Writer, content designer and communications all-rounder. Strong on plain language, SEO and accessibility, with public sector, banking, medical and cybersecurity experience.
I re-subscribed to New Zealand Geographic today. I'm enjoying their campaign of honesty in saying they're struggling and need our subscriptions. Having worked in the magazine industry, I salute dropping the usual smoke-and-mirrors of pretending 50 bazillion people buy your magazine. It reframes the magazine as squarely for readers first and advertisers second. Another brave move is surveying their readership and publishing the results. As a plain language writer and editor, though, one result gave me pause. It seems to show more than a third of readers would like the magazine to use more complex language. I've seen publications crash and burn because they asked this question and didn't understand what the results really show. Side note: The term "reading level" is outdated when talking about communication between adults. It implies those who don't understand us are at a lower level, when if fact we simply failed to communicate clearly. The bigger problem is, asking readers what they think of our "reading level" is like asking cyclists who confidently ride in heavy traffic what they think of protected cycleways. Most will understand why safer cycling infrastructure is important, but a significant number will say there's no need for it. Asking people what level of writing clarity they prefer links to an even deeper foible. Our society thinks, wrongly, that the complexity of language you prefer is a measure of your intelligence. This leads many to say -- in public and in anonymous surveys -- they'd prefer harder-to-read material, when they probably wouldn't read it, let alone enjoy it. So this survey result probably tells us 34.9% like to tell themselves they're intelligent by society's definition. And that's totally fine. We all need positive reinforcement. Back to the cycleway analogy to understand how to measure if you're choosing the right language. We know safer cycling infrastructure is a good thing not because we've asked cyclists what they prefer, but because when we install it, (a) nearly everyone who currently rides a bike uses it, and (b) many more people start riding bikes. Similarly, the right language expands your readership without alienating existing readers. Applying this to NZ Geographic, they could try publishing some web articles in complex academic language, and see how that goes. Will those articles get more shares and see more people read to the end? I doubt it. In the real world, 34.9% of people will tick the box they've been told means, "I'm intelligent", but few have the energy to chew through pages of writing that, for all its complexity, delivers no more information than simpler language. And that's the thing. To communicate in plain language is never "dumbing down". On the contrary, saying what you mean, in a way most people can understand, is as sharp and courageous as it gets. And that's exactly how NZ Geographic reads to me.
Senior Technical Writer
3wThat's a really interesting analogy.