The language we assume customers understand
I bought a new saucepan last week. Nothing particularly remarkable. It looked well made, felt solid enough, and like most purchases of that kind, it was made with a quick judgement rather than deep consideration. As I turned it over while washing it for the first time, I noticed a small label on the base that read “x5 strength”.
I paused for a moment trying to work out what it actually meant.
The strength of what, exactly? Was it the material, the handle, the coating? Was it five times stronger than something else, and if so, what was the reference point?
The scientist in me started thinking of all the possible ways that I could test this claim out. Merely for the point of appeasing my own curiosity.
Now, it was not that the claim was unreasonable, and who’s to say at this point that it isn’t. Rather, it was unclear. Ambiguous.
Somewhere in the process, someone decided that this description was self-explanatory. That the meaning would be obvious to the person reading it.
It was not.
It’s a small and potentially superfluous example, but I would argue, a familiar one. What feels obvious to the person writing it, is not always obvious to the person reading it.
When internal language begins to shape external communication
This pattern is not limited to product labels at the bottom of a saucepan.
It appears frequently in organisations, particularly those operating in technical or specialised fields. Language develops internally over time. Terms become shorthand, phrases are repeated and meaning becomes compressed.
Not to contradict my recent newsletter around definitions and assumptions, but within the organisation, clearly, it works. Everyone (for the most part) understands what is being said.
The difficulty begins when that same language seeps beyond the confines of the organisation and is used externally.
There is often this assumption that because the audience is technical, they will understand the same level of detail, expressed in the same way. In practice, I would argue that this is rarely the case.
Customers may be knowledgeable, technical and scientific, but they do not share the same context. They are not inside the organisation, and they have not been part of the conversations that have helped to shape that language.
What feels and sounds logical and precise internally can feel vague, confusing, or open to interpretation externally. This is how internal terminology begins to undermine the value proposition.
When customers are left to translate what we mean
When the language is unclear, the customer is left to do the work. They have to interpret, infer, and attempt to translate what is being said (and meant) into something meaningful within their own context.
This creates a friction point.
It slows the understanding while introducing a variation in how the message itself is received. In many cases, it shifts the burden onto the customer-facing commercial teams to explain what should have been rather clear from the outset.
In more complex environments, particularly organisations that operate across multiple regions and languages, this effect compounds further. Language is localised and interpreted differently, leading meaning itself to drift. The result? What was intended as a single message simply becomes multiple versions of the same idea.
I would argue that over time, this will impact and even lengthen the sales cycle. Not because what is being offered isn’t valuable or exactly what the customer needs, but because it is not consistently or clearly understood, and you have to spend time explaining it to them.
This is not a simple question or discussion around wording. Nor is it purely a communication issue. Rather, it is a commercial one, and one of responsibility.
Language does not become unclear by accident. It becomes unclear when it is not tested, challenged, updated, or viewed from outside the organisation.
Which makes it worth stepping back and considering a deliberate review.
Some questions to ponder over.
Which parts of our messaging require additional explanation where customers ask, “What does this actually mean?”
What could a customer misunderstand if they took our messaging at face value?
When was the last time we tested whether our language is actually understood by the people we are trying to reach?
Understanding is not assumed
Having worked in and with scientific and technical organisations for the vast majority of my career, I am 100% convinced that the issue is not from a lack of expertise.
Rather, it is the assumption that this expertise neatly translates directly into communication without some additional thought and clarity.
It rarely does.
Remember, what feels obvious internally is often the result of proximity. The more familiar we become with our own language, the less likely we are to question whether it makes sense to someone else outside of it.
Customers should not have to work so hard to understand what is being offered. When they do, and friction is introduced somewhere in the process, the impact will be felt commercially.
In the end, it is not what we say that matters. It is what the customer takes from it.
Now, back to working out how strong that saucepan really is.
The Intuitive Marketing Coach is a weekly newsletter covering topics around marketing, leadership, and business growth to help foster a more intuitive, logical, and ethical marketing approach. Be sure to subscribe to receive future posts directly to your inbox, and share the publication to help others connect and join the community.
Interested in learning about a specific topic in a future newsletter? Get in touch.
Thanks for reading The Intuitive Marketing Coach! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Did you enjoy this post? Share it with your network and spread the word.
Thanks for reading The Intuitive Marketing Coach! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.