MyRagan: Blog

	View My Profile
	Add To Friends
	Send Private Message

Member since 08/17/2007

Blog viewed 7 times today

Free Association
Analyzing and synthesizing my observations on communications

Main Blog Page

April 15, 2008
Finally: a LEGAL REASON to Eliminate Jargon

I'm a little late blogging on this item by Ben Worthen in the April 8, 2008, Wall Street Journal: Sifting Through Jargon: What's Behind the SAP Suit?

In a nutshell:

"SAP AG is being sued for failing to deliver an `out-of-the-box integrated end-to-end solution that increases...effectiveness.' Amazingly, the meaning of these buzzwords are [sic] at the heart of a claim seeking more than $100 million."

The article goes on to say, "The jargon is central to Waste Management Inc.'s claim that SAP used deceptive practices to sell its software. Waste Management needed to upgrade the software it uses to manage its waste removal and recycling business, and turned to SAP because the software maker said it had a "mature" and "proven" product for the job, according to a complaint filed last month with a district court in Texas."

To draw further from the WSJ article probably would not constitute "fair use," but I urge you to read it. We corporate nitpickers rarely have case law at our fingertips to justify our semantic hairsplitting. So, next time you're asked, tell your accusers about how SAP was sued for $100 million plus punitive damages. Maybe this case will open their eyes.

comments, Post A Comment!

Jeffrey posted 01/18/2008:

IW - I think we're pretty much opn the same page.

iwrite posted 01/18/2008:

Jeffrey, I agree, people should definitely ask, "What was proved?" That's a matter of caveat emptor, as I think another person commented. But that doesn't exonerate people (or MarCom) from using such words without justification. "Prove" has a definition: to show the truth or existence of something. If you can't demonstrate your software even exists (and don't get started on "exists," that only leads to "is"), then you don't get to use the word "proven," let alone "mature." In our business, we vet copy for this kind of language inflation all the time. Think how often you have stricken the word "unique" when, upon questioning, it turns out not to be.

Jeffrey posted 01/18/2008:

Iwrite: does the dictionary definition of "proven" synch with the IT definition of "proven"? Does it mean "tested by XX" number of users? "X of years being used by paying customers who testify to its high quality?" "Has saved X number of customers a cumulative $X since its first sale in 200X?" If "mature" means it has been in use for a certain amount of time by a certain number of satisfied customers, then tell me that. I'm not making excuses for SAP or Waste Management -- I'm just sayin', if you want me to buy your product support your assertion that the technology is "proven" or "mature" by giving me something I can validate. And if I, as the potential customer, don't ask that question, then shame on me!

Cher1117 posted 01/18/2008:

So Waste Management fell for the sales pitch? Where were their IT staff in these meetings? Ned, I thought PR and marketing materials were meant to merely entice the reader to seek further information. They were never meant to be the owner's manual. If Dell ads looked like all the medicine ads crammed in Reader's Digest, we'd do nothing but look at the pretty pictures. Same thing with the car brochures I pick up at my dealer when I take my car in for service. Pretty, and sounds good, but would I really order a car based on the brochure? Never.

iwrite posted 01/18/2008:

Okay, back to the issue at hand...Jeffery, I take issue with your contention that "mature" and "proven" are weasel-words. True, MarCom has become accustomed to flinging such words around as if their meaning is as elastic as a due date; but in fact, they do have specific definitions, and that is why SAP is in trouble. You really cannot say "proven" of an item that cannot be shown to have been proven. Or, at the very least, you can demand to know what, exactly, has been proved. You really cannot call "mature" an item that is in fact green (in the unripe sense, not the ecological sense). Yay for dictionaries!

Gretchen1 posted 01/18/2008:

I've been writing about this kind of language for years, most notably in a recent book (whose title I won't tell you because it would be crass commercialism, but you can find it on amazon.com under Gretchen Hirsch). My problem with this sort of overblown, meaningless phraseology isn't that it's illegal, but that it's unproductive and makes businesses who use it less competitive. Business English used to be fusty and stuffy, but this stuff is incomprehensible and it wastes time and money. And guess what business can't afford to waste. Time and money, you say? My point exactly.

Jeffrey posted 01/18/2008:

Joan: Right on! But....look at your own example: 50 calories is something measurable and provable. "Mature" and "proven" could mean anything, and someone at Waste Management really ought to have asked "what does `mature' and `proven' mean?" Better yet, someone at SAP should have backed up its soft words with hard numbers. I'm in the middle of doing internal communications around a data center move. Everyone was referring to a certain date as the date on which the new data center would be "open for business." When I started work on the communications, it rapidly became clear that no one in the organization agreed on what "open for business" meant. For some, it meant we now owned the building and could come and go as we pleased. For some it meant we were beginning to prepare for data migration. For some it meant we were ready to start moving servers. "Open for business" (while not, strictly speaking, jargon) was a soft way of appearing to have a hard date for something to happen. And, in a sense, it was true. But for those who believed "open for business" meant "all servers and applications migrated, tested, and running" it was misleading. This is by no means unique to tech -- the big difference is that the non-techies who rely on techies to tell us what we need to know tend to be intimidated by our own lack of technical expertise. We trust that the jargon has a specific, articulable meaning.

joaniealaska posted 01/18/2008:

I think we're missing the point of the lawsuit. Look again: "Waste Management ... turned to SAP because the software maker said it had a "mature" and "proven" product for the job, according to a complaint filed last month with a district court in Texas. In demonstrations, SAP officials led Waste Management to believe it was looking at the finished product, Waste Management alleges, when in reality it was a mock-up of the software "intended to deceive."" Mature and proven--that doesn't sound like jargon to me, that sounds like a track record. Those words imply that other companies have used this very product successfully, and the software company offers it knowing that it works, so the buyer can purchase it with confidence. Peddling a software that's not even out of beta is hardly selling a "mature" and "proven" product, and if that's what this vendor was doing, then the lawsuit is absolutely justified. I've witnessed the chaos when a vendor promises that their software will do what you need and then you spend big bucks not just to purchase it, but to configure the servers, install the local software that runs on the PCs, train the sys admins, train the users, convert all the data and then discover that, ruh roh, it doesn't really do what it was supposed to. This doesn't seem to me to be so much overstated marketing materials as knowingly overstated promises from the word go. There has to be at least a baseline of truth in advertising. You can't say a Big Mac has only 50 calories. You shouldn't be able to call a product "mature" before it's had a birthday.

Jeffrey posted 01/18/2008:

Ned - I agree with every word you say and that we should all "be afraid - be very afraid." It's unfortunate, however, that it takes a multimillion-dollar lawsuit to make the issue of clarity and (let's be straight about this) honesty an issue. Technobabble such as SAP and every other tech company on the planet practice in their promotional and other copy is a form of dishonesty through misdirection: say nothing at length and you can feel safe (kind of like modern political discourse). Damn shame we can't sell stuff by saying: "Here's what the product/service does." And we can't do that because the stuff is pretty much indistinguishable apart from price. I fear you're right that the over-lawyering of promotional copy will be a result of this suit if Waste Management wins; if clarity and honesty were more of a value in the first place, we'd have much less use for lawyers.

NedBarnett posted 01/18/2008:

Having had our little fun thumb-biting the WSJ for trying to make an honest dollar selling the information they develop (which is, after all, their business), I'd like to comment on this news item. First, the good news. Obviously, this will give us a leg up in arguing with clients about ridiculous jargon. When I was working with a division of CA some years back, the CEO wanted us to use almost exactly what SAP used that got them into trouble. David Hood, where are you now? Now, the bad news - and it is very bad indeed. This jargon comes from promotional copy - the kind of thing that you and I produce in "real life" every day of the week (I'm referring to promotional copy - not bad jargon). And suddenly, Waste Management sues SAP for $100 million over what might have been PR copy (it could have been advertising or marketing copy - but I produce all three, and I imagine some of you do, too). That means that suddenly (especially if this suit is successful - and I hope it will fall flat - but just the fact of the suit puts us all at risk) you and I would be potentially liable for creating copy that could land our clients in $100 million dollar lawsuits. Holy Lawyer Meddling, Batman! This means that the collar-stay-and-cuff link crowd will be fine-tooth-combing EVERYTHING we right. Talk about "Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!" In writing PR copy, I have always trusted two things (or maybe three - let's see): 1. The client was giving me the straight dope - since I work a lot with high-tech clients, I have neither the ability (when dealing with them) nor the time (when dealing with any client) to independently verify the veracity of their claims. I have to trust them to give it to me straight. 2. The "end user" of PR copy knows that it is PR copy - promotional material written for business (sales-support) reasons, and because of that, a soupcon of caveat emptor was appropriate here (OK, have YOU ever mixed French and Latin in a single English sentence? Do I get a prize for mixing metaphors or something? ). In short, I expect at least a little "willing suspension of disbelief" when it comes to ad-like promotional copy. 3. As long as we didn't knowingly lie in a way that created the potential of monetary harm, we had nothing to worry about from lawsuits. So, on the average, this is horrible. It represents legal prior restraint, and it invites corporate attorneys to red-pencil each and every smidgen of PR/promotional/ad/marketing copy we produce. God alone knows what they'll want to do about interviews ... I hope the judge throws Waste Management out on their "greening the environment" arse; else we're all in big trouble.

Jeffrey posted 01/18/2008:

I know that, Emily. :-) I figured they'd started giving the news away, as everyone has been predicting since the takeover. I know a lot of the stuff that used to be premium (Op-Eds and the like) are actually out there for free.

ylime posted 01/18/2008:

I really wasn't biting my thumb at YOU. That's strange that you accessed it, and I couldn't. Oh well. Sorry for my misdirected rage. ;)

Jeffrey posted 01/18/2008:

I'm sorry, Emily (and anyone else who tried to follow the link I provided). I only googled the article based on the headline. That's weird...I never logged into WSJ.com from this computer. At least I don't think I ever did. I wonder how much I'd have to pay for digital rights.....

ylime posted 01/18/2008:

Boo. I TRIED to read the article...alas, I am not a subscriber. It really irks me when they only give you a piece of the article and then expect you to pay for the rest. They may as well not even bother (at least not with me). All that days is make me bite my thumb at them. Yes, I do bite my thumb at you, SIR.

Jeffrey posted 01/18/2008:

Right with ya, Cher. If customers asked these question, sellers would have the answers at their fingertips (and, I would think, include them in their promotional copy). I've long joked that I'm waiting to see the car ad that pitches the vehicle as a "wholly integrated end-to-end automotive solution." It wouldn't sell. Why? Because people typically buy cars with their own money and want to know what they're getting. They ask questions, they do research (or, if they're like me, let their brother-in-law do the research). When the purchase is being made on the company's dime, lots of other considerations come into play beyond what the thing does and whether it does what it says it does. But, to come back to Ned's point (if I remember correctly), if companies actually put real claims in print, the lawyers would be all over it with caveats and qualifiers.