Washington DC
ZERO as a number needs a complete overhaul. The problems are obvious. First
of all, zero doesn鈥檛 have the broad public appeal of a classic such as &pgr; or the
pizzazz of 鈥渮illion鈥�. Also, it is completely neglected by the press, which tends
to focus on huge negative numbers such as government debt, or huge positive ones
like Italian footballers鈥� salaries. Even deadbeats have abandoned it.
Generations X鈥檈rs aren鈥檛 content with being a bunch of zeros鈥攖hey want to
be losers. Clearly, zero is losing its market share, and it鈥檚 time we set out to
revamp it.
Of course, scientists are partly to blame for the mess zero finds itself in.
Take the topic of 鈥渁bsolute zero鈥�. Whenever it comes up, physicists are quick to
point out that we cannot actually reach it. And when NASA鈥檚 publicity agents
claim that the International Space Station is a 鈥渮ero-gravity鈥� environment, its
scientists give the game away and acknowledge that they can鈥檛 do better than
microgravity. The only zero that actually crops up comes at the end of a meal,
when they are calculating their share of the bill.
Advertisement
So, I have a few proposals for overhauling zero. I shall start with the
definition. According to Noah Webster鈥檚 famous American Dictionary of the
English Language, zero is: 鈥淎n element of a set that when added to any
other element in the set produces a sum identical with the element to which it
was added.鈥� Any publicist worth his Porsche will tell you that the Webster
definition is wordy and lacks punch. To turn things around for zero, we have to
think in soundbites. It is worth remembering the publicist鈥檚 mantra: simple is
better.
I鈥檓 not advocating rewriting the dictionary. That would require the sort of
astronomical advertising budget that only tobacco companies and gun lobbyists
can afford. Instead, all we have to do is ask the compilers of Webster to
reorder the definitions. Definition number 7 reads: 鈥淣othing鈥�. That is exactly
the kind of plain speaking we need. We simply ask the lexicographers to
interchange definitions number 7 for number 1. And if Webster doesn鈥檛 accept our
polite request, then we play hardball. We boycott the dictionary. The beauty of
this plan is that the boycott will hardly affect scientists, since few of us
seem to own dictionaries anyway.
The next thing we have to tackle is the image problem. The circle and its
variant, the oval, are pass茅. So are the square and the triangle, for
that matter. Actually, all these shapes have been recognised as dull and
unimaginative ever since the American artist Ellsworth Kelly, a leading exponent
of the 鈥渉ard-edge鈥� style, started painting them. Consequently, I propose a new
shape for zero, one with some marketing appeal:
The final problem with zero is that it starts with the letter 鈥渮鈥�. In a
previous Forum article
(22 June 1996, p 48) I proposed doing away with the
letter 鈥渮鈥�, and I鈥檇 better be consistent. I suggest we simply call it 鈥渆ro鈥�.
This sounds a bit brusque, so I ran it past a publicist friend. He asked people
which word they liked more: 鈥渆ro鈥� or 鈥渮ero鈥�. 鈥淯nfortunately,鈥� he explained, 鈥渆ro
didn鈥檛 poll well.鈥� However, it polled very well when he told people that the
Latin word erotranslates as 鈥渢he smell of daffodils on a cool summer
evening鈥�. He calls this 鈥減ackaging鈥�. In other words, when the truth stinks,
bring in the potpourri.
Now that we鈥檝e simplified the message and patched up the image problem, we
have to get the word out. How? Well, scientists could pass out 鈥渆ro鈥� test tubes
at community socials or wear 鈥渆ro鈥� sandwich boards when strolling to work. But,
if we want to saturate the general public, we must be bolder, more creative. I
say we take our message to the one place that everyone is sure to visit once a
day. Let鈥檚 have an 鈥渆ro鈥� stamp on every ply of every toilet paper roll. And
let鈥檚 hope the manufacturers agree, because a boycott could cause problems.
Finally, no PR campaign can be successful without a slogan. I tested a few
out on my colleagues: 鈥渆ro: A Number You Can Believe In!鈥� and 鈥渆ro: The Cream of
Manchester!鈥� Surprisingly, these polled badly. (I suspect that my fellow
professors have no grasp of marketing.) Eventually, I settled on a slogan that
fully captures what this campaign is all about: 鈥淢ake Something Out of Nothing!鈥�
This should work. After all, if you鈥檝e got nothing to say, it鈥檚 a lot easier to
get people to agree.