Nib #19: Meet Your Audience Where They Are

One of the burdens persuasive writers shoulder is knowing more about their topic than their audience. In theory, it’s a benefit, even a prerequisite for making effective arguments. But the same subject mastery needed to make writing persuasive can make writers un-persuasive.


If a writer’s immersion in a topic transcends knowledge acquisition and becomes something like a personal or professional identity, he can lose the ability to discuss the topic with anyone other than fellow experts. Some even see their inscrutability to laymen as a point of pride — evidence of intellectual superiority.


It’s not. 


Incomprehensible writing is bad writing. To persuade, writers must meet each audience where they are. As a matter of rhetorical strategy, this means framing and prioritizing points according to the audience’s values and goals, yes. But it should also govern word choice, sentence structure, and paragraph transitioning. How and when to cite references. How much to telegraph and explain an argument’s logical steps.


It’s the writer’s job to persuade, not the audience’s to be persuaded. To move readers from A to B, you have to meet them at A. If you write a speech, memo, oped, or other persuasive composition that your target audience just can’t understand, it’s not their fault for being dumb. It’s your fault for treating them like they are. 


Your audience will always — but only — give your writing the hearing it deserves.


Until next week… keep writing!

April 25, 2025
Five quick tips for polishing your prose.
April 18, 2025
A good poem for Good Friday.
April 11, 2025
James Michael Curley's list of must-haves for public speakers (and speechwriters).
April 4, 2025
Two essays point to a generational opportunity for young writers.
March 28, 2025
Honest Abe was a great writer -- especially the one time he wasn't.
March 21, 2025
Not today, Satan.
March 14, 2025
The official Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s big speech before Congress last week offered the country not only a contrast of political visions, but of rhetorical strategies. Trump’s address was defined by — and indeed, succeeded on — the strength of its concrete details: specific programs cut, specific heroes lauded, specific private-sector investments announced (See Nib #61 ). Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin’s nationally televised speech immediately following Trump was, too. But not obviously. Most of the specific details of the speech were biographical, in the first 100 words. After that, Slotkin glazed over issues with airbrushed generalities: “We need to bring down the price of things we spend the most money on…” “… change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe…” “Today’s world is deeply interconnected…” “We are a nation of strivers.” The climax of Slotkin’s speech was almost a parody of homogenized political banalities. The two things we need to overcome today’s challenges, according to Slotkin and her speechwriters: “Engaged citizens and principled leaders.” Woof. On the other hand, Democrats know this poll-tested pap won’t move the needle. So what’s really going on here? The most likely answer is what boxers call the “rope-a-dope.” That is, Slotkin’s — and by extension her party’s — plan here is to put up perfunctory, superficial resistance to bait Trump into overreaching or punching himself out. This is what Muhammed Ali famously did to George Foreman in 1974.
March 7, 2025
Tuesday night's address was a speechwriting masterclass in the power of specific detail.
February 28, 2025
How to use, and not use, intensifiers.
February 21, 2025
Why an old-school writing exercise may be more valuable than ever.
More Posts