What’s on the iPod: Lola by The Kinks
I’m glad I’m able to get a ton of stuff done in the mornings lately because my afternoon yesterday dissolved quickly. I was good until about two – then the plumber arrived. We had a small leak and a minor fiasco surrounding our water heater, its replacement, and its replacement’s replacement (long story – just know that life here is always interesting).
I was tapped to help the plumber get the newest tank into the basement, but he, thinking girls can’t lift heavy stuff, wouldn’t agree to my helping him remove the old tank. We didn’t mention the time we helped the husband move a V-12 engine or I might have been hired to do the heavy lifting. I figured that was an argument I’d rather not win. I paged husband, who came home and dealt. I tried to go back to the page, but at that point, the rhythm was hopelessly lost.
In the morning, I managed two blog posts and a bit of pre-conference details. I coordinated with another writer on an upcoming project, and I turned down work. Had to. The editor needs it by next Friday and I have two big projects that are due at the same time. I referred it to a writer chum.
I was mulling over a recent assignment where the client was expecting safe copy rather than creative copy. I’m of the opinion the client gets what they wish, but it seems I’m seeing more requests for simple, no-frills copy, usually from clients working online. I can’t say I’m a fan.
I remember one client saying “Our readers don’t have time to guess what you’re writing about (titles, anyone?) – just get to the point quickly.”
How does a writer handle that? Here’s what I did:
I wrote my lead my way. The client didn’t see it because I removed it before sending it, but if it takes that to get me into the article, why not? They want no frills – I’m frilly (not literally, but you know). I write with personality. I can strip that down, but there’s no way I can remove it completely. I’m not sure I should.
I pretended I was in a hurry. Just the facts. Quickly. No time to dally. If you drink a little caffeine, it helps.
I decided this wasn’t a lifetime commitment. Just a few assignments in and I was feeling a bit devoid of any color or flavor. It’s okay for a few small assignments, but I wouldn’t want to make that a primary source of my writing work. I use these clients now for a quick assignment between projects. Once I understood their requirements, I can crank them out as ordered. Not my best clips, but respectable enough and well-researched. I’m not displeased.
So writers, have you had assignments where the flavor was vanilla and the wrapping was beige? How did you do with those? What are your thoughts when reading these types of articles?
8 responses to “Safe Versus Good”
If it doesn't capture me in the first few sentences, I'm outta there. Not interested in bland writing. More companies have lost my business (as a consumer) because of bland writing than anything else (except for celebrity endorsement, which is pretty much a guarantee I won't buy something).
i think one can write simple, direct copy without being bland. It's when they want bland that I, as a writer, start looking for other clients.
I think some people equate simple with dull, or think direct is all Joe Friday – just the facts. They somehow overlook the fact that no one wants to read something dry or boring.
You wouldn't read a textbook if not for a class assignment (even homework can't make some people read textbooks), but you might read a well-written biography or non-fiction title.
Devon, exactly. I'm a punchy writer. I can do that and be brief. However, if you tell me to dumb it down and assume the reader is either too busy or too uneducated, you've lost two things – your audience and your writer.
Great example, Paula. I'm all for a great textbook, but how many are there? Really? I have ONE from all my years in college. It's a literature collection, naturally, but it's comprehensive and stuffed with bios that make the stories more enjoyable.
I bet that's the same Brit Lit compilation I hung on to from my college days!
Actually, it's a compilation of American literature. But I'd love to know what you're reading!
I was the accidental anonymous poster there, Lori. So much for letting the autofill add my name.
The textbook in question is The Literature of England, published by Scott, Foresman and Company. It's been around forever, apparently. I have the 3rd single volume edition, but the original publiction date was in the early 50s. (I guess when covering the classics, not a lot changes over the decades.)
Sections include: The middle Ages, The Renaissance, The Restoration and the 18th C, The Romantic Period, The Victorian Age, and The modern Period. Each section starts with maybe 10-15 pages outlining the history, politics and culture of that period before focusing on the literature one writer at a time, introducing each sub-section with a fairly detailed bio of the writer being featured.
Not only is the textbook a great compendium of Brit Lit, it provides context for the works you're studying.
Third person, dry, dull, and boring is how companies want things. It's the lawyers running the show. If a piece of writing acknowledges a real person behind the words, then "somebody" could be liable.
Hey, John! Good seeing you here. 🙂
Part of it is our ability to convince them that 3rd person doesn't work. Sometimes they're just stubborn, though. In those cases, I advise against it, make recommendations, then cash the check. If they don't want to change, there's not much I can do.