I find too much buzz everywhere I look. And already, I’m spending a lot of time joking about a lot of the terms that reflect the things we are doing, just as I find myself explaining to clients that “this is not hot air” when they’re curious about some of the new ways of thinking. I’d like for everyone to think about what they say and write, how they portray their own field of work and how and what they sell.

Some things to keep in mind:

• Manifests should only be made, when there’s a revolution around the corner. This is a list.
• Words are important. Simplification equally so. but you don’t say ‘beta’ when you mean ‘agile’ — or ‘web 2.0′ when you mean ‘ajax’ — or ‘social software’ when you mean ‘community’, do you? Don’t worry about missing out on all the good buzz, your customers will thank you in the end.
• Words are important. Be careful with terms like ‘economy’, ‘revolution’ and ‘paradigm’. New opportunities don’t make a revolution, something involving money doesn’t constitute an economy. It sounds cool but these words have a meaning already. Maybe your customers get confused when they know the original one. Iook it up — and use with care.
• When pointing to technologies marking a new beginning, make sure you’re pointing to the actual one making the difference. Blogging might not mean shit — easy publishing in general might do.
• Show value. Telling customers that “it’s new”, “everyone else is doing it” and that they should “jump on the train” remind me of the early dot-com years. You’re selling hot air based on fear.
• Buzz is better than hype. Both, however, have a tendency to end up as selling points in their own right. They’re not. When you say “web 2.0″, do you know why you do it? Do you think it is a fitting container for a new way of doing things — or a clever marketing tool?
• That something’s ‘new’ isn’t a reason for anyone to do anything. To refer to the speed of which information travel and gets generated and to claim that ‘things are happening really fast now’ is to ignore how most civilizations evolve. I would be very surprised if things didn’t continue to develop this way from here to eternity. So that’s not the problem you should say you’re solving.
• What happens when all your customers have bought your services? Does your company name or profile imply that what they’re buying is just a way to ‘get up to speed’ or implement ‘that new thing’? Can your see yourself and your company in two year’s time? Are you honest about that you can’t?
• Is it clear from the way you’re communicating that you didn’t invent all the terms you’re using? Is it clear who did? And what it is you’re adding on top?
• Framing is important. In many ways, our core service is to enable people to use new technology and provide new ways of thinking about a lot of the things they would normally do by giving them a vocabulary; a way to think and talk about things that are new to them. Think hard about how you use terms. Are you drawing on known concepts to make things clearer where you should make a clear distinction? If you didn’t know what you know, would it make sense? Is there a risk your terms could obscure a good intention? Have you thought about metaphors lately?
• Networks are cool. Being in more than one is not bad. Is the foundation of your network based on values you’ve made an effort to explain — or is your profile ‘new’; hinting that this is the new black without further proof?
• When you explain the possibilities with technology and the ways we use it, do you attempt to transfer industry terms to a business environment uncritically? Are you confident that term x, known and debated within the industry, provides any real value to a corporate client — or would they be better off getting your take on some of the values?
• Would you rather not worry about all this hippie-nonsense and force your customers to swallow the blue pill — as it is
  movie wall street: money never sleeps online

  good for them?

I might add to this list, i might not. That doesn’t mean it’s in beta. It just means that maybe i find some time and some more input — and maybe i don’t.

Update: Gunnar Langemark posts what I believe is a comment to this post. Some different views…and some of the same conclusions ;-)