I know of an international newsroom that had a big red button that trumpeted “Bullshit!” when pressed. The button was used when details in a story could not be verified or did not meet editorial standards.
The task of the editorial team in question was to review the media’s own journalists’ articles, which says something about how meticulous journalists are when it comes to sober and precise language.
Read about media news criteria
That’s why we as PR people vacuum texts for phrases that seem too positive or claims that can’t be fully verified – to avoid setting off the journalistic alarm (both figuratively and, as in the case above, literally). Because once the journalist gets the idea that something is untrustworthy, it’s hard to get them to engage with your story.
The problem arises because entrepreneurs are passionate about their product. We understand that, and we’re on board – but we’re also the intermediary that needs to match your content with the journalist.
To show that we’re not just at cross purposes, we’d like to give some examples. At the same time, the following also shows why journalists don’t write as positively about your product as you would prefer.
1. The teasing adjectives
It can be tempting to load your product with adjectives to show all its strengths. Like the color combination of yellow and black, adjectives can be very impactful – but they can also be very conspicuous and even noisy.
Using too many positive adjectives (ground-breaking, innovative, innovative…) often ends up shooting yourself in the foot – or at least loading the gun and letting the journalist pull the trigger.
A hypothetical example:
“The innovative app has groundbreaking features that enable the busy user to have a detailed overview of their driving record in an easy way.”
If you remove adjectives and clean up the sentence a bit, it becomes:
“The app gives the user an overview of their mileage accounting.”
Sure, it’s a little on the short side, but it’s precise and clear – and it’s significantly closer to the sentence a journalist would write. It’s also easier to understand and relate to – and it becomes clearer who and what is involved in the sentence.
It’s also important to avoid adjectives that don’t mean anything or have a very diluted meaning. For example, innovative and groundbreaking fall into the category of words that have been used so often that they have lost their meaning.
But what happens when you actually HAVE a product that both innovates and breaks new ground?
2. Show me what you’ve got
Whether you’re a reader, listener or viewer, you don’t want to be told that something is innovative. You want to hear what it can do – and THEN decide for yourself that it’s innovative.
We would venture to say that calling a product ‘great’ rather than describing it and making the recipient see that it is great has the opposite effect. And that, with 100% certainty, is the way the journalist thinks.
Therefore, when describing the product, it should be matter-of-fact and weighted. The most important details should be first, but they should be explained instead of sold.
If we continue the example of the app from above, we’ve previously weeded out the adjectives to make it short and concise. But it still doesn’t explain why it’s innovative. A description like this could do that:
“The app provides the user with an overview of their mileage accounting by gathering all relevant information and converting it into a finished account that can be approved and sent in the app. Tests show that the app saves users an average of two hours of administration per week.”
3. You know what I mean
Just like the teasing adjectives, you should always be aware of linguistic spillover when describing highly technical products.
It’s important to remember that the journalist’s ability to understand the genius of your source code may be limited. At the same time, it’s the journalist’s job to write for the unbiased reader who also needs to understand your product.
Often you can get around explanation problems by going straight to the meaning. What is the effect of your brilliant source code? If it makes your software significantly faster than everything else, it’s relatable – or if it makes something cheaper. Look for the most concrete change or improvement.
Therefore:
Avoid terms that are not reasonably common.
Avoid abbreviations – unless everyone knows them.
Otherwise you force the journalist to spend time explaining them.
Be aware that journalists are taught that most stories and concepts can be explained in a simple way if you do your job properly. So if you haven’t done the groundwork for them, you’re forcing them to do it themselves, which can reduce their motivation to do the story.
4. Clear speech
The good quote can be the one that brings a story to the forefront and tells something about you and your product.
Quotes can be colorful – this is where you show your heart and the big story or purpose. This is not the place for a product description or a long review. We use text sections for that.
Our description of the app from earlier turns into a terrible quote:
“The app gives the user an overview of their mileage accounting by gathering all relevant information and converting it into a finished account that can be approved and sent in the app. Tests show that the app saves users an average of two hours of administration per week,” says CEO Peter Petersen
It’s relevant information, but it’s not how humans talk, and it’s more in the ballpark of what quotes should be:
“I can’t bear to think about how many hours I’ve spent filling out mileage reports in my working life. It has to be made easier – and that’s what we’re doing,” says CEO Peter Petersen.
Quotes can be used in many ways. Either to show the benefit of the product, to elevate the story to a societal level or to tell the company’s philosophy. Fundamentally, however, it is important that the reader gets the feeling of being spoken to by a human being when reading a quote.
5. When you have so many different things to say that you simply can’t limit yourself to one message and want to include them all
Text writing is the art of limitation. A short and precise text is often more difficult to write.
There are many ways a text can become too long. This can manifest itself in very long headlines and paragraphs of text that are actually about something completely different.
In a story about launching an app, there’s no point getting lost in paragraphs about the origins of the company, the quirky anecdote from the beta test, or any other nonsense that muddies the story.
If the side stories have enough content and relevance, they can become stories later. But until then, they must not interfere with the main story.
We hope the examples give you an idea of how we work with language and why we wear the no hat in the best sense.
