Is this how you think of your target reader?
Some food writers tell me indignantly, “I’m not dumbing down a recipe!” They think it’s insulting to to simplify their three-layer cake recipe or a lasagna with 20 steps.
They think their readers should want to cook exactly the way they do.
Here’s the thing:
Your readers are not you. They don’t have your skills. They don’t cook as much. They don’t want to spend as much time in the kitchen. They don’t necessarily make your food, and they’re deciding if they want to.
What they want most of all is for you to make it easy for them. Aside from writing a tempting title and headnote, that is your secret power. It makes readers want to cook your food.
On dumbing down and selling out
As the author, you’re not selling out by writing recipes to people less experienced than you. Potential readers are your treasured consumers. Writing to them is all about your attitude. “Dumbing down” is about resentment, while simplifying is about understanding what motivates readers. If you talk down to them or feel annoyed because you resent explaining how to temper chocolate, flash fry fish, or buy the best anchovies, they will sense it.
Instead, you can coach readers to success. You’re a teacher in a virtual classroom. You’re guiding them to break out of their comfort zones. You’ve combined steps, streamlined the process and written a recipe that excites them.
The best cookbook authors understand this. They are enthusiastic teachers. Sure, they make complicated dishes too. Their books contain challenging recipes. But most of the time, they understand that readers are not at their skill level. They do not think of them as dumb and they do not resent writing for them. They know their readers well enough to serve them — with pleasure.
What about you? How do you handle a complicated recipe? Do you simplify it, or do you think your readers can handle it? If you simplify, is that the same as “dumbing down,” or do you think of it differently?
Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net.
You inspire me to write a post on a Martha Stewart recipe that was so poorly written that I couldn’t figure it out at first. Thank you for teaching me how to write a recipe simply and logically for my readers.
Hi Liz, thank you. You’ll have to altert me when you publish that post! Can’t wait to read it.
As for writing a recipe simply and logically, it is a true art.
I don’t really develop complicated recipes, but I know that many of my readers are new to cooking, so I tend to explain my instructions in a lot of detail, and I provide multiple cues: how the food sounds, what color and texture it should be, how it smells… all of the things I experience myself when I’m cooking it. That also teaches cooking newbies how to understand what’s happening in the pan so they can take that knowledge to their own cooking or other cookbooks authors’ recipes.
These are terrific examples of how you want your readers to succeed when they cook your recipes, Melissa. I didn’t say HOW to write a well-written recipe in the post, so thank you for these tips. The sensuous details add a lot to the experience.
I find I write simpler recipes for my newspaper column than I do my blog. I think it’s all about knowing your audience/target market
Indeed, that is exactly what it’s about. I think there are some recipe writers who create recipes for their own amusement, without thinking about whether readers will actually make them. Let’s not forget that the average number of recipes made from a cookbook is 2-3.
I try never to assume that my readers know what I mean in a recipe. Instead, I try to walk them through it in a way that entertains, teaches, and guides at the same time. I don’t think of it as dumbing down; I think of it as cooking alongside them in the kitchen.
You, Julia Child, Lydia Bastianich, etc. take this approach. You are in good company, Sandra!
On the other hand if cookbook authors always shoot for the lowest common denominator, all we will have is really simple stupid recipes. We’re getting close to that. I think the advice should be know your audience and target them well. There should be books for beginners just like there should also be books for experts and somewhere in between.
You make some good points. I am not suggesting that cookbook authors and bloggers should write all recipes for the lowest common denominator, though. I’m suggesting that they know their readers well and understand what they are going through when they attempt a new recipe. Also that they recognize that their readers are not at the same skill level.
I don’t want a complicated recipe 80 percent of the time. When I feel creative and have more time on weekends, I’m willing to tackle something a more ambitious. So maybe the recipes should be 80 percent realistic, 20 percent challenging? Or maybe you’re not writing cookbooks for people who want to put dinner on the table? I think most people want that rather than a reason to amuse themselves.
Most cookbooks are not written for experts, of course. Typically chefs write those, for students at cooking schools. And we all know that chef books aimed at consumers often don’t contain realistic recipes. Antonia Allegra calls them “look books” rather than “cookbooks.”
I learned to write recipes when I began entering cooking contests. I had it ingrained that ANYONE from the beginner to the experienced cook should be able to follow your recipe. I am not advocating that you need to go as far as describing how to boil water (you can assume the cook has the very basic skills) but I think it’s about being clear and logical, not dumbing down. I do generally post simpler recipes for my blog because the majority of my readers want those recipes. I’m a relatively new blogger (inspired by you to start it!) but I can already tell that my followers want easy/simple!
I’m with you. For the commercial market, simple recipes work best. Experienced cooks appreciate them, even if they woudn’t want people to know!
I’m writing my first cookbook now. I’m taking extra care to write each recipe so it is clear and simple enough for each reader to feel confident making it. Basically, I’m writing it the way I’d like to read it, as a cook/baker. We’ve all felt frustrated at recipes that make too many assumptions, rush through steps, or use obscure jargon. I don’t want my name attached to anything like that. My job is to empower & inspire others to cook!
I like that you are not dumbing down, which implies resentment. Empowering and inspiring sounds much better for your readers.
When I’m cooking a dish I intend to blog, and even one I’m not going to blog, I’m always thinking how to describe the procedure to make it comprehensible to the reader. I assume my reader has had some cooking experience, but that an instruction like “stir the kasha over medium heat until the egg is absorbed, the grains are glistening and separate, and you can see the bottom of the pan” is still useful. Because that’s the kind of moment I myself wait for, when I cook kasha. I want to transmit my own experience. Today I was scrambling eggs and thinking, would it be dumb to instruct the reader to move the frying pan away from the heat the second the eggs are done? So that they don’t harden into an omelet? Given that today’s home cooks don’t imagine taking the time to scramble eggs into a moist, fluffy cloud, is that doing the readers a favor, or is it treating them like babies? Still haven’t decided.
It’s about your attitude as you teach. “Treating them like babies” or “doing them a favor” is more in the “dumbing down” frame of mind. I can’t imagine that you’d take that approach.
I always like to include a range of recipes in my books. Some are as simple as it gets, and others are labors of love. I always break down the more complicated and time-consuming recipes into a series of steps, which makes them seem much less intimidating. I like having a range because I figure that folks might want to start out with something simple, but as they become more accomplished they’ll want to tackle something more challenging.
Yes, having a range is typical for a cookbook, because for one thing — it’s too hard to make every recipe easy! Some dishes naturally take more time and effort. What I have to be careful with is thinking that because it’s easy for me, therefore it’s easy for my readers.
Back when I was writing recipes for my blog, I liked to guide readers and add photos of every step (inspired by The Pioneer Woman). I wanted my readers to be able to reproduce the recipes and be pleased with their results.
I have also advised the authors I style and shoot recipes for to do this. Because I work long distance (authors send me their recipes via email, I style and shoot in my studio and send them back the finished files) we know that, if I have trouble making it, so will the readers.
Exactly. What a fun job you have, to test, style and shoot recipes. Assuming you are the target reader, amy problems with the dish or instructions should come out.
Yes, lots of fun!. The clients I’ve worked with targeted busy moms, so we tested the recipes in my family kitchen, and I sent back notes. It’s been great to collaborate with authors in this way.
Actually the best cookbook writers are those that identify who their audience is and meet their needs accordingly.
If you are Paula Wolfert then writing a Delia Smith-style recipe would be a real misunderstanding of her demographic. It’s not always about simplifying if your audience does not need that recipe to be simplified.
I would never buy a cookbook by Mary Berry, Delia Smith, Martha Stewart or Paula Dean because I am not their target market. The main use they have for me would be if I wanted to analyse how to write a recipe in the style they adopt- for example if I was commissioned to write a cookbook for people who aren’t as practised in the kitchen.
I agree completely, Nicole, except for the part about simplifying. I bet even Paula Wolfort simplified her recipes. She knew what would be too much for her readers, because they were not living the lives of the cooks she encountered in other countries. Those cooks could get ingredients she could not, and maybe they could spend more time in the kitchen than American cooks, and maybe they even used equipment that no one uses here.
As someone that published quilting patterns since the mid 80’s I can tell you it is imperative to “dumb down” ANY instructions. When I taught nationally I always started a class by telling all my students that I would start slow and to let me know when comfortable to speed up.
I do the same with every low carb recipe I publish on my site. Unless you can be standing over their shoulder anticipated any and all questions the readers may have and answer them in your article and recipe.
Marge, the issue I have is with calling it “dumbing down,” because the target of a recipe is not dumb. Treating people that way won’t get recipe writers anywhere. It’s an attitude thing! Otherwise I agree completely with your approach.
I think that’s splitting hairs… I don’t say it to my readers, I just do it so they understand exactly what I am telling them without standing over their shoulder. Call it what you will, it’s the same thing.
I don’t think so. Thinking of them as dumb is a negative, while thinking of them as just “people who want to try this recipe” isn’t. One has judgement and one doesn’t.
I love this article. I’m just starting to blog recently and one of my main goals is to make easy recipes but also recipe instructions that are easy to follow. I’m a big fan of your work and weekly post.
Carlos
http://www.Spoonabilities.com
Thank you Carlos. I shall assume you do not think of your readers as dumb. Best of luck with your blog.
I’m totally with you about making things simple and obvious, but there’s always a line between what you tell readers and what you assume they know. When we say “dice,” we assume they know to cut something into cubes. “Deglaze”? That should probably be explained. But what about the stuff in between? It’s probably a good idea to err on the side of caution, but–all I’m saying is it can get fuzzy. (I once wrote a post called “What recipes don’t tell you because they assume you know. http://jillhough.com/2013/07/what-recipes-dont-tell-you-because-they-assume-you-know/. I’ve been thinking it’s time to add a few things.)
This is an area where recipe testing was a big help. I think many authors think recipe testing is about making the recipe taste right, but more than making a difference in the flavors of a dish, my recipe testers made a difference in the language of a dish because they helped me suss out what was clear and what wasn’t. One had a recipe that called for toasted pinenuts, and she later told me she couldn’t find toasted pinenuts to save her life! If I’d called for “pinenuts, toasted” she totally would’ve understood.
Really good points, Jill. Having someone else test makes a difference, as does understanding the target reader. Ex. the editor of Fine Cooking knows if her readers understand terms like “dice” and “deglaze” and will edit your recipes to reflect her knowledge. For a book, it’s sketchier.
Excellent thoughts, Jill. A recipe can be much clearer right up front if the list of ingredients clarify a few things (ie pinenuts, toasted). One thing I’ve often wondered: Should the directions say “In a large bowl…” Or, just tell people to mix certain ingredients — and they can figure out what size bowl. humm? I usually will say “In a large bowl…” if the directions are going to be on the short side. That way, I can do my mis en place for both ingredients and equipment.
I don’t think people can visualize the size of the bowl unless they cook all the time, so I would specify the size. I also would not start a sentence with “In a large bowl” because I’d prefer the language to reflect the way I talk. No one talks that way!
You are so right in writing this blog. As you say we are teachers and should simplify as much as we can. As an example in a cookbook I just finished writing and that will be published in Quebec this autumn. I simplified the recipe for Coq au Vin so that my readers will only need one pan and use cup up chicken to hasten the procedures. They wont have to cut the whole chicken.
There should be recipes for all in a cookbook newby as well as experienced. I always keep that in the back of my mind. And especially nowadays that people haven’t learned to cook with their mother like it was done many years ago.
I never assume a reader can be dumb even myself I am still learning after 35 years as a professional.
I like reading your blog it is so enriching and enjoyable to read comments from other food writers
Micheline
Michelle, I like the way you simplified the Coq au Vin recipe. No one will wonder why you didn’t present a more complicated, “authentic” one.
I’m glad you don’t think of your readers as dumb. That kind of approach doesn’t serve anyone.
I try to include even simple instructions hoping that someone, who has a small fear of cooking or is inexperienced but wants to cook big dishes, feels comfortable reading and making my recipes. One of the biggest compliments I hear is “it was really good and so easy to follow the recipe”. So not dumbing down, educating. And if you already know it, skip this part.
Yes, exactly. “Educating” is a great way to put it. It’s respectful of the process of teaching.
Hi Dianne, I totally agree with you about simplifying recipes for your readers. ..and it’s not dumbing it down. If a reader looks at a recipe and immediately see tools, techniques, ingredients, etc that they’ve never heard of and you aren’t explaining…they are going to move on to an author or recipe that does.
Well, a few people think that these readers will be intrigued. Maybe that is true for a few, but the majority will move on, as you say. Thanks Susan.
I tend to write fairly complex recipes. However, I want my recipes to be accessible to as many readers as possible, from kitchen novices to experienced cooks. So what I do, whenever possible, is include the more complex steps or exotic ingredients and explain what they bring to the dish (deeper flavor or better texture, for instance). But then I explain how and when it’s possible to take shortcuts, for those readers who don’t have the time, skills, or ingredients that the extra steps require. For example, I have a recipe for curry noodles with shrimp that calls for velveting the shrimp. The extra step of velveting gives the shrimp an amazing texture, but the dish is still very good if the shrimp are simply simmered in the sauce, and that’s what I say in the head note. For me, writing recipes that way draws in less experienced cooks (or those with less time) with the simpler version, but – I hope – brings them back later to try the more complex version. But if I left out the more complex steps, not only would I feel I wasn’t doing the recipe justice, I’d risk losing those cooks who are looking to expand their skill level or who want to try a new technique.
This approach makes a lot of sense to me, Janet. You give readers a choice. Sometimes recipes give readers too many choices, but that’s another issue.
As a cooking instructor for 12 years, I have used 1oo’s of recipes from cookbooks and personal recipes. I ALWAYS have to rewrite and clairfy recipes for my home cook students. It’s amazing how unclear directions can be, ingredients that are out of order and confusing instructions. It’s not dumbing down, it’s being clear and consise.
Yes Exactly Carol. I seem to go through dozens of iterations of recipes as well. It takes a while to refine it to its simplest state.