Eggblogg

Should businesses care about grammar, spelling or punctuation?

So Tesco has finally bowed to the weight of complaints about its 'ten items or less' checkout signs and will be changing them. Some of us will be very happy about that. Others will be in the 'who cares?' camp.

At university one of my linguistics tutors instilled in me the idea that language change is inevitable. A truly academic approach to the subject does not involve value judgements about what constitutes correct or incorrect language use.

Not only that, but the grounds upon which we criticise English language (mis-)use are often bogus, thought up by prescriptive Victorians trying to make English fit the Latin mold, much like left-handers used to be forced to write with their right hands.

So when people moan about split infinitives, 'might' versus 'could', 'hopefully' versus 'I hope' and so forth, I try to stay out of it, not always successfully. Although the 'its/it's' problem has allegedly improved over the last 30 years, it still slaps me in the face on a daily basis.

What's acceptable in these days is vastly different to even, say, 20 years ago. Copywriter Leif Kendall recently commented on how the formal style of business letters has relaxed and how the written word resembles the spoken more often than not.

So what about spelling? There are some who want the English spelling system abandoned in favour of something where words are written as they sound. With my 'judgemental' hat on I would say that people are less able to spell these days, from the evidence all around us. Apparently, spelling is just more difficult than it used to be!

From a business point of view, there can be no excuse for consistently poor spelling: why was the copy not proof-read? OK, so typos do slip past more than one pair of eyes from time to time. But spelling or punctuation mistakes aren't always typos: they are often just mistakes. And when a business is this sloppy in its own presentation, what kind of service is it likely to deliver?

Personally, although Tesco changing its signs won't make me shop there, I do welcome it. Just a shame they couldn't go the whole hog and change to 'Ten items or fewer'.

Looks like 'fewer' is on its way to that great rubbish dump of unloved words in the sky. Alas!

Why CVs should include a person's 'online history'

Like all business owners I'm sure, from time to time I tend to get people writing to me on spec looking for work. These approaches rarely impress, the most common mistakes being:

1) failing to find out my name ('Dear Sir/Madam' - grrr!)
2) failing to visit the website or find out what the business actually does
3) spelling and/or grammatical errors

And then there are the CVs. What do they actually tell you? If you're recruiting people for online marketing, particularly in the sphere of social media, aren't we more interested in a person's internet intelligence - how they use it, what they've done with it, what networks they're active in ... in other words, don't we need a new sort of a CV to tell us this?

I'm not sure what to call it - an 'online history' maybe? These are the things I am interested to know about a potential job applicant:

- How often do you access the internet, and how (at work, at home, from a phone, etc)
- At what age did you first: use email, use a search engine, join an online community or register at a website
- Three most indispensible websites you visit, and why
- Favourite web applications
- Online networks you engage with, numbers of Twitter followers/LinkedIn contacts or even friends on Facebook, any blogs you write or contribute to
- Have you ever built a webpage/started a blog/posted at a review site/created a profile page anywhere/uploaded photos, videos or music to media sharing sites
- What do you read online ... etcetera. Maybe a proficiency test would be appropriate - with questions about search strategies and making value judgements about information found online. 

This kind of profile would say so much more about a person's level of internet confidence and engagement, and the breadth of their experience. These are crucial factors if they're going to spend all day on working online and enjoy it.

As it is, all we get on CVs is 'proficient with Word, Excel and Photoshop'. Never mind the tools, let's hear what you do with them.

Recently I received an speculative email which was articulate, struck just the right tone and didn't make any of the 3 mistakes listed above. He offered to send his CV. I almost said 'don't bother' because I could tell everything I needed to know from his email, without knowing what GSCEs he'd got or where he'd done his bar work as a student. Most 21-yr olds struggle to fill a traditional CV anyway. But his online history .. now that would have been interesting.

Credit where credit's due (and paid for)

Links are the lifeblood of the internet, and as such, they have a value. So whenever I see a link from a client website to the site of the company that designed it ('Site created by...', Site designed by...'), I always hope it was paid for.

A link to the web designer is an advert. It also (if they are smaller than the client) helps their page ranking. Maybe the client was so pleased with the job, they agreed to link to the web designer's site from every page on their own site. For free. Or maybe they negotiated a discount on the price in return for the links back.

Or maybe they didn't think to question it or even notice it, and anyway, what harm can it do, a small link at the foot of every page?

There are two things to consider here. Is it right for web designers to sign their work, either in a link, in the code (another common practice), or both? And should clients bother about it?

The folks at Brightwhite clearly think it shouldn't be done. In their opinion, 'signing' a website looks dated and frankly naff.

As a copywriter, I wouldn't expect to be credited on any of the websites, brochures, articles or adverts I write. Can you imagine?

Whenever I've pointed out to my own clients that they don't have to advertise the web designer's services for free, it's amazing how often the links just quietly disappear. If you've paid good money for a website, the site is yours, and you decide the content. Credit where credit's due - but let's not take the p***.

Ways that the internet is ruining children's brains, number 37

It used to be TV that was said to make mush out of children's brains, but now that role is passing most definitely to computers and the internet.

Baroness Susan Greenfield recently voiced the opinion that there could be a link between the attention span of children, the rise of attention deficit disorders and young children spending lengthy hours in front of the computer. It could be that the 'sedate pace' of school, or even of reading a book, has become alien to a generation of kids used to 'pressing a button and getting rapid responses from the screen'. [Rapid responses? I wish. Where exactly are those lightning speeds we're always being promised by the broadband providers? And has Susan tried doing anything on Second Life lately?]

I do sympathise with this view. However, wasn't it Susan Greenfield who a few months ago was putting her weight behind MindFit computer games, said to 'prevent the onset of cognitive decline ... and could in the long-term provide an alternative to drugs'?

Nicholas Carr asks whether Google is making us stupid. His recent essay in Atlantic Monthly sets out the argument that the medium shapes not only the way the message is presented, but the way our brains process that message. His worry is that the internet is moulding our brains into nothing more that information processors:

"In Google’s world, the world we enter when we go online, there’s little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive."

Is the human brain really that vulnerable? Is it possible that those monolithic, frustration-inducing, rubbish-riddled search engines are going to re-model our thinking processes in their likeness? I remember taking a course in Artificial Intelligence in the 1980s: I went in with so much excitement, so many expectations, and came out thoroughly convinced it wasn't going to happen. Not in my lifetime, for sure.

Kids who have grown up with technology aren't going to stop using it, so there doesn't seem to be any point worrying about it. But rather than being taken over by it, I can see them growing with it. Which I think will mean that future generations will be not just more familiar with a computer-driven world, but they'll have a better understanding of the possibilities and limitations of it all, and the cultural role of what we still call 'new media'. They'll become more naturally discerning about information they encounter, will be better equipped to ask questions, carry out research and make the most of the social web for both personal and professional growth. Most of all, they'll take for granted all the stuff that still amazes us. 

Let's not forget that when the telephone was first invented there were dire warnings from sociologists and assorted experts who feared it would destroy the fabric of society. There were also those who said it would never have any application outside of the business world. Technology, schmeckmology.

Things I've enjoyed reading lately ...

What social media professionals can learn from traditional PR:
Skills to be successful in integrating PR and social media

Good advice from Silverpop on what to do about 'dead' email subscribers:
3 tips to reactivate your recipients and get them engaged again

Chris Brogan does it again...fantastic post that will keep me buzzing all summer
50 ways marketers can use social media to improve their marketing

Never thought I'd be so in agreement with the Pope:
Pope hits out at consumer culture