My thoughts on a list of banished words.
CBC Quirks and Quirks did an interesting episode on “so”. Turns out it was used mainly by experts when answering questions from laymen. The implication was the expert was pivoting to answer a question that was naively reductive or malformed. Cf. the mu answer.
Now when I hear “so” used to begin an answer it causes me to stop and reflect on the question.
I suspect this is a superficial but ultimately positive response to the Cluetrain Manifesto‘s dictum that “markets are conversations”. Baby steps.
Understatement commonly used when one needs to point out, discretely, the idiocy of the HPPO (highest paid person’s opinion).
The article says “A word that has expanded from describing someone who may actually have a stake in a situation or problem, now being over-used in business to describe customers and others.”. (emphasis added)
On what planet is the customer NOT a stakeholder? The customer is integral to any market transaction. The customer is not a disposable non-entity. See Cluetrain Manifesto above.
“Another example of using two words when one will do.”
No. It may be misused that way by salesdroids but it really means something. It is a meta-reference to price.
$89.13 is a price.
$145 is a price.
$100 could be a price but is more likely a price point, a psychological reference point with outsized importance. Related: why do we care about the 4 minute mile? Is it fundamentally different than the 3:59 mile, the 4:01 mile, or the 2:48 kilometer?
I don’t take issue with the other words on the list.