Word Wise

As You Know

It’s very common to use the word “as” to mean “because.” But beware.   When "as" means “because” it must be preceded by a comma, as in “Sachervell wrote a book, as he had had a wild adventure in Wales and wanted to share it with the world.” When “as” expresses a time relation, however, it is not preceded by a comma, as in “Edith was putting on earrings as her husband walked into the room.”   When you begin a sentence with a clause that starts with “as,” make sure it’s clear to your readers whether “as” means “because” or “at the same time that.” The sentence “As they were leaving, I walked to the door” may mean either “I walked to the door because they were leaving” or “I walked to the door at the same time that they were leaving.” Hardly an unimportant distinction!     Please note: Word Wise is taking a two-week hiatus.

Today's Read & Other Stuff - Diddy or Didn't He?

So, Diddy twitters while engaged in tantric sex (who knew twittering was a part of this ancient lovemaking technique?) and now New York Magazine wants to know if such behavior is keeping you from reading blogs, say blogs by Kanye West. It references  Techcrunch’s Brian Solis wondering if “Facebook status updates and Twitter feeds haven't usurped some of the blogosphere's authority.” It’s an interesting question (I’m digging the whole Twitter thing though I’ve yet to try multitasking a la Diddy), and if it takes Diddy and Kanye West to get the conversation going, I’m all for it.

Diddy Twitters under iamdiddy. Kanye West's blog is here.

Today's Read & Other Stuff - Ginormous

The subhead of a piece that appeared on the New York Times Web site today: "A ginormous public lands bill failed to pass the House, and is stalled." Ginormous? Really I thought ginormous was a silly combination of gigantic and enormous a clever tween somewhere in Westchester or Orange counties thought up a few years ago that just sort of caught on. I was surprised to see it caught on with The New York Times, though - in fact, a quick search shows that it's been used at least 1,870 times in the Times. Apparently, I was under a ginormous misimpression about ginormous; the Merriam-Webster dictionary says the word dates to 1948 (though it does not specify its first use). Meaning "extremely large," ginormous is also what's known, according to the Times itself, as a neologism, or a newly invented word. I know, there's a contradiction here: "newly invented" yet around since 1948? I can't explain it. I'm just glad to know I can use it without sounding like a 13-year-old girl.

Short 'n' Tweet

At least 79 people know I Twitter. I know it’s 79 since that’s the number of “followers” I have at this very second (to put that in perspective, Twitterer Darren Rowse has more than 42,000 followers). What’s been interesting as I’ve begun to Twitter, though, isn’t the number of people who’ve chosen to follow me, but the number of characters, with spaces, I’ve been allowed to use when Twittering. 140. While that may initially sound to you like a lot of space Twitterers have to fill while Twittering their life away, consider this: “While that may initially sound to you like a lot of space Twitterers have to fill while Twittering their life away, consider this:” is 130 characters. The word “characters” is 10 characters, not counting the spaces on either side. 140 characters isn’t much.   And yet, for a writer, it’s enough to tell a story. And that’s where the fun and the challenge lie.   When I was a staff writer at People magazine waaaay back in the mid-1990s, an editor used the word “telegraph” as a verb to describe how to approach every sentence. We were supposed to “telegraph,” or squeeze in, as much information as possible. I wrote stories about Michael Jackson (he had gone to Bucharest carrying a “little person” in a blue satin suit on his shoulder), David Hasselhoff (he was attempting to become a pop star in the U.S.), and Kirsten Dunst (she was starring in “Interview with the Vampire”), among others, and each time I was required to squeeze in as many facts and ideas possible into each sentence – to tell a story – that related to them. It’s the same, in a way, with Twitter, and that’s what makes it such a good exercise for anyone who thinks of themselves as a writer.   Some of my recent Tweets: Knit wits: Jo-Ann’s Crafts axes racy quilters mag, "too hot" says distributor; chain's PR guy needled, snubs media calls http://bit.ly/m9N4l (140 characters) Exec Ed of The Week: Content is cheap to acquire=no one pays much for it=writers can’t make a living=we’re in trouble? http://bit.ly/roH4o (138 characters) It took 203 characters for Twitter founder Biz Stone to tell PRWeek why Twitter is "invaluable" to the PR biz http://tinyurl.com/db8kxe (135 characters) These take time, but I’ve noticed the payoff has been real – I’m becoming reacquainted with telegraphing information in a tight, focused way to grab readers’ attention and I’m applying the effort to everything I write. I’d forgotten how hard it is to write so few words but express so much. You should try it some time.   [To follow me or anyone else on Twitter, you can sign up for Twitter and do a search – I Twitter as SantowDan – or, if you don’t want to sign up with Twitter, you can just text “follow SantowDan” to 40404.]

Today's Read & Other Stuff - Martha Stewart Living Lives!

To keep Martha Stewart (the diva) living, Martha Stewart Living (the magazine) is expanding its subject matter - with the April issue, instead of merely teaching us to frost triple-layer cakes and cut our kids' sandwiches in the shape of koala bears, we can turn to its pages for fashion, travel, and health and beauty advice. Hell, why not? I trust her (and her no-doubt-chic staff) on this stuff as much as I do anyone.

AdWeek had a piece yesterday about Trackingtwitter, a new firm that "lets consumers and marketers search brand activity on Twitter" for FREE. Owned by Electric Artists, which describes itself as a "digital brand management and strategy agency," Trackingtwitter is currently tracking Whole Foods, JetBlue, Starbucks and a few other high-profile companies, though none of them are its clients.

Today's Read & Other Stuff - Styrofoam Chickens

You know you're in big trouble when a giant craft and yarn chain refuses to sell your magazine because, as the distributor of Quilter's Home told the Washington Post, it's "too hot," even though the publication offered to wrap itself in plastic. When needled about it by the media, the mega-chain's PR folks refused to comment. "Since when did JoAnn Fabrics become the arbiter of MY morals?, noted one customer. "I'll go to church for that .... and when I want Styrofoam chickens I'll go to JoAnn's."

If newspapers die but no one's reading them anyhow, does it matter? Yes, says The New Republic's Paul Starr. "One danger of reduced news coverage is to the integrity of government," he writes. "It is not just a speculative proposition that corruption is more likely to flourish when those in power have less reason to fear exposure." Re-freakin'-lax, says Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler, life will go on. "Though it would be silly to deny the contributions of newspapers to checking abuse of power," he writes, also in TNR, "the traditional media have been far from the idealized Fourth Estate." Both articles are longish but worth slogging through.

Follow me on Twitter at SantowDan

Today's Read & Other Stuff - Lads Gone Bad

Not a good sign for men's magazines in the U.S. (or anywhere else, I suppose): After 22 years, Arena, Britain's "original style magazine - for men" is closing (well, technically, it has "taken the decision to suspend"  but, you know, ha-ha, wink-wink, we get it). Readers have apparently moved away from the "lad's magazine sector." Watch out Men's Health, Maxim, Details, GQ, Men's Exercise, Men's Journal, Men's Vogue...

The New York Times reports today that real estate agents are rethinking their use of adjectives since their ads, which once sprouted hyperbolic modifiers as often as my garden sprouts weeds, aren't working given the downturn in the market. “People are not buying emotionally or lustily," notes one broker. The one adjectives still very much appreciated, however? Reduced. 

Don't miss Salon.com's ongoing series, "The Brand Graveyard," today sitting shiva over the demise of the once-formidable Rocky Mountain News. It wasn't that the paper didn't try to save itself: "Then we learned to Twitter and Flickr, to use our cellphones to take pictures and video and to carry our computers around so we could drop and blog, wherever we were," notes the now ex-Rocky Mountain News reporter. "If there is a 'brand' that we embraced, it was embodied in the instructions that were once posted in our managing editor's office. Three simple rules, not produced by a focus group: Get the news. Tell the truth. Don't be dull. I'd like to believe we did all three." 

All over the map

It’s perfectly fine to shorten the names of cities and other regions if they have commonly accepted abbreviations. With all due respect to my former hometown, no one wants to read the words Los Angeles 16 times in a document, for example. But, if you’re going to abbreviate, do it right.   New York. This may dismay some folks, but it’s N.Y., not NY. And unless you think your readers might think you’re referring to the state of New York instead of the city, do not use N.Y.C. (Though that’s the title of a very good song from “Annie.”)     Los Angeles. Ditto – it’s L.A.   United States. It’s U.S., not USA or U.S.A. Write out United States when using it as a noun (“I live in the United States”); abbreviating it is fine when using it as an adjective (“the U.S. government”).   The United Kingdom. Comprising Great Britain – which itself comprises England, Scotland and Wales – and Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom can be abbreviated with U.K. when used as a noun or as an adjective. (The geographically challenged among us may think Ireland is part of the U.K. It’s not.)   United Arab Emirates. Forgo abbreviating altogether unless you’re quoting someone using the abbreviation, which is U.A.E.   Washington, D.C. It’s D.C., though only use it in conjunction with Washington – “Our office in Washington, D.C. concentrates on public affairs work,” not “Our office in D.C. concentrates on public affairs work.”   Since we're talking geography, it's Hong Kong, not Hongkong or HongKong!

Today's Read & Other Stuff - "the brandividual"

Two reads from today's Advertising Age: "You've got a highly visible Web 2.0 persona. You're tapped to run social media for a brand. How much of your personal social-media equity do you lend the brand -- and how much does it lend to you?" It's all about your brandividual persona - who wins, you or your company? And what risks are involved in identifying oneself so closely with one's employer?

Also: Is a search capability the key to Twitter's future?

Twice this past weekend while reading about various drug- and health-related marketing campaigns I ran across this when referring to their target audiences: G/B/MSM. I assumed the G stood for gay (I was right) and the B for black (I was wrong). I had no idea what MSM meant (mainstream media? that seemed unlikely, even if in the MSM that's what it stands for). Looking it up, I found it stood for Gay/Bisexual/Men who have sex with other men. I get the gay part, I get the bisexual part. But "men who have sex with other men"? Is this a weird way of referring to men who have sex with other men but don't identify themselves as gay or bisexual? And if so, why do we feel we need a word or way of referring to these people so specifically? Do we reach them through the media and other sources differently? And if so, how? This really confounds me.

Today's Read & Other Stuff - Sandwich Meat

Something – advertising? blogging? cold cuts? – jumped the shark this week when the 30-point headline in a full-page ad for packaged meat (that I saw in Newsweek) trumpeted: “Blogworthy.” It’s one thing for bloggers to write about chicken and roast beef and even, if they choose, liverwurst, but it’s quite another for chicken, roast beef and liverwurst purveyors to tell us their product is “blogworthy.  

In case you missed it, from Friday's New York Times, this story about Twittering media folks who "will send Twitter messages until the last follower falls into a coma," calling Twiiter "yet another gateway drug to full-blown media narcissism"