[Here's a deeper dive into thoughts I shared previously about do’s and dont’s for writing successful alerts.]
In journalism, the first sentence is called a lede - and all great journalists know the power of a strong lede. Likewise, in writing for business, all great posts, articles, or alerts start out with a strong lede, an introductory sentence that grabs attention right away.
Great ledes interest the reader, convey important information, and set the stage for the alert that follows. Here are two examples of ledes that work, and why.
1. Begin with clock tower bells
This opening from Jonathan Israel at Foley & Lardner has it all:
Bong … Bong … Bong … that is the death knell you thought you heard following the decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin) in Berger v. NCAA earlier this month. After that case, many legal prognosticators proclaimed the demise of student-athletes’ claims that they are actually employees of their colleges and universities, and thus, entitled to wages for their athletic services under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Not so fast. Only days later, in another case, Dawson v. NCAA, a California federal district court issued an early case management ruling suggesting that that student-athlete FLSA wage claims may still have a few kicks left.
(Read the entire post here: Fight On? Student-Athletes Press for Employee Status Despite Seventh Circuit Rejection)
Interest begins with the clock tower bells. It’s a nice touch, conveys a sense of certainty or completion, and will take some readers to back to alma maters with campaniles or clock towers, signaling this has to do with a university environment. More importantly, the lede does not immediately repeat the information in the well-written headline.
Then it goes on to summarize the conventional wisdom about the case, and quickly throws a curve ball. This means I need to read on. The alert continues to share context throughout.
The sports analogies are carried down the field nicely. Finally, noting which states are in the 7th Circuit (not even I have that memorized) is a helpful clue to non-litigators. Well done all round.
2. Leave room to breathe
This opening from Fusae Nara and Stephan Becker at Pillsbury has many strengths:
In a development that may have important implications for companies selling products to the U.S. government, on December 7, 2016, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued a decision holding that the assembly in the United States of a flashlight using imported components did not qualify as “U.S. origin” under the Trade Agreements Act. The court’s decision potentially may alter the manner in which government agencies determine whether a product with foreign content is eligible to be purchased.
To understand the implications of the court’s decision, some background is necessary. The Buy American Act requires that federal agencies give a “price preference” to bids from companies offering U.S. origin products. However, where procurements are above certain threshold values, the Trade Agreements Act overrides the Buy American Act. Products from countries that are members of the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and/or free trade agreements with the United States are entitled to non-discriminatory treatment. At the same time, federal agencies may not purchase products from countries that are not members of the Government Procurement Agreement or free trade agreements (unless there are no alternatives from an eligible country). Thus, for example, the federal government may not purchase Chinese-origin products, because China is not a member of the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and does not have a free trade agreement with the United States.
(Read on at Court Decision May Affect Ability to Sell Products Assembled from Imported Components to U.S. Government Agencies)
Let’s start with the headline. Informative, not overhyped, and “may” indicates I need to follow the issue, or consult counsel for guidance on risk assessment.
I instantly know whether this piece is important to me; do I sell products to the U.S. government?
The first sentence succinctly, but with sufficient detail, summarizes the court’s holding. It tells me the case is about the Trade Agreements Act (and who should care: "companies selling products to the U.S. government").
What I don’t need is, and what is properly not part of the lede: the name of the case, the concept or definition of “substantial transformation,” and the fact that Customs and Border Protection is the agency that makes determinations on such.
Too many alerts try to cram everything into the first sentence. Read it aloud. If you find yourself breathless, it’s too long.
I would also argue that the first sentence of an alert should almost always stand alone. It gives the eye something to focus on, and allows the reader to make a quick decision on how far she or he needs to read into the piece. Short sentences and paragraphs are easier to skim and digest.
The second graph contains a “for example,” which is very helpful for readers that don’t deal with this issue regularly.
Consider turning this guidance on ledes and headlines into an opening template for authors. It makes it easier to quickly slot breaking news into a format that remains constant across practice groups.
Not all alerts and ledes will fit that format, such as evergreen posts, which you can read more about here. But it’s a solid step toward timely posts that need less editing.
*
[Susan Kostal is an editor, writer, business development strategist and media coach with over 25 years experience on the beat and in the C-suite. Susan's expertise includes legal industry trends, marketing, communications, and public relations.]
Attorneys, learn how to publish your writing on JD Supra:
"JD Supra builds a readership I wouldn't normally reach..."
