There has been a claim recently heard that new kinds of technologies change the way we write. This seems inevitably to be the case. There is a long history, since the ancients, of our technologies of writing affecting the content of that writing. When people first started writing on cave walls, no doubt there were complaints about how much was lost in the move from dirt floors.
As in the natural backlash that accompanies the hyping of each new technology, there is now concern that Twitter and its kin will spell the end to literacy and a descent into frivolity. It would be easier to place credence in these claims if we had not heard them so many times before. The telegraph, with its Twitteresque focus on brevity, led to the most extreme sorts of claims–both utopian and dystopian. In the end, the way we write will not be any more affected by Twitter, texting, or blogging, than it was by the telegraph or movable type. But that’s not to say that it will remain unchanged.
Print Revolution
Of course, movable type had tremendous social effects. It moved written language closer to spoken language, and reinforced existing European languages as vulgate versions of the bible and of other books were widely published. It changed the style of discourse as well. In particular, it was–for the first time–possible to cite other books, because there were exact duplicates of those books spread across the continent. A strong determinist view would claim that this one writing technology led to the Enlightenment, science, and modernity.
And, no doubt, there are those who would say that this was a bad thing, that we would have been better off with books and writing in the hands of the few. Many of these steps have moved the act of writing into more and more hands, and with each step it has become less expensive (some would say cheapened) and less sacred (some might say more profane). The concern is that with new forms of writing and the ease with which they are produced, all discourse will be reduced to graffiti.
IDK my BFF Jill
There was a string of such concerns when texting slowly made its way into the mainstream in the US, mainly among teens. Would teenagers be able to write? Would they create business letters with “u” for you, or other seemingly inane abbreviations? Worse yet, would we all start doing this, leading to the fall of (English language) civilization? That particular panic calmed down only long enough for Twitter to come along. The language police were out in full force, decrying the damage this was doing to our literate brains. Think of the children!
In fact, it turns out that texting is related to improved literacy among 10- to 12-year-olds. The short-cuts we take in order to fit into 140 characters actually follow rules that have deep roots in the English language. In Txtng: the Gr8 Db8, linguist David Crystal suggests the ludic use of text on mobile phones provides a particularly effective way of learning about language. As with other technologies, the potential for radical damage has been vastly overstated.
And like other technologies, the unintended consequences are yet to be felt. I suspect that other technologies–particularly the ability of machines to write and read text–will cause far deeper changes in our language than a 140 character limit ever will.
Style-switching
Let me begin by saying that, in fact, I have received emails with “u” for “you.” Not just from undergrads, but from graduate students. I was really disappointed by this. If they had IMed me with that replacement, I would have been less concerned, but something deep inside me finds these kinds of abbreviations in an email to be indecorous. There are certain style and diction expectations in an email, just as there are in an academic paper, a personal note, a letter to the editor, and a newspaper article. In none of those is it appropriate to write “omg” but in an IM, text, or LOLcat image, it is perfectly acceptable. (Actually LOLcat is an interesting counter-example. I’ve yet to see frightened letters to the editor about the fact that LOLspeech is hurting the youth. This despite a project to translate the entire bible into LOL.)
The issue, then, is that good writing looks different in different contexts. Anyone who has seen their favorite book butchered in movie form can tell you that. Same message–sometimes even the same writer–but with drastically different outcomes. The ability to pick the right style and diction for a particular context is a vital piece of what it is to be literate. As Bronwyn Williams is quoted as saying in this Tech Review article:
In coming years literacy will mean knowing how to choose between print, image, video, sound, and all the potential combinations they could create to make a particular point with a specific audience. What will not change is the necessity of an individual to be able to find a purpose, correctly analyze an audience, and communicate to that audience with information and in a tone that audience will find persuasive, engaging, and intelligent.
Likewise, when I have to explain to someone over IM what brb, afaik, or afk mean, I have a fleeting “where has this person been” moment. It’s not particularly fair, I know, but it marks them as someone outside the technical circle. In years past, that actually might have been a good thing. After all, being a member of the elite used to mean that you dictated your letters, never touched email, and wouldn’t think of texting someone. This was so entrenched, that the idea that our current president might actually want to carry a Blackberry nearly caused a constitutional crisis. But this is changing. Not only the young and geeky text these days, and not knowing how to doesn’t make you aloof, it makes you out of touch.
Likewise, not being able to write a businesslike letter, memo, or email puts you out of touch, and closes doors to you. Unfortunately, this is a silent killer. This is most strikingly the case in cover letters for employment. Even if someone is vaguely interesting for a job, their resume is quickly “round filed” if the cover letter is not formatted properly, has a typo, or strikes the wrong tone for the context. The test for literacy is someone who is equally adept at writing copy for a popular website, shooting off a short message requesting help from a friend, and writing a clear, precise, academic article without skipping a beat.
Fear & Loathing On Twitter
Should we be afraid of new writing and communication technologies? Absolutely not. But we should definitely think about their use and misuse. It is a mistake to jump on the bandwagon and mindlessly devote yourself to any new technology. Try it, but do so with a critical mind. What is this good for. Why is it better than other options? What contexts is it best suited for?
It used to be that I blogged several times a week on my main blog, but now I often go for weeks without making an entry. Some of that is that I am writing in other spaces (like here!), but a lot of it has to do with using Twitter for a lot of what I did on my blog. There are times when 140 characters is just not enough to say what I want to say, but those times are rare.
My advice is to go for the middle way. Use communication technologies when it is the most appropriate and most effective way of reaching the people you want to persuade. Of course, as I’ve said before, one of the keys to persuading people is to gain and hold their attention, and one of the best ways of doing this is by surprising them. Twitter is relatively virgin territory: there is a lot of room for surprises.
The key document that most of us should spend time writing is a planning document: something that clearly outlines a project, indicates what it is intended to do, shows where the resources and man-hours are coming from, provides a clear schedule, lays out the expenditures, sets up a reporting schedule, milestones, and metrics, and demonstrates the return on investment. In fact, these documents only rarely get written. Instead, we write proposals.
I’m using “proposal” here in a very general sense. It may be a grant proposal, a business proposal, a book proposal, an unsolicited query for a freelance project, or any one of a number of other kinds of requests. But all of these do similar things. They all have to convince the reader that the project that is proposed to be undertaken is important, feasible, and worthwhile. And they all–either explicitly or implicitly–have to demonstrate that you and your team are the right people to do it.
The Pitch
Perhaps more than some documents, it’s easy to look at the new document on your computer and be a bit perplexed about where to begin. If you find yourself in this position, it’s too soon to be writing the proposal–or at least this is an indication that you have other work to do first. Your problem should be the other way around: you should have too much on hand and have to pare it back. In that, a proposal is like any other sort of writing.
Before you get started writing, you need to have a very narrow, concrete idea in mind. The best way to do this is to have your elevator pitch down. What’s an elevator pitch? It’s a two-minute speech that you have at the ready for when you get stuck in the elevator with someone who can make your project happen. (You wonder why investors are so keen on private elevators?) If you don’t have this at the top of your mind when you start writing your proposal, you won’t be able to keep it in the forefront of your reader’s mind. This needs to be a very clear description of the problem you are addressing, and a clear and unique solution that can be accomplished with a particular investment (of money, time, energy, buy-in). As my advisor put it when I was pitching my masters thesis, this needs to be something that your aunt Edna will understand and be excited about when you talk to her at Thanksgiving, even after her fourth martini: simple, direct, exciting, and compelling.
You really ought to have an even shorter version: the tagline version or the Twitter version. What makes this project exciting and worth doing? Why should it be done?
In practice, you can then start with the executive summary. As with all writing, I recommend you begin with the introduction, and write it out knowing that you will probably throw it away when you are finished with the entire proposal. Once you are finished writing the proposal, re-write the executive summary, reflecting what you have actually proposed. But this first step–sacrificial though it may be–is necessary to get beyond the blank screen.
Before the Proposal
You should also be surrounded by the materials you need to write the rest of the proposal. If you are responding to a particular request for proposals or grant announcement, obviously you will want to have that at hand. In some cases, the request has fairly specific requirements. In others, you are left to your own devices. If you are proposing to a granting agency or someone else, and can get a hold of successful previous proposals, these can be even more helpful than a guide.
Beyond this, and your elevator speech, you’ll need evidence. You’re claiming that there is a problem worth solving–what is your evidence? You think the Flash development will cost $5,000–how do you know? Just as with any other argument, you need to be able to demonstrate that you’ve done your homework, and you can back up your claims. With rare exceptions, personal mojo is no replacement for hard facts.
You need to know what the likely objections will be and how to overcome these. Chances are, you are not the person most skilled at poking holes in your own ideas. What did your Aunt Edna say? Don’t dismiss it. Anything that is even slightly unclear to her will be unclear to a large number of readers and listeners. Be ready to state the obvious, without it sounding like you are stating the obvious.
You need to know not just about your project but about the people who you are proposing to. If it’s your boss, you probably already have some idea of the constraints on her, and the kinds of questions she’ll get from her boss. If it’s a funding agency, they generally are pretty clear about their mission, and like to see grants meet that mission statement explicitly. If it’s a client, find out who they’ve worked with before, and why. Find out who will be making the decision and what they are looking for.
In most cases you will also need to sit down with a calendar and work out the schedule, and with a calculator and work out the budget. How best to present this is another question, but you need to have a good idea of what it’s going to take to get it done.
Structure
Like a resume, or just about any document on the web, a proposal is likely to be scanned, rather than read. The person evaluating the proposal is going to want to be able to quickly come to terms with it, and be able to find specific information when she has a question. It’s important, then, that you make good use of headers and subheads, that you make budget and schedule information as legible as possible, and that you include information in a structure that is relatively familiar.
Again, in some cases the Request for Proposals may make clear what needs to be submitted, but generally, proposals of various sorts include the following information:
Executive summary. This abstract is the textual version of your elevator speech, and is the most likely piece of your proposal to actually be read. In some ways, the remaining sections are just supporting evidence for what you present here. Think of it not just as a summary, but as an opportunity to persuade. Be clear in your language, and make sure you are compelling and make a strong connection between a real need, and a likely solution.
Problem statement. Generally, you need to demonstrate that there is something you need to fix. Again, even in the case where an RFP clearly lays out the problem, you should reiterate it here to make clear that you have a good understanding of the issue, and of the client. This is another opportunity to persuade. Is the problem serious? Is it worth caring about? Don’t tell us you care, show us why we should.
Project description. What are you suggesting is the best way to solve the problem? This should be a solution that you can uniquely deliver. It should be clear that you are aware of alternative solutions, and show that yours is the best among them–that is, your solution produces the most reliable result with the least investment and risk. Who will be working on the project? You should be as concrete as possible here. Clearly indicate how you will know if you have been successful: what will you measure and how? Be specific! What are the steps necessary for reaching your goal, and how long will it take to complete each step? Generally, this makes up the bulk of your proposal.
Schedule. Although the necessary steps are outlined in the description, this summarizes how the project as a whole will be scheduled. If there are dependencies among particular tasks, you have the opportunity to show how they will be completed, and by whom.
Budget. How much will the project cost? You should indicate you estimated expenses for people and materials. These will necessarily be estimates, but they should be shown to be as accurate as possible. You should also indicate other resources that may be necessary, though this usually does not show up in the budget itself. Will you need access to particular information or facilities? What part of the workweek will you take up for the client’s employees?
Who we are. Finally, you need to demonstrate that you (and your team or organization) are the most suitable choice for the job. This is a very brief overview of your skills, and more importantly, of your experience. No one likes to think of themselves as a source of on-the-job for a consultant or designer. Provide a brief overview of your portfolio, and links to further information.
Looks Matter
As with a resume, the design of the document matters. This is particularly true if you are proposing design work. It’s hard to convince a reader that you are the best person for the job if the information in your proposal is difficult to make sense of. Moreover, whether implicitly or explicitly, how you present your proposal provides the most important indication of how your final product will turn out. If it’s messy or perfunctory, or contains errors or is unclear, the reader will take more from these facts than anything you have actually written.
In some cases, you either are required to present in plain text, or it is expected that you will. If you submit a book proposal that is typset with color illustrations, the agency or acquisitions editor will think you are a bit nuts. The same is not true if you are proposing a multimedia project, naturally. In any case, however, be conservative. Your design should not be what is noticed, or at least not what is primarily noticed. It should support your argument, not distract from it.
In either case, you should make sensible use of subheads and clear section headers. If you have more latitude, think about the overall design of the document, including column layout, the use of images and color, typography, and blocked text or sidenotes, in each case to make it easier to scan and assimilate the persuasive message. Make it clear that you are capable of designing something that is quickly and easily understood. As always, err on the side of simplicity, but think about first impressions. Your document design is your smile.
Proposal to Plan
In practice, then, your proposal should be a document ready to be delivered upon. Naturally, there will be other forms of project documentation, contracts, budgets, detailed performance measures, process documentation, and the like. But essentially, as a persuasive document, this should stand as the overall promise that you are ready to fulfill. As an argument for the existence of the project, everything you do once it is approved should live up to that proposal.
I am an introvert. (An INTP, in fact.) There are a lot of misconceptions about introverts. Some people think of them as anti-social or misanthropic. Some think that they are shy. While some introverts are undoubtedly both of these things, there are many who have close friends, love humanity, are kind and polite, and are not particularly shy.
However, because introverts prefer being alone to being in a crowd, they are sometimes not brilliant conversationalists. I say “sometimes,” because many introverts realize this discomfort and approach the problem head-on. So, while it may not come naturally, they may acquire the ability to behave appropriately in social settings. I share this personality trait with you not as a demonstration of my utter lack of timidity, but by way of explaining my interest in conversation as an act. What may come naturally to you is a bit of an area of morbid fascination for me; I study conversation the way an arachnophobe studies spiders. That doesn’t make me a great conversationalist–far from it!–but it does make me more self-aware about what seems to work and what does not.
Conversation 101
The obverse of this is that many extroverts–people who thrive in social situations–may enjoy interacting with others, but not be particularly skilled at it. So what makes a good conversationalist?
They listen. This may sound obvious, but you would be surprised at how many people simply talk past one another, failing to carefully understand what their interlocutor is saying, is trying to say, and in some cases is not saying. Don’t worry about what you are going to say next, or whether what you just said sounded stupid. Listen, and try to understand what the person is saying, and why they might be saying it. Do you ever find yourself forgetting someone’s name the minute you meet them. I do.
When you hear their name, really listen, and think about it. Do they look like a “Sally”? Does the name suit them? What must it be like to go through life known as “Sally”? Do this not just with their name, but with everything they say.
Listening attentively is not enough. You need to show them that you are listening. You need to keep good eye contact, and smile. You need to understand what they are saying, rephrasing and repeating it back to them. You need to care about what they care about.
This doesn’t mean that you have to agree with everything they say. And it certainly doesn’t mean you should be dishonest. But it is important to find–as we noted last module–common ground. What about them do you really like? There is something about everyone to like. Find it, and connect on that point. But don’t be afraid to disagree in a friendly way. Really didn’t like the third in the Matrix trilogy? Don’t just say “I didn’t like it,” explain why your opinion is different from your partners. Even in disagreements, try to find the common ground.
Many people recommend that you take the perspective of your interlocutor, standing in her shoes. This is extraordinarily difficult in many cases. In any case, it is worthwhile to consider the perspective of the entire conversation and relationship. Step away from yourself and imagine the conversation from the perspective of someone overhearing it. What would they think of what is being said? How would they interpret it? Try to keep your conversation open and positive.
Particularly difficult for me is trying to draw others into a conversation. In the way that you stand, in your gaze, and in how you pose questions, think abut how to invite others into the conversation, and integrate their ideas. Look for opportunities to draw people into your conversation, even those who are not yet a part of it. Try to avoid the kinds of statements (”I just can’t understand people who think X.”) that tend not to invite a response.
Finally, have something to talk about. Be aware of what is going on in the world, and ready to talk about a variety of topics. Yes, one of those topics can be you, and what you’ve been doing lately, but we all know that this fan, even in the best of cases, quickly become boring. So be ready to converse on current events and on items that you think you might share a common interest in with your interlocutors.
There are some specific tools that some people suggest are helpful, from mirroring to noting various types of preferred discourse, but if you keep in mind the need to listen and find common ground, you will be most of the way there.
Web Conversation
We are talking about conversation precisely because our text seems to be more oral than written these days. It used to be a pretty clear line: written material might be sent in a letter or published in a newspaper, while the spoken word was for conversations or oratory. The clean line between the two has become more ambiguous as the web has matured. Conversations seem to be springing up everywhere. Of course, this includes things like Instant Messaging and texting, which seem to be textual equivalents of conversation more directly, but it also applies to a range of slower forms of communication, including blogging or posting YouTube videos. Many of these are two-way, leading to an ongoing interaction with your “audience.”
The “read/write web” as it is sometimes called, draws on the principles of conversation, but at a distance. These conversations among weak ties can be enormously important, and often they adhere to the same guidelines as conversation in everyday life. It’s difficult to mark the rise of social media, but if you associate it with blogs, there are a number of examples of efforts at strategic communication that completely missed the conversational nature of the medium. The same is now happening with Twitter, as companies eager to get on the bandwagon begin tweeting micro press releases, forgetting the cardinal rule: listen.
Conversation on the web is not, of course, identical to that in face-to-face life. The conversation is much more open-ended, and more distributed because of this. In a face-to-face conversation, you usually know who all the players are. Generally, you arrange yourselves in something approaching a circle, and through body language and glances acknowledge who is part of a conversation and who is not. The wetware that allows this to happen is actually strikingly complex. If you put a microphone in a room with several hundred people at the standard “stand and nibble,” it would get something pretty close to white noise. Yet we are able to pick out a conversation, at least usually, among five people who are standing in the middle of a noisy room, if we’ve identified them as part of the discussion.
On the web, discussion is usually transparent, if not open. People can come along and add to the conversation whether or not they are invited. And this contribution may not happen for months or year after the initial discussion took place. This doesn’t sound too much like a conversation in the traditional sense, and perhaps public relations professionals can therefore be forgiven for not noticing the conversational nature when they started using social media. But that point is now past, and mistakes today demonstrate a lack of paying attention, a lack of listening.
That transparency means that it is difficult to be fake. That may seem counter-intuitive, given how we started out the semester: can’t you be a dog? The truth is that people tend to be skeptical of identity online, and particularly of commercial identity. If you want to enter a conversation as a “brand,” this can be accomplished, but it is difficult. When the VW mascot, a talking Beetle, starts tweeting, he will have a hard time of it, even when FakeSarahPalin can do quite well. (The reason for this should be clear: only one of these seems to have the reader’s best interests at heart.) Generally, if you want your organization to be blogging, it means someone in it is blogging. Conversations happen between people, not between businesses and people.
The Networked Organization and a Networked, Naked Conversation
Networked conversation upsets the balance of external communication. Public relations professionals will tell you that the ethics of the field have been evolving. It’s not enough for PR to advocate for the client, the professional must balance this with a social conscious. More and more, there is a recognition that frank, open conversation is the only way to create long-term profits. But there remains a legacy of public relations with deep roots in the practice of propaganda.
The word propaganda has strongly negative connotations, mainly a result of the use of propaganda by totalitarian regimes in Second World War and the decades after its end. Before this period, it was seen as a way of effectively getting a large population to change its behavior in ways that would be beneficial to the public as a whole. Edward Bernays applied the same ideas to business during an era in which business interests were usually seen as good for society as a whole: “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” Our feelings about business have changed, but some public relations practitioners have been slow to change with it.
Are there things worth keeping quiet? Of course. Just as in our everyday conversations we don’t reveal everything about ourselves. We neatly parse the difference between white lies (”Your kids are so cute!”) and personal integrity on a daily basis. But it is clear that a personal conversation should be something that locates a common benefit, that finds common ground, and that helps everyone involved.
What’s worse, companies actually have been involved in conversations for a long time, in the form of viral and guerrilla marketing campaigns. Some of these are amusing, and many marketing firms are looking at ways of making them more attractive to audiences, as the traditional venues for traditional marketing wither. But before this new interest, Procter and Gamble, Bacardi, and others have paid brand advocates to publicly endorse their product, while keeping their real motives quiet. In other words, before marketers came to recognize that honest engagement could benefit their brand, they were willing to engage in astroturfing and paying regular folks to spread their message–a practice that goes all the way back to Bernays.
Curing Corporate Introversion
Just as I ended up having to study “real life” conversations to understand how to do it, corporations are going to need to study public conversations to engage in them more easily. This will come easily to some organizations, but many, like me, are introverted. They may not have anything to hide, they just are not comfortable talking openly with the public. And that discomfort is fine, but they should recognize the necessity of that conversation anyway. Even if they do not enjoy the process of interacting with the public, it is the responsible thing to do. Not only is it their responsibility in the sense of participating in the larger public sphere of conversation, but because without engaging in the conversation–without taking a seat at the table–they effectively cut themselves off from clients and customers, something no organization can afford to do.