Tagline: Layering works well as a template for summarising almost all business and technical content: a useful, valuable, legal pyramid scheme. [20 words]
Plain language summary:
Layering is a good technique for anyone writing business or technical content who wants to put across strong messages to different audiences.
It’s powerful, adaptable and based on a simple idea. Your reader matters. Your readers matter.
The template assumes you’re trying to reach different audiences who don’t have the same level of expertise. Or don’t have much time. Or both.
Using a layered summary approach helps you reach everyone you need to. There’s something for everyone, technical expert or general reader, whether they have seconds to spare or much longer.
And you don’t need to worry about what to leave out. Because you can throw the kitchen sink into your final ‘resources’ section.
The extra detail won’t distract or crowd out your summary messaging. But it’s available for anyone who really wants to know more, leaving you to focus on what really matters: the message and your main content.
Culture in financial services firms is – if not exactly a buzzword – more of a concern to regulators today than some of the themes that have historically preoccupied them.
Hardly surprising, given numerous failures of culture stretching back to the 1980s when governments across the world started deregulating markets: financial crises, bank collapses, huge losses, taxpayer bailouts, corporate and individual misdemeanours – many helped along the way by severe problems in the culture of the failing firms.
I’m not going to use this blog to re-hash war stories that have already had ample publicity and coverage over the decades.
Instead I want to focus on what culture in financial services firms means, partly informed by my own experiences past and current. How do firms formulate and package their culture? Can the language that a firm uses in its external and internal communications provide any leading indicators of its culture?
Can stakeholders such as regulators, depositors, investors, employees and suppliers identify and recognise the underlying culture of a firm, in the absence of adverse – but lagging – indicators such as critical losses, collapse or regulatory failure? What signs or behaviours might be revealing of a shallow or expedient culture?
There are lots of good articles out there on capitalisation including this one by my friend and professional colleague Julian Maynard-Smith.
Why make room for another in the packed internet content stall?
The answer is that, of all the style conundrums, whether or not to capitalise is one of the trickiest and most intractable, especially in the grey areas.
And one that is evolving rapidly. Internet anyone? Only a short while ago capital ‘I’ was the norm: no longer.
So I have no shame adding the Prism-Clarity view to the capitalisation fray. There are so many idiosyncrasies that it might be empowering to know that we can in some circumstances even if others don’t or we feel we shouldn’t.
I will follow the approach I have used for other style conundrums: Always Never Sometimes.
Prism-Clarity provides high-quality professional writing, editorial and training services for financial sector and other clients