When, if ever, is it acceptable to describe something as a ‘game-changer’ to a journalist?
One exception might be when a multibillion-dollar tech company suffers a shock defeat in a court case which has landmark implications for the rest of the sector. That’s probably acceptable. Just about. But only because it’s probably an accurate reflection of the facts, and spoken by a lawyer, which means he will have chosen his words with precision.
However, I was still disappointed that I couldn’t find a better quote in this morning’s FT when reading about the Google data-privacy verdict. Not with the journalists, but with the people giving them the quotes. If the hacks had to resort to ‘game-changer’ for the quote then we truly are in a sorry state when it comes to wordsmithery.
There is a pervasive trend for media spokespeople to use phrases and soundbites that they think make them sound as though they are being interesting and profound when they are being anything but. In media training, we call it ‘ positive-bland’ and it refers to people who use language incorrectly or pick phrases that are so dull or overused so that they become meaningless, if not vacuous during interviews. This is not the same as using jargon, which carries its own evils, but positive-bland can flirt dangerously close to management-speak.
Game-changer is, indeed, a guilty culprit in the lexicon of positive-bland. Other usual suspects include ‘passionate’, ‘innovative’, ‘tragedy’ (really: when was it a tragedy that a football club fired its manager?) and ‘it’s all about the customer experience’. PRs should also take note when trying to pitch to journalists. As one journalist friend mournfully notes, the most overused pitch phrases are ‘exclusive’, ‘unique’ and ‘I’ve got a scoop for you’. Invariably, they haven’t.
When crafting soundbites, it is important to pick words that are not only creative and fresh but also accurate. Otherwise, if everything is a ‘tragedy’ or ‘game-changer’, how are people going to take you seriously or find you interesting enough to quote? This was particularly evident during the financial crisis when certain prominent business journalists got very overexcited when Northern Rock went bust. But when the big American banks started going under six months later they had no way to capture the seriousness of what was happening because they had already used up all their superlatives.
If you are happy to use boring yet hyperbolic phrases that make journalists roll their eyes, then carry on being bland. Or you could spend ten minutes thinking of some different words that set you and your organisation apart. It might be incredibly useful, if not game-changing, shift in approach. But it almost certainly won’t be a ‘paradigm shift’.
- Why Macron won: the Media Coach lens - May 8, 2017
- The Art of the Quote: Sizzle with Care - March 24, 2017
- Power of the Personal: How a Great Story can shape a Political Campaign - March 6, 2017
- EU doorstep interviews: 4 expert tips - February 5, 2017
- Post-Truth era: weaponising numbers! - December 9, 2016
- Public narrative: case study from Tim Farron - November 28, 2016
- Trade Associations: Breaking Bland - September 30, 2016
- Post Truth era: the problem of trust - September 23, 2016
- Why Britain’s pro-EU campaign is unlikely to make Emma Thompson its new spokesperson - February 23, 2016
- Don’t let a name check make you sound like a robot - January 26, 2016