by Jim Sweeney | Dec 18, 2024 | Blog
In the days following the Nov. 5 election, former X users flocked to the new social media platform Bluesky. Their descriptions upon arrival made them sound like refugees who’d fled a war-torn country and found sanctuary.
Bluesky, they said, is everything Twitter used to be before Elon Musk changed it to X and turned it into a platform for right-wing disinformation. Bluesky, they rhapsodized, is safe, informative, educational and, well, nice.
The internet could certainly use more niceness, but is Bluesky a place for brands? It depends.
Certainly not if their intent is to advertise because Bluesky does not accept ads and its owners say they intend to keep it that way. Of course, that was Reddit’s policy once, too. According to the company, it plans to charge fees for users who create custom domains on the site and will eventually sell subscriptions for higher-quality video uploads or profile customizations like colors and avatar frames.
But it’s hard to just ignore Bluesky. Its growth has been phenomenal. Since opening to the public in February, it has grown to over 25 million users. Post-election, it has been attracting nearly 1 million new users a day. It has been the most downloaded free app. Naturally, those numbers have drawn the attention of brands.
Its vigorous policing of content and blocking of racist, hateful and offensive material also makes it attractive to brands. Of course, that degree of control will become harder to achieve as the number of users rises.
Some brands (Duolingo, Hulu, Netflix) are posting organically while others like Red Bull and Xbox seem to have secured handles, but haven’t begun posting. Bluesky does not yet have a verification process, so trolls also are snatching up some brand handles, which is an argument for consumer-facing brands to, at minimum, control their names. For now, though, the platform is mostly user-generated content.
Besides the advertising ban, brands face another challenge on Bluesky. The platform lets users design and control their own feeds, which means they can filter out anything they don’t want to see. For users, it means a cleaner experience; for brands, it means fewer eyeballs. They will have to work to earn engagement with users who might not welcome their presence on the platform.
Politics aside, Bluesky differs from rivals X, Threads and Mastodon in another significant way. It’s an open platform with an API that is accessible to developers, which means any decent programmer can use the same architecture to build new interconnected sites, across which they can share content.
There is also a possibility that Bluesky becomes a de facto platform for liberals and progressives while X continues its conservative MAGA trend under Trump buddy Musk. If that happens, brands and thought leaders would have to decide whether it’s the audience they want to reach and whether joining Bluesky would tag them as progressive, which could cause a backlash (see Bud Light).
Brands and thought leaders that left X over unhappiness with its new direction and objectionable content shouldn’t feel compelled to join Bluesky right away. They can rely on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and, of course, LinkedIn for messaging (see some best practice tips here.) Exceptions might be those who want specifically to reach a progressive audience or to signal their displeasure with the direction of X.
Marketers should, however, keep an eye on Bluesky to see if it continues its growth and makes any changes to be more accommodating to brands.
Below is a quick rundown of some Bluesky features. Keep in mind that the platform is still evolving, and these can change:
- Text posts have a 300-character limit.
- Users can self-label their posts, especially those containing sensitive content.
- “Starter Packs” are curated collections of accounts designed to help users find others with similar interests. One click allows users to follow or block all accounts within the pack.
- Users can customize their feed and viewing preferences.
- It includes an in-app music and video player.
- Bluesky offers custom domains, allowing users to personalize their handles with their domain names.
by Jim Sweeney | Aug 21, 2024 | Blog
I love the NFL draft, and not just because I’m a Cleveland Browns fan for whom the draft offers an annual opportunity to indulge in wishful thinking about next season.
I love the draft because it’s when sportswriters and analysts strain to produce synonyms for words like big, tall, fast, strong, quick, smart and aggressive. And they struggle to find alternative ways to say, “He’s a good blocker” or “He runs precise routes.”
That’s how you get player descriptions like, “positional versatility,” “rare length,” “jitterbug quicks,” “bendy,” “piano feet,” “excellent physicality,” “excels in space,” and “bounding lateral burst.” And those are just from one website.
But my favorite player description from recent draft coverage has to be: “He possesses great length in his arms.”
Think about that sentence for a moment. You know the writer initially thought, “What can I say about this player? Well, he’s got long arms, that’s for sure.” I like to think the writer even typed the sentence, “He has long arms.” But then he fell victim to a common fear among writers (not just sportswriters) and replaced it with that truly awful bit of writing: “He possesses great length in his arms.” The name of that phobia? Fear of a Simple Sentence.
Fear of a Simple Sentence (FOSS) whispers in writers’ ears that short, simple, easy-to-understand sentences will cause readers to think they’re unimaginative hacks incapable of writing sentences with multiple clauses and hard-to-understand terms. It’s the writerly compulsion to be creative when all that’s needed is to be clear.
Consider this example from an NFL draft site: “A hallmark of his game, the palpable explosiveness, permeates through his every move, asserting dominance in gap penetration and providing a perpetual disruptive presence.” Sounds like a paean to one of the lesser Nordic gods.
FOSS is the irresistible urge to embellish, to turn nouns into verbs and adjectives into nouns. It’s the impulse to forgo the clear and obvious in favor of the murky and imprecise. And it results in bad, hard-to-understand writing. It also can produce zombie sentences, which I explore in another blog post.
Here’s an example from the business world, a press release announcing a new hire: “In her new role, Judy will be responsible for connecting consumer insights with brand needs with the right product solution to optimize value of Return on Experience back to clients.”
Anyone know what Judy is going to do? It’s a fair bet even Judy doesn’t know.
This isn’t to say every sentence needs to be simple in the vein of “See Jane. See Jane run.” That would be repetitive and boring. In the hands of a good writer, long, complex sentences and similes and metaphors can be glorious. Just read some non-fiction by Tom Wolfe or Gay Talese. But they were masters, and they knew when to ramble for effect. They also used plenty of simple sentences to set up the complicated ones.
Like sports writing, business writing seldom demands long, complex sentences. Even when the subjects are complicated, the sentences should be direct, straightforward and, above all, clear and free of unnecessary jargon. There’s no need to invent new ways to describe commonly understood things; you’re not a poet.
Keeping it simple means your message will be better understood and your busy readers will be grateful for not having to decipher your writing. One good way to avoid overly complex sentences is to read them out loud. If they sound ridiculous or incomprehensible when spoken, they should be rewritten.
Like most phobias, Fear of a Simple Sentence is curable. It just takes practice and determination. So, the next time you want to point out that a lineman has long arms, just say so.
by Jim Sweeney | Jul 10, 2024 | Blog
Hey, want to hear an announcement from my company?
Or,
Hey, want to hear a story?
Which got your attention?
If you’re human, it was probably the latter.
We are hardwired to listen to and learn from stories. From the earliest days of painting on cave walls through Aesop’s Fables and TEDx Talks, stories have proven themselves to be the best way to convey information to an audience. Even business information. Write a memo reminding people to always file their TPS reports with a cover sheet and they’ll ignore it. Tell them a story about the coworker who got fired for forgetting the cover sheet and they’ll remember.
But we largely abandon the power of narrative when it comes to press releases, which tend to be dry recitations of facts fleshed out with manufactured quotes and a corporate boilerplate.
For years the standard thinking on press releases has been to cram as much of the important information as possible up top on the theory that journalists won’t read past the headline and opening paragraph. There is merit to this approach if you’re announcing something truly significant or newsworthy, like a corporate merger or a new iPhone.
But, if we’re being honest, that’s the minority of releases. In most cases, the news isn’t a big enough deal to sell itself. So we, as PR practitioners, need to sell it. And stories are the best way to do it. A compelling story wrapped around a somewhat-less compelling piece of news can make an irresistible package.
Here’s an example: A chemical company wanted to announce a new polymer that would be used to line the surfaces of artificial joints. That could have been a straightforward product announcement, but I wanted to humanize the impact of the product, so I focused on the recipients of the artificial knees and hips, not the polymer itself.
I found Senior Olympics basketball players, each of whom had at least one artificial joint, and shot a video of them playing and talking about how grateful they were for the technology that let them hoop it up into their 80s. It was a step or two removed from the actual product, but it brought home the idea that this polymer had real benefits for people.
For the most part, Amendola clients are B2B and work in healthcare IT, which doesn’t easily lend itself to narrative. However, like with the above example, it’s often possible to bring it to the level of the patients and users of the technology. What does new perioperative scheduling software accomplish? Fewer delays and cancellations in scheduling surgeries, which is good for patients and clinicians. How about a new staffing platform for nurses? It gives them greater flexibility and allows them to earn more money.
Sometimes the narrative can be built around a single illuminating fact. I wrote a press release for a company whose seals were to be used on the Mars Rover. In and of itself, not that big a deal; scores of manufacturers had components on the Rover. What I learned from talking to company engineers is that it is impossible to build a seal that doesn’t leak, particularly in space; success is building a seal that leaks very, very slowly. How slowly? In this case, so slowly that it would take 1,000 years to empty a Coke can.
In the release, I told the story of these engineers working toward this ridiculously exacting specification. And it got picked up more than the dozens of cookie-cutter announcements that went out from other parts suppliers.
Of course, the stories must be interesting and short. They can’t meander and they can’t obscure the news. And they must be relevant. Don’t announce a brand of hard seltzer by telling a story about how a surfer took on a 50-foot wave and then enjoyed a can of seltzer back on the beach. Save that for the commercial.
Most press releases vanish with little notice or impact, like gnats flying into a bug zapper. But tell a good story, and people will remember it.
by Jim Sweeney | Sep 20, 2023 | Blog
When looking for a company to illustrate bad PR, United Airlines is an easy choice.
From 2009’s lesson in the power of viral video (“United Breaks Guitars”) to suffocating puppies, United can be counted upon to do the wrong thing and then make it worse through horrible PR.
Perhaps its worst blunder came in 2017 when a bloodied passenger refused to be bumped and was dragged off a flight. After the video went viral, then-United CEO Oscar Munoz called the passenger “disruptive” and referred to the forcible eviction as “re-accommodating the customers.” It took a firestorm of criticism before Munoz issued a more sincere-sounding apology, but by then the damage was done.
I wasn’t privy to what happened at United that led to such horrible PR decisions, but I do know who could have prevented them – Angry Arnold. That’s my term for the outsider reality check missing from too many corporate responses to PR crises. Here’s how it could have worked at United:
The moment the passenger video went viral, United’s PR team should have designated one of its highest-ranking members as Angry Arnold. He should have been put in a room with a laptop and the following instructions: “Forget you work for United. You’re just one of the flying public and you freaking hate United. It’s lost your luggage, delayed your flights, charged you for carry-ons and forced you to squeeze into ever-shrinking seats. And, by the way, it’s making obscene profits. Now, watch on repeat this video of a dazed passenger being dragged down the aisle.”
Angry Arnold would have been left in isolation to grow ever more furious at United while the rest of the PR team worked with the C-suite to write that self-serving statement from Munoz. When it was done, they could have slid it under the door to Angry Arnold and waited for his reaction.
And he would have kicked down the door, screaming, “Are you f*@%%^ kidding me? Blaming the passenger? ‘Re-accommodating’ customers? What kind of bull*$#@ is this?”
And then United would have known Munoz’s statement wasn’t going to fly with the public.
It’s not just United that could have used an Angry Arnold to save itself from itself. So could Southwest Airlines, Facebook, Wells Fargo, Uber, and other companies that have compounded their problems by responding weakly to PR crises.
That’s because Angry Arnold’s job is to take the perspective of the public that, ultimately, will decide how well the company weathers its PR crisis. If he doesn’t buy the company’s response, neither will customers, vendors and the media.
Too often, crisis PR is captive PR. Everyone on the internal team wants to help the company in its moment of danger, but, paradoxically, that prevents them from doing the best job at it. They’re hunkered down in the corporate bunker, trying to manage the crisis without admitting fault or being too hard on the company or its leaders. Lawyers get in the mix, counseling against admitting error and watering down language as only they can. As a result, the initial response is often inadequate and defensive and makes a bad situation worse.
Angry Arnold does not have that captive perspective. He’s not going to cut the business any slack or worry about making the CEO sweat. He wants the company to come clean, fix the problem, take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again, punish those responsible, provide restitution, and beg for forgiveness.
Of course, it’s not easy to turn an internal PR employee into an Angry Arnold. He or she might be reluctant to offer frank opinions or go against the C-suite consensus, and might struggle to achieve that critical, independent perspective.
That’s why many companies benefit from using an outside agency for crisis communications and PR. While still loyal to the client, an agency has the independence and perspective to better assess what needs to be done to satisfy the public, customers, stakeholders etc. while also protecting the client.
Unleashing Angry Arnold is no fun. He bruises egos, calls for heads to roll and forces companies to do things they don’t want to do. But he should be a necessary part of any crisis PR team, even if he’s a trusted outsider.
Remember, the C-suite and the PR team are not going to determine if the crisis is handled correctly or not. The public and customers will, and listening to Angry Arnold is the best way to gauge their reaction.
by Jim Sweeney | May 31, 2023 | Blog
I’ve previously warned of the dangers of writing with vampire words – those useless words and phrases that latch on to sentences and bleed them dry of meaning and vitality; bloodsuckers like “focus” and “prioritize” and “process.”
In sticking with the horror theme, this post is about zombie sentences, those lifeless clumps of words that lurch and stagger through memos, emails, white papers and reports. Like zombies, these sentences drag themselves across the page, shuffling along without any real animate spark or personality.
Specifically, I’m talking about passive voice, the default construction for too much business writing. What’s passive voice? It’s when a noun that would be the object of an active sentence instead becomes the subject of the sentence. For example:
Active voice: Michonne cut off the zombie’s head. – The subject is Michonne, who acts on the object (the zombie’s head).
Passive voice: The zombie’s head was cut off by Michonne. – Here the zombie’s head occupies the usual position of grammatical subject and Michonne switches to the spot usually occupied by the object.
Well, so long as the zombie is decapitated, who cares?
You should.
In most cases, passive voice weakens your writing, robbing it of clarity, energy and momentum. It also implies a lack of ownership and responsibility. Consider the usual politician’s copout: Mistakes were made. The implication is that no one made the mistake; it just happened.
Like a solitary zombie, a single passive sentence does not pose much danger. But in large numbers, zombie sentences can overwhelm and devour the brains of any reader. Consider the following:
A meeting was held to discuss Q3 results and to plan initiatives for the coming year. Reports from the relevant committees were delivered and discussed by attendees. It was decided that the reports would be combined and presented to the C-suite in preparation for a companywide strategy. Further deliberations were postponed until the next meeting. Lastly, it was agreed that the Cinnabon order would be doubled for the next meeting.
Horrible, isn’t it? Sentences barely alive, yet relentless in their tedium.
It’s not uncommon for vampire words and zombie sentences to come together to form some truly ghastly writing: A consensus was reached to strategically leverage the assets in a focused implementation. This sort of writing calls for mobs with torches and pitchforks.
Passive voice can be sneaky. You know how in every zombie movie someone gets bitten and keeps it a secret and no one knows until the victim turns full zombie and attacks? Passive voice also can go undetected until the damage is done.
How to spot passive voice? Look for a form of “to be” (is, are, am, was, were, has been, have been, had been, will be, will have been, being) followed by a past participle (a form of the verb that typically ends in –ed), and you have passive voice, i.e. We have all been chased and bitten.
If that sounds too much like grade school grammar, here’s a simpler way that uses zombies to detect zombie sentences. If you can tack the phrase “by zombies” to the end of a sentence and it still makes sense, then you have passive voice.
The research was analyzed and a final report was delivered to the client . . . by zombies.
A search for the CEO’s replacement was initiated . . . by zombies.
Neat, huh? It’s like getting zombies to eat each other instead of us.
On TV, there is no cure for the zombie virus; the only recourse is a bullet to the brain. But there is a happy ending in business writing. Zombie sentences can be restored to life and it’s usually quite easy to do. The antidote? Use active voice, the old subject/verb/object sentence structure.
Instead of “The research was analyzed and a final report was delivered to the client” try “We analyzed the research and delivered a final report to the client.”
Instead of having something being done to someone, have someone do something.
“Further changes were made to the logo by the artist” becomes “The artist made further changes to the logo.” Cured!
Of course, there are times when it’s a good idea to use passive voice, just as it’s allowed — once in a great while — to let a zombie live. (Remember the end of Shaun of the Dead, when Shaun chains up Zombie Ed so they can still play video games?) Here’s when passive voice works:
- When you don’t know who did something or want to de-emphasize who did it: The quarantine was put into place too late to stop the outbreak.
- To emphasize an object: A zombie herd was spotted crossing the highway.
The outbreak of zombie sentences has reached pandemic levels. Keep your writing clean and aim for the head.
