Congratulations to Wynter R., for winning Best Content in September! Check out her article and a full analysis below.
Keyword: business litigation
- legitimate discussion is being attempted
- clearly just personal venting
- called a bad temper a “derogatory name”
- 13 flight attendants
One way the writer shows off her authority on the subject is by not relying on legal terms and jargon. Sometimes writers are tempted to include “legalese” in their articles because it seemingly indicates they know what they’re talking about—but if the target audience doesn’t have a legal background, those readers aren’t able to readily tell whether or not those terms are being used correctly. This essentially defeats the purpose of including that type of language in the first place. Properly addressing your audience and the general level of understanding they will have on a subject ensures the information can actually be applied to their situation. In this article, employers and employees alike can easily learn at what point online ranting becomes a problem. Being able to describe legal situations in a way that most everyone can understand means the writer knows her stuff; bringing in real life examples of the pierogi mascot and other employees who overstepped their employee rights clearly shows the writer has made the right connections.
Though the writer didn’t include many legal terms, they still maintained a certain level of formality. Business law and employee rights can change people’s livelihoods so the writing needs to reflect the seriousness of the situation. The article doesn’t “talk down” to the audience or present information that’s over anyone’s head. And by splitting up the article into three distinct sections of what sort of online writing is and is not protected, this helps readers easily move through the article without being bogged down.
The article follows a clear “introduction, 3 supporting points, conclusion” structure, which works wonderfully for guiding readers through separate yet related aspects of how employees can or cannot voice their frustrations and how employers can react. With the proper section headings and all relevant information encompassed in each section, this basic organization method helps the readability and overall flow of ideas.
This article has that “evergreen” feel to it because Facebook, Yelp, and other similar social media platforms haven’t been around all that long and employees and employers alike probably aren’t very familiar with how to pursue protected “ranting” and legal action respectively. Specifically addressing how to approach ranting or voicing frustrations online also helps increase the article’s use value as it hones in on a specific audience need. That, along with how well researched and written the article is, makes it all the more useful for readers.
Focusing the controlling idea on sharing information online really helps this article stand out. Had the article’s controlling idea focused on trying to explain all employee rights, or even a few of them, the writer wouldn’t have been able to share examples and information that were as useful. It’s also helpful that the writer didn’t try to over-explain what employees or employers have the right to do in such a situation; getting too complicated even on a single subject can lead to a disjointed and harder-to-understand article.