How many people would in any way enjoy spending, as I just have, £904.27 on a car repair?
Not many, I suspect.
So what possessed someone to think it was a good idea to wrap the bill in a smart folder that included a message which begins:
"We hope you found our customer service to your complete delight..."
Well, no, actually, 'complete delight' doesn't quite capture the thrill of spending 15 minutes sitting watching Countdown as I wait for an invoice that will put a bigger dent in my finances than a modest family holiday.
While I can understand why a publicist like Pete 'Screaming headlines' Wilby might choose to describe a a band as 'internationally acclaimed' rather than 'once did a gig in Belgium’ (read the post!) I think any organisation that is so heavy handed in its desire to be positive deserves ridicule.
The waffle goes on:
"We hope that you experienced excellent levels of service to warrant 5 out of 5 in all areas."
The English is as ugly as it is puzzling. The question has no context, there is nothing to suggest why I should rate service on a scale of one to five.
Grabbing for superlatives and inflating words way beyond their natural meaning doesn't help anyone, least of all those struggling to argue that there is some substance in corporate communications.
"Once did a gig in Belgium": that's too much honour for a simple internationally-acclaimed band. Everybody knows standards are so high over here...
Posted by: Serge Cornelus | August 12, 2006 at 02:14 PM
At the risk of entering the lion's den... whatabout PR academics. A case in point is the (great) book by Kevin Moloney Rethinking PR. His biog says he has spent half his career in PR and half in academia. If has spent so long in PR and understands the need for clear, concise text why are parts of the book so difficult to read!
My personal fave is where he uses a word to describe PR and then footnotes it. A shuffle to the footnotes indicates that the word is ambiguous and proceeds to define what he means.....Just pick a different word in the first place!
Posted by: Simon Collister | August 14, 2006 at 10:12 AM
What page is the footnote on, Simon?
Posted by: Philip Young | August 14, 2006 at 10:20 AM
Page 41 - PR and Propaganda. Moloney says: "The principal(1) use of PR [...] in the twentieth century has been by big business...".
In the notes he clarifies that 'principal use' refers to the most important use rather than the most prolific.
I mean... just pick another word!
Posted by: Simon Collister | August 14, 2006 at 07:50 PM
I agree with Simon: (some) PR academics should know better. I read Sandra Oliver's PR Strategy (CIPR PR in Practice Series) a few years ago and was very disappointed by the turgid language.
Posted by: Rob Skinner | August 23, 2006 at 10:30 PM