Thanks.

I agree that jargon can be a useful convenience, but usually it’s a crutch.

- Greg

Great article. And so true.

The only tempering comment I can offer is that some marketing terms are useful if they are explained to the client and are pertinent to the discussion. But most often I’ve seen marketingspeak be a determent to the relationship with the client – as well as to any constructive dialogue.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

Thanks. Have a nice weekend.

- Greg

Good points. The objective is not to totally abandon jargon. It’s a convenient shortcut and saves time among professionals of the same discipline.

However, if someone can’t explain what they want to say without using jargon, they really don’t know what they’re talking about.

- Greg

“If you work in the state sector and you ever write anything, whether for public or internal consumption, you should have a look at Bad Language: The Use and Abuse of Official Language, writes SA Mathieson. The report, released by the Public Administration Select Committee this week, is concise and clearly written. Also, it might just save your job.

The report does not single out computing in its attack on jargon and unclear language, but it still provides a warning. Much of what is written about ICT relies, such as ‘ICT’, on TLAs – three letter acronyms – and on metaphors as hard to grasp as clouds.

The report correctly blames management consultants for much of this jargon. They can benefit from its use: if you don’t understand something, you might conclude the speaker is very clever and award more business.

For public servants, unclear language can also be used to conceal. But this is devious – and at times like this it’s also counter-productive.

Government computing has some good stories to tell about making life easier for people and saving money. But if its practitioners insist on banging on about CRM and ROI, the public and their elected representatives may well conclude that if they can’t understand it, it can safely be scrapped.”

I think it boils down to three things:
1. Jargon ridden language can be quicker and/or more accurate for people in the know (we don’t need CRM explained, for example). This can also be important in getting across to people that you understand their field of endeavour – important in making the bond essential to sell.
2. Language can be used to make the audience think the speaker is cleverer than they are and this can be useful in increasing the price charged for products and services. It can also be used to evade questions, conceal the true intent or extent of some initiative and to make the listener feel this subject is beyond them.
3. Experts often forget who that they have to use a different language according to who they are talking too and use an inappropriate level of jargon (too much, too little or the wrong jargon for the audience), thus failing to get their point across or make a bond with the audience.

One last point – this is in UK English. Imagine how much more complicated it gets when there is also a translation issue.

Good points – well said.

Thanks.

- Greg

In fact, speaking marketing-speak to non-marketers (or legalese to non-lawyers) conveys no more authority than speaking Swedish to non-Swedes. It confuses the audience and invites them to draw invidious conclusions about the character, personality and intellect of marketers. As a result, good ideas may be poorly received, intelligent risks may not be taken and buy-in for anything at all may be hard to achieve.

Good point. Thanks.

- Greg