Get To The Point

When asked how long he spent preparing for a speech, Theodore Roosevelt once replied: “For a five minute speech, I need at least two weeks. For a ten minute speech, I need a week. For an hour-long speech, I’m ready now.” While this may seem counter-intuitive, Roosevelt was making the point that one of the most difficult parts of communication is condensing one’s message.

Most of us don’t have the Bull Moose’s talent in communication, but many of us struggle with the same challenge. We often become attached to our words, and find it difficult to identify the most important parts and eliminate the fluff. I find this is especially true in my written communications. For school assignments, my problem is usually writing too much rather than not enough. I promise myself that I will limit my blog entries to 300-400 words, but I usually exceed this self-imposed limit and have to cut my entries down. Twitter makes this even more challenging; I find it extremely frustrating to condense a complex thought to 140 characters.

For blog entries or emails, I’ve found that one good way to eliminate fluff is to write my main idea as though it were a Twitter update (i.e. no more than 140 characters), then go through my document and eliminate things that don’t fit with this main idea. While this may sound overly simplistic – and in some cases it is – it helps me stay focused on the topic. I wouldn’t recommend relying solely on this method to condense a school assignment, but I’ve found I can often cut 10-20% of my text using this method.

Another effective technique is to have someone else look over your paper. I find that it is usually easier for someone else to spot the unnecessary points in my writing, because they aren’t as emotionally invested in what I’ve written as I am. Similarly, I find it much easier to help others eliminate the fluff from their papers than to eliminate it from my own.

We’d be glad to help you with this at the Center for Business Communications. Come see us some time.

-Jon

Digital Nation

PBS ran a documentary on Frontline called “Digital Nation,” that explores how technology is changing the way we communicate...not always for the better. Although we’ve had the internet for nearly 20 years and cell phones for 10, it’s only been in the last year or two that our technology has become an all-encompassing platform for communication. This trend shows no sign of stopping, meaning we will probably spend evermore time immersed in technology instead of interacting directly with people in the next decade. Wouldn’t it be ironic if all of our new gadgets and programs, touted as a way to revolutionize the way we communicate with each other, ended up impeding our ability to communicate face-to-face?

The usual suspects – Facebook and Twitter – are notorious for facilitating procrastination among college students, but what is mentioned less often is that they may actually be reducing our “face-time” with the people we care about. For example, I broadcast the details of my life on these platforms far more often than I actually discuss them with people in real life. Some people even consider it a social faux pas to bring up a topic in real life that they read on a friend or colleague’s Facebook feed. I sometimes wonder if we would be better conversationalists if we didn’t have the ability to instantly broadcast any thought that enters our heads to hundreds of people.

On the other hand, our programs and smartphones enable us to keep in touch with people who would otherwise fall off our radar screens, and to share our ideas with strangers who would otherwise know nothing about us. They allow us to communicate more easily with colleagues from across the globe, reducing the need to live geographically near our workplace. And of course, they offer us incredibly diverse perspectives into world events that would not be possible by merely talking to our real-life acquaintances.

Clearly technology is a mixed bag when it comes to communication. Personally, I think the positive aspects are overwhelmingly more important than the negative. What do you think?

Watch Digital Nation if you have time. It’s very interesting.

-Jon