Instagram didn’t get the tone wrong

I hesitate to raise the Instagram topic on here. The controversial terms and conditions and subsequent ‘clarification’ have already received wall-to-wall coverage elsewhere.

But there’s a writing angle to the whole thing that needs some airing. The whole story is already being co-opted as a case study in the importance of clear communication and getting the tone right. This worries me, because that’s exactly what it isn’t, at least not in the way that’s being suggested.

This was the main offending paragraph in the terms and conditions:

To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

There is nothing wrong with the tone of this paragraph. It scores highly on clarity, using plain language, active verbs, personal pronouns (us and you) – all the things writers go on about every day.

There is a lot wrong with the content of the paragraph, at least according to thousands of Instagram users. But that’s not a language issue – it’s a policy issue. Any writers trying to use this as an example of the importance of ‘tone of voice’ are misinterpreting the problem. To an expert in tone of voice, every problem looks like a tone of voice issue.

The situation isn’t helped by Instagram’s disingenuous ‘clarification’, which tries to imply that this was all a miscommunication caused by ‘confusing’ language.

Again, this statement from Instagram has been hailed in various places as a good example of crisis communication – clear and helpful in the way the Ts and Cs weren’t.

But again, this is completely wrong. The Ts and Cs were absolutely clear, even if their content was controversial.

By contrast, the ‘clarification’ is slippery, mealy-mouthed and contradictory.

Here’s how it starts.

Thank you, and we’re listening

Yesterday we introduced a new version of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service that will take effect in thirty days. These two documents help communicate as clearly as possible our relationship with the users of Instagram so you understand how your data will be used, and the rules that govern the thriving and active Instagram community. Since making these changes, we’ve heard loud and clear that many users are confused and upset about what the changes mean.

Note the spectacularly passive-aggressive headline. The ‘Thank you’ attempts to characterise all this as a friendly exercise in helpful feedback, rather than a furious outcry at being taken for a ride. Note also how the objectors are characterised as ‘confused and upset’, as though they are bewildered lost sheep. As far as I could see, the objectors weren’t remotely confused and, far from upset, were very angry.

It goes on:

I’m writing this today to let you know we’re listening and to commit to you that we will be doing more to answer your questions, fix any mistakes, and eliminate the confusion. As we review your feedback and stories in the press, we’re going to modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos.

Legal documents are easy to misinterpret. So I’d like to address specific concerns we’ve heard from everyone.

This is the most disingenuous part of the whole piece. Again there’s that emphasis on ‘eliminating the confusion’, as though all this is down to the language being unclear. Then comes the massively patronising ‘Legal documents are easy to misinterpret’. The clear subtext is ‘You’re all getting het up because you don’t understand this complicated legal stuff – don’t worry, we’ll try and speak more slowly this time.’

The next paragraph relates to the main offending lines in the terms and conditions quoted above.

Advertising on Instagram

From the start, Instagram was created to become a business. Advertising is one of many ways that Instagram can become a self-sustaining business, but not the only one. Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we’d like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear.

This sounds pretty good at first – the blunt honesty of ‘Instagram was created to become a business’ (actually a meaningless truism) and ‘To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos.’ But there’s some really slippery stuff going on. Note how ‘it is not our intention to sell your photos’ isn’t the same as saying ‘we won’t sell your photos’. Despite the forthrightness of the tone, the message is still unclear – will you or won’t you?

Then there’s the continuing insistence that this is a problem with 'interpretation', culminating in the Orwellian ‘We are working on updated language’.

A reminder – here’s the offending paragraph:

To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

And here’s what they’re saying now:

To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos.

The language here doesn’t need ‘updating’, it needs retracting.

I won’t go on through the rest of statement, but the whole thing reminds me of a politician talking in confident, clear-sounding language – full of ‘let’s be clear’ and ‘we're listening’ – without actually being very clear at all. It’s tonally beguiling, but fundamentally deceptive.

If anything, this whole episode is a demonstration of the slippery charms of tone of voice. The terms and conditions were an example of clear language being used to convey information as simply as possible – it just happened to be controversial information.

The ‘clarification’ is an example of tone of voice being used to obscure and mollify. Almost like a filter applied to a photo, giving it nice fuzzy edges and an air of authenticity.

Given that the clarification has been largely well received, this has become an interesting case study in the power of tone of voice – but one that should make writers, me included, feel pretty uncomfortable.

Comments

[Xenia]

Agree with all of this!

[Bubbadotbubba]

I understand why the "clarification" has been well-received by the crowd. It's because people didn't read it carefully. There is a world of difference between, "We won't." and "We'll try not to." The latter leaves the door as wide open as it was originally. It just means that when they are caught, a head might roll in the interest of PR Pablum, and that there will be no grounds for a lawsuit.

[John]

A more likely scenario might be for Instagram to license the use of the image without selling anything.

[Ariel]

This is exactly what I've been trying to tell people! The legal language isn't "confusing", it's very clear and intentionally broad. If you agree to those terms, Instagram can sell your photos, whether its their current intention or not.

I found the whole "apology" to be very condescending and misleading.

[Dabitch]

I agree. The apology just confirmed that I did the right thing, for me, in deleting my account. In the end it'll probably "only" be social advertising, the way facebook does theirs, but the idea of my kid-pics being used in this fashion make me want to not participate. I've had it with the free, social, advertising-covered toys. What they give me in momentary fun & distraction isn't worth removing the privacy of the next generation, IMHO.

[Doctor X]

Well said! Bully! Radical! Awesome!

[CoCreatr]

Thank you. I am outta there already. Embracing flickr more. http://www.flickr.com/photos/cocreatr/sets/72157632294747420/with/8291147844/

[gregorylent]

here is what a new-paradigm company would do ...

announce a revenue sharing program with its users, placing great photos with great companies dividing the wealth with the photographer ...

imagine the buzz around THAT!

[Khemingway]

They're not contradicting themselves at all. The word "sell" does not appear in the initial offending paragraph. (Neither does the word "license," for that matter.)

[JustPlainTweets]

It all comes back to media literacy and understanding how tone can be used to manipulate users.

[stu fox]

Since the original paragraph says that businesses may pay instagram for your content, but instagram won't pay you for someone else using your content, don't you think that the company believes your content belongs to them?

[katey]

This is well written, however, in the closing it states that the "clarification" has been well received. I, for one, have not accepted the clarification. The writer assumes the people have fallen for their "tone". I have not.

[Frau Haselmayer]

Seriously, this statement made it even worse for me. I hate that they are trying to make it appear as their users are just to dumb to understand these new terms (well, unfortunately lots are or get lulled by their excuse). To me they also made themselves and their intentions pretty clear. And they admitted that they put them out 30 days early to see if any concerns arise...what does this mean? To me this means: Let's see how far we can push this and if your dumb users will notice what we are up to. Nice!

I really do not want to leave as I am going miss instagram and the community there but I definitely will!

[Zetruenando]

Is Instagram an exception? THis blog is on Typepad, correct? Read the following and tell me what you think: (Extract of TypePad's TOS)
...But by using the TypePad Service or TypePad's Web properties through which the TypePad Service is available, you are granting TypePad a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable right and license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform and publicly display your content, subject to any restrictions on such distribution which you may implement through any content distribution controls provided to you by TypePad as part of the TypePad Service.

http://www.typepad.com/tos

[Nick - Editor]

Perhaps they should use StyleWriter to edit the terms into plain English.

[Giovanni Savino]

A very interesting, well written and important analysis. An angle of the recent IG events I am glad someone took the time to explore.

[Nick Asbury]

Thanks for all the comments on this. Should make clear that this blog is concerned with the writing / communication angle. I'm not really offering an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the Instagram terms of service, just the communication around them.

As far as the Typepad terms of service go, my reading of them is that they set out the bare minimum required to run any kind of blogging service - you need to have permission to publicly display content on a variety of platforms.

[Heath Gaville]

Instagram isn't for people with minds. Most users there don't even know what they are doing. Just about right that I left them in the dirt. :)

[rayane]

gostei