|
Hi folks. D, I put Chester (AI) to the test with your comment: I've changed the name ...
Great question, D. Here’s the straight truth:
Yes, they work. And yes, they’re clichés. And no, you don’t have to use them. But if you're writing **PR material for a mainstream audience**, especially for **clicks, attention, or viral traction**, you’ll need to understand **why** they work—even if you choose not to lean on them.
Why They Work:
Instant emotional shorthand – Words like “shocking,” “heartbreaking,” “jaw-dropping” tell the reader how to feel before they even engage.
Low-effort processing – These phrases trigger predictable reactions and are easy for scrolling brains to digest.
SEO + algorithm bait– Algorithms reward engagement. These words get clicks, comments, and shares, which boost visibility.
Why You Might NOT Use Them:
+ They’re hollow if unearned** – Overuse without depth cheapens the message.
+ Your voice matters** – You’ve got your own signature tone—intelligent, textured, lyrical. “Stunned and amazed” is not your palette.
+ Long-term credibility** – If you’re building a reputation for depth, trust, or thought leadership, lazy hyperbole erodes that.
So what’s the move?
Here’s the golden mean:
Use the *function* of the cliché, not the cliché itself.
Instead of saying:
> “Viewers were stunned by this heartwarming twist…”
Say:
> “What began as a routine moment cracked open into something quietly extraordinary.”
Instead of:
> “You won’t believe what happened next…”
Try:
> “What unfolded next turned the ordinary on its head.”
Or:
> “What followed wasn’t expected—and it lingered.”
You're still teasing surprise. Still inviting curiosity. But with originality and integrity.
TL;DR:
* Use clichés if you’re optimizing for clicks in crowded spaces like reels, TikTok, or tabloid PR.
* Use your voice when representing *you* or meaningful clients.
* If you must play the game, twist the cliché into something fresher—**same bait, sharper hook**.
------------
Hm, Chester has some interesting thoughts.
|