
BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful - jger15
https://www.animalz.co/blog/bottom-line-up-front/
======
kstrauser
I appreciate that the first line of the article says:

> BLUF is a military communications acronym—it stands for “bottom line up
> front”—that’s designed to enforce speed and clarity in reports and emails.

...thus following its own advice. One sentence in and I know what it's talking
about.

~~~
weinzierl
> One sentence in and I know what it's talking about.

And that's were I stopped reading, because I don't believe there is anything
more interesting for me after that inital sentence. For me it's a win, I
learned something new in almost no time. Now for the author or publisher it's
a win too if they solely want to inform their readers.

If the intention is to keep the readers on the site as long as possible it's
completely different though. Good long-form articles that keep the suspense
till the end have their place too.

Where it gets muddy, and this is my opinion the majority of blog posts
nowadays, is when the authors can't make up their minds. I understand that a
lot of authors have a journalistic background or at least some journalistic
training, where the _" Inverted Pyramid"_[1] (which is similar by idea to
BLUF) is held in high regards. On the other hand they are pressured by the
metrics to keep readers on the site. Add to that the common SEO wisdom that
Google loves long pages better than short ones[2] you end up with Chimera
articles where one half want's to build suspense and the other is afraid to
bury the lede.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_\(journalism\))

[2] I don't know and don't claim it's true.

~~~
HNLurker2
kek

------
Donald
Like everything else in the US military, there is a written standard to
support this style. See Army Regulation 25-50, Section IV "The Army Writing
Style"
[https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r25_50....](https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r25_50.pdf)

> Army writing will be concise, organized, and to the point. Two essential
> requirements include putting the main point at the beginning of the
> correspondence (bottom line up front) and using the active voice (for
> example, “You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training
> last year”).

~~~
herdrick
That's the passive voice! The explanation for why their example of the active
voice is in fact the passive voice is right below, in section "e". That's
pretty funny.

~~~
jameshart
It's not really a passive sentence, even though it has all the attributes the
Army apparently deems necessary and sufficient to declare it as such in
section e.

But a passive sentence is one where the subject is absent - but in this
sentence, the subject is 'you'. 'Entitled to jump pay for the time you spent
in training last year' is an adjectival phrase. The sentence makes an active
statement about the recipient:

You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year.

is no more passive than

You are a fine soldier.

A passive version of this sentence would be more like

You are being granted jump pay for the time you spent in training last year.

~~~
dllthomas
The subject of the verb "to entitle" is that which grants entitlement. The
recipient is the object. I think we can legitimately read the sentence as
passive.

Active; "applicable regulations" are doing something:

 _" Applicable regulations entitle you to jump pay for the time you spent in
training last year."_

Passive; "applicable regulations" are still doing something:

 _" You are entitled by applicable regulations to jump pay for the time you
spent in training last year."_

Still passive; vague about what's doing something:

 _" You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last
year."_

As you point out, "entitled" is often used as an adjective. I think you're
right that the sentence can be read that way, and in that case it is indeed
active.

After consideration, I think the passive read is more correct, but I can't yet
put my finger on why.

~~~
e12e
Isn't the subject you, the verb "to be" (are) - and the reminder a describing
clause?

You run quickly.

You are a good boy.

You are entitled to receive praise.

?

Ed: but "you qualify for pay" might be better active voice here?

Ed2: I see jameshart made a similar point more eloquently about "adjectival
phrase"

~~~
dllthomas
"Quickly" modifies the verb, "a good boy" is a noun phrase.

"You are smart" is a better analogue, clearly active voice. "You are hit" is
another analogue, clearly passive.

I still believe that we can read the original sentence in the latter way -
with "entitled" a verb used passively. I remain unsure as to whether we can
read it the other way - with "entitled" as adjective.

------
beloch
Academic abstracts are very similar but evolved to serve a slightly different
purpose. Papers take time to read and there are a lot of them coming out all
the time, so researchers need to know if a paper has something they're
interested in it before investing the time to read it. I've grown accustomed
to this consideration from people who want my eyeballs to read their words. If
you send me messages, etc. similar to what this article uses as "before BLUF"
examples, it's very likely going to piss me off.

There are a decent number of long-form articles posted on Hacker News that
don't follow this standard and don't have a last paragraph (or two, or
three...) that's any more helpful. They typically have an intriguing click-
bait title that fails to fully parse and I wind up clicking on them just to
figure out what they're about. I read three or four paragraphs in and it
becomes clear the article is going to do a painfully slow reveal of it's
point, if it even has one. So, I scroll _alllll_ the way down to the bottom,
noting that it will take a good twenty minutes to read that far, and find the
last few paragraphs to be utterly unhelpful ramblings rather than a summary or
conclusion. Giving up, I read the comments here and it is frequently the case
that a lot of people are just commenting on the title without having figured
out what heck the article is about either.

I find this absolutely infuriating.

I apologize for venting.

------
derekp7
This is a sore spot for me, someone sending an IM with a quick "Got a
minute?", which pulls me out of my thought zone. And once I answer back, I
have no idea how long it is going to take for them to tell me what their issue
is (could be 30 seconds, or a couple minutes -- I've often waited for 10
minutes, then got up to go for a meeting, and they get upset when I don't
answer).

I'd much rather them just tell me what problem they are having up front, so I
cat least give them an answer and get back to work.

~~~
lbotos
I think about this a lot, and I call it "atomic messaging" in my head. You
need to be able to address the message in full as if it were a pop up. (As
messages often are via notifications) If the message requires follow up for
clarity it's not atomic enough.

Example:

Did you ask him if what the results were? -> Did you ask Jim what the results
of the 2019 Survey are?

It's really helped me avoid being that person, and I've asked it of others
with varying results.

~~~
insulanus
Yes! This applies just as much to email correspondence.

I think of it as resolving all references.

(Can I make up a new TLA? RAR!)

------
DoreenMichele
My dad was career military. So was my ex husband.

This military communications standard probably goes a long ways towards
explaining why people seem to either think I'm _rude, crude and socially
unacceptable_ or _refreshingly direct with no BS._

~~~
austincheney
BLUF is completely disarming to sensitive people. Consider it a subcultural
impasse.

BLUF, as a generalized communication style, is a way of thinking that
impatiently violates the social pleasantries of socializing for the sake of
being social.

~~~
thesuperbigfrog
BLUF is for communication between military personnel. Sensitive people who
join the military "get over it" pretty quickly.

As in all communications, knowing your audience and their norms is of utmost
importance to avoid miscommunication or giving offence.

------
thesuperbigfrog
The perfect three section military email: (typically from a subordinate to a
superior)

1) BLUF statement of the subject at hand.

2) Details section that gives in-depth explanations and references to relevant
military regulations as to why BLUF statement is correct / best course of
action.

3) "The Way Ahead" section that gives recommended next steps or possible
future issues to be aware of.

------
blaesus
Former journalist here. This structure is also known as "inverted pyramid"[0].
CIA has a book[1] that details the process to apply the structure recursively
to build an article.

Beware of the potential pitfalls of "stating the key first":

1\. The key point might be complex and requires a build up – rushing to the
point could confuse your readers;

2\. What's "most important" depends on the reader and if you write for a wide
audience, it is not always obvious;

3\. If you design your writing to be "modular", readers could be more likely
to abandon your work prematurely;

4\. Sometimes the most important detail is that you are taking the time and
being patient to communicate, and making a point with little context could
alienate;

5\. You could feel lazy and not control the complexity of your article because
"I already made it easy for the readers to skim and skip!".

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_\(journalism\))

[1]
[https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.scip.org/resource/resmgr/White_Pap...](https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.scip.org/resource/resmgr/White_Papers/Analytic-
Thinking-CIA.pdf)

~~~
blablabla123
It's funny that this has even a name and is so wide-spread. One can also apply
this principle to talking and I used to work with people that were obsessed
with this style. I totally agree with you that there are pitfalls and probably
one could even add more to the list.

Probably there is a good reason why people usually talk the way they do: build
up a context, make the listener (or reader) familiar with what is going on and
why we are talking about this. And then explain what we are _actually_ talking
about.

This inverted pyramid talking style is so artificial and makes me question
whether the advocates of it are just using it as an excuse to not read or
listen to anything. It makes people indeed just hurry through communication.

~~~
blaesus
Writing formulae are like design patterns. They give us names to think and
talk about structures, but too often become dogmata.

------
Edmond
This mode of writing has its strength, unfortunately it also encourages a lazy
and low detail mode of communication when applied to places it doesn't belong.

I have had the experience of working in an environment with ex-military folks
installed in leadership positions, the BLUF style of communication was
standard issue.

One problem this style of communication has when applied to a non-military
work environment is that top-down communication ends up taking the form of
commands, as opposed to actually conveying information that would enlighten
the reader.

~~~
sandworm101
>> taking the form of commands, as opposed to actually conveying information
that would enlighten the reader.

That's a key observation. BLUF is most used when officers are talking to non-
officers. The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but
do not need to know why they need to do something. Between officers, BLUF is
not nearly as common. The assumption is that officers shall have wider
latitude, the ability to even disobey the specific instructions, and so need
greater background information.

Captain to corporals: All pickup trucks shall carry a fire extinguisher.
[BLUF]

Captain to Warrant Officers: Provide fire extinguishers in all the pickup
trucks because local law requires it. [BLUF + context to encourage compliance]

Captain to lieutenant: A new law was just past that looks to require fire
extinguishers in all pickup trucks on public roads. Please make sure none of
our trucks leave the base without one. [No BLUF. Explanation of situation and
commander intent. Specifics of implementation left in hands of reader]

~~~
phaus
>The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not
need to know why they need to do something.

I spent almost 2 decades in the Army. Its a terrible assumption. Except for
combat situations, other emergencies, or really trivial tasks, everyone should
know why they are doing something. It is physically impossible to make a non-
stupid person care about a thing of which they have no knowledge. From my
experience, the one thing that has the greatest impact on a person's ability
to do a good job is a genuine desire to accomplish whatever their objective
is. If they don't know what that objective is, they simply aren't going to
give a shit. They might get it done adequately, but the military is a self-
proclaimed meritocracy, so one would think that isn't enough.

It has been at least 50 years if not 100 since the majority of enlisted people
didn't have a decent education. Now its incredibly common for enlisted
Soldiers to have an undergraduate degree. Education isn't a guarantee of
competence, intelligence, or even anything remotely useful, but that goes for
officers and enlisted personnel.

Yet the military still insists on operating like they did in olden times when
the average enlisted person was an illiterate farm hand. Their primary
business is the physical enforcement of political interests (AKA combat), so
in some ways it makes sense for them even though it also hurts them. However,
businesses should be careful when evaluating their methodologies for civilian
use, because there are certainly a ton of drawbacks.

The reason the US military is one of the most capable fighting forces in the
world has more to do with technological sophistication (created by civilians)
and a near unlimited budget than it has to do with the leadership of the
military, the horrific bureaucracy that the leadership created/maintains, or
the frequently alleged magical, inherent superiority of the American soldier.

~~~
sandworm101
You are overthinking the problem. It isn't that there is no advantage in
explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to
some officer drone on about why something is being done. For the trivial
stuff, stuff like my example above, they really have no immediate interest in
why something has to be done. That can come later. The published SOP, the
checklist in the guard shack, doesn't need to include the history behind the
decision.

One thing that most leaders ignore is that explaining a decision to people who
have no real input into that decision can often be really bad for moral. It
makes the decision maker look less than confident, like they are seeking
reassurance in their decision by explaining all the background behind it.

~~~
phaus
I agreed above that for trivial things an explanation is unnecessary.

> It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times
> the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why
> something is being done.

From my experience this mostly happens when the explanation is either blatant
lying, or if its true and reveals that incompetence at a higher level than the
officer delivering the message has generated a bunch of unnecessary work for
the unit.

More commonly I hear Soldiers saying "This is stupid, why are we doing this?"
to their comrades and NCOs. Usually followed by the Soldiers doing whatever it
is to the minimal accepted standard.

------
CalChris
I naturally write in an inductive style, data+evidence followed by conclusion.
And gosh darn, don't I just feel brilliant when, after I've laid out all my
evidence and my deserving reader has been inevitably led to the only possible
conclusion, mine, they agree with the only possible conclusion, mine. My
reader is so lucky to have me as a writer.

Well, at least I was made aware of this particular conceit by some rhet profs
at Berkeley. But really, anyone, myself included, who writes inductively in a
professional setting should be fired for having wasted their readers' time.
Luckily, HN is not a professional setting.

~~~
kajmagnusmobile
That was an inductive style comment itself? :- ) at least not BLUF (it didn't
start with "they should be fired")

------
Animats
The author is writing about advertising and bulk mail copy, not
"communication". This is the classic advertising concept that ads should
include a call to action.[1] Also, this came from Harvard Business Review in
2016.[2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_action_(marketing)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_action_\(marketing\))
[2] [https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-
pre...](https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-precision)

------
anotherevan
I wish more news site articles would practice this. So many times I'm scanning
the damn thing for the bottom line to decide if I want to read all the waffle
or not.

~~~
cryptonector
Back before the Internet became users' most important news source, newspapers
used to do have a hierarchical structure to their stories. The headline would
tell you a fair bit, then the first paragraph or two would tell you all the
salient points, and each subsequent paragraph would add details.

Now it seems that the important things are buried at the end of the article.
The idea seems to be to hook you in and make you keep reading. You hope to
find what you're looking for, and in the process stay longer on this page,
possibly getting distracted by ads and (intrasite) links.

~~~
woliveirajr
or make you view all the ads that appear in the page :)

------
teddyh
Sounds like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_\(journalism\))

------
yellowapple
From one of the article's comments: "Question: would you use BLUF in every
blog intro? Storytelling intros can be inspiring, for example."

If every blog intro followed BLUF, then maybe I'd be actually interested in
reading them. Storytelling intros only inspire me to lose interest immediately
and close the tab.

------
bakery2k
I came across this recently, when writing a blog post about a puzzle I solved.
I wasn't sure whether to structure the post "chronologically", telling a
story:

    
    
        1. Here's an interesting puzzle.
        2, 3, 4, 5. These are the steps I took to solve it.
        6. Hence the solution is X.
    

or using BLUF:

    
    
        1. Here's an interesting puzzle.
        2. I found the solution is X.
        3, 4, 5, 6. These are the steps I took to find that solution.
    

I'm still not sure which structure would be the best choice in which
situation. Are there any guidelines?

~~~
sitkack
Teach a person to fish. 1 maps to 2. And how it got there is [3,6]. This is
absolutely (that word) the right way to go.

------
killjoywashere
I have a boss who would treat the subject line of his emails like SMS. The
body of the email is often blank. I have adopted that. It makes BLUF look slow
and awkward.

~~~
anotherevan
I use to do this (with an "EOM" on the end) but gmail doesn't lend itself well
to this.

~~~
sitkack
this was a common msft corp email technique in the 90s. it worked really
well<eom>

~~~
kajmagnusmobile
We did this too at my first job, and I also included SOM and MOM for start and
middle.

------
m0zg
Yep. More than a decade ago, I formulated this rule: if it doesn't say what it
wants in the first 3 sentences, I ain't reading it.

I'd also suggest one more thing: do not send emails on which you expect a
response on Friday evening. It'll be gone and forgotten by Monday. Send it on
Monday morning instead. OTOH if you'd like to bury some mildly bad news,
Friday evening is a perfect time to send it out, for the same reason.

------
somacert
Makes sense, depending on complexity my email sections tend to be.

Executive summary: Summary: In general: Specifically:

Now I feel all sorts of validated for being pedantic about the whole thing.

~~~
nvahalik
Yes.

In most of the companies I work with, there tend to be large email threads.
It's not uncommon for a dozen people to be on a thread once I get snowballed
into it. There are not only engineers but usually C-level folks as well.

By the time I make my reply, I usually end up writing "bottom up" just like
you are saying... I write the detail, then summarize it above and then try to
answer the top 1 or 2 questions I know the top-level folks will want answered
at the bottom—even if it's just "we know what the problem is and it's been
fixed or will be fixed shortly".

I think it's comforting for the top-level folks to see the respect that
answers their questions quickly and it also makes them feel good that
additional detail is available for those who care.

------
hackerbabz
I appreciate a detail of this author's writing that is not pointed out. It
lacks a concluding paragraph.

I think this is a relic of gradeschool essay writing rules (i.e, Say what you
are going to say, say it, say what you said).

I almost alway stop reading an article once I sense I've reached the
conclusion. That means I've learned what the author wants me to learn, and all
I'm going to get next is a pithy sign off.

~~~
jessaustin
I always try to give my essays horror-movie-style conclusions, which creepily
undermine everything that went before.

------
jacquesm
Funny, this is more or less exactly how we write our reports. But I've never
heard of 'BLUF'. It seems to be the most logical way in which to write a
report given that attention decays over the reading of a piece and that active
voice trumps passive voice when writing about real world events and
situations, it simply makes the writing more compelling.

------
miguelmota
It reminds me of the format for git commit messages; where the first line is
short and sweet and to the point of what it is, and the content following it
is supporting details and more verbose.

It's interesting to see known patterns applied in different environments and
named differently but the essence is the same.

------
fargle
true story: a number of years ago I used this acronym in conversation. None of
my coworkers had heard of it. They quickly googled it and ended up here:
[https://www.bluf.com](https://www.bluf.com) which _really_ confused them.

------
vasili111
Also look at Inverted pyramid (journalism):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_\(journalism\))

------
sowbug
Legal writing has a similar concept, though it's not as standardized as BLUF.
It goes by various abbreviations: IRAC, CRAP, CRAC, CREAC. They all follow the
same general format: state your conclusion (C) or the relevant issue (I),
recite the rule (R) of law that applies to the facts, explain (E) how the
facts apply (A) to the rule of law, and finally restate your conclusion (C) or
predict (P) which way the ruling body will decide. Like BLUF, the legal
writing format assumes the reader will read only the first part of a
communication, and will continue only if he or she needs more detail.

------
seidlitz
Tactics like BLUF are the sad sign of times. We put too much emphasis on
hacks, efficiency, and tactics instead of learning and practicing age old
rules for good writing or whatever else we need to master.

~~~
ryacko
Often times people like to hear themselves speak and everyone forgets the
point of communication.

~~~
webninja
Communication can also be for relationship and community building

------
rdtsc
I've been doing this for a while and didn't know it had a name. Sometimes I
add an explicit snarky heading like this:

TL;DR: <Main point>

<Long explanation>

However, when writing comments on HN or other forums I go for what I call a
"fireside chat" approach. Complete with metaphors, euphemisms and lots more
sarcasm. Mostly because I find it more entertaining and enjoyable.

------
wery
BLUF is great until you realize that people just want you to write "BLUF:
ipsem lorem" and that is all they read, and then then you get the same problem
of having to explain your email body to someone over and over again. I can't
stand BLUF for anything besides the most simple asinine events that happen.

------
motohagiography
I reverse the order of every email I write before sending it. As in, I write
it then put the last thing I wrote first, because it necessarily has more
thought put into it. Same with paragraphs.

BLUF works when the power relationship between the speaker and
listener/reader/writer was established prior to the communication.

------
insulanus
I think this style is great when action is required.

The "purpose at the top" principle could be useful even for scientists or
artists, though.

For example:

Purpose of email: evaluate yesterday's experiment.

Unfortunately, yesterday's experiment's results were bullshit, because I
forgot to recharge the carbon dioxide canisters ... (etc).

------
Stenzel
Sadly most sorce code follows the exact opposite convention - starting with
legalese, followed by boring initialisation. I wish more source code would
come to the point right at the start, and I am thankful for the new acronym
BLUF that expresses this concept quite clearly.

~~~
microcolonel
Maybe in languages without declaration hoisting, you could go with BLOB:
Bottom Line On Back.

------
lerxst00
A good video on writing that talks about similar ideas is
[https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkCaM](https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkCaM)

This video is geared more towards academic writing, but, I've found it helpful
even outside of that space.

------
stubish
This style is critical for effective remote work. I might steal or link it for
our internal documentation.

So much time wasted 'handshaking' before an actual point is made before I can
determine if I can spend time on the query or need to pass it on.

------
cwp
There's a lot to be said for this style of writing, but I just hate the name.
It should be Bottom Line Up TOP. Ok, that's pedantic, I know. But a standard
for _clear writing_ should not be named with a mixed metaphor, dammit!

------
c3534l
So like, some sort of introduction that summarizes the rest of that paper?
Next you'll be telling me they recommend organizing paragraphs according to
argument or point and to end it with some sort of conclusion!

------
vasili111
That is how also news articles should be written.

------
tempodox
There should be a startup that uses machine learning to convert arbitrary
fluff from the internet to BLUF format as a service.

------
praptak
I like emails that start with "If you are not interested in X, you can stop
reading now."

Just like the early returns in programming.

------
tyingq
The USAF has a similar manual. Google for "USAF Tongue Quill" and the PDF is
the first result.

------
plutonorm
Great for 'red' type personalities. But for a green/yellow like me this is
horrific

------
Glyptodon
Doesn't sound too much different than traditional inverted pyramid news style.

------
voidhorse
Kind of ironic that a style meant to lay the cards on the table is called
bluff.

------
ece
1) be concise 2) give context

Write better, and be widely read. Good article.

------
edmoffo
This is gold. Forwarded to all friends.

------
Readywater
v/r

------
dx87
It's not a standard, it's the same as TLDR. The only difference is that it's
before the content instead of after.

~~~
killjoywashere
Yes, the key difference is that tl;dr is, by placement, a sort of self-
effacing, humorous admission of self absorption while BLUF is all about
teaching every member of a multi-million person organization to write
empathically. Not bad for 4 letters. But, yes, if you just move the tl;dr to
the top, that would be a great first step.

As a participant in this arena, I can say my observation has been that the
real experts often omit the term BLUF because it gets in the way of their
message. Omitting BLUF is not a sign of expertise. Far from it. But the really
expert empaths know when to break the rules.

