Reader's Digest Gets Conversation

"It is the Reader's Digest mission to create products that inform, enrich, entertain and inspire people of all ages and cultures around the world. We are committed to understanding, anticipating and satisfying our customers' needs. This takes precedence in all we do." [Reader's Digest Customer Care]

Asked why so many people around the world read their publication, David Ogilvy paid tribute to Reader's Digest in an article titled Confessions of a Magazine Reader. He agreed to do it because he regarded The Digest as a major force in the world. In return for his work, The Digest made a donation to Fetter, the Scottish school which gave him an education through a full scholarship.

A few notable highlights of what Ogilvy wrote (his italics):

"[...] The editors of The Digest are in possession of a remarkable technique: they know how to present complicated subjects in a way that engages the reader.

This gives The Digest's editors great influence in the world. they put their influence to admirable use.

[...] The instinct of these editors is towards clarity of expression.[...]

[...] I seldom read a highbrow magazine without wishing that a Digest editor had worked his will upon it. I would them find it more readable. The Digest articles are never long-winded, never obscure, never boring."

I also admire the editors' courage. They have the guts to open their readers' minds on delicate subjects.  They grasp nettles. Like venereal disease, cancer, mental illness. They are not humorless prigs. Their sense of humor is uproarious. They make me laugh.

[...] the ingenious way they write the titles on their articles. They pique your curiosity -- and they promise to satisfy it. For example:

What Truckers Say About Your Driving

Professional drivers sound off on the most common -- and dangerous -- faults of the amateur

[...] I have discovered that more than half the battle is to write headlines which grab people's attention and force them to read the copy. I learned how to do it by studying headlines in The Digest.

[...] The International editions of The Digest carry more or less the same articles as the U.S. editions. The editors have discovered that the subjects which are important to people in Iowa, California and New York are equally important to people in France, Tokyo and Rio.

Thus is comes about that Digest editors have a profound influence in people who are free to read hat they want. This magazine exports the best in American life."

This is memorable writing in its simplicity. The message is very explicit, in plain view. It is a testimonial and a recommendation rolled into one. It is what great copy communicates. It's never boring, it doesn't have a prescribed number of words and paragraphs. It signals engagement at the highest level. And pulls you right in. I already subscribe to Reader's Digest, I would if I didn't after reading this article. [hat tip to Rich Becker]

The Digest keeps its promise. Today at Fast Company Expert blogs we talk about how customers speak the language of advertising, do you?

Comments

[Carolyn Ann]

No it doesn't! :-0

Personally, I find the language in Readers Digest to be dumbed down. The language that journal uses is designed to be readable at some age-level, nothing more and nothing less.

And they remove nuance and subtlety in favor of broadstrokes. Their summaries of books - a little better than Cliff Notes, a lot worse than the original - tend to castrate the story. Sure, they cut out all the "stuff that doesn't add to the story", so what? Well - it's not their's to slice and dice! Simplifying "Moby Dick" doesn't make it any more palatable - but it does make it a stupid little tale of a man chasing a big fish.

I don't see them asking the Presidential candidates to write an article on a platform issue, and publishing it. Foreign Affair's did - and the articles told me more about the candidates than any of the morsels of stump speeches we see on TV ever could.

Years ago, over 20 of them, I subscribed to that magazine. I never found it particularly informative (and even inaccurate, at times- the editors didn't make much effort to determine pop-fiction from actual fact), then! And cancelling the subscription took forever. Not paying them solved that little issue, however.

Like "People", and a few others, It's one of those magazines I simply don't pick up and read.

Oh my. Sorry. I guess I really don't like Readers Digest! "Write first, think later" is maybe not that good an idea at times...

Carolyn Ann

[Valeria Maltoni]

Maybe I did not make it very clear in the post. Ogilvy's is memorable writing. Reader's Digest has a conversational tone and editorial -- that is why so many people read it.

I've found many interesting bits I would have not paid attention to on The Digest. For my global view of public affairs I read "Foreign Affairs" and "Foreign Policy" magazines.

Ogilvy himself started the article by saying that he read 34 magazines. I read a dozen or so a month. Each serves a different piece of my intellectual curiosity and desire to learn facts.

[Becky Carroll]

I love the quote from Reader's Digest and their customer care department, "We are committed to understanding, anticipating and satisfying our customers' needs. This takes precedence in all we do." It takes this kind of prioritization on customers to be in business for as many years as RD has. Way to go, RD!

[Carolyn Ann]

Sorry, Valeria!

Carolyn Ann

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Becky -- it was one of those pleasant surprises one finds once in a while. And it is stated so simply. Glad you took the time to visit.

@Carolyn Ann -- never a problem. That's why we call it conversation ;-)

[Richard Becker]

Valeria,

What a wonderful thing: economy of language.

Very often, the only reason writers are not able to discuss complex subjects in simple terms because they either do not understand it themselves, live within a confined industry ecosystem, or try to hard to be clearly brilliant when all they really need to do is be brilliantly clear.

At risk of people accusing us of playing tag, I might just have to follow up tomorrow. This touches on what I am teaching in two hours.

Best,
Rich

[Valeria Maltoni]

Rich:

We hare having a conversation on two blogs, that's all ;-) That David Ogilvy was really something. After your post and discussions with my team about it, I went back to my book "On Advertising" and the rest of my thought was here today.

Teaching is a wonderful thing -- it allows us to keep learning about our curiosity.

[Carolyn Ann]

I couldn't disagree more! Economy of language does not imply that we should limit ourselves to words of two syllables or less!

The clear and concise language that uses complex language is as wonderful as the simple, but equally concise, language others might use to explain something with less complexity than the first part of this sentence. (I just violated that condition...)

It is not the size of the words that's important - it's how we use them!

If you're for the Readers Digest, yes: the size of the words matter, If you're reading Scientific American, they do too. But if you read Shakespeare, well - if you want to prove yourself wrong, read Shakespeare. Or Philip Larkin, or Walt Whitman, or Alan Ginsburg! (Somehow, I just don't see Readers Digest publishing "Howl"; I also quiver at the thought of their editors providing "the RD edition" of that poem. Or of Chaucer - it would be a mealy-mouthed conglomeration of simplistic travel tales. Instead of an epic, we'd get bad snapshots with the heads curtailed.

Understanding an idea simply means that you can communicate it. If you have the ability of a poet or a decent writer, and can turn a neat phrase: you might be able to use simplistic language to describe the idea. But it shouldn't be a precondition, and indeed it is not one, that you must be able to clearly enunciate your thoughts so that the 13 year old can comprehend them! It is up to the 13 year old to elevate themselves to the level where they can understand the idea!

Harumph! Etc.

Carolyn Ann

[Valeria Maltoni]

Let's imagine for a moment that poet and writer Dante Alighieri continued to use the erudite language of his time -- Latin. We could opine that people would have gotten smarter as the language was much richer in terminology and history. Yes?

Never mind that the great majority of people did not know how to read Latin nor could have an education outside the walls of a monastery or a convent. Well you could add the palace of the king and the influential families of the time.

In fact what people did then was speak a language very similar to Latin, a pronunciation of it, what cultured people called "de vulgari eloquentia". The language of the people.

Mr Alighieri, a conservative in liberal times (politically) went ahead and even composed a treatise titled De Vulgari Eloquentia, in Latin. Then he did something that nobody else would have done in his circles.

He wrote what became one of the most important trilogies of our times -- The Comedy (La Divina Commedia). Not only did he write it in the vulgar language, he used a composition style that was common to the non erudite -- the comedy.

He then imbued his opus with information on politics, history (chronicle of the people of his time), philosophy, theology, mathematics, poetry (he maintained rhythmic metrics throughout) and a healthy dose of humor.

Yes, I agree we should aspire to educate, achieve, be inspired and elevate our language to elevate our minds. What if Dante had not composed the Comedy? How many people would have had no access to the richness of the contemporary thinking? Would Italian exist today?

There are many ways to look at an idea.

[Carolyn Ann]

Dante made a choice to use a language, which is different to reducing a language to some arbitrary lowest common denominator!

Heck, English wouldn't exist if it weren't for the various forms of Latin - and a few other languages. This mashup (which would now-a-days be tagged with the useless honorific of "English 2.0", I guess) produced those really odd grammatical rules that pervade the language.

My point is not that a writer should use complex words for the sake of it - that's as bad a habit as using too simple a phrase! My point is that we, as users of this language, shouldn't equate dumbing the language (and therefore the ideas expressed) with being "good". It might be, but it's not an automatic assumption that stands any scrutiny, nor one we should make.

Some writing demands simplicity - a government form, for example. But others demand, require and need a more complex grasp of the language. Richard's "confined industry ecosystem" is one example; if the intent is to explain something to the layperson, fine - introduce the specialized terms, and explain them. The writers' success at this depends entirely on their skill as a writer, which is as it should be. But if the text is to be read, and understood, by other practioners - be as erudite and complex as you need to be!

It's important to resist needless simplicity - an expression of an idea needs to be as simple as it must be, but no simpler. As the famous saying goes! But when we insist on simplicity in the words we use, do we also insist that artists simplify their work - in order that we all have access to their vocabulary? I'd hate to think that society would demand such a thing, but so many do.

This reduction of language is, as far as I can tell, quite a new idea. It has noble goals: letting everyone in on what used to be hidden. I don't think I'm supposed to find any argument in that - and yet I can. When we insist on putting the language into that straitjacket of reduced simplicity, we force ourselves into a context that is alarmingly pliable - I think recent history has demonstrated that with alacrity! Reducing our ability to express ourselves is akin to removing some of that ability.

When we limit our vocabulary - this is required when dumbing things down - we lose an ability to express ourselves. And when we lose that ability, we don't just lose that - we lose poetry, prose and, finally, our ability to explain ourselves. We lose beauty, and we lose the ability to reflect on that beauty.

And that's not something I'm willing to lose!

Carolyn Ann

[Richard Becker]

Carolyn Ann,

If I might interject, I think we might be mistaking the concept as a rule to dumb down the language. Not so. It is not so much that anyone is advocating we all adopt Hemingway as the style of all English. Rather, I think we are reminding writers how productive it can be when we consider our audience and how important it is to remember the first rule of communication is to communicate effectively, which places the burden of being understood on the writer and not the reader.

Economy of language only means that we don't have to write "he stated that" when "he said" might suffice, unless "he stated that" has a real purpose and intent. Economy of language reminds us not to inflate our word choices just to make the writing sound brilliant or complex or intelligent, which often says more about the writer than the meaning of their sentence. Rather, it's always best to weigh which words are the right words to communicate our point.

Often times, I see writers who attempt to demonstrate their command over the language by expanding their vocabulary and making some lofty MS Word thesaurus choices. Unfortunately, they very often diminish the meaning of their statement.

Ergo, there is no reason to call Shakespeare the "noble bard" or "the Swan of Avalon" simply because we've grown tired of using his name in the span of several graphs or to prove how many ways we can proclaim him a poet.

Personally, I enjoy toggling the varied styles I know up and down, depending on what I am writing and to whom. And even though most of it is commercial writing, I have never felt the rules of any one style overly limiting. On the contrary, sometimes the stylistic rules present interesting challenges in their own right.

I just finished writing about condensate and deaeration. Yet, my editor, who was completely unaware of what these terms might mean, knew basically want I meant simply based on the construct of the sentence, which I will unfortunately leave a mystery in this case. :)

Best,
Rich

[Carolyn Ann]

Richard! No need to ask for permission to interject - you're a part of this conversation! Thank you, Valeria, for providing the venue for this chat! And your participation! :-)

Of course, when I get going, most people don't really get two words in, edgeways, anyway...

I can agree that some authors communicate better when they consider their audiences. But I can't wholeheartedly agree to that proposition in its entirety. Sometimes, the reader just has to elevate themselves to the level of the author - which is why I chose Shakespeare as my example! :-)

I definitely hear you, and support you, re passive and active voice; I pick and choose, depending on the tone I want to set - but it's (nearly) always a conscious choice. And yes, far too many fall prey to the (abysmal) Microsoft Thesaurus. At least Apple has the "Oxford American Writers Thesaurus", although it is quite beyond me why they didn't pick Roget's.

Ah well - I once got into an argument about my usage of a thesaurus (I don't use them). The person I was arguing with used my pickadill phrasing in my writings as the reason enough to threaten suspension from that forum. I think my argumentative nature had something to do with it, too. :-)

I still smile when I think of little fracas. :-) You had to be there, and I though it all quite funny - I was told I had to provide "positive support". Huh? Wozzat? (I think it was shorthand for "critical and intelligent discussion is not invited here." Or, "be nice, and fluffy, not intelligent". C'est la vie.

Anyway, I probably didn't make one part of my point clear enough - if you're writing to a particular audience, you certainly have to consider their ability to read, their attention span and so on. But not always. I think there's a tendency to over-compensate, and to assume that a complex point can be made in a two-second sound-bite, or the commercial equivalent - the single PowerPoint slide.

Mark Twain certainly didn't consider the grasp of language his audience had! Mr Twain also provides us with the ever-delightful "blatherskite", in fact! I love that word! :-) (I've never made up my mind if I like Hemingway, or not. Some of his work I can read, the rest I can't stand.)

(BTW: I've been accused of this before, so I just want to be clear: I was simply saying that "blatherskite" is a delightful word. There's absolutely no inference intended!!! The "more sensitive" have interfered with my honest expression, and of using such inferences to infer insult... That's not the case, although I did like the way I put that. :-) )

But the next Great American Novel will not be written by someone who takes their audience into consideration! We have that, aplenty I might add, and it results in stories that are "good" at best; the usual epithet would be "mediocre", but I'm trying to be kinder than I usually am. It's more the pity those writers are hailed as anything but dreary, but there we go with expectation.

No, my problem with tailoring our language - and I acknowledge the problems of commercial writing - to our audience is that our audience ends up being so totally uninspired, and uninspiring. Can you imagine an artist who's not allowed to paint outside of expectation? Recognizable shapes, only, please? Frank Stella and Sol LeWitt need not apply; neither should Richard Serra, or Dan Flavin! Yeah, I'm showing off - but only to illustrate my point re the writers voice needing a lack of fences. (See what I mean about the thesaurus - there's a word I need, but I can't recall it, so I turn to a handy phrase, instead. :-) The problem with me showing off is that I'm nearly always shown to be showing off... So I avoid it, usually!)

I'm rambling, and that's how I write. I don't concentrate on what my readers want to read. I make no effort to understand what they want to read, what viewpoint is the most popular, how the winds of opinion of blowing, nor if they need to run to a dictionary, or the medicine cabinet (tablets for the headache I just gave them...) It's not something I'd recommend, though.

Language is too important to be consigned to strict obedience of rules; when "we" know the rules - break them! (For anyone else: don't, until you know them!) When we constrain our language, we most assuredly constrain ourselves.

Carolyn Ann

PS Funny story: I was sat in a room, with about a gazillion other managers (my boss was an empire-builder), and some Microsoft guy was giving us a tour of MS Word. He asked for some grammatical errors to highlight how Word would underline them, and everyone sat, silently. To this deafening roar, I said "me and him". Nah, that was correct! We almost had a vote on it. Even the guy who went around boasting of his English major told me I was wrong... Well, as it turns out - oh dear. There were some red faces that day. :-) /CA

[Valeria Maltoni]

Carolyn Ann and Rich:

I'll make sure next time we have a discussion on language I consult you both : ) Thank you so much for the richness of your thoughts. Having majored in linguistics, I can always learn more about the use of English expressions!

Rich:

I look forward to hearing/reading about your class. If you weren't so far, I'd attend myself.

Carolyn Ann:

Isn't it funny about herd mentality? We see that on concepts as well. Sometimes ideas are applauded as a means to further visibility with a VIP. Everyone stops thinking and something dumb gets resources allocated... a story for another conversation.