Tag Archives: marketing

Let’s Not Blamestorm

I’m tired of business buzzwords. Both reading them and writing them.

Why is it that no matter what your product does – seriously, it could be a toaster – it’s got to be powerful, flexible, cutting-edge, scalable, robust, easy to use, easy to deploy, easy to manage, AND seamlessly integrates to something (your countertop space)? Oddly, all products are apparently equal because each one will claim to be best of breed (or best in class).

No matter what the truth is, every company is a market leader that somehow raises the bar for operational excellence. Huh?

Every company and/or every product must leverage something. Ignore the fact that leverage is a noun, not a verb. In marketing jargon, it’s a synonym for “uses.”

The most important thing is that every company leverage its core competencies. Translation: do what it’s good at. Brilliant.

The number one reason companies have a RIF (reduction in force, a.k.a. layoff) is because they had a strategic re-alignment. That’s just a stupid way to say that their priorities changed, and whatever you work on is no longer a priority. Sucks to be you. The good news is that you weren’t fired or “let go” — you were “involved” in a RIF.

If a company obtains or produces a product or service from within its national borders it’s called on-shoring. If it’s from a different company, it’s outsourcing. If it’s from the same company or one of its affiliates, it’s in-sourcing. Now, if it comes from another country, it’s off-shoring. But if it’s from a nearby country, it’s near-shoring. So if it’s from a nearby country but supplied by another company, it’s…yeah, whatever.

Employees aren’t “hired” – they’re brought onboard, in a “process” logically coined onboarding. When they leave, is that called offboarding? No, of course not.

Employees aren’t “assigned” things to do – they take ownership of the process. But if everyone owns it, who actually does it?