| What is "readability" and why does it matter? | | | | a fog index of 12, it has the reading level of a U.S. |
| According to the encyclopedia, "Readability is a | | | | high school senior. The test was developed by |
| measure of the accessibility of a piece of writing, | | | | Robert Gunning, an American businessman, in |
| indicating how wide an audience it will reach. | | | | 1952. Texts that are designed for a wide audience |
| Readability is a judgment of how easy a text is | | | | generally require a fog index of less than 12. |
| to understand." [Wikipedia 2006] | | | | Formula: |
| Why is it important? Well, of all the fuzzy | | | | The Laesbarhedsindex (LIX) readability formula is |
| uncertainties about whether your marketing | | | | useful because it's simple can be used on |
| message or website text is just right to do the | | | | documents of any Western European language. |
| job, one thing you can be certain of is whether | | | | The test calculates an index score of a text |
| your readers can understand it. Your copywriting | | | | sample based on sentence length and number of |
| ability may be good, bad, or indifferent, but you | | | | long words (i.e., words containing seven or more |
| can be absolutely sure that if they can't read it | | | | characters). Formula: [ |
| you don't have a chance. | | | | SMOG (Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook) is a |
| Tools of the Trade | | | | widely-used readability formula that estimates the |
| While copywriting itself is as much art as science, | | | | years of education needed to understand a piece |
| fortunately readability metrics are easy to | | | | of writing. It yields an outstandingly high 0.985 |
| calculate, simple to interpret, and tell no lies. Most | | | | correlation with the grades of readers who had |
| of us don't use them but we should. This is the | | | | 100% comprehension of test materials. G. Harry |
| bare minimum -- how many of your readers can | | | | McLaughlin invented it in 1969 as a more accurate |
| "get" what you are writing. The tools to | | | | and more easily calculated substitute for the |
| determine this are readily accessible, free, and | | | | Gunning-Fog_Index. Formula: |
| easy to use. | | | | What's Good? |
| Under Tools in Word, their spell check will calculate | | | | A "good" score, of course, depends on your |
| some summary counts and averages as well as | | | | target audience, your chosen style (part of |
| two readability metrics if you tick off "Check | | | | branding), and what you mean to do. But there |
| Readability Statistics" in the Options for Spelling | | | | are some general rules of thumb. According to |
| and Grammar. But it does this last so you have | | | | Future Now [2006] referring to various published |
| to go through the whole spell check first. Maybe | | | | studies, an "ideal writing standard" might be as |
| that isn't such a bad idea, though... | | | | follows: |
| However, much more powerful is an excellent | | | | - No more than 4.25 characters per word. |
| free tool from Readability.info. This online resource | | | | - No more than 5% passive voice. |
| computes readability scores for Word files and | | | | - No less than an 80% readability. |
| whole Web sites in a flash. As they say: "By | | | | - A Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level between 4 and 65 |
| comparing the readability score of different | | | | (sky's the limit, it seems...) |
| documents (or Web pages) you can better hone | | | | - A Fog Index higher than 13 puts you in the |
| your writing and make sure that you aren't | | | | danger zone. |
| creating overly complex sentences and | | | | While the Grade Level seems arbitrary depending |
| paragraphs for your audience." | | | | on who your target audience is, it should be said |
| Specifically, the tool provides all the following | | | | that the average best-seller is around Grade 4 |
| readability and associated metrics: | | | | level, newspapers about 6, and business books |
| - Readability Indexes | | | | 7-8. Lower than you might have thought. |
| - Sentence Information | | | | Of course your audience can read at higher levels |
| - Word Usage Info | | | | -- but you want to make your message easy to |
| - Sentence Beginnings | | | | read. If your readability scores seem wildly out of |
| Another free tool that isn't nearly as powerful but | | | | line with your audience's abilities, Future Now |
| is certainly useful (and you probably haven't heard | | | | offers a few strategies for making repairs: |
| of before) is Future Now's online We-We | | | | - Rewrite passive sentences so they become |
| Calculator. No, it isn't a urine test for illegal drugs! | | | | active sentences. |
| This nifty tool analyzes the words on your site to | | | | - Remove unnecessary words like "the" or "a", |
| see if you are talking mostly about your | | | | extraneous words like "that", adjectives that don't |
| customers and their needs or if you talking | | | | pack a meaningful punch or anything that isn't |
| mostly about yourself. | | | | helping your message. |
| We are rather proud of our businesses, products, | | | | - Replace 50-cent words with 5-cent words |
| and services. But naturally customers don't much | | | | whenever the difference isn't critical to your style |
| care about that (strange, isn't it?). Rather, they | | | | or meaning. |
| are very interested in themselves and their own | | | | - Let your verbs do the work you'd otherwise |
| wants and needs. Future Now's quick analysis can | | | | assign your adjectives. |
| help you adjust that balance. You will probably be | | | | - Take the time to learn how your customers |
| surprised by the objective analysis. | | | | talk about your product or service so you can |
| Readability Scores | | | | write to them in language they actually use. |
| This is a good time to review the various popular | | | | Only One Piece of the Puzzle |
| readability indexes, all of which are calculated by | | | | Obviously this is just a quick introduction to the |
| the Readability.info tool. Some take a different | | | | topic. But taking a closer look at your text |
| approach or measure things a bit differently and, | | | | content in a quantitative way may provide some |
| in any case, everyone selects just a few | | | | surprises as well as pointers to adjustments you |
| favorites that they rely on regularly. Here they | | | | may wish to make. While there are sound |
| are: | | | | guidelines, in general, there is no "good" or "bad" |
| The Automated Readability Index (ARI) is | | | | score -- it all depends on what you want to |
| designed to gauge the understandability of a text. | | | | achieve. |
| Like many of the other indexes, its output is an | | | | If you are aiming at the widest possible audience |
| approximate representation of the U.S. grade level | | | | then the lowest reasonable grade level is what |
| needed to comprehend the text. Unlike the other | | | | you want. If it's a fairly serious discussion for a |
| indices, the ARI, along with the Coleman-Liau, | | | | B2B audience then maybe you don't want to |
| relies on a factor of characters per word, instead | | | | dumb-down your content but prefer to aim at a |
| of the usual syllables per word. Formula: | | | | grade 8-10 comprehension level. It all depends. |
| The Coleman-Liau Index was designed to gauge | | | | Terms like "Monetizing Behavioral Targeting" or |
| the understandability of a text. Like the ARI but | | | | even more complex ones may not please the |
| unlike most of the other indexes, Coleman-Liau | | | | readability programs but you know you have to |
| relies on characters instead of syllables per word. | | | | use them in certain circumstances. "Metrics" is an |
| Although opinion varies on its accuracy as | | | | awfully useful word, yet it isn't familiar to most |
| compared to the syllable/word and complex word | | | | people at first. Sometimes you have to do what |
| indices, characters are more readily and | | | | you gotta do -- don't throw the baby out with |
| accurately counted by computer programs than | | | | the bathwater. |
| are syllables. Formula: | | | | And, of course, these numbers aren't the only |
| The Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests are designed | | | | critical element in your copywriting: "Obviously, |
| to indicate how difficult a reading passage is to | | | | numbers alone can't make you a good writer. |
| understand. There are two tests, the Flesch | | | | Many other factors contribute to readable, |
| Reading Ease Index and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade | | | | comprehensible writing." We might also add |
| Level Score. These are supposedly the same | | | | "effective" there. |
| measures, just placed into a different scale but | | | | These factors include not only what good |
| the results of the two tests do not always | | | | copywriters do, but also elements such as font, |
| correlate closely. Formula: | | | | size, color, placement, etc. in your presentation or |
| The Gunning-Fog Index is a test indicating the | | | | website design. Even what day and time you send |
| number of years of formal education that a | | | | out an email marketing message. Lots of pieces |
| person requires in order to easily understand a | | | | to this puzzle and the more you know about each |
| text on the first reading. That is, if a passage has | | | | the better your chances of success! |