The New York Times, probably the most literary newspaper of record in the US, just released some startling data.  And understanding it could do astounding things for your marketing.

The online version of the Times allows readers to look up the definition of words simply by highlighting them.  Not only is this a great service to readers, but that data (of which words are looked up and how often) is tracked by the paper.  And in this case, tracking that data has allowed them to compile a list of the 50 most-looked-up words.

If you're interested in the list, you can download it here.

So here are the marketing take-aways:

1) All those terms, concepts, and jargon you think your audience knows (or should know)? They don't know 'em.

Or at least your audience is probably a lot fuzzier on them than you think.  To a Times writer, whose adult life has been spent within literary circles, every intelligent reader knows the meaning of words like, "solipsistic."  The reality?  Solipsistic was the second most looked up word on the list. 

Are there reasons to use lesser known words rather than a more well known alternative word or phrase?  Absolutely.  Nuance,  precision of meaning, emotional associations, concision, displaying "tribal" identification, and just plain style.  Lots of good reasons to break out the occasional 50 cent word.  But they need to be weighed against the cost, which in this case involves confusing or turning off the reader - bad for a columnist, deadly for an advertiser.

For advertisers, though, industry terminology takes the place of highbrow language.  How many grill salesman assume that everyone knows what BTUs are and why a grill capable of producing more of them is a good thing?  How many vitamin stores assume customers know what anti-oxidants are and why it's a good idea to supplement with them?  I'd put money that the same holds true for your business and industry.

2) Be wary of uncritical interpretations of data.

Don't you just naturally assume that the people looking up those words are doing so because they don't know the meanings?  And therefore that The New York Times readership isn't nearly as literate as one would hope?  That was my first reaction.

Further reflection revealed that actually looking up a word is, in fact, a very literate thing to do.  And that it's likely that many of those readers may have already had a darn good idea of what the word meant, but hadn't previously seen the word used in the specific manner or context in which the writer had employed it. Maybe the reader knew the gist of the word, but had never bothered to get a real definition and, in seeking to clarify the meaning of a sentence, said reader looked up the word, just to be sure.  Kind of changes the meaning of the list a little bit, doesn't it? Using words on the edge of a readers vocabulary is entirely different than routinely using words readers have never heard of.

Uncritical interpretations happen all the time in advertising: "We tried radio and it didn't work," or "we had a website, but it never did anything for us, so we pulled it down."  Or any other number of assumptions.  Force yourself to come up with plausible alternative explanations and customer motivations. 

3) Test assumptions - force yourself to watch what people DO and not what people say!

No one likes to admit that they don't know what a word means.  So I rather doubt if anyone ever complained about the times word choice, which is why it was the online version of the Times - and not a focus group, interview, or complaint - that provided this insight into the top 50 most-looked-up words. 

The same thing goes with your advertising: test, test, test.  Measure actions, not opinion. 

4) Know when to go tribal

As I mentioned previously, the right words can signal your membership in a tribe - meaning that confusion amongst outsiders aint always a bad thing.  If you're a hard core cyclist, you don't need to have someone tell you who Lance Armstrong is.  Foodies don't need to be told what, say, Balsamic Vinegar is.  Copy directed to hard core members of a tribe would do well to use their language and cultural touchstones/allusions without apology.  Not only does this attract the hard core, but it attracts wannabes as well. 

While The New York Times probably should be concerned about striking a balance between appealing to a broad readership and maintaining a literary style, those concerns would be poison to The New Yorker.  Aimed at an even more literate audience that the Times, The New Yorker almost has to employ writers who sprinkle in SAT-type words, because seeing them in an article - and seeing them used well - sends a signal to its subscribers about what kind of magazine they're reading and what kind of tribe they belong to.
 

Read About Jeff Sexton