|
Internal publications and news writing: should you use 'we' and 'us' or [company name] / 'the company' in your house style guidelines? And why? That was the question posed by IoIC member Simon Henning, Senior Corporate Editor at National Grid, on the IoIC LinkedIn group, as Steve Nichols reports. This simple question raised a lot of interest and a lot of comment, which is worth relating.If you have been a professional journalist you probably think you know the answer - “corporations are single entities and therefore should be addressed by name or "is", not "are"; as in 'Acme Co is releasing a new product”, not “Acme Co are...” is the usual mantra. And in corporate internal communications we shouldn't really be writing “we are releasing a new product”. Well, at least that was the conventional thinking, but things are changing. Over the last two years I have seen a number of corporate "Tone of Voice" documents that mandate that “we” and “us” is the way to go. It is supposed to friendlier, more inclusive, more cuddly. This seems to fly in the face of convention. But is that the whole answer? Here are other people's opinions: Louise Birkett, Freelance consultant and writer: “The way I look at it is that 'we' and 'us' should only be used in quotes for clarity's sake. Otherwise you don't necessarily know whether the article is referring to the company, the department or the team. (Or any other grouping there may be.) “There is an argument that using the company/or company name can sound cold and non-inclusive, but I would say that if you want to inject warmth and inclusiveness then you should think of it from the audience perspective and use the word 'you' where appropriate. Simon Henning, National Grid: “Thanks for the feedback. I've always considered the channel (magazine, intranet news page etc) to be the 'impartial reporter', and that using 'we' and 'us' can lead to subjective language. Best leave that to the folks quoted... And you're spot on about ambiguity. Who are 'we'? And what if I don't consider myself to be part of 'we' anyway, whoever that might be? Joe O'Shea, Engage Group: “I think a house style needs to be specific to the channel and audience. Many of our clients use personal pronouns for their intranet news to help foster a sense of community. Employees will often follow suit in forums (unless disgruntled). “With internal news publications it depends on company size, structure and culture – some find a reverential tone can reinforce pride in working for an esteemed organisation. And third person references are essential for clarity when a publication has a mixed readership including stakeholders or investors. “It’s interesting that customer publications are increasingly adopting this inclusive tone of voice to support brand loyalty. The value of that personal connection should be paramount in IC, but then a channel has be clear and factually accurate if it is to be trusted and effective. Horses for courses I guess!” Russell-Oliver Brooklands, The Internal Communication Model; “This is a really important discussion because, when it comes to internal communication, the use of personal pronouns is far more complex an issue than most people seem to fully appreciate. IC requires us to follow specific 'rules' that go beyond those needed for press or marcoms (and I speak as both an ex-journalist and a former corporate brand manager). “I've been researching this phenomenon since 1994, during which time my findings have been remarkably consistent. The personal pronouns 'You', 'I' and 'We' give rise to no fewer than six 'linguistic triggers'. My studies have shown that each of these triggers can typically make an internal communication fail with about 80% of its audience (sometimes less, sometimes more). “To be more specific: when people come across one of these triggers in an internal communication, four employees out of every five are likely to unconsciously feel they're no longer being spoken to directly, and instead feel like they're being 'copied in'. The result is that, all too often, they give up on the communication (because it no longer feels like it's supposed to be for them anyway).” Keith Elliott, PMA Group: “To pick up on Louise's point, I suspect that it's not a case of “is v are”, but simple lack of any house style. All too often, particularly in these times, someone in marketing is told to 'do' a magazine for staff, or someone in a department or office creates one, with no understanding of how to do so. “I reckon that fewer than half the people I teach at a foundation level have a house style for their publications, and some are national-name organisations or government departments. Kid you not. “Of course, it can be either, as long as you're consistent. But as most people's reading is the daily press or the BBC website, it makes sense to follow a style that is familiar to them. Every one of them treats organisations as singular. I'd say the only exceptions are sports teams or pop groups.”
|
