Anyone who has taken a media class has undoubtedly read about George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” routine (commonly known as the “seven dirty words”) that led to the establishment of indecency regulation in American broadcasting by the FCC and the Supreme Court.
Those few words caused a lot of controversy.
Less, ahem, colorful words can cause a stir as well. An article this week by Andy Beaupre on PR Daily laid out seven reasons why the terms “pitch” and “pitching” should be retired. His thoughts on using those two words:
- It doesn’t accurately portray the relationship between PR practitioners and media.
- It takes our profession back to a time (either real or imagined) when authenticity and transparency weren’t the norms.
- It makes us sound dated – “old school” and “pre-social media.”
- It reflects a one-way communication in which we push an idea onto someone.
- It assumes the individual you’re “pitching” is familiar with or interested in your product or story.
- It perpetuates a negative stereotype of pushy, aggressive PR people.
- It doesn’t help build genuine relationships in which conversation is shared.
The thought hadn’t occurred to me those words could be a detriment to our profession. One part of me wants to say, “It’s just a few words!” but, then again, we all know a few words is all it takes to get yourself in trouble. I think Mr. Beaupre makes some viable arguments; public relations practitioners are (or should be) known for staying current and evolving with the times, so it seems our terminology would do the same.
On a related note, the article hearkened back to a moment a few weeks ago when I was looking through HARO queries, when I realized some people take words a bit too lightly. A writer looking for a source started his request by specifically addressing “PR flacks.” What was confusing to me was the way he used it; he said something along the lines of, “PR flacks: If you have a client that fits, please send a short bio…” He basically used that cringe-worthy term to address an entire industry, and I’m still not entirely sure if he knew the emotion he was evoking by using it.
Coupled with the PR Daily article, this got me thinking about other terms that should be retired from our industry, whether they’re words we ourselves overuse or ones that misrepresent the work we do. Business Insider recently posted a list of “The 23 Most Overused Words in PR” – “leading,” “solution,” and “best” topped the list of buzzwords – and terms like “spin,” “spin doctor,” and “publicist” come to mind when I think about PR stereotypes.
In a profession in which we choose our words wisely, where pieces of writing are edited over and over until they are just so, does it seem like sometimes the opposite is true?
What are the words or phrases you think should be retired?