The other day on my way home from work, I heard a sponsorship message on the local NPR station from a financial consulting firm claiming to help companies with "dynamic needs." Maybe it was just because I'd had a long day or because my blood sugar was low, but it really annoyed me. What exactly is a "dynamic" need? Can a need really be "marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change"? (Merriam-Webster's definition.) What the sponsor meant - I think - was that they could help companies with constantly changing needs. But instead of just saying that, they threw in the much less precise "dynamic."

Now, admittedly, the word "dynamic" is sexier and more, well, dynamic than "constantly changing." But it's also one of the most overused words in B2B marketing and, as such, has almost lost its meaning entirely. The same could be said for "innovative," "cutting-edge" and "forward-thinking." (If a company really is all of these things, I always wonder, shouldn't it be able to think of a more original way to describe itself?)

Of course, my frustration in this area is hardly novel. People have been complaining about marketing clichés for as long as there has been marketing. ("By golly, if I read about one more of these 'new and improved' snake oil tonics, I'm going to bust my buttons!") What starts as fresh is doomed to become over-used and stale, and will ultimately ring hollow.

A couple years back, Jonathan Kranz actually posted a frequency report of what he terms "gobbledygook" in business press releases - words and phrases like "next generation," "robust," and "groundbreaking." (Surprisingly, "dynamic" isn't on his list.)

I'm not suggesting that words like these can or should be avoided completely. But they should be employed with caution, and used with precision -- not sprinkled into copy just because they sound "snappy." In most cases, simple, straightforward language snaps best of all.