Communications expert Philip Yaffe shares his secret for communicating persuasively.

For most educated persons, Murphy’s Law is the fundamental law of the universe, even more important than birth, death and gravity.

In its purest form, Murphy’s Law says: Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. There is an important but often neglected corollary: Many things that can't go wrong will go wrong anyhow.

I am now pleased to report a loophole. In at least one important area of human activity -expository (non-fiction) writing and public speaking - Murphy’s Law does not have total coverage. This is because it can be counteracted, at least partially, by a rival principle that I recently discovered, and immodestly call Yaffe’s Law.

Yaffe’s Law states: If you give people what they want first, they are likely to accept anything else you want them to have. If you give them what you want first, chances are they won’t accept anything at all.

In short, in a text or a speech, if you quickly and securely engage the audience’s interest, any significant missteps later on will be muted, if not completely counteracted.

There is, of course, nothing new in this idea. It is just another way of saying that for best effect, you should write or speak starting from your audience’s point of view. Nevertheless, Yaffe’s Law is revolutionary because its new formulation focuses attention on this fundamental principle of persuasive communication as never before.

Applying the principle implies that you know the audience’s point of view. If you are inclined to think that this is virtually impossible because a point of view can change so very much from subject to subject and audience to audience, you would be making a serious mistake.

In most cases, readers or listeners share a single overriding concern: Will this text or presentation sufficiently reflect my interests and apprehensions that I should pay any attention to it? They want this question answered virtually instantaneously; otherwise they will stop reading or stop listening.

Therefore, your first job, even before deciding what you want to say, is to determine what your audience wants to hear. In other words, give them what they want first, i.e. a positive answer to this universal question. If you then continue positively answering it, your audience will follow you almost anywhere.

Here are a couple of examples to demonstrate how the idea works.

Below, the “Original” shows a text as it might have been written without Yaffe’s Law. The “Revision” shows how it actually was written with Yaffe’s Law.

A piece of electronic equipment installed in automobiles could allow insurance companies to monitor the driving behavior of their customers.

Each time a motorist uses the car; the device will record the roads being traveled and the time of the journey, and send the information via satellite to the insurance company.

With this data, the company will be able to calculate the insurance premium for each individual journey based on the relative risk of crashes on the different roads at different times of the day. The motorist will receive a monthly or quarterly “usage statement,” similar to a telephone bill, itemizing the insurance cost for each use of the car.

By agreeing to the system, motorists could save hundreds of dollars on their automobile insurance.

Because of the lower risk of crashes, trips on superhighways will cost less per kilometer than on city roads, while trips on country roads will also cost less per kilometer than on city roads because.... (the text continues)

Motorists could save hundreds of dollars on their automobile insurance by allowing their driving habits to be monitored by a satellite-tracking device installed in the vehicle.

Each time a motorist uses the car; the device will record the roads being traveled and the time of the journey, and send the information to the insurance company.

The company will then calculate the insurance premium based on an assessment of the relative risk of crashes on the different roads at different times of the day. Motorists will receive a monthly or quarterly “usage statement,” similar to a telephone bill, giving the insurance cost for each journey.

Because of the lower risk of crashes, trips on superhighways will cost less per kilometer than on city roads, while trips on country roads will also cost less per kilometer than on city roads because . . . . (the text continues)

The “Original” was clearly written from the point of view of the insurance industry. However, simply moving the fourth paragraph of the "Original" to the first paragraph of the “Revision” charges everything. Who wouldn’t want to know how to save hundreds of dollars on their automobile insurance?

By giving the readers what they want first, a text that might have been of interest only to “techno-nerds” suddenly becomes interesting to virtually everyone. Moreover, even if the rest of the text is not superbly written, people will probably continue reading anyhow, because it is in their interest to do so.

With regard to Yaffe’s Law, the written word and the spoken word are exactly the same. Nevertheless, speaking allows use of techniques that simply would not work on the printed page.

The following speech was delivered on the subject of integrity in politics. Once again, the “Original” shows how it might have been written without Yaffe’s Law. The “Revision” shows how it actually was written with Yaffe’s Law.

I want to talk to you this evening about a man I admire very much. His name is Julius Nyerere and he was the first president of Tanzania after it gained independence from Britain in 1961.

Julius Nyerere was born in 1922 in Butiama, a small village in what was then Tanganyika. He was the son of Nyerere Burito, a Zanaki tribal chief. At that time schools in Tanganyika were in very short supply. Julius began attending Government Primary School at the age of 12, which he completed in three years instead of the standard four. He did equally well in secondary school and won a scholarship to Makerere University in Uganda, then the only university in all of East Africa.

When he returned to Tanganyika, he worked for three years as a secondary school teacher of biology and English before winning a scholarship to attend the University of Edinburgh, where he obtained a Master of Arts Degree in history and economics. This is also where he began developing the ideas and tactics that ultimately helped him lead Tanganyika to independence from Britain and become the country’s first president.

Unlike many other independence movements, Nyerere achieved independence without a single drop of blood being shed. (The speech continues)

We live in a cynical world where the values of truth, honesty and integrity seem to be in short supply. We are therefore always looking for examples of such values in action, especially with regard to politicians.

I would like to offer you such an example from Africa. You have probably never heard of this man, but for me he stands as a true model of integrity. Can you guess who he might be? (Speaker pauses a few moments). No, it is not Nelson Mandela, as I imagine many of you were thinking. However, I am certain Mr. Mandela would be more than pleased to be considered in the same light as this person.

His name is Julius Nyerere. Julius Nyerere was the man who led then Tanganyika, today called Tanzania, to independence from Britain in 1961. Unlike many other independence movements, this one succeeded without a single drop of blood being shed.

I had the privilege of living two years in Tanzania shortly after independence. Being a city boy, for me Tanzania was quite a revelation. I virtually lived in a mud hut, suffered through a drought, saw leprosy, and experienced both malaria and dysentery. All of these things affected me. But getting to know Julius Nyerere as a political leader was truly a life-changing experience.

When Nyerere became head of state, he was so popular that he could easily have taken on the trappings of a king or potentate. But he did exactly the opposite. He chose to live very modestly, because that was his nature.

More importantly, he inspired confidence in everyone, and never betrayed that confidence, because that also was his nature. He, of course, had political enemies, but they were critical of certain of his ideas and policies—never the man. The worst I ever heard anyone say about him was, “President Nyerere is doing all the wrong things for all the right reasons.” (The speech continues)

At this point the speaker could insert all the information about Nyerere’s background and education, which seemed so tedious in the “Original”. Why? Because instead of tedious, the audience would now find it instructive and integral to understanding the man in whom their interest has been effectively ignited.

So does Yaffe’s Law pardon poor writing and poor speaking? Absolutely not!

Poor writing is still poor writing, and poor speaking is still poor speaking, so you must constantly be alert not to fall into bad habits.

On the other hand, by strongly focusing your attention on giving the audience what they want first, when you start giving them what you want, it will be in a context that appeals to their most basic instincts. This, of course, is what persuasive communication is really all about.

Communications expert, Philip Yaffe, explains how anyone can improve their ability to write.

Over the past 40-plus years as a journalist and marketing communication consultant, I have frequently been told that I am an exceptionally good writer by teachers, friends, colleagues, and clients. But I wasn't always a good writer; in fact, I used to be a very bad one.

So what happened to bring about this monumental change? Basically, university.

When I was growing up in Los Angeles, I was a very unusual kid. Like all youngsters in the 1950s, I loved surfing. But I also loved school more, even to the point of complaining about holidays because I would be deprived of the joy of going to class.

I was especially fond of Math and Science; I never really thought about writing. However, when I went from primary to secondary school, I quickly realized that writing would become increasingly important. So being the bizarre kid I was, I decided to teach myself how to do it.

I did two basic things. On my own, I studied English grammar to the point that I knew it backwards, forwards, and upside down. I could put together the most involved, convoluted, grammatically flawless sentences imaginable. I also studied vocabulary. Classically, I challenged myself to learn—and use—five new words a day. I very rapidly gained a vocabulary far above the norm for my age.

I then put the two things together and decided that the essence of good writing was intricate sentences liberally sprinkled with sophisticated vocabulary. This was how I wrote themes, essays, book reports, etc. As I expected, I always got top marks.

During my last year in secondary school, I submitted one of these arcane masterpieces, which came back with the traditional "A". However, this time there was a note saying: "Philip, you have such interesting, original ideas. Why do you bury them under such complex, convoluted language? Next year when you go to university, I suggest that you take a one-term course in basic journalism to learn how to simplify your writing."

I had no particular interest in journalism, or even in writing. However I did have particular respect for this teacher, so I decided to follow his advice. At university I enrolled in a first-term journalism class.

This was when everything changed.

At the end of the second week, the professor assigned us a short article to write. I confidently handed it in. But when it came back, instead of the traditional "A" grade, it had a "C". I was severely shaken; this was the first "C" I had ever seen. I worked rather harder on the second assignment, which also came back with a "C".

I told myself that this just didn't make any sense, so for the third assignment I put my heart and soul into the work. This time it did not come back with a "C". It came back with a "D".

Now I was really shaken, and scared. I began actually listening to what the professor was saying. Finally I realized that writing clearly and concisely was much more difficult than the so-called "sophisticated" writing I had been doing.

Recognizing "simple" writing to be a challenge, I really concentrated on what I was doing, and my grades started to rise. Not just in journalism. Even better, I began getting complimentary notes from professors in other classes on how much they appreciated my new, crisp, clean writing style. In other words, what I was learning as basic journalism was generating positive results in my other academic pursuits.

For example, in a political science class I once turned in an essay that I knew went directly counter to the professor's opinion. In an English literature class I turned in a review of one of the professor's favorite books, which I trashed. In both cases the reaction was the same. I got an "A". While neither professor was totally convinced, they both said that I had presented my arguments in such a clear, compelling manner, they simply couldn't be dismissed.

Having discovered journalism, I subsequently joined the student newspaper, rose through the ranks, and in my final year became editor-in-chief. I also began tutoring in writing. In the mid-1960s, universities didn't have writing centers to help foundering students. About the only way to resolve writing problems was through private tutoring.

I remember one case in particular. A girl came to me with a note from a professor: "Young lady, I advise you either to drop my class immediately or prepare to fail it." Obviously she was bright enough; after all she was a student at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles). So where was the problem? I read a couple of her essays that had gotten such poor marks. There was no question that she had a lot of interesting things to say. Equally, there was no question that she was saying them very poorly.

It very quickly became apparent where the problem lay. She simply was not fully using one of the fundamental principles of good writing because she thought that consistently applying it was just too much trouble. It took a couple of sessions to convince her that it wasn't too much trouble—in fact it was crucial. Her writing immediately began to improve. At the end of the term not only didn't she fail the class, she had pulled her grade all the way up from a certain "F" to a solid "B".

I am not saying that to be a good writer in general, you should study journalism first. However, because it was the antithesis of the poor writing I had been doing, journalism gave me a flying start. Over the past four decades I think I have added some insights into good writing (and speaking) that I didn't learn from journalism. Or at least I have made explicit certain key ideas which previously were implicit, and therefore poorly applied.

Today, as when I was a student, my passion is still Mathematics and Science. My career path has taken me in a somewhat different direction. But I don't regret it; it's been quite a journey.

The moral of the story? There are in fact two of them:

Have you been trying to drum up publicity for your business with no success? Recommending that you stop writing press releases and start writing news releases is not a play on words, but sound advice, says communications expert Philip Yaffe.

In common parlance, "press release" and "news release" mean the same thing. However, the terminology people use often betrays a fundamental difference in how they put this information together and how well it is accepted by the media.

Early in my career, I was editor of a daily newspaper and later a writer with The Wall Street Journal. One of my jobs was to screen submissions to decide which ones we would print and which ones we would throw away.

Approximately 80 – 85% of submissions failed the first screening; a life or death decision usually made within 60 seconds or less. On the other hand, the vast majority of those that survived this first screening also survived the second one and were ultimately published.

What made the difference? Basically, it was in how the author of the document viewed the material being submitted.

.

In both cases, the submitter had something to gain if we published the release, i.e. positive publicity. However, in the first case, the focus was on only how the submitter would benefit from publication. In the second, it was on both how the submitter and our readers would benefit.

If all this sounds a bit theoretical, here is an example to make it more concrete.

After leaving The Wall Street Journal, I was an account executive with a major international press relations agency. One of my subordinates presented me with a typically self-serving press release he wanted to distribute on behalf of his client.

The headline was something like: Egotistical Industries gains major new contract. The first paragraph said something like:

"Tom Bighead today announced that Egotistical Industries has won a $350,000 contract to supply window sealants for the new sports centre currently under construction in Baden-Baden, Germany. Egotistical Industries was founded in 1989 by Mr. Bighead and his brother George, and is now considered to be the leading company in its field. Last year the company's sales were . . . ."

In the fifth paragraph, if anyone would read that far, we learned that the sealant the company would supply had the property of not freezing in cold weather, so work on the sports centre could be carried out in December, rather than waiting for warmer weather in March or April.

This of course was the true story. If you are a reader of a professional construction magazine, you couldn't care less that Egotistical Industries has a new contract. By contrast, you could be vitally interested in knowing that you could possibly gain three months on your construction schedule by using Egotistical's product.

More importantly, editors of professional construction magazines would view the release this way.

Remember: editors are vitally concerned about what their readers want to read, because if they lose readership, they lose their jobs. The real target of your release must be the editors. They are the gatekeepers. If they value the release, it gets published; if they don't, it doesn't.

We therefore rewrote the information into a news release with the headline: Windows in Baden-Baden Sports Centre will be sealed in the dead of winter, saving the contractor approximately $30,000 in labor costs. The first paragraph, and as many additional paragraphs as necessary, elaborated on this very attractive theme. The background information about the company came at the end of the release where it justifiably belonged.

Here's another example. As a marketing communication consultant, I was asked by a client to write a release announcing an important new service. I was told to limit the release to 400 words.

"Why 400 words?" I asked.

"Well, it's our policy to keep our releases short. Journalists like that."

The problem was that I couldn't find a way of saying everything that needed to be said in only 400 words. The client was insistent. I finally produced something at 400 words which the client felt was exactly what was wanted. But when the release was issued, no one published it.

The client called a few newspapers and magazines to find out why. The answer was that they just didn't see anything that would be of interest to their readers. I then called a couple of these newspapers and magazines and asked, "Do you think you readers would be interested in X."

"Yes, why didn't you put that in the release?"

Well, I had. But under the stricture of the 400-word limit, it had become so severely condensed as to be cryptic. It was there — if you knew what to look for. The function of an effective release is to give information, not challenge journalists to find it.

I rewrote the release. This time it came out to 650 words and was widely published. Why? Because it had been transformed from a press release, i.e. what the client wanted to say, into a news release — what journalists believed their readers wanted and needed to know.

Each time you start tapping at the keyboard, keep uppermost in mind the aspects that make a release a "news release."