An astute letter to the editor led me to go back and read a Feb. 9 San Francisco Chronicle article featuring this choice quote from a UC Berkeley spokesman: “We sacrificed clarity and detail for the sake of brevity.”
When I stopped laughing, it occurred to me that the problem is far more widespread than the university’s statements about a controversial personnel matter. Companies making green and sustainability claims—and even advocacy organizations pushing policies—are often guilty of the same communications crime. And consumers and watchdogs are increasingly seeing through it: four out of five scoring criteria for the Greenwashing Index relate to lack of clarity or detail with intent to mislead.
Where there is intent to mislead, the malefactors deserve our derision. The sad thing is, often there is no such intent—just a poor understanding of what makes communications credible. Organizations may mistakenly assume that everyone knows the background, so they can use shorthand. They may be so sold on the excellence of their product or program that they fail to realize that others need proof points. They may lack clarity themselves on the foundation for their claims. They may believe the false notion that slogans are sufficient to persuade. But whatever the real reason behind their communications vagueness, they’ll be perceived as misleaders.
The upshot: never sacrifice clarity or essential details for anything.
