Comments on: The Costs of Poor Communication http://thecontentwrangler.com/2008/12/30/the_costs_of_poor_communication/ Content is a business asset worthy of being managed Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:31:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: ScottAbel http://thecontentwrangler.com/2008/12/30/the_costs_of_poor_communication/comment-page-1/#comment-460 ScottAbel Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:57:59 +0000 http://localhost:8888/ee/?p=297#comment-460 <p>Great points, Lisa. I agree and think that applying the Twitter model forces you to say what’s important or risk folks ignoring your message. </p> <p> Far too often, I see an overemphasis on the importance of those things communicators were taught in school (rhetoric, grammar, punctuation, etc.) They spend effort making content fit their rules, instead of figuring out how to effectively communicate only what’s needed, and nothing more. </p> <p> Hopefully, technological innovations like Twitter can help us understand that it’s the message that counts, not the rules we were taught. </p> <p> Of course, there are situations in which rules (including those that govern grammar and style) matter, but far too often, the importance is only noted by the folks creating the content, not the recipients of the message, who—more-often-than-not—just want to know what you want them to do (respond, file for later use, etc.) and don’t care about the “rules”. </p> <p> Email misuse is one of the biggest challenges we have in the business world. But, it’s really only an indicator of the mediocre way in which we (mis)manage most content creation and delivery functions we perform. I look forward to the day when “tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em” in the first few words is the “rule” instead of the exception. </p> Great points, Lisa. I agree and think that applying the Twitter model forces you to say what’s important or risk folks ignoring your message.

Far too often, I see an overemphasis on the importance of those things communicators were taught in school (rhetoric, grammar, punctuation, etc.) They spend effort making content fit their rules, instead of figuring out how to effectively communicate only what’s needed, and nothing more.

Hopefully, technological innovations like Twitter can help us understand that it’s the message that counts, not the rules we were taught.

Of course, there are situations in which rules (including those that govern grammar and style) matter, but far too often, the importance is only noted by the folks creating the content, not the recipients of the message, who—more-often-than-not—just want to know what you want them to do (respond, file for later use, etc.) and don’t care about the “rules”.

Email misuse is one of the biggest challenges we have in the business world. But, it’s really only an indicator of the mediocre way in which we (mis)manage most content creation and delivery functions we perform. I look forward to the day when “tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em” in the first few words is the “rule” instead of the exception.

]]> By: Lisa Woods http://thecontentwrangler.com/2008/12/30/the_costs_of_poor_communication/comment-page-1/#comment-459 Lisa Woods Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:42 +0000 http://localhost:8888/ee/?p=297#comment-459 <p>Mr. Maggiani’s point is well taken; we’ve more choices to communicate <br /> with colleagues than ever, yet communications skills per se seem to be <br /> eroding. Old saws like conveying key points up front and then <br /> reinforcing them (the old “tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em, then <br /> tell ‘em, then tell ‘em what you told ‘em"), while once considered <br /> seminal business practice, might be worth revisiting --but should be <br /> considered and reexamined (how about streamlining to: “tell ‘em what <br /> you’re gonna tell ‘em, period"). There’s as much an art as a science <br /> to effective communication...for business communications I try to <br /> apply the Twitter model (make every word count), highlight key words <br /> in <b>boldface</b> for longer messages, and preface subject lines with <br /> “I” (email is Info only), “A” (Action required), “Q” (Question), or <br /> “NWR” (not work-related...possibly Not Worth Reading). But it’s easy <br /> to fall into the trap of treating all communications like email <br /> messages...and that’s where a thoughtful audience analysis comes in <br /> handy. Communications with customers should receive significantly <br /> different treatment than a message fired off to a colleague with whom <br /> one has the opportunity to follow up and clarify… </p> Mr. Maggiani’s point is well taken; we’ve more choices to communicate

with colleagues than ever, yet communications skills per se seem to be

eroding. Old saws like conveying key points up front and then

reinforcing them (the old “tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em, then

tell ‘em, then tell ‘em what you told ‘em”), while once considered

seminal business practice, might be worth revisiting –but should be

considered and reexamined (how about streamlining to: “tell ‘em what

you’re gonna tell ‘em, period”). There’s as much an art as a science

to effective communication…for business communications I try to

apply the Twitter model (make every word count), highlight key words

in boldface for longer messages, and preface subject lines with

“I” (email is Info only), “A” (Action required), “Q” (Question), or

“NWR” (not work-related…possibly Not Worth Reading). But it’s easy

to fall into the trap of treating all communications like email

messages…and that’s where a thoughtful audience analysis comes in

handy. Communications with customers should receive significantly

different treatment than a message fired off to a colleague with whom

one has the opportunity to follow up and clarify…

]]>