Alex Blyth

More and more companies are realising just what they can achieve with a blog. It’s one of those areas that’s morphing from from something enthusiasts do in their spare time to a mainstream marketing activity. And it’s happening fast.

One interesting issue thrown up by this surging enthusiasm for the company blog is whether or not to use a ghostwriter. I’ve been talking about it with various people over the past few months and have seen it discussed in several social media nooks and crannies, most recently here: http://reputationonline.co.uk/2009/12/15/the-surprising-verdict-on-ghostwriting/#comment-556

Here, for what it’s worth, is my take on the topic…..

Personally I just don’t get the argument against ghostwriting. Do those who oppose it have a problem with company spokespeople – do they demand that the Chief Exec speaks in person for the company at all times? Are they happy for the HR Manager to conduct preliminary interviews, or do they expect the Chief Exec to personally interview all staff? Are they happy with machine operatives making the products, or do they expect the Chief Executive to man every single part of the production process?

You get my point. The job of the Chief Executive is to set the direction of the company, hire the best people to deliver it, and then inspire them to achieve more as a team than they could individually. It isn’t to actually DO everything themselves. The spokesperson knows the Chief Executive’s line on the key topics of the day, the HR Manager knows who the Chief Executive wants to hire, and the machine operatives know how the company expects them to operate their machines.

In the same way, Chief Executives (or for that matter senior people in any company, large or small) can’t be expected to find time to write their own blogs. Some do; they enjoy it and are good at it. Most don’t. There’s no reason why they should have either the aptitude or the time. What they SHOULD do is find ghostwriters who they can trust to present their positions in a clear and engaging way. I do this for several companies, and they are using those blogs to great effect, building reputation and generating leads.

I suspect those who argue against the use of ghostwriters in this way simply don’t recognise that writing is a specialist skill, like speaking to the media, interview job candidates or operating machinery. Just because everyone can write to some extent, doesn’t mean everyone can do it well. I believe that, in time, the position of Blogwriter will become as estabished in companies as that of Press Officer and HR Manager. It’s about basic division of labour – and those companies that understand earliest how the new digital economy is creating new specialisations and job roles will in the coming years be best placed to attract the best writers, to put in place systems for making the process work well, and in summary to produce the most effective blogs.

We all know when we read a piece of writing that flows well. We’re immediately drawn into it, and we want to read more because every point makes sense, it’s obvious how they all link together and we feel like we’re moving together towards a logical conclusion. It’s a nice, warm happy feeling.

So, whether writing an article, a white paper, a case study, a blog post, a book, a press release or any other type of writing – whether for myself or on behalf of one of my clients – I make sure my writing flows. I’m lucky in that I have a knack for it; I have an instinctive feeling for the cadence, structure and progression of the written word. It’s the flipside of the fact that my singing makes even my mum edge out of the room, I’m the laughing stock of my local yoga class, and everything I draw looks like a pig (except for pigs which look like machine guns, worryingly).

But I can write. And just as music teachers, art teachers, and yoga instructors have all bravely tried to insist that I can learn, I can improve, so I’m telling you that anyone can learn to write with flow. (The big difference is I’m not trying to stop laughing while I say it). So, if getting a flow into your writing is something you tend to struggle with here are five tips that you might find useful.

(Apologies if the examples are all a bit political – I lifted them largely from some training I did at a public affairs consultancy earlier this year)

1) Use the active not the passive voice.

The active voice is where the subject of the sentence comes before the verb, eg. “The Select Committee has recommended that the Government double the budget,” as opposed to the passive voice which is where the subject comes after the verb, eg. “A recommendation has been made by the Select Committee that the Government double the budget.”

The active voice is more direct, much easier to read, and helps your writing skip along unencumbered by too many unnecessary words.

2) Eliminate ambiguity in your use of pronouns.

“Cameron entered the chamber and sat down next to Osborne. He looked nervous.” Who looked nervous? Cameron or Osborne?

“They were drinking cold beer because it was warm.” What was warm? The beer? Why would they want to drink warm beer? No one chooses beer just because it’s warm. Of course, he means the weather was warm, so they were having a nice cold lager. I got there in the end, but it would have been better if they’d been clearer about what that pronoun “it” refers to.

“The Minister can react in one of three ways: ignoring the issue, engaging with us, taking it forward herself. This would be the best outcome for all concerned.” Which would be? Probably the last one, but I’m not 100% sure.

3) Maintain unity in your paragraphs.

Make a point in a paragraph and don’t stray off into a related but separate point

Tony Blair was electorally the most successful Labour leader ever. He won three elections, and commanded significant majorities in all three Parliaments. However, in 2005 he was actually beaten by Michael Howard in England. Michael Howard was the Conservative leader most commonly remembered for having been described by a colleague as “having something of the night about him”.

All good points, but we’ve ended up somewhere entirely different from where we started off. It’s confusing for the reader and it damages the flow of your writing.

4) Don’t assume the reader follows your train of thought.

“Electoral reform is essential in the UK. It would restore the legitimacy of Parliament. This is something that is now more important than ever before.”

Is it more important than ever before? In fact, while I’m at it, why would electoral reform necessarily restore the legitimacy of Parliament. I’m not sure I agree with that, and this passage has done nothing to bring me with the writer on her train of logic. It would have been much more convincing as…..

“Electoral reform is essential in the UK. It would allow each vote to count and so would do a great deal to restore the legitimacy of Parliament. This is something that is now more important than ever before as the expenses scandal has presented Parliament with its greatest test of legitimacy in a generation.”

5) Keep your sentences short

“Good writing is all about helping your reader to grasp your meaning, not confusing them with complexity and jargon, or leaping from point to point, but carefully guiding them from point to point, using the tools of grammar and punctuation where appropriate, and ultimately bringing them on a journey with you.”

I couldn’t agree more. However, wouldn’t it be better put as….

“Good writing is all about helping your reader to grasp your meaning. You should not confuse them with complexity and jargon. You should not leap from point to point. You should carefully guide them from point to point, using the tools of grammar and punctuation where appropriate. Ultimately you should bring them on a journey with you.”

So, here we are halfway through the series. Just to recap for those who may not have followed it from the beginning this is a list of ten things that PRs do that really annoy journalists. I’ve put it together after speaking to many other journalists and also drawing on my own experiences over the years. It is worth noting that I work with a great many excellent PR professionals, and I like to think that I put more effort than most journalists do into building mutually productive relationships with those PR folk. I’m also very well aware that those who work in PR could very well write a list of ten things that journalists do to annoy them, or even ten things that Alex Blyth does to annoy them!

So, with those caveats in place, here’s what I have so far:

1) Expect journalists to operate as an unpaid media montoring service
2) Going oddly silent/AWOL
3) Sending irrelevant press releases
4) Writing like a PR, not a real person

Number five is: Pitching like they’re selling timeshare properties

Sometimes I get a call from someone who works in PR. They ask if I’ve got a minute to talk. Then they tell me that they have some news that will interest readers of a title I write for. Or they tell me they’ve got an idea for a article that will fit nicely into a particular title. Then they briefly outline the story, tell me who will be interested and why, and ask me what I think of it.

Other times I get a call from someone who works in PR. They tell me about their company, or their client. They go on to tell me all about the great products or services that company has. Then they tell me about the exciting new hire the company’s made, or about the revolutionary new product or service it’s just launched, or about the company’s five-year growth strategy, or about the latest office move, or about what the Chairman had for breakfast that morning, or something, whatever, I’ve stopped listening, and am just hoping this person will stop talking soon. Or at least at some point before next year’s World Cup kicks off.

You see what I mean?

When in life are we ever interested in a conversation with someone who just talks at us? Never. People need to be engaged in a dialogue or they just switch off. So, it amazes me how often I get these sort of phone pitches.

As I’ve noted previously on this blog it’s crazy that PR agencies tend to get their most junior person to do the media ring-round, and yes I do feel sorry for the person having to make these calls. But at the same time my first proper job, when I was 21, involved picking up the phone and pitching to marketing directors of blue chip companies. I figured out pretty quickly that if I just talked at them they’d end the call. So I learnt to ask questions, to listen to the answers, to ask further questions, to draw links between what they were saying and what they were saying, to build some sort of rapport.

It’s really not that hard to do, and I’m sure everyone in the world of journalism and PR would be much happier if the people making these calls figured it out, or, failing that, if the people ordering those PR execs to make those calls at least gave them a few hours of training on how to do it well. Surely that’s not asking too much?