Business Euphemisms Fail to Serve Readers

One of the biggest problems in business journalism is that all too often, we forget how to use the English language. Many of us who speak clear, coherent English in our private lives start spewing gibberish and jargon when we compose articles or scripts or columns.

We're adopting the language of our sources, who want to sugarcoat unpleasant things like investors losing money, corporations being taken over and people getting fired. But sugarcoating isn't our job. Telling our audience the truth is.

So take out the euphemistic trash, please, and use English. I'm fortunate to have been a recovering English major with no business vocabulary when I started writing business stories 35 years ago in Charlotte, N.C. So I never wrote in Bizspeak, because I didn't understand it. I managed to get people to translate it for me until I learned enough to translate it for myself.

Now, after all these years, I'm fluent in Bizspeak, which has its uses, like any foreign language does. But I try?as you should?to keep it out of my copy. We are, after all, writing for our audience, not for our sources. Simple, straightforward English trumps indirect, euphemistic English. Or it should.

So in my copy, a company doesn't "seek protection under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy act." It "files for bankruptcy," no matter how upset some libel lawyers get with me.

In Sloanland, there are no "definitive agreements." There are "deals." There are no "high-yield" bonds, unless I'm quoting a person or a document; instead, there are "junk bonds."

Now, I'd like to give you a tour of some of my other least-favorite business euphemisms, and see if I can get you to stop using them. Unless, as I've said, you're quoting someone and have no choice. Even then, you can try to get your sources to speak in what I call "quotebites": sentences that actually say something and can be understood by people who don't have business degrees.

We'll start with Wall Street, where every day's a good day for people to be buying. Or selling. Or doing whatever makes money for Wall Street professionals, regardless of whether investors are coming out ahead or behind.

On Wall Street, investors don't sell stock, they "take profits." Hence the hideous term, "profit-taking." Hello? How does anyone know if sellers are coming out ahead or behind? Beats me. But "profit-taking" sounds so much nicer than "selling." Or, God forbid, "cutting their losses" or "taking their money and running."

Then there's what happens when stock prices go down and stay down for awhile. Is that a "decline" or a "fall?" Heavens no. It's a "correction."

When the Dow drops from 11,000 to 8,500, stocks are "correcting," not "plummeting." Hello, again. If 8,500 is a "correct" price level, was an 11,000 Dow a "mistake"? Have you ever heard a price rise called a mistake? If you ever do, please let me know. We'll put the source in bronze, and preserve him, her or it for all time.

Then there are corporate euphemisms, the worst of which is "merger." A $10 billion corporation buys a $500 million corporation, closes the smaller company's headquarters and fires most of its people. This isn't a "merger," fans. A "merger" is a combination of equals or something close to equals. The deal I'm describing is a takeover. Or, if you're writing from the point of view of the acquired company and its owners, it's a sale.

Calling sales "mergers" lets sellers keep their pride. "Merging" sounds much better at the country club than "being taken over." The only reason business journalists use "merger" rather than "sale" is that our sources use it. But think. Takeover types say they're in the M&A?for "mergers and acquisitions"?business. Do you see the word "sale" anywhere in that job description? Nope. Because, I guess, everyone either merges or acquires?but no one ever sells.

Then there are the things that happen to people who work for companies that are bought or sold or move facilities overseas or just decide to employ fewer people.

There's "downsizing," which means "reducing the size of the workforce." Or, if you prefer English, "cutting jobs." Or better, "firing people." Then there's "downsizing"'s close relative, "right-sizing." Right for whom? Certainly not for the people getting fired. Oh, excuse me, "laid off."

And please don't use "reduction in force." We're not talking about physics, we're talking business.

Then there's the newest wrinkle, used for the first time (as best I can tell) in the Jan. 28 news release describing Procter & Gamble's $50 billion-plus "merger with"?oops, takeover of?Gillette.

The release says P&G anticipates 6,000 "enrollment reductions" at the combined companies. You've got to love it. Enrollment reductions? Are we dealing with educational institutions or with corporations? Are these people being fired, or are they dropping out of school after their sophomore year?

Enough, already. Go to it. Excise euphemisms, embrace English. Your audience will be better served. And you'll be a better journalist.