Jump to content
robzy

Lol, marketing speak

Recommended Posts

I'm doing an assignment on Tata Steel, and as part of that I have to look into how they responded to the GFC.

 

Looking through their 08-09 Annual Report I came across an entire section dedicated to the topic. It's use is questionable, though...

 

Cross-functional strategic teams were assigned to drive transformational change across key process areas.

I've never seen so many words used to say so little :P

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it just means they grabbed a bunch of different people from different deparments ("cross-functional") to tweak the way tata does shit in some specifically important tasks

Edited by cobwebs in the sky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm doing an assignment on Tata Steel, and as part of that I have to look into how they responded to the GFC.

 

Looking through their 08-09 Annual Report I came across an entire section dedicated to the topic. It's use is questionable, though...

 

Cross-functional strategic teams were assigned to drive transformational change across key process areas.

I've never seen so many words used to say so little :P

 

Rob.

 

That's not marketing speak, that's corporate bullshitting. We had a course in my IT degree teaching us how to use that bullshit to convince executives to trust us to do our jobs... (although, you'd never see the course described that way officially :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many sentences taken out of context end up meaning nothing. If that was the first sentence in a paragraph describing how they had created teams of business analysts, functional testers, and lines of business representatives to streamline the process for gathering requirements against which new applications were to be tested, it would make sense. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound more like corporate speak than marketing speak... you know, the sort of crap dribbled over a Powerpoint presentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm doing an assignment on Tata Steel, and as part of that I have to look into how they responded to the GFC.

 

Looking through their 08-09 Annual Report I came across an entire section dedicated to the topic. It's use is questionable, though...

 

Cross-functional strategic teams were assigned to drive transformational change across key process areas.

I've never seen so many words used to say so little :P

 

Rob.

 

That's not marketing speak, that's corporate bullshitting. We had a course in my IT degree teaching us how to use that bullshit to convince executives to trust us to do our jobs... (although, you'd never see the course described that way officially :P)

 

Principles of Professional Communication you mean?

 

That's what it was called in my degree ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many sentences taken out of context end up meaning nothing. If that was the first sentence in a paragraph describing how they had created teams of business analysts, functional testers, and lines of business representatives to streamline the process for gathering requirements against which new applications were to be tested, it would make sense. :)

Admittedly it was an introduction to a section that expanded on it, but the expansion was just as useless and used a considerable amount of generic terms.

 

Thankfully later in the annual report they had a section which actually went into it in more detail.

 

Sound more like corporate speak than marketing speak... you know, the sort of crap dribbled over a Powerpoint presentation.

Ultimately there is little difference between corporate speak and marketing speak, though, right? But I do see your point.

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many sentences taken out of context end up meaning nothing. If that was the first sentence in a paragraph describing how they had created teams of business analysts, functional testers, and lines of business representatives to streamline the process for gathering requirements against which new applications were to be tested, it would make sense. :)

Admittedly it was an introduction to a section that expanded on it, but the expansion was just as useless and used a considerable amount of generic terms.

 

Thankfully later in the annual report they had a section which actually went into it in more detail.

 

So it actually made sense as a general introduction. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it made sense, but it seems like theyre using crazy-arse words for the hell of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it actually made sense as a general introduction. :)

It was a meaningless introduction to a generic and meaningless section.

 

Even if it had been an introduction to a useful section, though, it's still ladled up to the brim with buzz words.

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Language is one of the most powerful tools to frame perspectives of reality, it's hardly surprising that "buzz words" are found laughable, but they are incredibly important in all avenues of usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it made sense, but it seems like theyre using crazy-arse words for the hell of it.

Doctors use the language of medicine, corporations use language that those within corporations understand, not tattoo aspiring teenagers ;)

 

Whether or not the language is appropriate depends on the audience. This type of language is not unusual for an annual report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's not unusal. I still found the language used verbose. I use the language of science within my reports (gg IUPAC), so I know all about using language that is suitable for the target audience. I still think the sentence robzy posted was silly.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's not unusal. I still found the language used verbose. I use the language of science within my reports (gg IUPAC), so I know all about using language that is suitable for the target audience. I still think the sentence robzy posted was silly.

 

:)

Again, out of context. It may well and truly be silly, in fact robzy said the whol section was worthless, But I'm sure the same sentence could actually convey meaning if supported appropriately. Oh, and on an aspect I missed earlier, I have to say I agree with Kimmo, it's more down the line of corporate speak than marketing speak.

 

And that's from someone in corporate marketing :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that particular sentence that robzy posted to be relevant and applicable to any industry or association, it's a natural response, IMO.

 

For example, should one wish to attempt to remove or displace the associated connotations with such useful language, a new title or association for it must be created.

 

Negative connotations exist for "Corporate/marketing speak", but useful "systems-thinking language" to approach ideas in complex ways would require a decent association for people to adopt it... this could be accomplished via mass-market fiction such as TV shows, current affairs or promotion in advertising itself... though I imagine it would be more successful in the classroom as a response to problem solving.

Edited by Errorist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The perspicacity of that representation of model optimisation is dynamically synergistic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the simpsons summed up marketing speak nicely:

 

Lady: We at the network want a dog with attitude. He's edgy, he's "in your face." You've heard the expression "let's get busy"?

Well, this is a dog who gets "biz-zay!" Consistently and thoroughly.

 

Krusty: So he's proactive, huh?

 

Lady: Oh, God, yes. We're talking about a totally outrageous paradigm.

 

Animator: Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?

[backpedaling] Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that. [pause] I'm fired, aren't I?

 

Myers: Oh, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, out of context. It may well and truly be silly, in fact robzy said the whole section was worthless. But I'm sure the same sentence could actually convey meaning if supported appropriately.

be that as it may, this brand of language reeks of Coporate Wank™! dead weights in suits trying to justify their existence. i wouldnt be surprised at all if those adjectives arent specifics or jargon.

 

"Cross-functional strategic teams were assigned to drive transformational change across key process areas".

 

"key process areas", are bound to be synonymous with key areas, or otherwise readily inferred as such from context.

 

"transformational change" is a tautology. all transformations involve change. transformation will suffice.

 

"Cross-functional strategic teams". the fact they are "strategic" can be immediately inferred. nobodys going to assign cross-functional DICE ROLLING teams to achieve anything. within the context, its redundant to specify that they have a plan.

 

which leaves us with:

"Cross-functional teams were assigned to drive transformation across key areas" = considerably de-wanked!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm doing an assignment on Tata Steel, and as part of that I have to look into how they responded to the GFC.

 

Looking through their 08-09 Annual Report I came across an entire section dedicated to the topic. It's use is questionable, though...

 

Cross-functional strategic teams were assigned to drive transformational change across key process areas.

I've never seen so many words used to say so little :P

 

Rob.

 

Sure it made sense, but it seems like theyre using crazy-arse words for the hell of it.

As a matter of interest, how would either of you say it more succintly?

 

 

Oh, there you go, @~thehung did it.

 

And I'd debate the removal of process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fun. I might try it myself!

 

Again, out of context. It may well and truly be silly, in fact robzy said the whole section was worthless. But I'm sure the same sentence could actually convey meaning if supported appropriately.

be that as it may(this adds no value whatsoever to the remainder of the sentence), this brand of language reeks of Coporate Wank™! dead weights in suits trying to justify their existence(or it may not - you offer no reasoning as to why it would or wouldn't be a comment from someone trying to justify their existance). i wouldnt be surprised at all if those adjectives arent specifics or jargon.

 

"Cross-functional strategic teams were assigned to drive transformational change across key process areas".

 

"key process areas", are bound to be synonymous with key areas, or otherwise readily inferred as such from context.

 

Not necessarily. Manufacturing is a process and may also be a division within a company. Often the process encompasses more than just the department itself. For example, one might include the procurement of raw materials in the manufacturing process, but it may not be the responsibility of the Manufacturing division. By stating it's a process, it becomes clear you are not talking about a specific division within the company

"transformational change" is a tautology. all transformations involve change. transformation will suffice.

While I agree that all "transformations involve change", not all changes are transformational. By using the phrase "transformational change", it indicates that the change in the key process areas will be of major proportions

"Cross-functional strategic teams". the fact they are "strategic" can be immediately inferred. nobodys going to assign cross-functional DICE ROLLING teams to achieve anything. within the context, its redundant to specify that they have a plan.

This is just plain wrong. I know in our organisation tactical teams are often created to streamline processes that have become and unwieldy through mergers and acquisitions. They nut out the issues then report back to management on how they would prefer to work. It makes a lot of sense and allows people at all levels to make a difference.

which leaves us with:

"Cross-functional teams were assigned to drive transformation across key areas" = considerably de-wanked!

 

You've shortened the sentence. I don't think you've dewanked it at all but you have actually managed to reduce it's meaning. A fair effort indeed :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×