Why Is Business Writing so Awful?

Business writing (the kind that tells you about best-of-breed, market-leading solutions) is awful because it is written by people who do not understand their product, their market, or worse, both.<p>You'll notice that business writing of this type says very little in many words. That's because the author doesn't know what to write, so they resort to vague phrases that say everything and nothing. Technical documentation sometimes suffers from this too (e.g. "Fznoozlator: Fznoozlates the document").<p>Someone who truly understands the business benefits of their offering and their customers will write text that reflects that. That's why the Woot and Saddleback Leather examples are so good. It's a lot harder to write this sort of widely compelling content for enterprise software, but a skilled marketer can still communicate the value proposition well. Problem is, most skilled marketers would rather slit their own wrists than work on that kind of boring product.

I think one of the first signs of bad business writing is equating the number of google hits for a term with its real life impact. This was a fun trope in 2000, but in an age of content farms and repeated links its kind of meaningless. e.g. I just searched for a random term "Gargamel Robot Fan" and got 15,000+ results.<p>That said, I like the products JF mentioned, but I think the universe of customers who like the cheeky tone of the companies he mentioned is fairly small. The Saddleback backs cost hundreds of dollars, Woot plays to an educated techie crowd, the farm he mentions is a super local business. You've got this venn diagram of people with a broad liberal education crossed with folks who have large sums of money for big discretionary purchases.<p>I work in the world of medical devices, specifically diabetes. It is a $130B industry and while some companies try to get conversational, the truth is most don't want a tongue in cheek/casual/authentic tone when it comes to their health. It might be conditioning, but people seem to like the idea of a massive company filled with scientists that seems "robust" if bland. I'm sure its similar in other categories.<p>I love the Saddleback copy, but it is not universally applicable.

"The truth is, most US academic prose is appalling: pompous, abstruse, claustral, inflated, euphuistic, pleonastic, solecistic, sesquipedalian, Heliogabaline, occluded, obscure, jargon-ridden, empty: resplendently dead."<p>[David Foster Wallace, <i>Authority and American Usage</i>]<p>This applies to modern business prose in spades.

The reason business writing is so awful is because business thinking is equally awful. Faced with attempting to understand something as complex as a business, and the society it must operate in, it's of little wonder than most people fall back on simplistic models described by simplistic language, usually cribbed from other businesses also who use these same simplistic models and simplistic language. This is much easier to do than actual original thinking.<p>Most people working for most major corporations have little incentive to fully understand the complexity of the business they work in. All they really need to care about is knowing enough to do their job. Exceptional people, when you find them in businesses, are the ones who understand a far greater degree of the complexity of the business, and have been able to place that within the context of a greater understanding of society.<p>Start-ups are different, where the incentives are markedly different: if you do not understand your business and the society it operates in, then you fail. I think this explains why much of the leading-edge business thinking comes from startups.<p>I can only understand the adulation of 37Signals in terms of the intellectual squalor of business in general. All 37Signals has done is been competent and hand-working, and they have obviously thought long and hard about what their business is and does, and the environment it operates in. This should not be exceptional in the slightest degree, yet it is - and this speaks volumes about the low standard of thinking that permeates much of the rest of the commercial world.

Vague words are completely useless, yes, but sometimes just funny stories aren't good either.<p>Not uncommonly I find a link (in HN even) to a software product page and, arriving there, I'm greeted with pages and pages explaining what is all about and why I should use it. The pages are long, spread apart and in not-so-obvious places. Ah, there's also a 15 minute demo with a non-descriptive start. Fast forwarding shows some guy playing with a console terminal, but I can't even read what is he doing.<p>So, this is my two cents: not only you have to captivate your reader, but you must first show him where to start and convince him it's worth his time, either by already starting with something interesting or by making it short.

Specifically, I think it's the use of the words "tool", "resource", "solution", "service", etc, as a synonym for "thing". Above the urinal where I work, there's a flyer for VPP. The first sentence is "What is VPP? It's a tool for improving lab safety". From this you might think VPP is a physical thing you hold in your hand, but no. By "tool" they really mean a managerial protocol/technique.<p>By the way, programmers, you aren't much better. Think how frickin' generic the word "developer" is.

There is an enjoyable book on the subject: <a href="http://www.fightthebull.com/book.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.fightthebull.com/book.asp</a>

Probably because it's written by business people.

Business writing is awful because it often tries to create bell-curve models for things that are not bell-curve worthy.

There's no dramatic arc