Rantings of a sub-editor

March 27, 2012

Culture clash

Filed under: meal occasions — substuff @ 10:05 pm
Tags: ,

Yoghurt, yoghurt, yoghurt. For the past three weeks or so, my every spare minute has been oozing with yoghurt. Eww. Not literally, thank goodness. I’ve been writing a category report on yoghurt and pot desserts.

This involved talking to around 35 press officers, one for each of the different brands and one for each of the supermarkets. The press officers for the brands are superb, almost to a (wo)man. Pleasant to deal with, quick to respond and totally on the ball.

Oh, but the language. The language of press releases, of the internal workings of brand identity, of fmcg. It is a terror.

I work in my kitchen, so I read these things with an oven nearby. A gas oven, temptingly near to my head. Do you know how dangerous that is?

The point of a press release – or, indeed, any information given to the press – is to deliver information to journalists, who in turn deliver it to their readers. In this case, the feature was for The Grocer magazine, so the readers are suppliers, retailers, wholesalers, farmers and the occasional member of the public with an unusual taste in recreational reading. Above all, they’re people, not robots. Therefore, there is no reason to talk to them of “eating occasions” when you could say “meals and snacks”.

However, very few press releases are actually written with the reader in mind. Instead, it’s all about the company and what they want to shout about – in their strange private dialect. But if you write your press releases in simple, direct, meaningful words, you stand a much better chance of getting your message across.

So I’m going to be radical and take some real phrases that were sent to me and put them in nice, simple, human English. I know, I know. Try not to get too excited.

  • “Snacking is one of the key occasions for the Low Fat yogurt consumer”
    This just makes me think of David Attenborough (“Bamboo is one of the key food sources for the mountain gorilla”) – it’s an odd construction to use. How about “consumers most often eat low-fat yoghurt as a snack”? If that’s true, of course. Which we don’t know, because the word “key” doesn’t actually mean anything.
  • “Greek yoghurt sits on a continuum between yoghurts and desserts”
    This is crazy talk. Try “Greek yoghurt sits somewhere between yoghurts and desserts”, if you must. Or say what you mean: “Being thicker and more luxurious, Greek yoghurt can also be used for desserts.”
  • “Yoghurt retains a health halo”
    No it doesn’t. “People see yoghurt as a healthy food.”
  • “It is an eye attractive on shelf product”
    Okay, I know what you mean. But “it looks good on the shelf” or “it’s an attractive product”, would be better.
  • “It is about becoming more treaty through flavour choices and style”
    Look, I know the linguists say we’re not meant to scream “this is not a word”, but, sorry, this is not a word (except as a noun, where obviously it is a word). Perhaps “to make the yoghurts more attractive as treats, we’ve introduced more flavours and updated our packaging”?
  • Pleasure remains a key need-state in food” 
    This means “people still like food that tastes nice”. You wouldn’t write that, because it’s stupid. So don’t write this, because it’s stupid.
  • “there will be a new TV campaign heroing on great taste”
    Was “focusing” not good enough?
  • “This is an iconic brand with strong taste credentials” 
    I’ll refrain from going off on a rant about icons on this occasion. What this means is “it’s a well known brand and the product tastes good”. And then, I’d question whether either of those things are actually worth mentioning anyway.
  • “This is set to expand the ambient desserts category through the snacking occasion”
    This means “our new product is perfect for snacking, and this will increase sales of ambient desserts” (so stock up, all you supermarket buyers).
  • “this will catapult the plant-based eating trend firmly into the mainstream”
    This isn’t quite as silly as it sounds, but the fact that it sounds silly makes it silly. The company makes soya products, but they realise that soya itself doesn’t sound appetising. So they’re trying out “plant-based”, because everyone knows that plants are tasty and healthy, right? Right. And that’s why we already eat them, in the shape of fruit and vegetables. Firmly in the mainstream. No catapulting needed.

As I say, the press officers I dealt with were by and large incredibly professional and efficient. What I’m complaining about here is not them, but the kind of language that has become commonplace in fmcg. Commonplace, you say? Then what’s wrong? What’s wrong is that it’s only commonplace within the industry – the reader has a right to expect direct, no-nonsense language.

It wasn’t all bad, though. Take this from Danone. “You’ve been hit by some smooth caramel.” (Dananana nana na na nana na na) – that’s just great.

And there was my friend telling me what she and her husband got up to with a pot of yoghurt while on holiday in Greece. That too. In fact, I think the two of them may have damn well expanded the yoghurt usage occasion further, what with pleasure being their key need state and all. (They’ll be eating plants next.) I’d like to dedicate the photo above to them. Treaty!

October 2, 2010

This week’s funny copy

Filed under: crimes against English — substuff @ 10:16 am

It’s been a great week for funny copy.

I love this:

“The phone’s build quality is excellent, which is not surprising when you learn that it is hewn from a solid piece of aluminium.”

Hmm… I have my doubts. So I Google it and find hundreds and hundreds of instances of the exact same phrasing – it must have been on the press release. Hewn (with an axe or sword) from solid aluminium? Sounds rather unlikely. The whole phone? Yeah right.

Elsewhere, it seems the banks have shifted up a gear from cold evil to bloody violence (the perfect dangler):

“The system entices customers in the door with high headline rates, only to slash them six or 12 months later.”

This, too, was rather disturbing:

“This car offered high levels of safety, lots of comfort and great practicality. But what happens when you try filling it with children?”

A: you get put in prison.

How best to operate this child-catcher-mobile, I wonder. Drive around with a loudspeaker, promising lollipops?  Or simply liquidise the children and pour them in through the sunroof? I should point out, by the way, that this is not one of Which?’s usual testing methods (for washing machines we use kittens). (Credits to Michael, Pete, Philippa and Charlie for the above observations – I won’t pretend I’m that funny!)

Then there was this advertorial in The Times weekend supplement, promoting Mauritius (how I wish I had access to a scanner so I could put up a pic of this). Headline:

“Answer the call of nature”

Wow. Mauritius, eh? I’m bursting to go.

Finally, our legal department requested an edit on my colleague’s story – to change “electronics shop” to “electronical shop”. We first had a bit of a giggle because this makes it sound as if the shop is electrified. But then, we realised… “electronical” isn’t actually a word (is it?). It’s a mutation arising from the mating of the adjective “electronic” and the adverb “electronically”. Ah, these lawyers…

September 16, 2010

Two people sit between a clock

Excellent caption to this picture on p11 of the Metro this morning:

"Back in time: Bill Turnbull and Sian Williams sit between an old clock after their onscreen clock graphic failed yesterday."

 The Daily Mail’s caption was positively elegant in comparison. And I don’t say that very often. 

 Meanwhile, Trenchard has emailed the following: 

 Did you read this from today’s grauniad?

‘The Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs has been hit with a sexual discrimination lawsuit from three former female employees who claim the firm has a testosterone-driven culture of press-up contests on the trading floor, male-dominated golf outings and scantily clad escorts at an office Christmas party.  

‘Orlich claims she was excluded from golf outings, and recounts displays of “masculinity” including a push-up contest on the trading floor. And she asserts that a 2007 Christmas party for a sales team featured female escorts “wearing short black skirts, strapless tops and Santa hats”.’  

Former female employees? Are they now men?  

I don’t know about you, but push-up contest made me think wonderbra rather than masculinity … And ‘Santa hats’ … er, are these often associated with sexiness? 

Blimey. Former females in push-up bras and Santa hats. Someone woke up in an interesting mood. ;-)  

 

June 3, 2010

Mothers – don’t look!

Filed under: 20-week labour,headlines,oops! — substuff @ 1:05 pm
Tags: , ,

Whoops! The Metro made a bit of a boob with this one… 20-week labour? Should have been 20 days. Spotted by the eagle-eyed Stefmez. The corrected story is here.

June 2, 2010

Synonym quiz

It seems the Guardian, too, is raging over synonyms at the moment.

It has posted a quiz where you have to guess what the elegant variation is referring to (although I am slightly confused by the dateline, which currently claims the quiz was posted on Wednesday 1 June 2011).

For example, does “the maverick old warhorse of the London left” refer to:
a) Billy Bragg
b) Billy the pitch-clearing hero of the 1923 FA Cup final
c) Ken Livingstone

I got 13 out of 15… c’mon and beat me!

June 1, 2010

Sandwich wars

Filed under: crimes against English,elegant variations — substuff @ 2:34 pm
Tags:

Not to keep banging on about the same thing over and over… but when I wrote about concave fruit last week, this is exactly what I meant:

Cold ham consumption has declined as the price of the popular sandwich filler has risen.

Which popular popular sandwich filler? Has grated cheese ousted cold ham? Has egg mayonnaise kicked it to the kerb? Oh, no… it just should read:

Cold ham consumption has declined as its price has risen.

My favourite thing today, though, has been this:

In March news broke that Asda had undertaken a cull of the farmers in its dairy supply group, reducing their number from 500 to 400.

Now that’s radical!


April 30, 2010

Quantum nappies and football salad

Filed under: crimes against English,round-up — substuff @ 9:24 am
Tags: , , ,

A round-up of my favourite lexical creations in (or, largely, edited out of) this week’s issue.

Electrons were jumping in the world of nappies, which sounds rather hazardous from where I’m cowering:
“The new Pampers range is a quantum leap in fmcg innovation.”

One writer was clearly hankering for lunch when he wrote:
“The lifting of the food and mouth disease ban”

The ‘explanatory’ note at the bottom of a mammoth table of figures, though it could equally be the name of a hit pop song:
“We pro-rata within the ascribed grammage.”

A chewy kinda recipe, mmm:
“Consumers will also have the chance to win a barbecue by sending in their football salad related recipes.”

A misuse of ‘herald’, which should be used to describe a sign (quite often a natural sign) that something is going to happen, rather than a response to the knowledge that it is going to happen:
“Premier Foods is heralding the arrival of summer with a new Mr Kipling cake range based on classic ice cream flavours.”

And three examples of horrible things being done to nouns (in the third case particularly):
“Wispa Duo is a more portionable version of the standard single bar.”
“The four strong ovenable bag range from the Saucy Fish Co.”
“The challenge they face is how to do that on products with such low storageability and short life as cut flowers.”

March 19, 2010

Data analysts: love ‘em

Filed under: crimes against English,data analysts — substuff @ 11:50 am
Tags:

Hold on to your hats, folks, here’s some smokin’ hot news about barbecues.

“The BBQ is a summer event, which is enjoyed by younger families and a third of the time with friends or relatives. Enjoyment is a primary need for having BBQ food (77%), this manifests itself through social entertaining, creating favourites and treating needs. New occasions in the last year were more about treating and creating special occasions than social entertaining or habit.”

Those of you who thought it was a winter hobby best enjoyed alone and with only a small necessity for food, you were wrong!

March 17, 2010

When headlines go bad

Filed under: crimes against English,headlines — substuff @ 1:55 pm
Tags: ,

John McIntyre posted the following headlines on his blog today, under the apt title of Maybe hire a copy editor:

Yahoo News headline: Women, girls rape victims in Haiti quake
Comment on CNN screen crawl: Jewish lobby runs America
MSNBC: I-Team: Judge Married Woman, suspected Abuser
WJZ-TV: Man Arrested For Sexual Assault On College Campus
Reuters: BOJ split vote raises doubts about future easing

CNBC: End of Mortgage Buys Form of Tightening: Pimco

To read more of his You Don’t Say blog, click here: http://johnemcintyre.blogspot.com/

February 26, 2010

Groundhog Day

Filed under: Groundhog Day,word choice — substuff @ 9:46 am
Tags: ,

These are treacherous times.

Our deputy features editor has just revealed that he yesterday inserted a clanger into his copy on purpose to see if I would pick it up and blog about it. A cheeky little trick to pull on a press day, I say.

The offending sentence was:

It felt like groundhog day all over again

I changed it to

It felt like Groundhog Day

And went on my merry way.

However, since he revealed his treachery this morning, I have started to ask myself whether I was right to change it. He meant to convey a feeling of something happening all over again, having already been repeated several times before. However… the actual (y’know, actual) Groundhog Day does not carry this meaning.

The OED says:

Groundhog Day:
2 February, when the groundhog is said to come out of its hole at the end of hibernation. If the animal sees its shadow – ie if the weather is sunny – it is said to portend six weeks more of winter weather.

The film of the same name, however, was about a TV weatherman who wakes up to the same day over and over again (can’t imagine how that would feel) – and it was clearly to this meaning that my dear colleague was referring.

So… was I right to change it? Has the movie meaning superseded the dictionary meaning? Or did I effectively change his comment so that it likened a sustainability forum to a woodchuck coming out of its hole? Hmm…

Next Page »

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 75 other followers