Dumbing down? Or just simple language?

Seth Godin's Jan. 9 post about dumbing down your message got my attention.

I read it right after I had received an article from about enhancing readability by using the Flesch-Kincaid Grading Scale. The Flesch-Kincaid Grading Scale is a pre-Internet invention (I think it's about 50 years old) that computes a readability score based on word, syllable, and character count.

The article's writer said copy always be under 10 (early high school), and the goal should be under 8.5. Then I thought about Godin's post, and considered, "Do I really have to do this?" I was thinking that the scale was for doing just what Godin eschewed.

Now, the writer of the Flesch-Kincaid Grading Scale article comes from a direct response background that exhorts long copy, which is fine (I do think, however, the writer subscribes too much to a style that often comes off as shrill). The point I took away was his last: "Good copy reads short and bad copy reads long, regardless of length."

I do think readability enhances copy - AND doesn't necessarily dumbs it down. I think Godin is right, because he points out that a smart customer usually is a better customer - or at least a better (read- "less risky") sale.

But that doesn't mean a press release should have a 43-word lead sentence. I get 100 to 200 press releases in my mailbox Monday through Friday, and most have snooze-worthy lead sentences with an average of four commas. Not good for readability. They come off more as chest-beating vanity rather than a meaningful announcement.

I'm all for concision - boiling down technical subjects with plain language. For this reason, I have decided to put the scale to use. But, my "readability" goals will fall in line with the client's audience.

http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2123/24935632