What America’s most misspelled words say about us

Spelling is hard. It is. I’ll be honest. As an editorial professional for 25 years, I still reflexively misspell words including certain ("certian"), thanks ("thnaks"), and my own name ("Strve"). OK, these are mostly keyboard dexterity issues, but I still often find myself Googling spellings just to be ceritian before I send sensitive emails.

In honor of National Spelling Bee Week, Google mapped the most frequent “how to spell” searches by state, and the results are revealing, scary and hilarious.

Beautiful is not a particularly hard word to spell, but it does give a kind of diverse-demographic reassurance that this concept was top of mind for the folks in New York, Kentucky, Ohio, Minnesota and California alike. Pneumonia is not quite as easy to spell. The chilly climate in Washington, Michigan and Maine may account for the ranking, but what’s the excuse in Alabama?

I take a measure of pleasure in the fact the both the blue bloods of Connecticut (which I just misspelled, and corrected, by the way—thanks, little red squiggly line), and the coal miners of West Virginia are most concerned with the correct spelling of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Mary Poppins would be proud. That the citizens of both Delaware and Indiana want to know how to spell hallelujah (again, not the easiest, and a word with several accepted variants) speaks to their praiseworthy temperament.

Now to observation and speculation on the real headscratchers:

I would assume the people of Pennsylvania would know how to spell sauerkraut and the people of Hawaii would know how to spell people.

South Dakotans, if you need to know how to spell college, you have reached the end of your quest. North Dakotans, if you are facing a dilemma, don’t move to South Dakota.

Both Arkansas and South Carolina most want to know how to spell Chihuahua, more likely in search of lovable tiny dogs than interest in Mexican geography, but I’m utterly puzzled by the predominant interest in Louisiana on the spelling of giraffe

Twelve is the top search in New Jersey, possibly in connection to the average prison sentence of elected officials there.

New England presents an inscrutable mix. Vermont: Europe (where to move?). New Hampshire: diarrhea (bad seafood?). Massachusetts: license (if you have to ask, you are not ready to drive). And liar (who has so deceived you, Rhode Island?).

But the cheeseheads take the cake. For the record, the correct spelling of your home state is Wisconsin. That's with a W.


Knowing where to play and how to win the content game

Life comes at you pretty fast. Especially if you’re in the legal industry in 2017.

Overnight, it seems, law firms were thrust into the content business, forced to compete for the attention and time of audiences in the daily digital mosh pit. To their credit, many are taking advantage of the ever-growing number of tools and platforms available to tell stories and communicate their messages. Newsletters, blogs, social media, podcasts, videos, interactive graphics — they’re all part of the content mix at many firms these days. Very soon, virtual reality will be added to the list.

But here’s an uncomfortable truth: The expanding volume of content makes it increasingly difficult for brands to distinguish themselves. The key decision-makers that law firms want to reach have only limited amounts of time to consume content. This means the investment required to get noticed and stand out is going up.

This is not an original insight. But given the limited resources organizations can devote to creating and distributing content, it’s a fact that must be confronted, lest a lot of time, money and effort go to waste.

The author and marketing strategist Mark Schaefer has argued that “content shock” could eventually render making quality content economically infeasible for some businesses, due to the prohibitively high cost to compete.

No doubt, this dynamic should cause concern at law firms, especially those without large marketing staffs or big marketing budgets. But it shouldn’t cause them to retreat from content as part of their marketing plans. There is no evidence that content is becoming less vital for firms to make connections with clients. In an increasingly competitive market, giving up on content would mean unilateral disarmament.

But it’s clear that in a noisy world with an unprecedented amount of free information available at our fingertips, firms need to articulate and execute a content strategy that sets them apart. It means that they’d better keep improving the quality of their content.

I would also argue that it’s important that firms decide what they are not going to do. This means choosing where to play a content game they can win.

An oft-stated aphorism in the legal industry is: Don’t try to be everything to everyone. The same approach should be applied to a firm’s content strategy. This may ruffle some feathers at some law firms. But the payoff can be large.

To understand what this sort of decision-making process looks like, consider The Economist, which has been around for more than 150 years and weathered all kinds of economic upheavals, including the digital transformation that laid waste to so many media companies. As told in The Content Trap by Bharat Anand, the magazine has institutionalized saying no, which allows it to play to its strengths. With a rather slim staff, it has said no to things like investigative reporting, breaking news, and interactivity. Nothing is stopping them from doing these things, but the company has decided others do it better. Instead, it focuses on what its readers want from the magazine: its view of the world in about a hundred articles every week.

As Economist Group CEO Chris Stibbs explains, the approach is supported by an understanding that the magazine will not appeal to everyone.

“If your belief is that the total number of people in the world who might be interested in you numbers around 65 million — as we believe is the case for The Economist — then you simply cannot be Google or eBay or Yahoo!, whose potential audience is five billion. You just can’t play a mass-market game. Our belief about our potential target audience puts us on a global leash.”

As noted by Anand, not many firms are willing to acknowledge the limitations of their appeal. But by doing so, firms can connect more deeply to their core audiences and win the content game that they choose to play.

Andrew Longstreth is the Head Writer at Infinite Global, based in New York. He creates custom content for law firms and advises on PR strategies. Andrew can be reached at andrewl@infiniteglobal.com.


Creating a content marketing strategy? Take inspiration from Amazon

During internal Amazon meetings, CEO Jeff Bezos has been known to leave one chair empty to serve as a reminder of who’s boss and whose opinion matters most: the customer.


Three reasons law firm leaders should consider writing on LinkedIn

“Your magazine ruined my profession.”