Know Your Audience

Write for your audience

Advocacy staff are used to writing for audiences in their technical specialties. The attorneys in the Office of Interagency write like attorneys when preparing comment letters, while the economists in the Office of Economic Research write like economists when preparing economic studies. These documents are written to an audience of like-minded and similarly trained peers, and in some cases, this tone is appropriate.

However, when preparing materials geared toward public consumption, Advocacy staff are frequently writing to small business owners or stakeholders who do not have the same level of technical expertise. There are several things you can do to better prepare materials to that audience.

Vary your amount of detail

A more generalized audience of business owners will have different informational needs than attorneys at the Environmental Protection Agency. The best way to reach these people is to tailor the amount of detail you provide to them.

As you write, ask yourself what the specific stakeholders you write need to know about the information. If you are preparing a regulatory alert, for instance, stakeholders need to know what the regulation affects, what types of businesses might be affected, and what they can do about the regulation. The regulatory alert should therefore focus on clear details in those areas.

Occasionally, it is necessary to balance technical accuracy and clarity in public communication. For instance, in September 2020, CDC Director Robert Redfield told Congress that a vaccine for COVID-19 would not be available to the general public until Q3 2021. The next day, President Donald Trump told reporters he was sure the vaccine would be available by the end of 2020. Despite the contradiction, both statements could be true. Redfield made his comment with the understanding that at-risk groups would get the vaccine first, whereas Trump made his comment with the understanding that reporters were concerned about when the first doses of the vaccination were available.

In the above example, the technical accuracy Redfield used when saying “general public” led to confusion about the vaccine. As you write, be careful to consider alternative interpretations of your terms or situations in which a technical phrase might lead to confusion. In these cases, it is often best to follow a technical conclusion with some form of plain language that restates the general argument.

Avoid jargon

The biggest challenge that Advocacy staff face surrounds translating technical concepts to lay audiences. Our public-facing audiences often have some understanding of the regulatory environment in which their business operates, which is beneficial. However, small businesses rarely have legal departments or staff with academic training. Therefore, using plain language wherever possible will help you reach Advocacy stakeholders.

When writing, your first objective should be to identify technical phrases that are unavoidable. Advocacy staff cannot avoid phrases like “initial regulatory flexibility analysis” or “unweighted logistic regression.” However, Advocacy staff can make sure that phrases alongside technical terms are clear or that technical terms are explained in the body of the product.

Example:
The Environmental Protection Agency’s initial regulatory flexibility analysis determined sufficient room to tailor the interim final rule such that it would not impact small businesses in the fish and wildlife industries.

Becomes

The Environmental Protection Agency’s initial regulatory flexibility analysis led to changes in the interim final rule to avoid impacts to small businesses in the fish and wildlife industries.

One of the biggest hurdles for Advocacy staff looking to translate their work to public audiences surrounds legal and academic language. Words like “aforementioned” or “herewith” make legal reading harder to understand, while “correlative” and “bifurcated” can complicate summaries of academic studies. Use sentence structure to clarify your phrases.

Finally, do not be afraid to define key terms that audiences may not understand. If you can clarify a rule that might be confusing with a dependent clause or an additional sentence, and it does not make the document wordier, go ahead and do so.

Do not use different words when the same word will do

Use the same term to describe the same object throughout your writing. For example, if you refer to a racial group as “Black,” for instance, do not substitute in “African American” in other places. Use the same terminology for each group. Using different terms can confuse readers who think that those categories mean different things.

When in doubt, choose the simpler word

Advocacy staff are well educated professionals who have lots of experience working with complicated written materials. Advocacy’s audience may not share that same familiarity. One of the ways that we can ensure that our writing is more accessible is by, wherever possible, choosing familiar words over unusual or more complex words. The federal Plain Language and Information Network has a handy table of words to avoid alongside helpful suggestions as to simpler options. Info strongly encourages you to bookmark and refer to this table frequently. When writing, also keep in mind that longer words with more syllables are likely more complex. If you can think of a simpler substitution, use it. For instance, instead of “expanded” and “contracted,” use the phrases “grew” and “shrank.” The substituted words are more accessible to a wider audience.

Avoid Hidden Verbs

Nominalization is the term given to verbs converted to nouns. These often lead to wordy, confusing sentences. Take the following example:

“Advocacy and EPA reached an agreement on revisions to the Waters of the United States rule.”

In this sentence, the nominalized noun (“reached an agreement” instead of “agreed”) makes the sentence wordier. Instead, rephrase the sentence to use an active verb.

“Advocacy and EPA agreed on revisions to the Waters of the United States rule.”

Avoiding nominalizations wherever possible helps avoid bureaucratic-sounding language and encourages authors to write in the active voice. It also encourages authors to use strong, direct verbs, which allow for clearer communication.

Avoid noun strings

Noun strings are long clumps of nouns that all modify the final noun in the sequence. These strings can disrupt the natural flow of your writing and confuse readers. For instance, referring to the “public comment period extension deadline” leads to long sentences and confuses readers, who may think they have found the appropriate noun in the sentence before they do.

When breaking up noun strings, try to avoid words that are not essential. Instead of “public comment period extension deadline,” try “comment deadline,” or just “deadline.” Alternatively, open up the noun string, like this: “The deadline for the public comment period is…”

Obey the rules of the genre in which you are writing

Sometimes, you will be called upon to write very technical documents. Interagency staff frequently write comment letters to federal agencies asking for specific requests of other attorneys. Office of Economic Research staff will produce economic research briefs designed to be read by other economists. Here, trust your training and instincts. If your audience consists entirely of federal regulators and attorneys, or entirely of trained economists, follow the rules for that given document.

However, those rules also apply to non-technical documents as well. If the item you are preparing is designed to be consumed by Hill staffers, the press, or members of the general public, consider their needs and change your writing accordingly. Site posts describing regulatory alerts, for instance, need to be clear and use simple language wherever possible. In-depth descriptions of a methodological question in a research summary are out of place. In these instances, you can assume enough of our audience does not have advanced training in the subject matter area, and therefore we need to meet them where they’re at.