Decks' identity crisis (or: avoid truncated English)

Last month’s email said that brevity is often over-rated - we should instead strive for clarity. Today’s email continues with that theme, and is the first in a series on 'decks' – reports created in PowerPoint and emailed to people for them to read at their desk.

It’s a long email. But it won’t take long to read - I repeat many paragraphs in order to analyse them, plus there are lots of brief bullets that take up space. 

Study the words below, they’re the before. Assume they’re in a bigger report – and that we must convey all its facts, we can’t remove any:

“We were hoping to be with you by 8pm, but our babysitter is late, his car has broken down. The recovery people are due with him very soon, and if they then do a 10-minute fix, we’ll still be on time. However, if they’re late or can’t sort it quickly, we’ll be late - or might even miss your evening altogether. The babysitter will keep us posted. We’ll keep you posted.”

Now also assume the report is a ‘deck’. Hence everyone talks about its ‘slides’, not its ‘pages’. Result: it suffers an identity crisis. Is it Dr Jekyll, i.e. a report with sentences and paragraphs? Or Mr Hyde (Mr Slide?), i.e. something to show on screen in a talk, and maybe written as a prompt for speakers? In many decks, Mr Slide triumphs.

And let’s not confuse the confusion(!). Yes, presenters often strive to make slides double up as a handout, so cram in too many words. Not here though. Here, the report labours under the misapprehension it’s a slide, so its author crams in too few words.

Result: the report is written in a strange truncated English that’s brief. But not clear. Today's email rewrites these 'babysitter' words in two different styles often seen in decks - here's the first after:

  • Objective: babysitter due this evening.
  • Status: car break-down, resulting in possible delay.
  • Recovery people due very soon.
  • Required to happen: arrival time and fix - 10 mins maximum. 
  • Outcome: possible delay, maybe even postponement. 
  • Next steps: communication lines open.

Briefer than the before? Certainly. Clearer? Certainly not... and let’s analyse why. Below I highlight some words in the before that have been stripped from the after:

We were hoping to be with you by 8pm, but our babysitter is late, his car has broken down. The recovery people are due with him very soon, and if they then do a 10-minute fix, we’ll still be on time. However, if they’re late or can’t sort it quickly, we’ll be late - or might even miss your evening altogether. The baby-sitter will keep us posted. We’ll keep you posted.

We, you, ouryour, us. Words that make the writing human. (And if you've reservations about using the we word, read this previous email.)

But there's more - let's highlight some more words stripped from the after:

We were hoping to be with you by 8pm, but our babysitter is late, his car has broken down. The recovery people are due with him very soon, and if they then do a 10-minute fix, we’ll still be on time. However, if they’re late or can’t sort it quickly, we’ll be late - or might even miss your evening altogether. The baby-sitter will keep us posted. We’ll keep you posted.

But, if, however, even. Words that give nuance. That help it flow. They hold readers' hands and walk them through the narrative. Look again at the after. As readers, we seek a smooth flow of thoughts, with words that guide us through it. Instead, we get stand-alone bites that we must stitch together in our heads.

Of course, if these truncated words really are a prompt for a speaker – and if a speaker were to talk through it all using words such as we, you, your, our, but, if, however, even… then fine. The audience would get it.

But that's not the case here. It's emailed to people as a WRITTEN REPORT.

Then there’s the second rewrite I often see – and in PowerPoint’s defence, I sometimes see this type of writing in MS Word reports too. You needn't read it, for it’s the same words as the before, but with a bullet before each sentence or part of a sentence:

  • We were hoping to be with you by 8pm. 
  • But our babysitter is late, his car has broken down. 
  • The recovery people are due with him very soon. 
  • If they then do a 10-minute fix, we’ll still be on time. 
  • However, if they’re late or can’t sort it quickly, we’ll be late.
  • We might even miss your evening altogether. 
  • The babysitter will keep us posted. 
  • We’ll keep you posted.

Look! The bullets 'helpfully' carve it all into small sentence-long bite-sized chunks!! Those little black dots - they're so beguiling... surely this rewrite is better, no? No. Bullets are fine for lists of brief similar items, e.g. the offices I’m visiting next year are:

  • New York
  • London
  • Paris
  • Munich

Fine in a slide, fine in a report, fine in a 1970s pop song. But the ‘baby-sitter’ sentences aren't similar items. They ebb and flow. They don't work as bullets. 

And the 'identity crisis' issue exacerbates it - we robotically chant to ourselves: “Am doing slides, am doing slides … must cut words, must cut words”. So we edit the second bullet from: “But our babysitter is late, his car has broken down” to: “Babysitter late, car broken down”. We cut: “We might even miss your evening altogether” down to: “We might miss evening”. Etc, until we get this:

  • Hoping to be with you by 8pm. 
  • Babysitter late, car broken down. 
  • Recovery people due with him very soon. 
  • If a 10-minute fix, we’ll be on time. 
  • If they’re late or can’t sort quickly, we’ll be late. 
  • We might miss evening.
  • Babysitter to keep us posted. 
  • Us to keep you posted.

Hey, it’s 28% fewer words than the before. Nailed it!

No. It’s weird. Let’s stitch it back together again - that way, we can more fully appreciate the monster we’ve created (maybe I should call it ‘FrankenSlide’) - and do please read it... don't skim:

"Hoping to be with you by 8pm. Babysitter late, car broken down. Recovery people due with him very soon. If a 10-minute fix, we’ll be on time. If they’re late or can’t sort quickly, we’ll be late. We might miss evening. Babysitter to keep us posted. Us to keep you posted.”

What sort of weirdo writes this way?! Many at work, I can tell you. Please don’t. If you receive a report this way, send them this email. Or send them the stuff at the bottom of this email, in the P.P.S..

Three final thoughts on this topic of truncated English:

Please don't think I seek flowery English instead: "Tonight, we nursed a hope - nay, an expectation - that we might arrive at your abode by 8pm in time for an evening of splendour" etc. Arguably OK for 'act-oors' and luvvies, but not for business reports.

Change your vocabulary: here’s a tip - when you talk about your reports, never say ‘slide’ or ‘deck’. Those words merely reinforce the identity crisis. Instead, say ‘pages’ and ‘report’, for that is what they are. Vocabulary can change behaviour, you know... if you call your cat Fido, you might expect it to bark.

Think about this email: would you prefer it as a series of brief single-sentence bullets, devoid of conjunctions, nuance, etc...? It would be horrible. 

Finally here are the two fun bits that were in this email.

Bad acronyms: last month's email mentioned a preposterous acronym from the UK's Royal Mail: 'INTACT', made up from: INvoices,crediT, updAtes, direcCT - and my thanks to Dan Farmer who then sent me a belter from Pay.uk's Dec 2020 Service Principles 26-page brochure. At the bottom of page 17, it creates an acronym from 'Payments Originating Overseas'... Nice. (And the brochure's author knew what they were doing, it could easily have been Overseas Originated Payments.) 

Recently, I saw the perfect pie chart: see the graph. It sums it up perfectly. 

Til next month.

Jon

P.S. when writing this email, I noticed that, when I read a series of truncated bullets, my head hurts ever so slightly. I’m not kidding.

P.P.S. Here's something for you to copy-and-paste, next time someone sends you a FrankenSlide:

Unfortunately, your report has an identity crisis. It's not a report, but a series of prompts for a presenter's talk. Ones that wrongly omit words that give nuance and flow - but, if, however, even. And words that connect and give the writing humanity - we, us, your, our.

Maybe you mistakenly think your stand-alone sentences help carve thoughts into brief digestible chunks.

No.

Firstly, it means you struggle to do stand-alone emphatic sentences (like "No" just above). Secondly, it ruins flow. Readers must stitch the sentences back together to regain the narrative.

Please write properly. Like I've done here.

And if all that confuses you, try this (it’s in your style):

  • Your report has an identity crisis. 
  • It's not a report. 
  • You've sent me a series of prompts for a presenter's talk. 
  • They wrongly omit words that give nuance and flow - but, if, however, even
  • They often omit words that connect and give the writing humanity - weus, your, our
  • You're mistaken in your views of stand-alone sentences. 
  • You think they help carve thoughts into brief digestible chunks. 
  • No. 
  • You struggle to do stand-alone emphatic sentences (like “No” just above). 
  • It ruins flow. 
  • Readers must stitch the sentences back together to regain the narrative. 
  • Please write properly.
  • Like I've not done here."

 

Clarity and Impact Ltd | +44 20 8840 4507 | jon@jmoon.co.uk | www.jmoon.co.uk

To receive these emails at a different address, email me with details.

Want my GDPR policy? Click here. It's a bit irreverent, plus has two jokes.

Want to see previous emails? Click here for loads.

Been forwarded this email? Want to get future updates directly? Click here

Clarity and Impact Ltd

MailerLite