Category: Entrepreneurial Wellness

Welcome to the third blog in my series of tips to improve grammar, diction and punctuation in your business or academic writing. In the 10 tips that follow, I draw on the writing of “Grammar Girl” Mignon Fogarty (Grammar Girl’s Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing, Henry Holt: 2008) and on my own experience as a copywriter and editor.

(1)   Dangling Modifiers: modifiers are words that qualify the sense of a noun or verb, in a sentence: e.g. “good” and friendly” are modifiers in the phrase “a good and friendly house.” But when modifying words are not connected to any subject of the action or being, they are said to be “dangling.”

(e.g.) wrong:  “Hiking up the mountain, the birds chirped loudly.” According to this sentence, the birds are hiking up the mountain, because no other grammatical subject is present in the sentence.

corrected: “Hiking up the mountain, Jan heard the birds chirp loudly.”

(2)   Squinting (or Squinty) Modifiers: in this error, the modifier is put between two terms, both of which it could modify, so that the reader doesn’t know which one to choose.

(e.g.) wrong: “Children who laugh rarely are shy” (so are the children outgoing or do they seldom laugh?)

corrected: “Children who rarely laugh are shy.”

Continue reading “10 More Tips to Improve your Grammar, Diction and Punctuation (the third blog in this series). . . . .”

In this posting (the second in my series on the principles of editing), I draw from the e-newsletter of American “Grammar Girl,” Mignon Fogarty, and on my own experience, as a writer and editor. So let’s continue . . . .

(1)   My pet peeve this week is this construction: “There is  . . .  many ways to answer this question,” or “There’s . . .  many ways to answer this question.” Wrong! These constructions have become commonplace in the media, in business, and in casual conversations. They always annoy me. They should say “There are . . . many ways to answer this question.” The imprecision evident in this error tends to support irresponsibility in speakers, toward whatever concept they are discussing. Politicians are among the worst offenders. Let’s try not to give in to bafflegab!

(2)   Readers of newspapers available online may wonder when to capitalize the “the” in their names. Is it “The Globe and Mail” or the “Globe and Mail”? Mignon Fogarty argues that it depends: the Chicago Manual of Style recommends always leaving the article (“the”) uncapitalized. But the Associated Press (AP) recommends capitalizing it, when the newspaper itself does.  You will likely be able to tell what practice the newspaper has, based on how it is indexed in the database/browser you are using. But if not, Fogarty cites a list of international newspapers, by their formal names and according to country of origin, in Wikipedia at http://bit.ly/149irTU . Continue reading “10 More Tips to Improve your Grammar, Diction and Punctuation (the second blog in this series) . . . .”

A friend who is an academic lecturer in English Literature recently recommended Mignon Fogarty, aka “Grammar Girl.” Fogarty is the American host of a website by that name and founder of “Quick and Dirty Tips” for better writing, among other, accessible books.  She has written for magazines, and has worked as a technical writer and entrepreneur, in the U.S.  (She has a B.A. in English and a M.Sc. in Biology, and reads very widely on the art and subtleties of writing in English.

Her e-newsletter, emails and (hard-copy) published books have garnered lots of positive reviews.

Since I admire Fogarty’s work, I’m blogging today (in the first in a series) on the technicalities of good writing—grammar, structure, style and diction—that are essential both in academic study and writing, as well as in marketing (copy)writing.

In the series ahead, I draw on Fogarty’s insights, but also on my own experiences as a marketing copywriter, and as an academic writer and editor. (For instance, I have consulted Don LePan’s volume, The Broadview Book of Common Errors [4^th ed., 2000].)Writers of all fields and students of literature and language, alike, can benefit from tips on how to write better. (I know I’ve learned from what follows!) So let’s get started.

(1)   Don’t confuse the words “bemused” and “amused.” “Bemused” (meaning “puzzled” or “confused”) is distinct from “amused” (meaning “to find something funny”).  Grammarians often recommend making a mental connection (or mnemonic) between a word and its meaning, to enable you to remember it. Fogarty suggests here that “bemused” sounds similar to “befuddled” and is similar in meaning, which should help you to remember how “bemused” and “amused” differ. Fogarty cites 18^th Century poet Alexander Pope as first using the term “bemused” to describe someone “muddled by liquor.” (Here’s an example: Her husband was bemused by her religious conversion, and amused many family members by telling stories of eccentric members of her parish.)

(2)   Don’t confuse the words “famous” and “infamous.” Since the word “famous” appears in both words, a surprising number of people these days (notably in the media) are using these terms interchangeably. Wrong! By contrast, “infamous” means “terrible,” of “bad quality,” or even “shocking” or “bad moral quality.” Since the “famous” part of “infamous” is pronounced differently from the word “famous,” itself, I recommend that you use that difference as your mnemonic. (E.g. The famous underwear factory became infamous in the news, as the scene of two murders and a suicide, in one week.)

Continue reading “10 Tips to Improve your Grammar, Diction, Punctuation”

For years, most business executives and writers have known and used “value propositions” (aka “elevator speeches”) and use them not only at conferences in their industry, but also more generally in daily communication. I’m interested in this post in the concept of the “value proposition” and in how thinking about the way we define ourselves can make an entrepreneur more aware of the marketing that goes on, on a daily basis, all around us.

First, in Jill Konrath’s 2009 study, Get Back to Work Faster: the Ultimate Job Seeker’s Guide for Professionals,” she defines the value proposition as “a clear statement of the tangible results a customer gets from using your products/services,” and how these results differ from other service providers. A strong value proposition answers the questions: “How can you help my business?” and “what difference do you make?” The goal should be to communicate your particular area of expertise, and not that one is “versatile” (no one wants a “well-rounded candidate” these days).

Here’s an example of a value proposition: “I help professional associations and speakers increase their memberships by 5%, and to better sell their services by 4% and to increase participation in their special events by 6% (figures quoted here are fictional, for explanatory purposes only).

An example that Konrath cites is this: “I help construction companies increase margins by negotiating contracts with large homebuilders. The companies I’ve already helped have increased gross margins from 32% to 40% in just six months.”

And here is her own value proposition: “I help sellers crack into corporate accounts and speed up their sales cycles – critical issues in today’s economy. One of my recent clients achieved an 87% call-to-appointment conversion rate, in pursuing appointments with large national accounts; resulting in millions of net new business in the following 12 months.”

Continue reading “Ruminations on the Value Proposition”

Although I am aiming to shorten blog postings on this site in early 2013, I’m ending 2012 with one final review of a highly influential e-book, by Association Strategist, Jeff De Cagna. Read on, below:

In recent years, a lot of ink has been spilt in the discussion of the “relevance” of associations.  In his recently published e-book, Associations Unorthodox: Six Really Radical Shifts Towards the Future, Jeff De Cagna, CEO of “Principled Innovation,” and a writer with 20 years’ experience with association management, argues that “relevance” isn’t a useful strategic point of view to take. That’s because the world is already undergoing relentless transformation.  He says that if associations are to survive, they will have to “get unorthodox,” and reinvent how they do business, from “outmoded orthodoxy” of the past. In his e-book and his online blog (www.principledinnovation.com) De Cagna writes that focusing on “relevance” overlooks “the inherent complexity of the long-term business challenges associations must surmount to thrive over the next decade and beyond” (10). He suggests that “unorthodox” behaviour includes “dropping dogmas of the past, questioning old assumptions, challenging preconceived notions and flipping conventional wisdom” in order to find new opportunities for “radical value creation.”

“It is impossible to overstate the toll that so many decades of largely unquestioned obedience to orthodoxy have taken on our collective capacity to imagine better ways to do business,” he writes.  This blog will revisit the six “shifts” that he calls for, not as a prescription (or a new orthodoxy of its own), but as a platform for association leaders and participants to ask more provocative questions, that lead to more penetrating answers and changes.

(1)    Deemphasize Membership

De Cagna says that the huge popularity and reach of mobile, social and related technologies have altered forever the ways in which people associate, to exchanges that are simple, mobile, ubiquitous and cheap. The old “pay-to-play” regimen has been outmoded.  He says that associations should design and enact new business models which centre on the most important personal and professional achievements that stakeholders value.

He argues that new models should combine powerful value propositions, “supported by strong brand equity, robust organizational capabilities, and meaningful incentives that combine to create” new streams of revenue and “to increase future market value.”  In simpler words: dropping the old membership drive can be replaced by enlightened action towards a “responsible profitability” (18). Continue reading “Will Professional Associations Survive? Only If They Act Strategically and Now, says Jeff De Cagna”