Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:13:56 +0000
From: Jim Rader
Subject: Re: impactful

There is an entry for _impactful_ in W3; our first cite for the word
is from Martha Wolfenstein and Nathan Leites, _Movies: A
Psychological Study_ (The Free Press, 1950), p. 22:

We might suppose that some of the most impactful heroines of current
films would combine these two functions: that of the good-bad girl
who appears attractive through her seeming relations with other men,
and that of the girl who takes the initiative towards men,
demonstrating a masculine approach, and not making too many demands
on the man.

The next cite, which I won't bother to reproduce, is from a J.D.
Salinger story published in _The New Yorker_ (May 4, 1957, pp.

Our cite files do not have a whole lot of evidence for the word,
which may explain its absence from the Collegiates, even as a run-on
entry. It should be in, though. There is massive evidence for
_impactful_ on Nexis, which I tabulate as follows:

before 1985: 31 cites (earliest, _Forbes_, Aug. 15, 1975, p. 15)
1985-89: 149 cites
1990-93: 299 cites
1994-95: 312 cites
1996-97: 430 cites
1998: 56 cites

In evaluating this, one should keep in mind the great expansion in
the number of publications on Nexis over the last eight or so years.
As for derivatives, Nexis turned up the following:

impactfully - 16 cites (earliest 1985)
impactfulness - 3 cites
unimpactful - 1 cite (1993)
non-impactful and nonimpactful - 3 cites

Much of the evidence for _impactful_ is from business, advertising,
and marketing publications, though it is far from exclusive to these.
Whatever one thinks of it, _impactful_ is well-embedded in American

Jim Rader