Can you speak human? Why we underestimate the power of simple.

I once attended a brilliant training session with Ian King, who at the time was the Business Editor of The Sun and is now on Sky News.

I once attended a brilliant training session with Ian King, who at the time was the Business Editor of The Sun and is now on Sky News.

He gave all of us fresh-faced communications pros some advice that I have never forgotten.

Speak Human.

I’ve paraphrased him here. But he made me think hard about the language we choose as professional communicators and I have carried this advice with me into every role, including my work within the NHS, where it is more relevant than ever.

As a communications profession, we can get caught in the trap of thinking that industry jargon and complex word choices will make our messages sound more serious or add credibility. That it makes us sound like we know what we’re talking about.

And there’s often this misconception, particularly at exec level within many organisations, that using simple language will be seen as “dumbing down”, or not taking the matter seriously enough. I have heard this often. But that is a lazy stereotype and one that doesn’t serve us if we want to use communications to advocate and reach people at scale.

I’ve always loved this Mark Twain quote:

“I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”

It is often easier (lazier?) to write at length, coddling yourself in long words and “high-minded” terms, than it is to write with economy and clarity. It takes more skill to take a difficult topic and write about it simply, in order to reach the broadest sections of the population. So in professional terms, that’s as far from dumbing down as you can get. And it usually means your message will have far more impact — crucial when considering health messaging and campaigns.

That’s what Ian described so well when he talked about the skill needed to write a business headline for a tabloid newspaper. Trying to capture and distil a complicated topic in five words, so that anyone in the country could pick up the paper and understand what’s going on. Interest rates, recession, bear markets, stagflation — how to articulate these concepts in a way that means something to the very people usually affected most by the shifting economic outlook?

If you listen carefully to some of the world’s most brilliant minds and orators, such as the mathematician Eugenia Cheng, or the educational leader, Sir Ken Robinson, they will always Speak Human. That is, they choose accessible, clear language, often accompanied by real world analogies, to explain their thinking. They use humour often. They take what they do seriously, but they don’t take themselves too seriously. They have a lightness of touch and an entertaining economy of style.

They know that in doing so, they will no longer just be talking to the 1% of people who may already understand their message, but to the other 99% of us who don’t, but may benefit from what they have to say.

Ian explained how “dumbing down” for your audience was a misleading and offensive term. He taught us to look for economic indicators in our everyday lives, not just in the papers of a broadsheet and explained how he used those examples in his thinking and writing.

For example, can you easily get a cab in London on a wet and rainy Thursday night in December? If the answer’s yes, that’s a sign the economy may be in trouble. If times were good, those cabs would be full of people sheltering from the weather and partying it up for Christmas, with the spare cash to shell out on a taxi ride instead of taking the bus or walking.

Difficult to understand? No.

Effective translation of an economic concept? Yes.

The best example I’ve seen of this recently in healthcare was a message so effective my three year old daughter understood and acted on it.

“Eat less sugar. Max two treats a day.”

This was her take-away summary of the recent public health campaign about childhood obesity. She saw it on the news and took the bits that she understood, which was eat less sugar, and limit treats/snacks to twice a day. That’s enough for she and I to have a regular chat about which treats she is allowed and why her favourite yoghurt has too much sugar!

Is there a complex piece of policy and science behind this campaign? Undoubtedly.

Did using simple, clear language help reach the people it needed to? Undoubtedly.

If I could wave a magic wand for the communications profession, it would be to remove the blinkers that keep us from speaking in clear, simple, human language.

Never use jargon when a human alternative is available. Don’t conflate simple with dumbed down. And be prepared to fight your corner with those who still think credibility is conferred by the length and complexity of their word choices.

It ain’t.