Informal vs. Formal Writing: A Sign of the Times?

When I began journalism school in 2009, I immersed myself in the best journalistic writing out there: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, etc. But as I continued to progress in j-school, I saw the industry shift dramatically. Students my age were turning to BuzzFeed, or worse, tweets for their news intake. I still remain appalled by BuzzFeed's content, but is there a place for this type of informal, GIF-happy journalism on the Internet?

To see the differences between formal and informal writing, you only need to compare a company like The New York Times, arguably the bastion of the journalism industry, to something like BuzzFeed. The NYT thrives on long-form, detailed pieces that go on for hundreds of words. Most articles' structures build progressively throughout several paragraphs. Proper punctuation is used, and you won't find any trace of serious errors (fragments, comma splices, and so on). The tone is usually serious, and there's a sense of gravitas to the content in the formal style the NYT employs.

Meanwhile, BuzzFeed thrives on short, pithy sentences that are low on content and high on energy. Here the tone is meant to be humorous or evoke emotion. The writer frequently engages directly with the reader by using first-person point-of-view. You won't need a dictionary to read BuzzFeed; the word choice is always simple and concise. And you'll also see the occasional fragment used for dramatic effect. ("Kanye named his baby North. No really. He did. Honestly.") Worst of all, BuzzFeed writers inundate their audience with exclamation points at every turn. You won't read too many "articles" that don't use at least two or three per story.

Is formal writing dead, then? Sure, it's nice to know for when you're writing a cover letter. But as content becomes increasingly more web-friendly, the desire to read simpler, more accessible articles will likely trump the formalized style of age-old publications.

By now, most of you have probably seen Chipotle's new ad since it went viral more than a week ago. With beautiful visuals set to Fiona Apple's haunting cover of "Pure Imagination," it makes for a pretty powerful viewing experience, even if a lot of advertising experts aren't impressed.

Some have wondered if people will even remember the ad is for Chipotle as the Mexican restaurant chain's logo appears for only a second or two at the end of the ad. Others have questioned the manipulative nature of the ad, including this hilarious riff made by Funny or Die. ("And make sure to follow us on Twitter!" is my favorite part.)

Sure, the ad works well for those advocating for free-range methods of food production. But if you're against animal slaughter, the ad doesn't help much since Chipotle obviously carries out such practices to get its meat.

Chipotle came out with a similar ad a few years ago to equally mixed responses, this one featuring Willie Nelson covering Coldplay's "The Scientist" as caged-in farm animals were released to enjoy greener pastures (all before being taken away to be slaughtered, presumably).

Regardless of your opinion on the ad, it's hard to argue with the genius storytelling aspect of the ad. What Chipotle and its ad agency—Texas-based CAA Marketing—have done so well is create an ongoing narrative to their brand: one that immediately conjures up ideas of the restaurant in consumers' heads upon mention.

The story works for some, not for others. But undoubtedly people will walk away from the ad thinking about what they're eating and how they're getting it, even if only for a few moments. After all, bringing the matter to public consciousness is only the first part of consumer interaction. Getting them to act on this belief is an entire other matter that is still yet to be determined.