Category: Persuasion and Advocacy

Forget the eye of newt. Put your black cat up for adoption. The wise know that the real magic is in words.

Not just any words — the right words.

At least, that is what I gather from copywriter Sarah Jo Wood of Evolving Advisors Inc. in Toronto, Ontario. She was kind enough to send me a list of words to avoid. Apparently, readers who see these words run screaming into the night, or at least shudder and turn away.

Here are the words of woe that she says can jinx your writing:

List displayed by Albert S. Frank using Jonathan Feinberg's Wordle

Words Of Woe

See how I can use those words, underlining them as I go:

As a business and trial lawyer writing on business and law, it is hard to see how I can meet my obligation to my readers without using those “wrong” words. Suppose I want to analyze a difficult decision to sign a contract to buy or sell in order to earn. I must consider what may worry the business person more than deathfailure. A business deal gone bad can cost money; what you owe you usually must pay. There are ways to lower the risk of liability and loss, but worry is a cost of doing business. If you spend your life in a fantasy you should expect to fail.

Maybe that paragraph sounds negative, but could I say those things without most of those words?

That said, Sarah does have a point. Words have more than their literal meaning. They have associations and implications, mood and tone. They pick things up from the company they keep like butter can pick up tastes in a refrigerator.

Mark Twain famously said, “The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.”

Crazy_Lightning_Blue

I have to admit that looks nothing like a bug of any kind.

In advertisements people never “spend,” they “invest.” Of course, vacation trips and other luxuries are consumption, not investment, but the advertisers use the more appealing word anyway. I suspect they know what they are doing.

Suppose you want to influence your audience’s attitude towards a man. There are many ways you could accurately refer to him. Depending on your audience and what attitude you want, you could call him the biker, the Harley rider, the motorcyclist, Dr. Maniple,  the pediatrician, the doctor, the baby doctor, and so on.

For an average middle-class audience the words from “Dr. Maniple” are more positive than “biker” or “Harley rider.” The word “pediatrician” could come across as stuffy, pretentious, or confusing to some audiences but clear and appealing to medical people. Those who have had good dealings with Harley-Davidson motorcyclists might find “Harley rider” very positive.

These differences can matter in court, in novels, in advertising, in fact in any communication.

Even synonyms do not mean exactly the same thing. For example, someone who is “prosperous” probably does not have as much as someone who is “wealthy.” Haute cuisine is not described as “yummy.” A “lovely” woman is more refined than a “hottie.”

Consider word choice and business names.

“Ben & Jerry’s” seems friendlier and less corporate than “A Division of Unilever.” Ben & Jerry’s now actually is a division of Unilever but does not sell Unilever ice cream. It just would not sound as good as Ben & Jerry’s.

What about a string-of-initials name? The idea is that since IBM is a famous corporate giant your small business startup will impress with a name like RKZZP Corp. But such a name can make your branding efforts harder. Who can even remember “RKZZP Corp.”?

The string-of-initials name does not make the famous corporate giant impressive; the fact of being a famous corporate giant lets it get away with using a dud name.

Word choice matters but it is not all that matters. Shakespeare, the great master of word choice, wrote “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. I would add, an “unauthorized effluent release” would smell as bad.

But put the right words with the right substance, and now you have magic.

Speaking powerfully, whether in a formal public speech, in court, in small groups or even one-to-one, depends on two apparently conflicting attitudes. First, an attitude of confidence. Second, an attitude of wanting to impress the audience; if you do not care, why should they?

The second attitude can easily lead to self-consciousness and nervousness. This makes it hard to have the first attitude and speak with confidence.

How can you care, but not care too much? Is it even possible? I say that even trying to find such a happy medium is the wrong approach.

My daughter Emma is too young to face these problems. Emma has always expressed herself with confidence:

Baby Emma Laying Down the Law

Emma has always been clear and persuasive to get what she wants. Why has she never been self-conscious or nervous in these efforts?

Partly no doubt because she is too young to have learned that there is anything to be self-conscious or nervous about. That does not help us much — as adults we already have our history of being criticized, scolded, or even scorned when we speak.

But there is something else going on that I think can help.

Emma is not thinking about whether the audience likes her, how she is dressed, how good her language is, her gestures, her eye contact, or any of the other usual “speaking skills” issues. She cares only about communicating what she wants and, if that in itself is not enough, why she should get it.

She is content-conscious, not self-conscious.

As adults we can do the same. We should put the mental focus not on what the audience thinks about us but on making sure that we have good content and the audience understands it.

Suppose while speaking you trip on your tongue, drop your papers, or do something else that makes you look less than smooth. If your focus in on yourself you think “oh no, this makes me look bad” and it throws you off. The audience might even realize that you are upset, which is also bad.

But if your focus is on the content, such things are just trivial delays in getting your point across. You say, “what I meant to say is…” or “oops, now as I was saying…” or something similar. You carry on, and the audience will probably agree with you that what just happened is trivial and the important thing is your message.

The content orientation has helped me in court. When preparing for court I think about whether I have the evidence to support the facts my side alleges. I think about whether I have the facts to fit the law I want to use. I think about whether the law, looked at rightly, is helpful given the facts I actually have.

On the other hand I spend little or no time thinking about whether the judge likes me, or whether when I speak I seem smooth. I mainly want the judge to see that I have reasonable content, and if the judge does see that then I am happy.

Of course there is room for speaking skills. It is worthwhile to think about them and to practice them. But when actually presenting they should not be the focus.

Put your focus on the content, and self-consciousness will not drain your speaking power.