I’ve been unable to shake my dumbfounded reaction to this ad headline: “Sustainability is our standard for measuring CO2 reduction.”

Huh?

The half-page, full-color ad in the New York Times gets even better: “One Canon energy-saving technology has reduced CO2 emissions by an estimated 8.4 million tons, enough to melt more than 13 million cubic meters of ice.” (There’s a big photo of a glacier in Patagonia.)

Leaving aside the nonsensical writing (How can sustainability be a standard? How does reducing emissions melt ice, and why would you want to?), this ad points up two key sins of greenwashing.

The first is a lack of relevant information. Emissions reductions (or any measure, for that matter) need context to be meaningful and credible. How do the reductions compare to Canon’s overall emissions? What is the per-unit reduction as a percentage? Also, Canon says their emissions reductions are increasing every year, but that could be because Canon is producing more machines, and so has more emissions to reduce.

The second sin combines obfuscation with drawing a picture of cause-and-effect where none quite exists—Canon implies that its CO2 emissions reductions have (or could have) saved 13 million cubic meters of glacier. Most people are confused enough about the mechanics of climate change and its effects without corporate marketers adding to their puzzlement.

“Recent polls in the United States and Britain show that the public remains substantially divided and confused over what is happening and what to do,” writes Times reporter Andrew Revkin in today’s Dot Earth post. He notes that experts on the media and risk believe this may lead to “public disengagement with the climate issue, just as experts as saying ever more forcefully that sustained attention and action are needed to limit the worst risks.”

Canon’s advertisement isn’t only contributing to “green noise,” it’s also hiding the company’s legitimate claims. And that’s too bad: a visit to their website revealed (with much investigation) that Canon has made progress in a number of areas.

Using a human voice (rather than an institutional one) is among the surest ways to stand out from the crowd, deliver a fresh-sounding message, and enhance your credibility. And that voice—personable, direct, empathetic—comes naturally to most of us; it’s the way we converse. So why don’t more organizations use it?

Robospeak Rules
For many organizations, the chief impediment to using a human voice is that they’re trying not to, for one or more of these reasons:

They believe that complex prose laden with buzzwords makes them sound credible. But that’s rarely the case, and it’s never true when communicating with nonexperts, who simply won’t understand the point of the communication.

They think using the same marketingspeak everyone else is using makes them sound cutting edge. But it really makes them sound like the same old, same old.

They worry that if they veer from the generic voice of their field, someone will find something objectionable in it. That’s probably true, but savvy organizations don’t market to everyone, and if a human voice is properly targeted, the humans meant to hear it will respond.

They fear that if they make direct statements, they’ll be held responsible. This is a sign that the organization can’t deliver on its marketing promises. When a direct statement makes them feel uncomfortable, organizations that care about credibility ratchet back the claim; they don’t rewrite for plausible deniability.

Finding a Human Voice
Communications that sound like a human wrote them tend to have one or more of these characteristics:

They are written by a human, as opposed to a committee of humans. Writing by committee is almost always lifeless. The more people you allow to change copy based on how they would write it, the more bland (or muddled) it becomes.

They are written for specific humans: A human voice is person to person, not person to general category. Show your audience that you know them—speak to their concerns and interests. And don’t be afraid to use you.

Humor: This is a challenge to do well, but if you have—or can hire—a writer who is genuinely witty, people will love you for it. See Daily Grist (www.grist.org) for a great example of serious issues treated with a sense of humor.

Everyday language: You don’t have to limit yourself to a Dick-and-Jane vocabulary, but pasting chunks of technical documents or reports into external communications is no way to engage outsiders. Again, think of your audience—if you were actually talking to someone in your target audience, how would you express the concept?

Keep these characteristics in mind when you plan and review content for your Web site or other communications, and you’ll be on your way to connecting with your target audience. First published in the January 2008 Words That Work.