We report the results of a well-controlled experiment which tested the readability of direct-mail sales letters. Surprisingly, the mailings of a subscription offer for technical newsletters, sent to both professional and layperson segments, produced no significant differences in response rates as a function of readability levels. This study suggests that readability formulas, as tools for tailoring messages for different segments, may not have broad applicability in the field.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbruzziniPompeoMeasuring Language Difficulty in Advertising CopyJournal of Marketing31196722–26April
2.
BattisonR.GoswamiD.Clear Writing TodayJournal of Business Communication1819815–16Fall
3.
BeardJohn D.WilliamsDavid L.Increasing the Effectiveness of Direct Mail Copy through the Use of Readability MeasuresJournal of Direct Marketing219886–152 Spring
4.
ChallJeanne S.Readability: An Appraisal of Research and Application1958Bureau of Educational Research/Ohio State UniversityColumbus, Ohio
5.
ClarkA.K.Readability in Technical Writing—Principles and ProceduresIEEE Transactions on Professional Communication197567–70PC-18, June
6.
CourtisJohn K.Fry, Smog, Lix and Rix: Insinuations about Corporate Business CommunicationsJournal of Business Communication24198719–28Spring
7.
DaleEdgarChallJeanne S.A Formula for Predicting Readability: InstructionsEducational Research Bulletin27194837–54January
8.
DavisonA.KantorR.On the Failure of Readability Formulas to Define Readable TextsReading Research Quarterly171982187–208
9.
FleschRudolphA New Readability YardstickJournal of Applied Psychology321948384–390June
10.
FleschRudolphThe Art of Readable Writing1962Collier BooksNew York
11.
HollandMelissa V.Psycholinguistic Alternatives to Readability FormulasDocument Design Project Technical1981Report # 12, ERIC ED 214370
12.
HorningAlice S.Readability: Reading/Writing Tools for MeasurementJournal of Advanced Composition71987101–111Fall
13.
IrwinJ.W.DavisC.R.Assessing Readability: The Checklist ApproachJournal of Reading241980124–130
14.
KlareGeorge R.The Measurement of Readability1963Iowa State University PressAmes, Iowa
15.
KlareGeorge R.Assessing ReadabilityReading Research Quarterly101974-75 62–102No. 1
16.
KlareGeorge R.A Second Look at the Validity of Readability FormulasJournal of Reading Behavior81976129–152Summer
17.
LewisHerschell GordonOn the Art of Writing Copy1988Prentice HallEnglewood Cliffs, New Jersey
18.
MacklinCarole M.BruvoldNorman T.SheaCarol LynnIs It Always as Simple as ‘Keep It Simple!’?Journal of Advertising14198528–35No. 4
19.
McConnelC.R.Readability as Applied to College Economics TextbooksJournal of Reading26198214–17October
RedishJanice C.Readability, Document Design: A Review of the Relevant Research1980National Institute of EducationWashington, DC69–94
22.
RedishJanice C.SelzerJackThe Place of Readability Formulas in Technical CommunicationTechnical Communication32198546–52November
23.
SchuylerMichaelA Readability Formula for Use on MicrocomputersJournal of Reading261982560–591March
24.
ShuptrineKelly F.McVickerDaniel D.Readability Levels of Magazine AdsJournal of Advertising Research21198145–51October
25.
StoneBobSuccessful Direct Marketing Methods3rd ed.1984Crain BooksChicago, Illinois
26.
SuchanJamesColucciRobertAn Analysis of Communication Efficiency between High-Impact and Bureaucratic Written CommunicationManagement Communication Quarterly21989454–484May
27.
ThrockmortonJoanWinning Direct Response Advertising: How to Recognize It, Evaluate It, Inspire It, and Create It1986Prentice HallEnglewood Cliffs, New Jersey
28.
WessonDavid A.Readability as a Factor in Magazine Ad Copy RecallJournalism Quarterly661989715–718Fall
29.
ZivNina D.Reading and Technical WritingSidesCharles H.Technical and Business Communication: Bibliographic Essays for Teachers and Corporate Trainers1989National Council of Teachers of EnglishUrbana, Illinois39–52
