserably. So full blame to them, as well.)

Even worse, perhaps, is a Buick Regal ad in which it calls itself a "sport-injected" sedan. Interesting. They've obviously developed a way to inject "sport" right into the engine itself, as they further use the term "sport-injected performance." I laughed at this incredibly feeble attempt to compare their Buick to European brands. (Want to know how to do it Buick? Watch the BMW 5 Series ad that uses 3rd-party reviews to describe the car. One states the car "defies the laws of physics." No announcer blathering on. No overstating. Just type on a screen with an appropriate attribution. Simple, believable, powerful.)

These are two examples of ridiculous brand-speak, which do nothing but convince audiences that they are being sold to. And sold to in a sleazy way, a way that clearly is not plain spoken or plainly honest. This is an example of why advertising is viewed with such deep disdain in so many quarters of our culture.

Another way of describing these branding blunders: negative media experiences. Can anyone honestly say to themselves, "Wow, a sport-injected car, finally!"?  Well, no, they surely cannot. So that small moment becomes a negative moment because of the distrust it conveys.

We're pretty much done with being sold to. Hence the massive explosion in social media and its vastly different user experiences. And for users, the experience is almost universally positive, for a number of hugely important reasons.

First is that social media is, in effect, about conversations, not commercials. What's more pleasant? Engaging in a conversation of your choosing or being exposed to a commercial you would rather not see?

Commercial marketing interrupts you; social media engages and informs you. And don't underestimate how important this distinction is. Think about this: You're having a conversation with someone who interrupts you with unrelated tidbits over and over and over. It's fair to assume you would limit, if not eliminate, your interactions with this person in the future. Isn't it?

But marketers—traditionally based marketers—don't seem to get this. Digital marketing is maturing and becoming an essential component in virtually every serious marketing strategy. But now those old-school marketers are injecting their "interruptive" techniques into the digital arena to a degree that has become troubling to us digitally aware marketers.

Proof? Anyone logging onto The New York Times website within the last few weeks has been jolted by a drop-down banner ad that expands to roughly 75% of the screen as soon as the page loads. Is this why you went to NYT.com? To have an unwanted branding message prevent you from accessing the information you're after? So you are forced to deal with another negative marketing experience, this one in a medium in which your expectations had been set to be positive. Ugh.

The web is loaded with these interruptions now, unfortunately. Video and accompanying audio blast away at you when you land on myriad sites (e.g., ESPN, Huffington Post). You Tube and other videos do not start when you click a play button; advertisements start and in most cases runs their course, like it or not. 

Many online users, we bet, are even taken aback by rich-media executions like Eyeblaster ads that frequently "interrupt" our online experience in more visually dynamic, interesting ways. (We at Positively Writing are less offended by these simply because we appreciate the creativity and technology involved.) But these are still interruptions no matter how you slice it. Negative moments. Again.

So the language of advertising and the techniques employed have steered us to interact online with friends, and yes, also with brands with whom we want to share. This is the power of social media. Communities and content created by the people, for the people. And largely controlled by the people, thank goodness. And even better: These same people are willing, often happy, to invite marketers into their world. If we marketers play by their rules.

So let's do that. Don't interrupt. Don't BS somebody. Listen to them. Speak with them as if they were a friend and—magic!—they may become a friend. An advocate. A true influencer. But if you don't give that person the space she/he deserves, you may be jettisoned. Permanently. 

Learn the rules and be respectful. Create positive experiences for your existing and potential customers and they will assuredly create the same for you. And whatever you do, don't try to "sport-inject" them; they're BMW. And you might be Buick. 

How scary a thought is that?