I recently received a marketing email from a highly respected Maryland-based video production firm.
It had a feature about a project that had gone very well for them. The article contained the following phrase:
". . . we took a different approach to casting. We used non-union talent, but cast in NYC, Philly and Atlanta to increase the quality of the actors available to us here to shoot in Baltimore. . . ."
Hmmm, while I imagine a case could be made that NYC actors are generally "better" [i.e. "if you can make it in NY, you can make it anywhere"], I doubt the same could be said for Philly or Atlanta actors.
But I don't believe the author meant to "dis" the quality of Baltimore actors at all. Rather, I think he meant to say instead that the production team wanted "to expand the pool of quality actors for us to audition."
The phrasing that was distributed in the eNewsletter needlessly offends, again, something I am sure this producer did not want to do.
The latter phrasing that I suggest above would be perfectly acceptable to all readers, no?
So yeah, words, and how you organize them, really do matter. As in this case, not paying close attention to that can inadvertently cause one to sound obnoxious.
Suggestion: Whenever possible, take a break after writing the final draft of a communication and before hitting "send." An overnight respite is ideal if possible, especially if it is a communication of importance and/or wide distribution. The return and re-reading of what one wrote with fresh eyes often allows one to catch those subtle, cringe-worthy faux-pas.
It had a feature about a project that had gone very well for them. The article contained the following phrase:
". . . we took a different approach to casting. We used non-union talent, but cast in NYC, Philly and Atlanta to increase the quality of the actors available to us here to shoot in Baltimore. . . ."
Hmmm, while I imagine a case could be made that NYC actors are generally "better" [i.e. "if you can make it in NY, you can make it anywhere"], I doubt the same could be said for Philly or Atlanta actors.
But I don't believe the author meant to "dis" the quality of Baltimore actors at all. Rather, I think he meant to say instead that the production team wanted "to expand the pool of quality actors for us to audition."
The phrasing that was distributed in the eNewsletter needlessly offends, again, something I am sure this producer did not want to do.
The latter phrasing that I suggest above would be perfectly acceptable to all readers, no?
So yeah, words, and how you organize them, really do matter. As in this case, not paying close attention to that can inadvertently cause one to sound obnoxious.
Suggestion: Whenever possible, take a break after writing the final draft of a communication and before hitting "send." An overnight respite is ideal if possible, especially if it is a communication of importance and/or wide distribution. The return and re-reading of what one wrote with fresh eyes often allows one to catch those subtle, cringe-worthy faux-pas.
No comments:
Post a Comment