Buzzword Bingo

This isn’t exactly new, but it did strike the funny bone and a nerve. As communicators, it is absolutely critical that we clearly and concisely convey our messages to the intended audiences. Sometimes, it is our use of “buzzwords” that most effectively gets the point across.

That being said, (check another box) we too often adopt these words into our everyday vernacular, which only dilutes their effectiveness and ultimately, weakens our ability to reach our objective.

Here is Wikipedia’s entry that gives more information on the origins and derivations of the game.

Also, here is a site that gives different cards based on the content and links to Tom’s original code.

---

Do you keep falling asleep in meetings and seminars? What about those long and boring conference calls? Here's a way to change all of that.

1. Before (or during) your next meeting, seminar, or conference call, prepare yourself by drawing a square. I find that 5" x 5" is a good size. Divide the card into columns--five across and five down. That will give you 25 one-inch blocks.

2. Write one of the following words/phrases in each block:
* Synergy
* Strategic fit
* Core competencies
* Best practice
* Bottom line
* Revisit
* Procedural analysis
* To tell you the truth (or "the truth is")
* 24/7
* Out of the loop
* Benchmark
* Value-added
* Proactive
* Win-win (net-net could be substituted)
* Think outside the box
* Fast track
* Result(s)-driven
* Empower (or empowerment)
* Knowledge base
* At the end of the day
* Touch base
* Engagement
* Client/customer focus(ed)
* Paradigm
* Game plan
* Leverage

3. Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words/phrases.

4. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand up and shout "Buzzword."

Testimonials from satisfied "Buzzword Bingo" players:

"I had been in the meeting for only five minutes when I won."
- Adam W., Atlanta

"My attention span at meetings has improved dramatically."
- David T., Orlando

"What a gas! Meetings were never the same for me after my first win."
- Donna J., New York City

"The atmosphere was tense in the last process meeting as 14 of us waited for the fifth box."
- Ben G., Houston

"The speaker was stunned as eight of us screamed ‘Buzzword' for the third time in two hours. The Buzzword Bingo Championship will be played at the upcoming annual strategy meeting."
- Jim O., Portland

Separation of Church and State

There is editorial content (earned media) and there is advertising (paid media) and there is something in between that goes by many names such as, advertorial, special advertising section, news supplement, etc. But, is there really a separation of church and state?

In 2005, Starcom, a media communications agency, published a study that shows that the 65% of magazine readers in the U.S. think that advertisers pay for the products that are featured in editorial content.

But, according to the American Society of Business Publication Editors, as well as numerous other journalist and editorial groups, there is a “clear separation of news from analysis, news and analysis from opinion, and of editorial from advertising content.”

With the proliferation of web news sites, there has been an ever-increasing call for editorial policies to be put into place and to not allow product placement or advertising of a particular company on the same page that contains editorial content mentioning the company.

But, is the separation of church and state as strong as purported by those who generate the news or is the public correct that advertisers can control editorial content?

Almost all credible news agencies will strongly profess that there has been no erosion of the wall that separates editorial from advertising, but upon closer inspection, it seems as though the walls are crumbling.

Recently, two heavy hitters, BP and Morgan Stanley, gave marching orders to publications with specific instructions that include:

Morgan Stanley informed print publications that its ads must be automatically pulled from any edition containing "objectionable editorial coverage".

A memo on BP letterhead citing a new policy demands that ad-accepting publications inform BP in advance of any news text or visuals they plan to publish that directly mention the company, a competitor or the oil-and-energy industry.

General Motors even pulled all its corporate ads from the Los Angeles Times to protest a column by the Time’s Pulitzer Prize winning auto writer Dan Neil in which Neil blamed GM’s troubles on its management and called for them to be fired. GM was reportedly spending $10 million a year to promote its cars in the Times.

While these attempts to preemptively and reactively change the way news agencies report the news, there are other ways to skin the cat.

Many corporations will host events, fundraisers, etc. as part of their community outreach. Often times, there will be at least one new agency as a participating sponsor. As part of these agreements, the news agency will go out of its way to cast the corporation in a positive light and sometimes exchange their sponsorship for editorial coverage in the agreement.

The most important thing is that news agencies clearly state and make available their policies on editorial and advertising placements and that each of us, public relations practitioners, advertisers and those seeking publicity work to keep the wall separating editorial and advertising from crumbling.