I attended a Professionals in Communications lunch on Tuesday. The panel discussion was "writing for the ear." Radio- and speech-writing professionals talked about the differences in writing for reading and writing for speaking. It was an interesting topic for someone like me who does both.

One speaker got a chuckle from the group when he said, "I'm sure you've had a client who insists that more words are better."

Um, yes.

He went on to say that there is a misconception out there that if your audience can't understand your message, you need to keep adding words until they do. I wanted to march him out of  the room and down the crowded street with a bullhorn so he could better spread the word:

Less is almost always more.

If your audience can't understand your message, find another way to craft your message, don't just keep adding words to it. At that rate, they'll never be able to understand what you're saying, let alone remember and act upon it later.

Another of the speakers talked about a script he wrote for a 90-second radio spot. That's a long period of time to fill with a corporate message. He did write the spot and was pretty happy with it—until the client changed their mind. The client decided this message needed to be able to fit into a 60-second spot instead. But they didn't want to cut any words (more knowing laughter from the group). By the time this piece aired, the message sounded like the disclaimers that run at the end of car commercials with a voice running so fast that you really can't comprehend what's being said.

That's what happens when you try to pack your message with too many words. You usually don't make things clearer for your audience. It's likely that the more they have to read or listen to, the less they will understand and remember. That's why I am so interested in my work. It's like a puzzle, trying to find a way to say it all well without saying too much.