Why I passed on an opportunity

Photo credit: https://unsplash.com/@brett_jordan

 

Today I turned down an offer for a job.

It wasn't because I didn't have time to do it.
It wasn't because I didn't want to work for the person who asked me.

The reason I declined was that I realized, while I could certainly wing it and not mess up altogether, there are better people out there for the particular goal this person had in mind with a very specific target audience. 

Specifically, the person who contacted me is one of my LinkedIn contacts with whom I've exchanged messages. She said she liked my writing style, which is why she thought of asking me for an editing job.

The problem is that it's to edit a book aimed at tweens. I've certainly read my share of such books in the past, but it's not at all my area of focus. 

I could do what others do and just say, "Sure I'm up for anything from anyone willing to pay me." But I'm burdened by something called integrity that prevents me from doing that.

I know that for her book to be a commercial success, she has to work with an editor who really

know the market well. Editing a book is not just a question of catching errors but of making sure

it will resonate with its target audience.

I don't know the ins and outs of that particular segment of

the population well enough to serve the author as well as she deserves to be served. That's why I declined.

If you think that's not the way to do business, then we will never be on the same page. On the other hand, if you appreciate a marketing consultant that will not betray your trust, then we can talk. 

You can send me a message via the contact form on my site.

 

Fresh content sold here

This week on LinkedIn, someone posted a picture of a sign for a store urging customers to place holiday orders now. The poster said she would cut out some of the words. That reminded me of an old joke. How old is it? I looked it up and discovered that it was printed as early as 1890. Here's how it goes:

A man opened a fish store and put up sign, “Fresh Fish Sold Here.” A friend told him there is no need to say here. The owner took out that word, leaving “Fresh Fish Sold.” Another friend said there's no need to say “fresh”—no one expects to be sold old fish. The owner took out that word, making the new sign, “Fish Sold.” Another friend said there's no need to say “sold”—no one expects him to give it away. That left just “Fish.” But another friend said it was not necessary to say that because it could be seen and smelled. The owner took out that word and the new sign was blank.

The punchline of the original story was that the business failed due to lack of advertising. But I would suggest two key takeaways.

One is that whenever you seek to satisfy everyone, you end up satisfying no one. Those of us who have had to satisfy committees with copy know all-too-well how true that is. One wants a more playful tone, while the other insists on something that's all business. One wants simple language, while another mistakes jargon for proof of expertise. Satisfying them all renders the final copy bland and forgettable.

The other is that while cutting out unnecessary words is the essence of editing, you have to really know what you're doing. Otherwise, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater -- or should we say fish with the saltwater in this case?

To illustrate this post, I found that life truly does imitate life and that you can purchase a sign inspired by this story on Amazon for as little as $9.99.

This blog's CTA

While it's possible to eliminate a word or two from your statements, knowing which ones to keep in order to capture the attention of your target audience is the key. That's what people who take the time to learn about your business and who buys from you have to know.  

That level of tailored insight instead of a forced one-size-fits-all mold is what I deliver for my customers and clients. It's why they find the content I produce for them continues to draw people in -- even a decade after it was produced.

The here for me is not a physical store but digital contact. Check out my site: WriteWayPro.weebly.com

Related:

Step out of the spotlight
What Edison can teach us about SEO
7 Habits of Highly Effective Content Marketers
Think Marathon Rather Than Sprint When Planning Content Marketing
Most Memorable Brand Slogans

Headline check

By Ariella Brown

hashtag

I've never cared for the way commas are used in headlines set for AP style. Written text should correspond to the language we speak as much as possible. 

Substituting a comma for the word "and" in this instance actually slows the readers down as they have to consider that, though the standard formulation of a comma between two adjectives makes one assume they both apply to the same noun, that can't be the intent of the headline.

Really, why write "How younger, older B2B marketers differ" instead of "How younger and older B2B marketers differ"?

The latter is both clearer and flows better than the former. Saving those three keystrokes is an insignificant gain for a loss of clarity and rhythm. IMHO. Does that make it wrong? I decided to investigate.

As a grammar geek, I got very excited to discover that I am not alone in feeling these headlines mangle English. That very point is the subject of Stack Exchange discussion from a few years ago. The gist of the investigation amounts to these points:

1. The substitution of a comma for "and" is assumed to be motivated by a desire to save space or to sound punchier, though it's not something mandated by AP style. In other words, it's not incorrect to include the "and" in the title.
2. The suspicion that this practice is related to digital publications is not supported by evidence. There are examples of such headlines in print going back at least to 1990.
3. It's also not a practice peculiar to American outlets, a theory that may have arisen from those with some bias against American writing.

Now to return to the very first point here, I stick with my objection. For this particular formulation, the effect of dropping the "and" is not punchier, definitely not clearer, and seems to be an affectation of the writer or journalist who seems to believe that an"and" never belongs in a headline.

Whoever is responsible for blindly following this unfortunate trend has forgotten the one golden rule of writing that George Orwell proclaimed in his famous essay: “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.”

Related

Make Your Content as Accessible as Possible

Follow Write Way Pro on LinkedIn and on Facebook.

You can also follow Ariella Brown.  

Mark Twain got it

From "Two Views of  the Mississippi."
Picking up on the transition from innocence to experience that William Blake explores in his poetry, Twain encapsulates the gain that also entails loss:

Now when I had mastered the language of this water and has come to know every trifling feature that bordered the great river as familiarly as I knew the letters of the alphabet, I had made a valuable acquisition. But I had lost something, too. I had lost something which could never be restored to me while I lived. All the grace, the beauty, the poetry, had gone out of the majestic river! 

Twain offers further details and then suggests a parallel with the medical profession:

 Since those days, I have pitied doctors from my heart. What does the lovely flush in a beautyʹs cheek mean to a doctor but a ʺbreakʺ that ripples above some deadly disease? Are not all her visible charms sown think with what are to him the signs and symbols of hidden decay? Does he ever see her beauty at all, or doesnʹt he simply view her professionally, and comment upon her unwholesome condition all to himself? And doesnʹt he sometimes wonder whether he has gained most or lost most by learning his trade?   

Read more in http://uncommoncontent.blogspot.com/2016/07/innocence-and-experience.html