When words show our attitude | Kerstin Sturm | TEDxTuebingen

Kerstin Sturm talks about ...

Copywriter and lecturer. Has worked as a freelance copywriter for the past 12 years and since 2011 has been passing on her knowledge to various companies. The characteristic rhetoric and writing style used by different brands is at the centre of her work, where creativity techniques, coaching tools, and writing techniques are involved. www.kerstinsturm.de

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx

Today, my topic is the sister of rhetoric,

that is, the written word.

Who then among you believes

that you can tell by looking
at a text, like an e-mail or a letter,

whether it was written
by a man or a woman?

Who believes that?

Ah, there is a large number of you.

And who does not believe that?

- Ah, thank you for the light -
Ah, a little fewer.

And who would not like to express
an opinion on this question?

Ah, there's also a few doubters.

Most people believe that you can tell,

you can tell whether a text
was written by a woman or a man.

And, in fact, it is true.

Women use, for example,
more personal pronouns than men.

This is interesting
for criminal psychology

and, today, also for us,
since it is my topic.

It's about the fact that, in our writing,
we reveal very much more about ourselves

than we are aware of.

"Attitude" was a term also used today
by Christian Müller as a keyword.

Within ourselves, we read
between the lines.

It's clear to us that we have
within us a relationship aspect,

to which we also give a lot of space.

But what about professionally,
when writing is our job,

or when reading, or in our everyday lives?

Then it's usually the case that we think
that we only work on a factual level.

We try to dismiss the relationship aspect.

The greatest category
there is of this is nominal style.

When I began sharing
my knowledge with companies,

I dealt with people
who spoke quite normally.

But they were the very gods
of correct officialese.

So, I went in and said,

"You must write like you speak,
for it then becomes more personal."

At which, one of them
grabbed an e-mail and said,

"We write with reference to
your communication of June 17th

regarding the event of May 15th",

looked at me and said,

"But we already do that."

(Laughter)

Then, it became clear to me
that before we can learn new rules,

rules like short sentences, action words,
really important rules,

before we learn them,
we must first let go of the old ones.

In a culture like ours, where we learn
to hold onto things tightly,

letting go is a true challenge.

"Holding on" is also embedded
in our "attitude".

We hold on tightly to our attitude.

And the writer's attitude is just as much
information that becomes embedded in texts

as information as to whether
a woman or a man wrote them.

Of what is our attitude constituted?

In quite large part, the view
that we have of mankind.

We take it with us wherever we go.

Jim Henson was an exceptionally
gifted observer of people

and also the creator of the Muppets.

I have borrowed his characters today

in order to vividly illustrate
a model from psychology,

or rather, since,
owing to copyright reasons,

I cannot show the original figures,

I have sketched them, and I hope
that you will recognize them,

but I will also say something about each.

The model is from Thomas Harris
and is called: I'm OK, You're OK.

A title not written
by an advertising copywriter

but the model is really great.

According to Harris, people can be
divided into four categories,

Thus, there are four life positions
that make up our attitude.

The first one is: "I'm not OK."

That is, by the way, Beaker,
the suffer-all guinea pig of the Muppets.

"I'm not OK, and the rest
are also not OK."

That is a life position that is truly sad

since depression is woven into its fabric.

Depression, or whoever does not
become depressed becomes a cynic.

Like the grandpas in the theatre box.

The second life position,
we all know it, says:

"I'm not OK, but the others are OK."

People who have this life position

are incredibly generous
and big-hearted towards others.

When others slip up,

they say, "Nothing too bad.
He's really such a nice guy."

But when they themselves slip up,

then they torment themselves,

can't sleep, and think:
"Oh God, how embarrassing!"

That is symptomatic of this life position.

Fozzie Bear, for example,
has this combination.

Fozzie Bear is slightly submissive,

is a comedian

who saves himself from embarrassing
situations with bad jokes.

I don't know if you are
familiar with it - I am.

The next life position,
the third according to Harris, says:

"I'm OK, the others are not."

This is also rather widespread.

These are people who say:

"I'm right, and you make
life difficult for me."

From that, you can clearly
recognize this life position.

An example of this is
the mother of all divas, Miss Piggy.

And the fourth life position,
and the one to aspire to,

the one that is the stuff of happiness,

it says: "I'm OK, and you're OK."

This does not mean "fantastic".

"Okay" does not mean "super",
or that one must be friends with everyone.

"Okay" means "acceptance":
I accept myself, and I accept you.

People who have this life position

do not let themselves
get easily worked up.

Our attitude is naturally composed of
more than just our life position.

We have our ideas and beliefs.

We have experiences.

We have fears, we have wishes.

All of that together
makes up our attitude.

And our attitude is something
we seldom carry in our heads;

rather almost always in our hearts.

That is the reason why
this information, our attitude,

also seeps unconsciously into our writing.

It is understood by others
even when it is not analysed.

Professionally and in daily life,
as I said earlier,

we pay little attention to
this relationship aspect.

We might, let's say, get a letter
from our medical insurer

with undertones of irritation,

just when we are preparing
to give a TEDx Talk for Tübingen.

A circumstance in which such a letter
can end up in front of a public audience.

"Dear Mrs Sturm,

Do you perhaps remember?

We have asked you twice
in the past few weeks to help us.

Both letters were in regard
to your checking over

the free family insurance cover
for your members.

We are legally obligated
to assure ourselves that you do that.

Unfortunately, we are still at this time
without the completed questionnaire."

Now, imagine the Muppets
were to receive a job offer

from Novitas, the company health insurer.

Fozzie Bear, you remember,
the slightly submissive comedian,

gets the task of rewriting this letter.

It might then read:

"Hello Mrs Sturm,

We fully understand
that you may have been so busy

that our last two letters
escaped your attention.

Unfortunately, we are obliged by law

to check information regarding
your family insurance every year.

In truth, we would also much prefer
to do something better with our time.

Please understand, therefore,
we feel the problem equally."

(Laughter)

Now, I have two more
variations from the Muppets,

and I invite you to guess
who probably wrote each one.

First version: "Mrs Sturm,

We have already
written to you twice before,

and still not receive a reply from you.

Had you been unwell, we would have known.

(Laughter)

So, no excuses.

We await your reply together with
a box of chocolates in expiation

to arrive no later than
within 14 days time."

Yes! Miss Piggy. Exactly.

The next letter.

Now it's got really difficult,
this is a truly difficult one.

"Mrs Sturm,

Either you provide us with a reply,

or your family members
will cease to be covered.

Something posed as a question
is thought to sound more friendly.

So, what do you think,
which of us is in the better position?"

(Laughter)

Who could that be?

Exactly, the two grandpas.

Now, of course, opposite the writer,
there stands always the reader.

The reader has an equally complex
attitude make-up

that he too carries within him.

I would like to look at one aspect here,

that, in advertising,
is the sacred cow, the sacred cash cow,

which is the image
the target audience has of itself.

In advertising, we speak of
target audiences,

not of readers or those addressed.

This always means: You must know
who your target audience is.

True and vitally important,

but what is still more important is:

You must know who your target
audience would like to be,

since advertising is always a compliment
to the target audience's self-image.

Politics, by the way,
functions in exactly the same way.

But we'll stay professionally with text,
copywriters deal, of course, with text,

and I have brought with me
some examples for you

on complimenting the self-image.

"The best Bolognese of all time" - Knorr.

Knorr also had at one time
the slogan: "Eat like in Italy".

"Wake the tiger in you" - Kellogg's.

"Buy clothes the smart way" - KiK.

"Have you decided
never to become fat?" - Lätta.

"For hard men" - Puschkin.

Clear enough, right?

Now, you can naturally think

that the target audiences of these brands
do not listen to such talk.

But believe me, it works
for every target audience.

"Simply pay with your good name"
- American Express.

"No fear of the truth" - Der Spiegel.

"You only live once" - Aston Martin.

"Always a smart mind behind it"
- Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

Texts are, therefore,
influenced by the writer's attitude,

and, ideally, they appeal to
the target audience's aspirations.

What does that mean for companies?

Company values should
stand between the lines.

The company's attitude
should be reflected in the lines.

Each company has
its own distinctive images,

its own distinctive colours,
its own distinctive typography,

but what about a distinctive language?

Between the lines is often to be found
the attitude of the individual employee,

or the people from
the advertising agencies,

or from the PR agencies.

It's a pity that while language
has a very strong recognition factor,

it is often disregarded.

This means:

Companies must make
their values so transparent

that they are palpable to others.

So, not just in the manuals,
but made truly palpable,

so that anyone writing company literature
can take on the company persona.

Only in this way can they write
according to corporate identity.

The greatest challenge is,
in fact, once again, letting go.

For individuals, this means that we,
in the course of our lives,

collect a whole treasure chest of values,

and it's worthwhile, every now and again,

to take these values out and consider:

Is this one still valid,

or is this value past its sell-by date?

The whole chest, the values
that we have inside it, our attitude,

do they still belong together,

or should we have a clear out?

Ultimately, it's the case,

that the more positive
this treasure chest is

that we carry around with us,

the more positive will be
the tone we weave into the lines we write.

I would like to end with a quotation
from Thomas Carlyle.

He in fact already knew it 200 years ago.

"It is the heart always
that sees, before the head can see."

Thank you very much for listening.

(Applause)