Comments on: Standing Up for the Stakeholder https://www.corporate-eye.com/main/standing-stakeholder/ ...compare, compete, excel Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:38:43 +0000 hourly 1 By: Lucy https://www.corporate-eye.com/main/standing-stakeholder/#comment-6001 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:38:43 +0000 http://www.corporate-eye.com/blog/?p=18041#comment-6001 You’re quite right – we shouldn’t use internal language on an externally facing site. (I’m tickled by the idea of an order entry system called Bandit …). I particularly like your point about using internal terminology on external job ads.

Presumably this extends to job titles, too. What do you think about the former(?) trend for dotty job titles in startups – Evangelist, Chief Geek, Ninja, Chief Happiness Officer – more here? These always make me smile, and often click through to find out more, but I wonder how these play in the offline world. Not sure that a Fortune 500 would have a Chief Geek as their CTO…

]]> By: Glen Turpin https://www.corporate-eye.com/main/standing-stakeholder/#comment-5571 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:43:16 +0000 http://www.corporate-eye.com/blog/?p=18041#comment-5571 I agree that sometimes complex language is necessary to communicate effectively with your audience, and as a result, industry jargon is usually appropriate for business-to-business web sites. If you’re not selling to 14-year-olds, don’t feel compelled to tailor your writing to them.

However, I think it’s important to draw a distinction between industry jargon and company jargon. (A third category, impenetrable corporate-speak, is never appropriate in my opinion.) Many companies have terms for internal business processes and systems. These make sense to employees but should never be used on the web site, in sales presentations or in recruiting. You have to understand your audience and write using language they understand.

For example, I once worked for a company that posted an job ad looking for candidates to operate its Bandit system, which was an internal term for a proprietary order entry system. A certain amount of jargon is necessary to describe what technical qualifications was required, but I’m sure they would have been more successful if they had used more common industry terms to describe the job. (And what genius came up with the name Bandit for an order entry system?)

I think the root of the problem is that many people do not stop to think that their audience may not understand their everyday jargon. It’s our job as communicators to be mindful of both the message and audience.

]]>