Advertising jargon has become a smokescreen for people who don’t know what they’re doing
The best people in any industry can describe their job in language anyone could understand. So why is the language of advertising so hellbent on excluding people?
Dave Trott examines.
A few years back I was giving a talk in Berlin to a group of business people.
Being Germans, they were taking thorough notes.
Afterwards one of them approached me and opened his pad.
He said: “Excuse me, you mentioned a demographic that we are not familiar with.
Spot on the button. Add such stupid words as “disruptors” and “influencers”: too. Made up words to make it sound important or something only ad folk understand.
Why is this written in the style of one of those obnoxious LinkedIn posts? Not every
Line
Needs another.
Line.
Valid point but can’t help but feel all the article does is reinforce the initial argument using different language along the way. Some more examples than a German not being familiar with Australian slang would have made for a more complex argument
Rather Trott’s style than thick slabs of text.
Rather Trott’s views of adland bullshit and the results.
“We’re employing people whose skill is solely in covering up the fact that they don’t understand what they’re doing.”
Thick slabs of text also not a great way to construct good quality prose. Would suggest both ends of the spectrum are imperfect and it would be better if we returned to proper ways of constructing pieces using properly constructed sentences and paragraphs. Is that fair?
This is how Dave Trott has written for years. Multiple books and a long standing blog. I agree, it’s not my favourite style. Unlike the LinkedIn posts like this, Dave normally has real substance.
I love that people are discussing style over substance.
He could have gone further and pointed out the ridiculous titles agencies have adopted.
His piece is spot on.
Big data
Native advertising
etc etc
Bull twang
Funny James
Im pretty sure the entire advertising business is built on style over substance
Andrew
I have no idea what he’s talking about.
John, only skilled writers hold your interest with long or short sentences and long or short paragraphs.With one or two spaces (LinkedIn-style) between paragraphs.
.
Trott’s style.
Lengthy anecdote (one that usually positions him as some kind of deep thinker – always good to quote a philosopher from Ancient Greece), followed by tenuous link to some anti-digital rant. Sometimes he hits the mark. Sometimes he comes across as a little lost.
And of course all laid out in single sentences.
For maximum effect.
I find it all a bit tedious, but he has a lot of fans.
The style is so jarring it impedes on its substance. I can only imagine that anyone that incessantly writes in staccato sentences (and audiences that are fond of them), can’t sustain a thought that stretches out over more than one line and have minds that must operate like a tommy gun: full of short, sharp, painful rat ta tat tat barrages best avoided.
Hi “m”,
As a staccato sentence writer myself, I’d argue that it’s a matter of using the right tool at the right time.
As a journalist, for instance, we’re taught that you should aim to convey no more than one idea per sentence. I suspect that copywriters go through a similar training path.
While I might make a terrible novelist, I’d argue that when it comes to clarity of thought, staccato works. And perhaps that’s why I enjoy Dave Trott’s writing so much.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella