Kevin, a recent graduate of Anywhere University’s sales certificate program, walked into a business development meeting.
When a discussion of negotiation techniques began, Kevin eagerly related a recent encounter with a client: “I opened the meet with Jim at the Children’s Hospital by dialoguing about where to summer this year. I wanted to beach-out in Hilton Head, but my wife argued we should holiday in the Caribbean. I championed my preference and positioned that we could attend the charity golf tournament to which we got an invite, and perhaps get a golf ball signatured by Arnold Palmer. I’m actioning my successful negotiation by booking our flights and hotel tonight!”
To the chagrin of those who revere language, it should be evident that Kevin has fallen into a practice that has become popular in some marketing circles, i.e., using nouns as verbs and verbs as nouns—a phenomenon known as “verbing.”
Here are some cringe-worthy examples of verbing we have encountered recently, from both students and marketing professionals: “We haven’t languaged that yet.” “Can we action that by next week?” “We are efforting to find a solve for this.” “Let’s focus on the build.”
Does verbing make a speaker sound more professional, more intelligent or more competent? On the basis of our observations, the answer seems to depend on whom you ask. To many, it seems goofy. It is business speak at its worst. It cannot be justified as the jargon of a discipline because it is simply a flagrant violation of linguistic norms and listeners’ expectations. Others perceive it as a colorful and clever use of language, as hip and even impressive. Reactions to verbing may also depend on how egregious the example is. Whereas it is normal to “head” a committee, “shoulder” a burden, or “eye” a dessert,
it is jarring to “incent” a salesperson or to “over-choice” customers with too many options.
We conducted a small study to see how our own students would react to verbing in a sales presentation. The evidence shows greater acceptance of the practice among marketing students than we found among a sample of working adults.
Given divided opinion, should marketing educators ignore, promote or combat verbing in the classroom? Our answer is simple: Verbing is bad English. It betrays a lack of knowledge about the English language. It shows wanton disregard for non-native English speakers who have bothered to learn the language that facilitates our thinking, learning, communication and mutual understanding. It conveys an unprofessional image to people outside of business and to many inside business.
Consider that people in other respected professions have not adopted the odd practice of noun-verb reversal. A surgeon does not “scalpel an incision.” A lawyer does not “affidavit a witness.” But some marketing professionals (and aspiring marketing professionals) appear to go out of their way to speak goofily.
There are many reasons to combat verbing in the marketing classroom. Verbing violates the rules of standard English and linguistic norms, which in turn violates listeners’ expectations. When expectations are violated by use of substandard English, educated listeners may draw negative inferences, such as assuming the speaker is uninformed and, by extension, speaking with low credibility.
Verbing, like other forms of business speak, is the subject of mockery outside of business circles. Its use undermines the image of marketing among other professions and in educated society.
Insistence on proper communication practices is an educational quality issue. We set high standards for students on other dimensions. Why would we encourage or even permit the habitual use of substandard English?
By analogy, verbing is to business speak as syllable multiplication is to airline rhetoric (e.g., “Federal law prohibits passengers from utilizing smoking materials in the lavatory facilities,” i.e., “Don’t smoke in the toilet”). It is an attempt to dignify a speaker and her profession using inefficient prose to unintentionally comical effect.
In defense of verbing, one may argue that usage dictates meaning—meaning does not dictate usage. The flaw in this argument is that mutations in usage are justified only when they bring about improvements in the outcomes language facilitates. Verbing rarely brings about such improvements. Moreover, students should master a language before presuming to improve it. How many practitioners of verbing are aware of the linguistic rules they violate?
Our suggestion is straightforward: Don’t verb or use excessive business speak in the marketing classroom, and correct students when they lapse into this practice. As marketing educators, we want our students to succeed. Do we want to indulge students in the delusion that speaking abnormally will help them achieve success? We have an opportunity as marketing educators to inform our students in a way that distinguishes them from the mindless masses of verbing practitioners.
Returning to our salesperson friend Kevin, we are not suggesting that he needs to speak with the erudition of William F. Buckley to communicate effectively in a business setting. However, we do believe that a world where business English is transforming into creative patois is bad business and bad for the image of the marketing profession.
Having opinioned our take on the topic, we must now get back to professoring.
Riley Dugan is an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Dayton. He is actively involved with the Fiore Talerico Center for Professional Selling at the University of Dayton. His research concerns personal selling, sales management, and issues in sales and marketing education.
Ric Sweeney is an associate professor-educator at the University of Cincinnati’s Lindner College of Business, and is the immediate past chairman of the American Marketing Association’s Board of Directors.
James Kellaris is the James S. Womack/Gemini Corporation Professor of Signage and Visual Marketing at the University of Cincinnati Lindner College of Business.