Recently, Lake Superior State University published its 35th annual List of Banished Words for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness. It included terms from 2009 such as friend (as a verb—thanks, Facebook); Tweet (good luck not using that one, nonprofiteers); and chillaxin’ (which I’m pretty sure isn’t a word to begin with, but yes, it’s tremendously annoying and disturbingly ubiquitous).
Well, that got us thinking… What words do we nonprofit people overuse or misuse, and what terms are generally useless or shouldn’t be used?
So without further ado, here’s a short list (in no particular order) along with the reason(s) for its inclusion here:
System—This is a word of many meanings and yet no real meaning. We’re guessing there’s probably a clearer, more specific term within your English arsenal of words. Perhaps you use system to mean your organization’s workflow, or perhaps you mean the government. Consider using workflow or government.
Infrastructure—Unless you’re speaking of roads, rail, bridges, tunnels, power lines, or other public works, this is a word worth avoiding. Using infrastructure to discuss the people of your organization, for example, takes the humanity out of your work.
Capacity—Who doesn’t say “capacity building”? Heck, at Big Duck, one of our areas of work is around capacity building. The real trouble with capacity is that people use it to mean many things, including capability or ability, both of which are clearer, less pretentious words. Watch how you use this one.
Impact—Politicians and marketing/communications professionals (you’re welcome!) may have fooled you into thinking that impact is a verb that means, “to have an effect.” For example, “Our work impacts the lives of teens.” To the chagrin of language purists (of which there is more than one here at Big Duck), impact will likely join the growing list of nouns that have been verbed into existence (such as contact, date, curb, or elbow). Until the standard style guides and dictionaries tell you it’s okay, we recommend that you avoid using impact as a verb and angering the language purists in your circle. They live among you. I’ll get some headshakes for using verb as a verb too. And by the way, impactful isn’t a real word.
Web site—Everyone has a website, and you should feel free to talk about yours. But when you write about your website, write about your website, not your Web site. Nothing will make you seem like a fuddy-duddy faster than capitalizing Web site and making it two words. It’s like you’re harkening back to the simpler days of the World Wide Web and its Information Superhighway. Strive toward having some tech cred. If you have a style guide that still says Web site, it’s probably time to update it.
Catalyst—A lot of nonprofits like to think of themselves as catalysts, never changing but affecting change in their arena. It’s a nice metaphor. I struggled with high school chemistry, and I had this really tough and serious teacher from Iran. I managed to really screw up on a couple of the tests early in the semester, from which my overall grade would never be able to recover. I had my sights set on some competitive colleges, so this was very worrisome for me. But I worked hard and showed improvement, eventually getting an A- on the final. On the final day, the teacher asked if I wanted to hear my grade. Knowing I’d mathematically earned a C, I despondently told him to go ahead. “Daniel…” he said (no one called me Daniel), “You work hard and show improvement. I think I give you A.” It was amazing. The only problem is that when I hear catalyst, my mind goes back to high school chemistry, not your organization. Am I alone on this?
There are more examples, I’m sure, and you probably have some of your own. Please feel free to add your suggestions in the comments section.
Are we saying that you shouldn’t use any of these words? I’m a bit of a free speech purist, so I wouldn’t absolutely forbid you from saying or writing certain terms. By all means, use these words if you really want to. Just know that if you do we’re sitting here in our offices totally judging you. Totally.
But don’t worry: we’re judging ourselves too. Some of these terms get a lot of airplay at Big Duck. But hey, that just gives us something to strive toward throughout 2010.
We’re not the only ones taking a look at “bad words” in 2010. Our friends over at Douglas Gould have recently kicked off their Bad Words blog. Among other interesting posts, there’s a nice little screed about “Gun Show Loophole” that’s definitely worth reading. We look forward to checking out more good examples from Doug and his team.
Tags: copywriting, messaging
Good call on “impact.” As a verb it can actually mean to block or clog up (impacted wisdom tooth anyone?) which is generally the opposite of the intended meaning.
Others on my list would include:
proactive: Apparently “active” wasn’t quite active enough, so some MBA came up with this cool-sounding but empty term. Depending on the context, I think “progressive,” “leading,” and “responsive” are all better choices.
bandwidth (applied to people): I’ve heard this used to mean “resources,” “energy,” or even just “time.” We’re humans, not Internet connections. If you don’t have the time or tools do do something, it’s best just to say that; don’t hide it behind techspeak.
Could not agree more about impact. I know dentists who refuse to use it when describing wisdom teeth even when it could be used correctly so dismayed are they by current usage.
I would like to add for consideration the word conversation.
Usage: let’s begin the conversation, ask them to join the conversation…
Couldn’t we just announce what needs to happen and whose input we need? Do we have to introduce a “meta” view?
No, web site should be two words — as one word, I want to pronounce it “webs-itty.” Call me strange but I’m sticking to two words, without a cap ‘W.’
And the jury is still out on that, anyway. The Associated Press Style book, Reuters, Microsoft, most of academia, book publishing (including O’Reilly, the world’s largest publisher of computer books), The Chicago Manual of Style, The APA style book, and dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster use the two-word, initially capitalized spelling, “Web site.”
Choosing the one-word approach has nothing to do with techcred. Please do stick to your guns but the debate is still on.
Very helpful and resonant blog.
I used to run a foundation, and got on my nerves the most was when applicants used “big” words incorrectly and when they used all sorts of crazy jargon to describe what they were doing. Decision makers at foundations usually have hundreds of proposals to read. The clearer and more concise you are about what you are doing, the more likely you are to get funding.
I haven’t seen anything that says you shouldn’t capitalize Web site or that it should be one word. Just because a bunch of young uneducated kids do it, doesn’t mean we should.
Amen……is it fair to include phrases in here as well?
“move the needle”
“dialogue with you”
“raise the bar”
and even “transform” is starting to get a little creaky and pale….of course, I’m not pure either and have caught myself writing all of these things at one time or another. I finally posted a list next to my computer and do a search as part of my last proof before anything goes to the editor or client.
I’m not even going to talk about my adverb addiction. Or the word “just” — I just put it in everything.
Re. use of Web site: If what you’re saying is that World Wide Web is no longer used, then shouldn’t the reference be to an Internet site, rather than website?
I don’t know about you but our non-profit’s Web site has been a catalyst for change in our organization and a great addition to our technological infrastructure. It has improved our system’s capacity that, in turn, enhances our ability to be impactful in our community.
The word I banish is unique. It is amusing how many nonprofits offer \"unique\" programs. REALLY? If I were a program officer I would reject all applications that used this word. If the organization doesn\’t have enough imagination to come up with a more descriptive word then it probably doesn\’t merit funding.
Wow. Thanks for the comments, everyone. And thanks to Network For Good for re-posting the words and re-engaging people.
I don’t know if I’ll manage to reply to everyone here, but I’m certainly a fan of continuing a conversation (sorry, Abby, I couldn’t resist) about words, grammar, and writing…
And there’s my bad habit: ellipses. I love ‘em.
Anyway, style guides often disagree, and the jury’s certainly still out on website. Other stylings of the word just look strange to me. So for now, I’m sticking to my guns on this one.
Kelley, I think you make a point worth reiterating. Clear, simple language is always preferable to demonstrating how smart you are with the big words. Your point about foundations can just as easily apply to donors as well. Assume your audience is busy, writers. Get to the point as clearly as possible.
Elizabeth, I agree that unique is overused. There’s almost always a better (and more accurate) word. Since unique literally means one-of-a-kind, I only use the word if what I’m describing is truly one-of-a-kind. And I set a pretty high standard for one-of-a-kind.
Mike, your comment made me quite happy. A fine example of why in some contexts I’m wrong on all counts. Thanks.
And finally, Cara, speaking of adverbs, I recently came upon this stellar post: http://io9.com/5437610/seriously-whats-so-bad-about-adverbs
Thanks for reading, and keep writing, good people.
Still laughing at the adverb post. That was brilliant. Thanks!
Sorry, but standard dictionaries (like Webster’s unabridged, 1996) do say it’s okay to use “impact” as a verb.
To quote: “The verb impact has developed the transitive tense ‘to have an impact or effect on’…and the intransitive sense ‘to have an impact or effect.’ Although recent, the new uses are entirely standard and most likely to occur in formal speech and writing.”
The thing to keep in mind is that English–much as we may object–is a constantly evolving language. Whether “impact” is overused is a separate matter.
Alas, the standard dictionaries also say “irregardless” is now a real word. Not all change is change we can believe in!
But I agree with Susan’s point, part of what makes English so popular is its adaptability and evolution. It’s also what makes it inclusive.
Looks like we all agree that goal of good writing is clarity and engagement — to that end, I think that avoiding cliches, jargon and insider-speak is important. If your readers start thinking about your use of the word “impactful” instead of what you’re writing about…. well, that’s not very impactful, now is it?
Dan: thanks for this post. And long live ellipses (and the em dash, my own personal foible)!
I’d also add a vote for the word “implement” and “implementation” especially in the phrase: “implementation strategy.”
I know it’s hard to find adequate synonyms (accomplish?) but enough is enough! It makes me want to grab some sort of blunt implement and get all impactful on someone.
Base Ball
Base-Ball
baseball
That’s the historic progression of the word, and such is usually the progression of two words that gradually become hyphenated compound words before finally becoming one entity: baseball.
Bed Room
Bed-room
bedroom
Basket Ball
Basket-ball
Basketball
This happens over and over in language.
Electronic Mail
E-Mail
Email
email
It’s interesting to watch language evolve in this way. “Web site” will indeed become website, as sure as Base Ball became baseball and Electronic Mail has become email. The evolution of two words into one seems to go a lot faster now than it used to: it took many, many years for Base Ball to become Base-ball and then baseball; now it only takes a few years for tech terms to take a similar journey.
re: website
Sure, if you think these are all fine, too, and don’t mind looking like you didn’t even graduate from high school:
webbrowser
websearch
webpages
Language evolves, true. We’ve all used webinar and webmaster for years (even though “webinar” is an abominable word). So maybe, but I hope we don’t go that far. We’re losing respect for the language and making everything just too, too casual and slapdash.
Ah. So I see that you think \"brandraising\" is such a good word that you use it in your tag line. That explains a lot about your list.
Thank you for your comments on “impact”. Impact and impacted have become so overused. I hear the weather and news casters use either of those words up to three and four times in their segments. In my day, impacted meant you needed medical dental attention.
Does anyone use the word “affected” any more?