I do think the tone of voice principles are awesome. Though I can see the merits in the argument that in some cases it may lack authority, reduce trust and be perceived as patronising. I think the principles sort of account for that though.
Oh, I agree. I’m not suggesting monzo should be this restrictive with their use of language. I just personally find it a useful tool to highlight potentially problematic words. I still use my own judgement on the words that it highlights to determine whether they need to be swapped.
I think there’s definitely two conversations going on here as @Neil0 alluded to;
We should use language with an appropriate level of complexity
We should be friendly, colloquial and smiley
I think we are generally in agreement here on point 1, though if not I’d be interested to read some examples where people think Monzo have stepped too far in this direction.
Point 2 is more challenging and I do see how this could be detrimental to trust and authority in some contexts. Personally I haven’t experienced any situations where this has crossed over the line. So again, any examples would be awesome.
Totally agree. That’s why I’m such a fan of monzo’s principles around active/passive sentences, sentence lengths, using more verbs rather than nouns, etc. That ‘simplewriter’ tool is a bit tongue in cheek as its used to write comics that explain stuff like how rockets work in simple ways.
I think @simonb is trying to inject a little fun into our day, so I wouldn’t worry too much if neither option fits – just vote for the one you disagree with least (or not at all)
Take a look at our annual report, it’s a clear example of professional writing which isn’t overly formal but is really clear. (There are some things where the wording is prescribed and we can’t change it, and this applies in other areas too, like default notices etc)
This. Also, for people who are not speaking english as their first language (like myself) I am finding Monzo easier to understand. Many people who are using Monzo gonna agree with the above.
The document says, on ‘professional’ English: “And what we’re unconsciously doing is perpetuating that idea that ‘we know something you don’t’. But rather than making us sound smarter or more ‘professional’, it makes us sound cold and distant.”
I think that’s a very flawed analysis on why formal registers exist, why we use them and what their effect on the listener is. Formal registers exists in every language (that I know of, anyway) and I think they have different meanings in different cultures and to different people. In some cultures (India perhaps?) using informal language in the wrong situation could come across as quite rude, for example.
(also - ‘perpetrated’ - really? If you are going to use unnecessarily formal language in an argument against using formal language you could at least use the right word).
I’m not sure about the little history lesson above this either. I think the reason that certain words are more formal doesn’t have much to do with the Romans and has more to do with the royal family speaking French from 1066 right into the middle ages, while the ‘common people’ spoke the Germanic-influenced middle English.
Overall this little blurb kind of smacks of an unwarranted intellectual arrogance to me. If Monzo want to use less formal language because that’s what appeals to their audience more / is better for their marketing then fine, that makes sense but there’s no need to make out like it’s an inherently ‘better’ way to communicate that suits everyone or that formal language is somehow ‘bad’.
At the end of the day language evolves and changes over time. I couldn’t care less how a bank or any other person or company communicates with me, so long as it’s not an arrogant tone.
Generally a more formal register (including jargon) is used solely to exclude people - there’s little other rationale for using it. The same need for exclusivity applies across humanity, so using other languages as a reason for the argument being flawed is, itself, flawed.
It may be a generational thing but Monzo’s communications can come across as jarring at times and there is a difference between T&C written in plain English and those which are insufficiently detailed and too vague
If it’s okay with everyone I think it would be beneficial to log some of your points as feedback, if anyone is against this or has additional points they would like to make please feel free to let me know
Yup, as I’ve said before I have a degree in linguistics - I was just using the term register because it was used on the OP
But a formal register is frequently used to exclude people, as well as for other reasons. There’s a lot of research into why this is, but it’s predominantly about making it more difficult to understand a specific field.
