11–20 of 89 posts
If they're writing about a topic that's more complex, sure, the writing will need to be more complex. But there's nothing wrong with communicating simply if the subject allows it.
I cannot endorse this idea enough. Paul Tudor (I don't know why anybody calls him Mr Jones. Anybody who has ever dealt with his firm calls him Paul Tudor) knows what everybody else in finance knows: you're dealing with people who have money, and when you have money, there are many, many, people trying to solicit your interest. This is not about the blog writing style, your deep intellect, your pitch. It's about "I ge…
Glad I don't work for this guy. Being "efficient" at what you do at the cost of seeing the full picture, attention-deficit decision making, etc, is not a good thing. A lot of people with positions of power think they are snap decision makers. They are snap decision makers because there's nobody to challenge those decisions, and often thinking a bit more and listening more, is a good thing. As Herbert put it in Dune,…
"Snap decision makers" .. in some circumstances, such as during deadline-approaching, clock-ticking, actual "print schedules", are quite appropriate for some forms of industry, methinks. Perhaps there are different models for different schedules?
Glad I don't work for this guy. Being "efficient" at what you do at the cost of seeing the full picture, attention-deficit decision making, etc, is not a good thing. A lot of people with positions of power think they are snap decision makers. They are snap decision makers because there's nobody to challenge those decisions, and often thinking a bit more and listening more, is a good thing. As Herbert put it in Dune,…
Are you familiar with Paul Tudor?
Glad I don't work for this guy. Being "efficient" at what you do at the cost of seeing the full picture, attention-deficit decision making, etc, is not a good thing. A lot of people with positions of power think they are snap decision makers. They are snap decision makers because there's nobody to challenge those decisions, and often thinking a bit more and listening more, is a good thing. As Herbert put it in Dune,…
"A lot of people with positions of power think they are snap decision makers." Are you familiar with Paul Tudor?
Wow all the comments here seem negative. The guy is just saying that people should be clearer with their writing and getting to the point right away to avoid confusion. If they're writing about a topic that's more complex, sure, the writing will need to be more complex. But there's nothing wrong with communicating simply if the subject allows it.
Approximately 80% of the pitches I get are between garbled and incoherent. Even higher in the unsolicited ones.
Consider that your recipient is reading on a small screen and utilize pyramid structure. And don't bury the lede. Many pitches ask for money without saying anything at all about what they are about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A lot of people with positions of power think they are snap decision makers." Are you familiar with Paul Tudor?
no
Glad I don't work for this guy. Being "efficient" at what you do at the cost of seeing the full picture, attention-deficit decision making, etc, is not a good thing. A lot of people with positions of power think they are snap decision makers. They are snap decision makers because there's nobody to challenge those decisions, and often thinking a bit more and listening more, is a good thing. As Herbert put it in Dune,…
He's saying give me a memo like The Economist writes its articles. Clear. Precise. No fluff. Lots of facts pertinent to the topic at hand.
He's saying don't write like the New Yorker. Lots of backstory, lots of trivia, the overall point - if there even is one - is usually quite subtle and takes a while to pinpoint.
I'm subscribed to and read both. There was a NY article on Varoufakis ('The Greek Warrior'), easily a 45 minute read, and at some point the writer talked about how the girl in the song 'Common People' by Pulp is rumored to be Varoufakis' wife. I found that fascinating and am happy the author included that part. Sometimes though I'm not interested in a story, and I only want information relevant to what I'm looking into at this very moment.
Eh, I think he's mistaken. Journalists aren't good at writing because they took a course, they're good at writing because they write. A lot. You want better memos, hold memo-writing practice sessions every week and give constant feedback. Ripping a memo up and saying "take a course" is ignorant.