This article presents a potentially valuable, yet seldom used tool for direct marketing: readability formulas. They can be used to increase the effectiveness of direct mail copy for technical products and services. Among the many theoretical tools available to determine if copy is readable for the intended audience, readability formulas provide a logical starting place to measure copy for its clarity and style. For the marketing practitioner, readability formulas are objective measures that can save time and money in field testing; for the marketing researcher, readability formulas lend themselves well to experimentation because they quantify differences in copy; and for the marketing educator, readability measures are valuable pedagogical tools to train copy writers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaconMark S.Write like Pros: Using the Secrets of Writers & Journalists in Business1988Wiley & SonsNew York
2.
BarryJeanne G.StevensonTimothy E.Using a Computer to Calculate the Dale-Chall FormulaJournal of Reading191975218–222December
3.
BlattbergRobert C.Research Opportunities in Direct MarketingJournal of Direct Marketing119877–14Winter
4.
BormuthJohn R.Readability: A New ApproachReading Research Quarterly1196679–132Spring
5.
ChallJeanne S.Readability: An Appraisal of Research and Application1958Bureau of Educational Research/Ohio State UniversityColumbus, Ohio
6.
CokeEsther U.RothkopfErnest Z.Note on a Simple Algorithm for a Computer Produced Reading Ease ScoreJournal of Applied Psychology541970208–210June
7.
ColemanMeriLiauT.L.A Computer Readability Formula Designed for Machine ScoringJournal of Applied Psychology601975283–284June
8.
Court Tells Carrier to Simplify CorrespondenceAmerican Medical News198427August
9.
CourtisJohn K.Fry, Smog, Lix and Rix: Insinuations about Corporate Business CommunicationsJournal of Business Communications24198719–28Spring
10.
DaleEdgarChallJeanne S.A Formula for Predicting Readability: InstructionsEducational Research Bulletin27194837–54January
11.
FerryMichaelTeitelmanRichard B.Plain-Language Laws: Giving the Consumer an Even BreakClearing-house Review141980522–528October
12.
FleschRudolphA New Readability YardstickJournal of Applied Psychology321948384–390June
13.
FleschRudolphHow to Test Readability1951Harper & BrothersNew York
14.
FleschRudolphThe Art of Readable Writing1962Collier BooksNew York
15.
GoldsteinJone RymerTrends in Teaching Technical WritingTechnical Communication31198425–34no. 4
16.
Holland, Melissa V. (1981), “Psycholinguistic Alternatives to Readability Formulas,” Document Design Project Technical Report #12, ERIC ED 214370.
17.
HorningAlice S.Readability: Reading/Writing Tools for MeasurementJournal of Advanced Composition71987101–111Fall
18.
KlareGeorge R.Assessing ReadabilityReading Research Quarterly101974-75 62–102no. 1
19.
KotlerPhilipAndreasenAlanStrategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations3rd. ed.1987Prentice-HallEnglewood Cliffs, New Jersey
20.
LambertNancyCommunication Experience: Deriving Theory from Direct Marketing PracticeJournal of Direct Marketing1198723–29Winter
21.
LewisHerschell G.Copy that Sells: More Self-Evident TruthsDirect Marketing: Using Direct Response Advertising to Enhance Marketing Database198756–63July
22.
LewisHerschell G.Direct Mail Copy that Sells1984Wiley & SonsNew York
23.
MitchellAndrew A.Cognitive Processes Initiated by Exposure to AdvertisingHarrisRichard J.Information Processing Research in Advertising1983Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, PublishersHillsdale, N.J13–42
24.
RedishJanice C.Readability, Document Design: A Review of the Relevant Research1980National Institute of EducationWashington, DC69–94
25.
RedishJanice C.SelzerJackThe Place of Readability Formulas in Technical CommunicationTechnical Communication32198546–52no. 4
26.
SchuylerMichaelA Readability Formula for Use on MicrocomputersJournal of Reading261982560–591March
27.
SmithJames E.SmithNora P.Readability: A Measure of the Performance of the Communication Function of Financial ReportingThe Accounting Review1971552–561July
28.
StockerLeonard P.Increasing the Precision of the Dale-Chall Readability FormulaReading Improvement8197187–89Winter
29.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1985, Washington, D.C., 1984.
30.
WilliamsJulietTeaching and Training in Direct MarketingJournal of Direct Marketing1198754–58Spring
