Let's stop it with the hyperbole in public statements

CEOs: to what extent does hyperbole & exaggeration form part of your public statements?

In response to the high court action brought against it by Prince Harry and other high-profile figures back in January of this year, Daily Mail-publisher Associated Newspapers denied any wrongdoing, describing the claims as “lurid” and “preposterous”.

Not invalid. Not false. Not unreasonable.

"Preposterous" and "lurid".

I really, really don't understand all the hyberbole in disputes.

The constantly combative language.

The overblown statements.

The unwillingness to admit anything.

I don't understand it simply because that hyperbole doesn't work.

It doesn't convince anyone. 

If anything, it now makes you look shifty. Guilty. Because you're protesting too much.

Deflecting, rejecting & resisting may feel like defending your interests. But it actually harms them.

Enough of this. 

It's time we put the human back into public statements.

It's time we put the relationships back into legal stuff.

CEOs: next time you have an issue or a dispute, before you release any public statement on it... 

Read it from the perspective of the unconnected, independent person walking outside your window. 

Think about the relationship with your audience. 

Take out anything - everything - that might be an exaggeration, that might be overdone. 

If in doubt, err on the side of honesty. 

You'll sound more normal, more personable.

And you'll get a fairer hearing from your audience.

I can absolutely, positively, completely and hyperbolically guarantee it.