buzzwords Archives | Ian M Rountree

Are People Actually Searching for Buzzwords?

January 8, 2011 by Ian Leave a Comment

Ever worry that Twitter is overtaking the blogosphere?

Well, it is. If you look at Google Trends and compare “blog” with “twitter” for search (like the screenshot below) you may think that Twitter has indeed taken over the search volume. However, looking at the numbers with a little more scrutiny, it’s entirely possible that searches containing “blog” are just as strong as it ever was, with Twitter accounting for more of the remaining available search statistics. This is probably a case of “everything is with, not instead of” (hat tip to Mitch Joel for that phrase).

Google Trends - Comparing Blog to twitter - Screenshot taken January 8th, 2011

Concerned that we’re too worried over Return On Investment?

This time last year, “Social Media ROI” was a massive idea – the concept of measuring the business value of human interaction is very appealing. but – was this because social media was on the rise? Or because people were more concerned with ROI itself?

Again, Trends gives us what we needed here – comparing Google Trends for “social media” with “roi” for search terms shows us that the latter saw very little overall fluctuation; our awareness of all things social media, however, increased very strongly. This of course must include ROI, as the social media ideal began to enter the business world.

Google Trends - Social Media compared to ROI - screenshot taken January 8th, 2011

It’s good to be aware of trends – but it’s also important that trends get some perspective. Scale, volume, and capacity don’t always mean the same things.

Semantics Versus Lexicography

July 7, 2010 by Ian 4 Comments

I get a little bothered when people misuse phrases. It happens all the time, the subtle shifts in language that are caused by constant improper use of words. I get that. Linguistic drift is a fact of history, it’s how languages evolve, how dialects work, and why slang is such an important factor in determining audience when you’re writing or speaking. I respect linguistic drift.

However, I get even more bothered when people use phraseology or terminology in wilful ignorance, improperly. Like misspelling words on purpose for no other reason than impact or memorability, adding a Y here or an X there to make something pop out. I know why it’s done, from an intentional marketing perspective. I just hate when people do it to look cool.

But how much effort is the average person expected to expend on understanding etymology, phraseology or lexicography?

It’s deeper than slang. How often do we hear phrases like “this is the best thing since sliced bread” and think nothing of them?

Or, “turn the other cheek” and think it means submitting to bad the behaviour of others?

So much of what comes out of our mouths does so without the consideration of original meaning.

It’s frightening to think that even semantically unimportant phrases, which have so much communal meaning, have drifted so far from their original intent or meaning.

Sliced bread didn’t sell at all when it was introduced – it was more expensive than unsliced bread. No one wanted to pay a surcharge for labour.Who would? Sliced bread was introduced in the midst of the depression. No one had money to spare. If you can slice your own bread, why expend a limited resource on convenience?

Calling something the best thing since sliced bread, in this light, might not be implying that it’s actually a key convenience, but an unwanted, ill-planned advancement. Who wants that?

Similarly;

Turning the other cheek doesn’t mean allowing yourself to be struck again. Think about the culture of the time this quote was made; insulting someone with a slap on the cheek was done with the back of the right hand, to the right cheek. Presenting the left cheek gives the aggressor two options: either use the left hand (a cultural taboo, as the left hand is unclean, which looks bad on the aggressor), or strike the left cheek with the palm of the right hand. At the time, striking someone’s left cheek, with the palm of your right hand, was a gesture of extreme respect and filial connection.

Turning the other cheek does not present an opportunity for aggression; it forces your aggressors to either look bad and break taboo, or to make you look very good by their next actions, whether they intend it or not. It’s a high-handed action, self-serving and highly calculated.

Still, look at the usage of both of these assertions; we misuse the phrases so often, without even considering an alternate meaning, that the alternate meaning might as well not even exist.

We add secondary, even tertiary definitions to dictionaries, diluting language by making these malapropisms official. Canonizing misuse because of cultural significance. It’s not always wrong – but it’s often done without any thought of where the drift happened, or more importantly why.

Like calling a person gay, implying a state of happiness rather than homosexuality.

Like saying using impact as a noun instead of a verb; “it will impact” versus “it will have an impact”.

Like so many people misusing their, there and they’re.

Business communication relies on shared meaning and clear implication. But we’re all so guilty not only of semantic disrespect, but poor lexicography, it’s a wonder we can stand conversation at all sometimes.

Buzzwords, people. Won’t somebody think about the buzzwords?

photo by aussiegal.

What Does That Mean, Exactly?

January 20, 2010 by Ian 6 Comments

I have a problem with buzzwords.

Can you name the last five buzzwords you heard? What about the last ten? Don’t worry about the order, just try to come up with something recent, some term you’ve run across, that really didn’t seem to stand for anything, but was intended as a broad generalization of a concept, and applied to a very simple, elemental ideal.

I’ll help. Here are some: Rights. Reform. Liberty. Justice. Freedom.

We’re used to seeing ideas like blogging, the social web, networking, entrepreneurship come up in the discussion of overarching, nebulously defined ideals, but the trouble is that so much of our society is predicated on these vague shorthand terms. I wonder sometimes if buzzwords in general are part of the problem, or not. How are we supposed to communicate in general if we can’t communicate these ideals in the specific?

The whole point of language, especially codification and good lexicography, is to make sure that communication is reliable, understandable and universal. Dialects and slang aside, raw core ideals should be easy to transmit in short bursts, to make conversation breathable. But throwing in buzz, or any kind of highly emotional lingo, ruins a part of this because, like it or not, no two people speak the same language. As much as we convince ourselves we all speak (for example) proper English, it’s a crock.

I’ve got a better vocabulary than a lot of people I know. This can come in handy, as I spend a decent amount of my time being a translator. Working in the core has drawbacks – immigration rates and cheap housing mean that the down town area, at least of Winnipeg, is saturated by people who speak English – this supposedly common language – to varying levels of success. Having strong command of the language lets me do my job effectively whether the people I’m speaking to own the technical command or not. But every so often, I run into trouble translating, and it’s usually because of the wide adoption of buzzwords.

We don’t all use the same ones.

Perfect example: patch cords. What does that mean, exactly? You wouldn’t believe the number of times in a month someone asks me for a patch cord, then gets incensed when I ask what kind they mean. You know, a patch cord! For hooking up a TV! This isn’t a buzzword for me. I work with a lot of kinds of cords: coaxial cable, analog RCA, S-Video, component video, DVI, HDMI – and that’s just the video cables that fall under this category. If you want audio, there’s also RCA, but then we get into things like quarter inch mono and stereo, eighth inch for the same, digital coaxial, optical cable. See where this is going? In one eight foot section of my shop, we’ve got easily twenty different kinds of cords that all fall under the broad description of “patch cord.” Don’t yell at me because you can’t bring yourself to specify.

Don’t yell at the system because it can’t either.

If we get so confused over one term relating to two dozen kinds of AV cabling, imagine what someone from outside our sphere thinks when they start hearing terms like health care reform, universal justice or rights and freedoms. Often, these words either mean nothing at all, or can mean so many different things that even with context the lack of specificity is damaging to communication. It gets worse when we bring up the broad ideals, but don’t concieve for ourselves what possible specifics we might mean.

Our culture – the entire western hemisphere, everywhere from western Europe to Canada, the USA – produces buzzwords at an alarming rate!

I’m still waiting for someone to explain the job qualifications of a Director of Community. Or a Social Networks Manager. On the surface, it seems like such a simple ideal – but like any good category, it has to leave room for details that haven’t been conceived of when the buzzword is created. Which is part of the problem, I suppose. Specificity is great, but exact language requires a lot more time than most people have these days. It’s worrisome that our language has begun to so accurately accommodate the velocity of our society.

As someone wise is reported to have said, there is more to life than increasing its pace.

I’d encourage you to be more careful of why you use buzz along with your words. The shotgun approach to conversation doesn’t serve everyone as well as it does stereotypical politicians. Some of us have to back up our statements with fact.

Photo by HVargas.

Choosing Your Audiences

January 4, 2010 by Ian 6 Comments

As willing as we are to be transparent (those of us who put our lives out online, anyway), we do need to be careful about choosing where we share, and the voice we use to do so. This isn’t just about context, though it could well be – Jon Udell has a concise way of summing up the need for context – but tone, manner. Digital body language at its best.

You don’t develop any social language overnight, and most of it’s impossible to predetermine. As Liz Strauss said on a recent interview with Mitch Joel for the Six Pixels of Separation podcast, there’s a big gap between the actions of an out-of-college enthusiast and a dyed in the wool professional. It’s all well and good to be a digital native who can carry on a phone conversation while texting at five tweets a minute and using acronyms like RSS, CSS, PHP and Social Media. Wait, the last one was a buzzword. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.

This applies to more than just business, it applies to any conversation, venue, network or clique we manage to get ourselves involved in. Sometimes you can recognize when you’re acting differently, or when others are. What’s more difficult is figuring out what informed these people with visibly “better” manners to behave this way in the first place.

Over the next few months, I’m going to try and figure out what habits work best, make sure you piss off the least number of people, and make communicating in some of these channels more effective, efficient and enriching. As much as we’d love to believe “Just Act Human” is a great call to action, it’s just not that simple. I’ve had trouble; I’m betting you have too.

So let’s figure this out together, ok?

Photo by kevindooley