In marketing copy, I see this phrase a lot. Is ‘in the heart of’ a cliche? When people use it in a lazy, meaningless way, my first instinct is to remove it if at all possible.

It doesn’t tend to appear on lists of ‘worst marketing buzzwords‘ but I would still put it on my list of phrases to avoid, especially in a construction products context.

Examples: why ‘in the heart of’ is a cliche

A recent example referred to a project provided building components for the NEC. The Exhibition Centre was being described as being ‘in the heart of’ the West Midlands.

‘In the heart of’ is just a flowery way of saying ‘in the centre of’. This is one reason to avoid it. In construction marketing, it is my opinion that overly decorative language serves no purpose. Get to the point and convey the facts. Your audience need facts and information to do their job, whether that is specifying products or assessing a tender document.

Although the heart is a metaphor for the centre of something, ‘in the heart of’ also implies an emotional connection with a location. Does your business or location have a strong emotional connection, with its wider location? If so, then you can use a phrase like this to evoke a connection with your reader.

It is worth stopping to think whether it’s appropriate to try to conjure up emotion in your marketing. At the heart of this security fence is a unique anti-vandal fixing system. It’s true that theft and vandalism are emotionally upsetting for the victims, but for a public sector buyer or urban design specifier this is not relevant!

When it is OK to use ‘in the heart of’

When is it appropriate to use emotion when marketing building products?

An example of appropriate use is the strapline on the signage for my home town, Stirling  – ‘Scotland’s heart’. The historical connection between this location and Scotland as a country is relevant and there’s a play on William ‘Braveheart’ Wallace, who fought and won the famous battle in 1314 at Bannockburn.

This is a marketing identity though, not a construction product. For the most part, when we are marketing building components, emotion shouldn’t be high on the list of requirements.

I racked my brain for suitable examples – ceramic tiles or made in the Stoke area could be described as ‘made in the heart of the Potteries’. The area’s association with earthenware could be used to show a manufacturer’s heritage and traditional skills.

Maybe public art could be designed with a strong connection to its location, and legitimately be described as being ‘in the heart of’ a town. What about historic buildings?

Let me know what you think in the comments.

Whenever editing or proofreading marketing copy that promotes construction products, the phrase “designed to stand the test of time” would jar with me. As a technical editor who favours objectivity and facts over exaggeration and hyperbole, it didn’t sit right.

I think of a stone building or monument standing the test of time, for 100 or 500 years. However, if you want to use the phrase with integrity, it does depends on the context.

Dictionary definitions of ‘stand the test of time’

Cambridge, Oxford and Macmillan all define it in a similar way: to remain popular, strong, effective, successful, etc, after a long time.

The thing that bothers me about this phrase, is that in a construction context, time itself doesn’t actually wear a product. Instead, it is affected by weathering (rain, wind, sea-water, sand, freeze-thaw), people using it, animals or things bumping into it. These things will have a different effect on the product depending on the application.

How to prove products ‘stand the test of time’?

When writing for product directories, one of the most popular case studies I ever developed for a client was a ’14-years on’ piece. Here, an engineering company revisited one of their projects to see how it had performed over time. The a spun-galvanised cast iron viewing platform had been installed on a seafront, so resistance to corrosion was important.

An of objective analysis like this is the sort of thing that helps architects make the decision on a product that will need to last a long time. How has the finish lasted? Are the welds sound? What about the fixings, if they are a different material?

‘Stand the test of time’ usage in construction marketing

Here are some examples of usage of the phrase ‘stand the test of time’ in construction marketing. (I have altered them – I’m not looking to criticise specific companies)

Shower enclosure

The Souplesse enclosure can be supplied with or without a shower tray to be fitted directly onto a tiled floor. With its 10mm safety glass and an innovative non-slip hinge design, the Souplesse will stand the test of time.

In my opinion the usage of ‘test of time’ is completely inappropriate in this instance. The thickness of the glass and design of the hinge will provide durability but a domestic shower enclosure is hardly going to be subject to heavy weathering or usage.

Contract carpet

Full Moon fibre-bonded carpets are designed for applications subject to heavy wear and tear. They are a highly cost effective solution that meet the relevant performance tests and have been proven to stand the test of time.

The word ‘test’ is suitable here, as commercial carpets are subject to specific testing to British Standards. These establish their durability in contract applications.

Although they need to withstand wear, it isn’t ‘time’ that tests their durability. It is the number of people that walk over them, and the application. A carpet might be tested to withstand daily use in an office corridor, but in the entrance atrium of a secondary school of 1500 pupils, it will wear it out much more quickly. Let’s say the building is used for sport at weekends, and rugby teams are passing through the area – this would drastically shorten the life of that carpet.

A bronze plaque

Historical events are traditionally commemorated with a plaque and the material should be able to stand the test of time. Cast bronze is favoured, due to its long-lasting properties and its classic look.

I can almost forgive the use of the phrase ‘stand the test of time’ here. Plaques convey a feeling that is associated with the importance of the event that is to be remembered, so more emotive language feels appropriate. On the other hand though, the text above communicates this idea in plainer terms – long-lasting properties. This is sufficient to convey the concept of longevity to an audience like architects. In fact, they’d probably prefer specific details on how many years it could be expected to last, and how the finish might age in different atmospheric conditions.

 

In theory, there is nothing wrong with using the phrase ‘stand the test of time’ if your construction products do last for a long time. As always, though, I advocate a fairly objective approach and let the facts speak for themselves in order to gain the trust of architects and other specifiers.

It may sound boring (that’s the aim) but be more literal about things. How much time do your products last?

To be pedantic about things, though, weather and everyday use aren’t a ‘test’ – they are just things that happen as part of normal everyday life and the passing of time.

Related post: Marketing words to avoid: ‘timeless’

The phrase ‘complete with’ is overused in construction product marketing and usually comes with an exaggerated or emphasised meaning. This goes against one of my mantras for writing about construction products – be objective. The meaning that is usually intended is actually at odds with the conventional, dictionary definition of the word. In my view this erodes trust with your reader.

Definitions of the phrase ‘complete with’

‘Complete’, as an adjective, means:

1. having all the necessary or appropriate parts. ‘a complete list of courses offered by the university’
2. (often used for emphasis) to the greatest extent or degree; total.

The definition of ‘Complete with’ in the Oxford Dictionary, is the usage I see as problematic:

“Having something as an additional part or feature: the detachable keyboard comes complete with numeric keypad.”

It is usually used in reference to accessories a product can be supplied with. These are often optional extras or features that are included in addition to the essential basic qualities of the product. I was quite surprised to read what I see as a ‘bad’ definition in the Oxford Dictionary, but it is simply reflecting how the phrase is used in reality.

Examples of the phrase ‘complete with’

Let’s look at a couple of examples.

A comprehensive collection of paving complete with a choice of finishes.

This is the sort of phrase that appears frequently in construction product marketing. Is the collection ‘complete’ with finishes? The product is not incomplete without a choice of finishes – it can be installed and perform adequately in some applications. What about colours, a guarantee or associated installation products? (Guarantees are another thing that are often described as ‘completing’ a product.)

An ultra-high security fence complete with anti-climb razor wire.

Is the fence really ‘complete’ when anti-climb razor wire is attached to the top? This additional accessory will provide the right level of security for certain specific applications. For others, barbed wire, electric wire or rotating spikes will be more appropriate. In many cases, the budget will determine the level of security that can be attained.

Avoid the phrase ‘complete with’!

The phrase ‘complete with’ is frequently used to add emphasis but it doesn’t add any extra meaning. This extra emphasis is unnecessary in my opinion and only serves to erode trust with your reader.

The idea that a product is “complete” is abstract – it’s entirely dependent on the needs of the user or the circumstances of the application.

Macmillan defines ‘complete with’ much more simply:

with the things mentioned.

I find that in the context of construction products, this is a more accurate definition.  The phrase just means ‘with’.

‘Complete with’ is often a misuse of the word ‘complete’. The idea that a product is somehow complete when it is supplied with additional things is subjective. There is is not even any need for this extra word to convey meaning. The phrase would be better replaced by ‘with’ or’ has’.

The points I make about this phrase are the same mantras I have mentioned in many of my other posts on writing tips

• Be objective in your product descriptions.
• Don’t exaggerate in your product information.
• Seek to gain trust, not to erode it, through your writing

I often see the word ‘both’ in construction product descriptions. Products have more than one feature or benefit, and ‘both’ is deployed to emphasise these benefits. It can be made to show that one benefit or application is not more important than the other.

In other words: a stone effect paving that is suitable for both domestic and public applications is equally suitable for those two types of environment.

Be careful not to misrepresent things though. If a product is primarily for domestic applications, it is much better to say so than to try to cover all bases. Specifiers will not thank you if you say it is ‘suitable for both domestic and commercial applications’ and the product fails when used at a retail park. Be honest and upfront.

In this context, the word ‘both’ is used as a correlative conjunction, in the same was as ‘not only… but also‘. A correlative conjunction joins two parts of a sentence that include related information.

With ‘not only… but also’, the two parts should be related and the second should build on, or be more important than the first. I’ve written about ‘not only… but also’ before, and how this phrase is misused to add emphasis to marketing text.

AJE.com has a good grammatical explanation of how the word ‘both’ should be used.

“both…and” is used as a conjunction relating two nouns, two adjectives, and two verbs, respectively.

Furthermore, as a conjunction, ‘both’ emphasizes that the two entities being discussed (whether nouns, verbs, or adjectives) are included equally.

I find that the use of the word both brings about a sense of distrust. I’m often suspicious as to whether a product really does deliver on both of the things that are claimed.

Incorrect use of the word ‘both’

Of paving products: for both residential and commercial applications

– it’s important to make specific reference to why the product is suitable for either of these applications.

Of street furniture: options are available for both light and heavy duty applications

– if two options are available, that are used for different applications, it’s incorrect to use ‘both’ in this case. The two options aren’t equal, they are distinct and separate.

OK use of the word ‘both’

Of a piece of play equipment: encourages both physical play and social interaction
Of an outdoor gym product: allow you to work on the mobility of both your arm and shoulder muscles
Of synthetic grass surfacing: it is designed to meet the specifications for both amateur and professional sports pitches

I always advocate editing out words if it makes your writing more concise. In most of the cases above, the sentence will still work perfectly if you remove the word ‘both’.

Try removing the word both

Orwell’s rule applies here.

If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

Usually I will have edited this word out, and the sentence still does the job. For me the word often feels like it is trying to over-emphasise things in a forced or untrustworthy way. A designer or buyer will have one application or another (for example), in mind, so it makes no difference to them whether this fantastic surfacing product is suitable for both children’s playgrounds and airport hardstandings.

Specifiers just want the technical information. They need it as quickly and as clearly as possible. I believe that cutting out words that are traditionally used in marketing for emphasis will make it easier for them to do their job.