Archive

No, this isn’t a post about a poor taste 70s sitcom, but rather a watch out for website URLs which may do you more harm than good!

You’ve spent time and money, toil and trouble on your new website and catchy URL, of which you are justifiably proud. But before you publish, take a minute to just check that your URL (website address) won’t inadvertently bring a whole different type of customer to your site.

Aside from choosing a unique name for your URL (hard enough considering there are over one hundred million already registered), it needs to be snappy and memorable.

But what looks snappy and memorable to you, immersed in your site and in your project, might not look quite so enticing to someone else in the cold light of day. If you’re going international the risks can be even greater, as a nice snappy URL in English might mean something completely different in a foreign language.

Andy Geldman, a self-employed computer programmer, has a whole website (well, Facebook group) and book devoted to ’slurls’ – domain names innocently chosen by serious businesses but with amusing consequences.

Here’s a taster (these websites have now been re-named as we presume the faux pas was brought to their attention):

www.scentofart.com – design service offering everything from web design to custom car paint

www.arsecommerce.com – ARS e-commerce is an internet marketing agency with offices in 3 US states.

www.ipanywhere.com – a software service for accessing your computer remotely

So, think carefully for your next website or you could be in the next edition of Geldman’s book.

The New Year has got off to a good start with another client win from the legal services sector.

We’re working with barristers’ set Henderson Chambers to write a new suite of practice brochures. We were recommended to Hendersons by London design agency Soukias Jones Design, who we’ve worked with on a number of previous professional services  projects, including work for Baker & McKenzie, Ince & Co and JP Morgan.

They obviously like what we do – and so do Hendersons. So thanks again guys!

photo credit: Steve Punter

We came across this fantastic website about English grammar recently: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/home.htm

It’s been developed by University College London, but appears to be open to everyone (at least it was when we wrote this). If you need to brush up on the active and passive voice, remind yourself when to use capitals or learn more about the difference between the subject and object of a sentence, check it out. 

It is firmly on our Bookmarks list.

Nominalisation is one of our pet hates. It’s also one of the commonest ways in which writing falls down – which is why we bang on about it so much.
 
Nominalisation means turning a verb into a noun. So instead of using a construction with ‘to terminate’, you use ‘the termination of’; instead of ‘to discuss’, you use ‘discussion’; instead of ‘to negotiate’, you get ‘the negotiation of’, or instead of ‘to implement’, you end up with ‘the implementation of’.
 
e.g.

1. We proceeded to the implementation of the project.
2. We had a discussion about the proposals
3. We worked with stakeholders on the negotiation of the new contract.

The problem with nominalisation is that is removes the action from the sentence (verbs, after all, are doing words) and replaces it with something static (a noun), which makes for writing that risks being bland, vague and dull.
 
So try and hold on to your verbs:

1. We implemented the project.
2. We discussed the proposals.
3. We worked with stakeholders to negotiate a new contract.

It makes for livelier, more engaging and more ‘human’  writing.