A copyrighting lesson: getting analogies right
I tried to leave a comment on this post over at CopyBlogger, but interestingly it didn’t make it through moderation. So I figured I’d just make the point here, because it’s a valid one.
The above-linked article lost me before it even made it past the unrelated analogy it was setting up to whatever the article was about. Why? The analogy was a bit long, but it wasn’t that. It was that it was completely inaccurate.
The problem with conversing with a parrot is that the bird has no idea what its actually saying, or why its saying it. Parrots have no clue about context, and therefore make for bad conversation.
This is wrong. Parrots do have a limited understanding of what they’re saying, just like young humans learning language. Even untrained, they trouble themselves to learn phrases that inspire humans to play with them, get them out of their cages, or give them some of that pizza. It’s a natural mechanism for them, and an understanding of context is clearly demonstrated. All that said, I might not have totally walked away from the article except for the next line:
The truth is, no one really wants to speak with a parrot.
This line just comes off as presumptive and belligerent. There are many thousands of parrot owners in the US alone who would beg to differ. The effect of a statement like this is to narrow your target audience: those who do indeed like speaking with parrots immediately experience a sense that this post is not for them. Some will read it anyway, but others will just not bother.
The lessons I got from this post were not about swipe files or whatever. They were:
- Make sure an analogy is accurate. Otherwise, you run the risk not only of alienating readers, but of making your factual error become the center of the discussion thread. Actually the second one is probably more common, and if you moderate comments, maybe you don’t care. But if you want good, relevant discussion, don’t toss in a widdle factual error – you never know when some group of self-proclaimed experts or fans will go nuts harping on it.
- If you can’t make sure the analogy is accurate, limit it. Without going all passive-voice, this analogy could have worked under several conditions. Had it emphasized the limitations of a parrot’s ability to have a true back and forth dialog as opposed to simply stating they don’t have any idea what they’re saying, that would be true enough. Had it stuck to just one isolated experience the author had or observed, it would have been true for that incident and avoided the problems inherent in making sweeping generalizations. Which brings me to the third lesson…
- Avoid sweeping generalizations and language that’s so declarative it puts some of your audience on the defensive. Again, you need not resort to passive voice and wimpy wording to avoid declaring things that aren’t justified. “No one really wants to speak with a parrot” is just as nonsensical as stating “No one really wants to exercise on a treadmill”. How do you know? Did you interview everyone on earth… or did you just assume that because you don’t like treadmills, it’s impossible someone else might?
- sMACkdown! MAC Address vs. Apple’s Mac: An AdWords Tale
- Technorati ignores requests for email support
- Time for another “think”
- My plan for 2008
Categories: Blogging | 
Tags: | 
9 Comments »
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 am
When writing for 20,000 people, you write according to common perceptions and commonly held beliefs.
If you’re writing for parrot nerds, you take a different approach.
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
“Parrot nerds.”
Ooh, classy.
I don’t find it that difficult to write articles that are strong yet don’t alienate anyone – even on a site for 15,000 readers that carefully walks the line between servicing those who are heavily into the subject and those who can’t at first comprehend what’s going on (many of whom have ended up sticking around).
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Sapphire, “Parrot nerds” is not an insult. The words nerd and geek are these days associated with people who have an intense fascination with a certain topic.
My guess that applies to you and parrots. The fact that you can be alienated by a silly analogy shows me, at minimum, you have some unique issues with regard to parrots.
Here’s a copywriting tip for you: get over yourself and think about how others view the world, rather than just your personal perspective.
Good luck with your blog.
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
…and now you’re baiting me.
The facts remain: it is bad practice not to fact check. It is bad practice to assume your personal perspective is the most common one – sometimes you find that the dominant perception has switched over the years, particularly on topics you don’t keep up with.
These are mistakes most writers make at some point. Only by learning from it instead of getting defensive – and accusing others of being too emotional in an attempt to distract and dismiss their arguments – do we improve.
July 24th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Actually, this is for Brian, I am also offended by that. I do not have parrots. I like birds but I’m not really a bird person. The parrot analogy is likely to not only alienate bird lovers but pet lovers in general. After all, how many dog lovers talk to their dogs or cat lovers talk to their cats? We know they understand a lot more than we give them credit for and we actually DO like talking to our pets.
I read copyblogger for many ideas however lately I’m getting the sense that it’s very anti-pet over there. This suggests to me that perhaps it’s not the place for me to learn more about copywriting or for tricks. One primary audience is that of pet lovers. I think it’s clear that this blog won’t give me any hints for appealing to them. As I write for pet lovers, this isn’t about getting over myself–if I did as you suggest, then I’d probably alientate my entire audience.
See, pet lovers make up a growing subset of people online. If they weren’t, copyblogger wouldn’t make jokes about twitter being a place for cat bloggers. I thought that was offensive, considering I do write a cat blog. I’m writing for my potential customer and that’s what they want. I may not add huge amounts of new value, but I do add entertainment and that’s a huge piece of what people want online. If I can use that value to sell products, so much the better. Isn’t that what we’re all here for?
And thanks Sapphire, for standing up for those of who have pet blogs!
July 24th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Bonnie, rest assured that I am an animal lover. I’ve rescued more kittens, cats, puppies and dogs than the average person, I can tell you that. Seven animals in all, to be exact.
But no matter how much you love your bird, you can’t have a human conversation with it. You can’t learn from it.
That was the point of the analogy. Sorry you didn’t like it.
Also, “cat blogging” is an analogy for people who post personal details about their lives rather than reader focused content, not for people who literally blog about cats. I didn’t make the phrase up, it’s existed online for 5 years.
Let me restate this as clearly as possible–it has nothing to do with people who blog about pets or animals. I thank you for pointing this out, as I see that the challenges of communicating even simple analogies to large groups of people are indeed formidable.
July 24th, 2007 at 9:32 am
That’s right – it’s not just about pet lovers feeling alienated. It is about there being no good reason (that I know of) to alienate ANY part of your audience for the sake of an analogy.
That’s all I wanted to point out, and that was my sole goal in commenting at your site.
July 24th, 2007 at 10:01 am
The cat blogosphere actually does find that term offensive. While it may be something that was coined, there are some racial terms that have been coined over the years that I bet I’d get very censored if I used right here. It might sound funny to use that analogy, but I think some of the extraordinarily literate cat bloggers (of which I am NOT one) out there suffer for that tag–because ultimately they really are!
I think my main offense was the response you gave to Sapphire’s commentary about your parrot analogy. It seemed to suggest that her perception had no merit. I think what I am saying is that she is speaking for a larger group of people and while, yes, maybe it’s silly but you can say things that maybe are offensive.
I think if someone is offended, it would be far more graceful to apologize for offending them and then move on, rather than suggesting that they are wrong for being offended.
July 24th, 2007 at 11:20 am
What Sapphire said is right. I think writing articles is one of the easiest job. The only thing is you must have proper skills.