The PHR Neologism Contest
August 8, 2007 by Scott Powell
This post is no longer available. Thank you, Scott Powell.
Categories
-
Pages
Archives
-
Meta
-
-
August 8, 2007 by Scott Powell
This post is no longer available. Thank you, Scott Powell.
What I’m talking about is philosophy, or, more broadly “intellectual values” as a product–not an “ivory tower” pursuit.
This has long been my take on the problem of spreading Objectivism — it is ultimately a marketing problem, which would therefore be amenable to marketing solutions which we could learn from many sources.
Mr. Powell, you said: “I think this is new enough [...] and significant enough [...] to warrant a new term.”
Above you have identified two criteria for creating a new (single-word) term, a neologism. I would like to suggest, for your consideration, two more criteria: (1) Frequency of expected use of the term/concept in one’s own thinking and in communicating with others; and (2) your audience’s objective need for a new term/concept.
Will you really be using this new term/concept frequently in the years ahead, in your own thinking and in communicating to others? Once you have done the initial track-laying, so to speak, I doubt it. Would you really want to use a new term to describe yourself to prospective customers, a term that is unfamiliar, probably confusing, and generally not relevant to them? I doubt it.
There is a saying I learned from marketing people in business (electronics industry): “If you can’t fix it, feature it!” My suggestion is to turn the seeming disadvantage of needing two or more terms (a businessman, an intellectual, a historian, a promoter of a new, radical philosophy, etc.) into an opportunity: It is a chance to talk to people in an inductive manner. You give them the pieces — business and history, for example — and then let them decide which aspect is most important to them, for their purposes, and therefore how the two aspects should be integrated into their knowledge.
This suggestion is based on a variation of “Publisher’s Pitfall,” which I saw many times. Some of my clients wanted to publish something (a shiny corporate “flagship” brochure) that few if any prospective customers of the company’s products wanted to read. (These shiny corporation-promoting brochures accumulated, unread, in corporate-headquarters reception areas.) Accordingly, I would not try to create a new term where there is no demand-driven market for it, so to speak.
In summary, I would suggest concentrating on your product in your presentations. Leave the professional classifications aside.
I am new to your site. You have a great product to sell, based on what I’ve heard from locals (Rachel and Jason). I look forward to being a customer, once I have finished the current stage of a long-term project, perhaps by next spring. I wish you the best.