Display:
I'll try to implement it in the next draft.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 at 11:19:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's a pyramid-style school of journalism which suggests you hit the key points in the first few sentences and again in the conclusion, because those are most likely to read. Middle paras are often skipped.

I'm not quite convinced by this argument, but starting with a rhetorical like 'What do Enron, the credit crunch, shrinking real incomes, galloping inflation, (etc) have in common?' might be a punchier beginning for some markets.

Also - it could help to frame the argument in monetarist terms. We've argued on ET that energy and asset price bubbles are inherently at least as inflationary as wage pressures. If you could fit that point in and try to trojan horse the argument as a question about 'sound economic policy', it might be more likely to change minds than a full-on assault.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 at 12:25:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm saying the same thing basically. You have to capture a non-captive audience. So you need something up top to convince them to not only read on, but be in the right frame of mind. Headlines are important - they catch the wandering eye. But the first couple of sentences really define whether people make the choice to read on - given that there are a lot of other things tempting to read on a page.

It is not crucial, in 1000 words, to end on a summary. But I think it always works to hit them with something to chew on in the last para. Especially if it invites dialogue.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 at 02:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series