The Higher Ed Marketing Blog

Entries from November 2009

Kill These Words & Phrases Part 3

November 25, 2009 · Leave a Comment

“Put a unique spin on this, throw it out there so it can grow legs, get some traction and go viral.  I want a footprint!”

I woke in a cold sweat.

Words and phrases that should be killed are sprouting faster than zombies in a George A.Romero film.   They’re more persistent than sallow vampires in the twilight.  I can’t stop thinking about them though some say I’m anal (props to Freud for that evergreen).  Others have likened our kind to being word police, but I consider us mavericks.  No, wait.  The paunchy maverick slid back to the Senate  and unleashed The Rogue.

Yikes!  I step back from that since the first definition of “rogue” in dictionary.com is “a dishonest, knavish person; a scoundrel.”  Hmm.  Well, I guess it’s safe to call yourself a rogue if you know your audience never uses a dictionary.

Actually, I’m just a guy who loves the language, respects the creative use of it and dislikes lazy use of language, especially among “educated” professionals.  I’m just giving you a heads-up that.

Really, I’m being totally transparent.

The phrase making the sales rep rounds is “reaching out.”  Several, from different parts of the country have used that on me, always beginning, “Dennis, I’d like to reach out and see how our company can help you.”

Well, friend, it’s like this:  if I’m drowning, I really want you to reach out and help me.  However, if your goal is to fill inventory, get the manager off your back and boost your commission, a simple media kit will do.  If it looks like your station is a good fit, I’ll reach out to you.

And then you know what we’ll do?  We’ll have a conversation!

Actually I’ve heard this in higher ed more than in the media.  It usually begins with a problem (masked as “a challenge”) between two people or parties who disagree (have “different goals”) and the path to a solution is to have one of these conversations.  Conversation implies civility which means you can’t raise your voice or even let your face get red from rising blood pressure.

“Conversations” are bland, mishmashes of buzzwords that suffocate our ancient instincts to reach out and kill the opponent.

Hey,  I’m just sayin’. . . .

****

( I’ve had a lot of feedback from readers.  I’m thinking of setting up a separate page with all three posts and everyone’s contributions.  So please send me the words and phrases that drive you nuts.)

Note:  Thanks to the guys over at Target x  who picked up on our shared love of language and continued the, umm, conversation.

Categories: advertising · blogging · higher education · humor · marketing
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

More Words & Phrases I’d Like to See Dead

November 11, 2009 · 8 Comments

Back in January I did a post on Words and Phrases That Should be Buried.

I’m on Rant 2.

“Literally” is still the most overused word.  It is the Ramen of our vocabulary.

Here are more additions:

Wrap my head around it. I never got this phrase.  It conjurs up something you’d see  watching a Bugs Bunny cartoon.  I think this image came from an aging hippie suffering one too many acid trips.

Getting eyeballs is  overused in the worlds of advertising, marketing and the Web. It’s a disgusting image, conjuring up pictures of those bloody eyeballs you see on low budget horror films and Garbage Pail Kids trading cards.  “Getting eyeballs” still doesn’t address getting the mind behind the eyeballs to concentrate on the message.

Silos. I’ve just starting hearing this in office conversation and I’ve seen it a few times in writing.  It’s one of those words that creates an appropriate image.  (See yourself as dried corn nestled in your own comfortable silo not wanting to communicate with the corn in the other silos).  The image was used as early as 1989 in the context of “vertical silo syndrome.”   Now I hear it on campus as in “departments are silos,” not caring about other departments.  It’s going to wear itself out fast because it’s an easy concept for lazy speakers.

Butts in seats.  Kind of like “getting eyeballs.”  Butts in seats, of course, is filling seats with people.   So why can’t we say we want to “fill seats?”  We’ve broken humans into butts and eyeballs.  Not a pretty picture.

I don’t know wherecreepy edged into the national daily dialogue but it spread like The Blob in a microwave.    It probably evolved from “it creeps me out.”  I suppose it’s popular because it’s fun to say and is easily inserted into any kind of description of something somewhat distasteful.  I think it’s adolescent and no one over the age of 18 should be using it.

Unfortunately they do use it.  I heard a middle-aged secretary today relating a story of a couple accidents in which two friends in different parts of the country died about the same time.  “That’s creepy,” she told the other secretary.  “Don’t you think that’s creepy?  I just think that’s really creepy.”

I crept out, wrapping my head around a silo of sanity, keeping my eyeballs straight ahead and my butt far away from any nearby seats.

***

Please send in your candidates for instant death.

Categories: advertising · higher education · humor · writing
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

The Grocery Store Survey

November 3, 2009 · Leave a Comment

“It’s a company doing a marketing survey on food buying,” my wife said, handing me the phone.
Yes I do the grocery shopping. I volunteered several years ago to give her more time to attend to her production agency.
I took the phone.  “Hi, my name’s xxxxxx and I’m calling on behalf of Sirs, a marketing  firm. . . . .”
I try to cooperate with marketing firms doing surveys for obvious reasons.
The questions were well structured and it soon was clear that I shop at three different stores: Tops, Wegman’s and Shure Fine. At first, the answers were easy.
As we drilled down, the answers were not so easy. Rate the quality of the selections; rate the variety of offerings; rate the price. . . .
Finally I cut in and said, politely:  “This survey is skewed in the sense that our Shure Fine is a small neighborhood grocery store, not nearly the size of Tops and Wegmans.  There’s no way Shure Fine can compete on selection, variety, even quality on certain things. Can you make a note of that?”
“Well, there’s no place here. . . but I can tell my supervisor.”
I knew where that would go. No room for exceptions in a database that’s already been set up in a world built for Excel, speed and efficiency.
I finished out the survey, which, in my mind, was already worth less than when we started. Tops came out on top because that’s where I shop every week and spend the most money.
Nowhere will those reading the results know that I stop in at Shure Fine three times a week for dairy products, meats and other convenience items.  Or that I’ve done it for 30 years.
It probably won’t matter that the place is clean, the tellers are friendly and the local owner hires and trains local high school students who learn, among other things, interpersonal skills and how to be polite.
There’s nothing in there noting that the owner inherited the business from his father and three generations of the family have contributed enormously to the community.

Again, Sirs is a reputable firm, the questions were well-thought out and logical and the whole experience was professional.

But the results are skewed.

It’s a reminder to take any survey or poll with a healthy grain of salt.

Categories: advertising · brands · marketing · public relations
Tagged: , , , , ,