Puffery

Puffery (pronounced puhf-uh-ree)

(1) Undue or exaggerated praise; inflated laudation; publicity, claims in advertising, acclaim etc, that are exaggerated (also known as the “puff piece”).

(2) In common law jurisdictions (often as “mere puffery), certain claims or assertions made which, even if literally untrue or misleading, are not actionable.

(3) An act of puffing (rare except in humor).

1730–1735: The construct was puff (in the sense of “to praise with exaggeration”) + -ery.  The noun puff was from the early thirteenth century Middle English puf, puffe, puff & puf, from the Old English pyf (a short, quick blast of wind, act of puffing) which was imitative and cognate with the Middle Low German puf & pof.  It was derived from the verb which was from the Middle English puffen, from the Old English pyffan & puffian (to breathe out, blow with the mouth) and similar forms in other European languages included the Dutch puffen, the German Low German puffen, the German puffen, the Danish puffe and the Swedish puffa.  The sense of “to blow with quick, intermittent blasts” was common by the mid-fourteenth century while the meaning “pant, breathe hard and fast” emerged some decades later.  It was used of the “fluffy light pastry" from the late fourteenth century while the “small pad of a downy or flossy texture for applying powder to skin or hair” was first so described in the 1650s.

The meaning “to fill, inflate, or expand with breath or air” dates from the 1530s while the intransitive sense (in reference to small swellings & round protuberances) was noted by 1725.  The transitive figurative sense of “exalt” was known by the 1530s which shifted somewhat by the early eighteenth century into the meaning “praise with self-interest, give undue or servile praise to”, the idea by mid century focused on the figurative sense of “empty or vain boast”, this sense soon extended to mean “flattery & inflated praise”.  The derogatory use of poof for “an effeminate man; a male homosexual” was noted from the 1850s and is presumably from puff (possibly in the sense of “powder puff”, an allusion to the stereotype of their “excessive concern with maintaining a delicate appearance”)) and the extended form “poofter” was early twentieth century Australian slang, an unusual linguistic departure for a dialect which tended either to clip or add a trailing “e”, “y” or “o” sound to words.  The correct spelling for the furniture piece (A low cushioned seat with no back; a padded foot-stool) was pouf, from the French pouf & pouff (again of imitative origin) but, presumably because of confusion caused by the pronunciation, the spellings puff & poof sometimes are used.  The suffix -ery was from the Middle English -erie, from the Anglo-Norman and Old French -erie, a suffix forming abstract nouns.  The suffix first occurs in loan words from the Old French into the Middle English, but became productive in English by the sixteenth century, sometimes as a proper combination of -er with “y” (as in bakery or brewery) but also as a single suffix (such as slavery or machinery).  Puffery is a noun; the noun plural is pufferies.  Lawyers can probably get a feeling for what is "pufferyish" without being "puffery as defined" but probably don't use the non-standard adjective.

Mere puffery

The origin of “puffery” in the publishing industry is thought to be the character of Mr Puff, the verbose and bogus critic in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s (1751-1816) The Critic (1779).  Puffery was the class of “criticism” used as a tool by literary cliques (comprising groups of authors who praised each other’s works) and this excessive lauding was referred to also as a “blow up” (ie the notion of puffing into a balloon, inflating something which although becoming bigger, remains essentially “empty’).  In the jargon of publishing, a puff (or puff piece) is the equivalent of a “blurb”.  In law, the concept of “mere puffery” was created to provide a buffer between the “meaningless” sales pitch and the deceptive or misleading claims which amount to a misrepresentation.  A misrepresentation may be actionable; “mere puffery” is not.  Puffery is used to describe a claim that (1) a “reasonable person” would not take seriously or (2) is so vague or subjective that it can be neither proved nor disproved.  Those two definitions operate in conjunction because even if an assertion can be disproved, if it would be absurd for the “reasonable person” to claim they believed it, it will be held to be “mere puffery”.

Doubling down: Disappointed at losing the case based on their £100 offer, to restore public confidence, they offered £200. 

In contract law, the term “puffery” comes from one of the most celebrated cases in English jurisprudence: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892, EWCA Civ 1) before the Court of Appeal.  During the deadly influenza pandemic in the northern winter of 1889-1890, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company it would pay £100 (equivalent to some £14,000 in 2023) to anyone who became ill with influenza after using their smoke ball in accordance with the instructions enclosed with the product.  Mrs Carlill was concerned enough by the flu to buy a ball which, following the instructions, she used thrice daily for some weeks but nevertheless, caught the flu.  Unable to persuade the company to pay her £100, Mrs Carlill brought an action, in court claiming a contract existed which the company denied.  At first instance, despite being represented by a future prime-minister, (Henry Asquith QC (1852–1928; UK prime minister 1908-1916)) the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company lost, a verdict upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeal.  It was a landmark in the development of contract law, refining the long-established principles of (1) offer, (2) acceptance, (3) certainty of terms and (4) payment although it would be decades before the implications would begin comprehensively to be realized in legislation.  Not only did Mrs Carlill secure her £100 but she survived the pandemic, living to the age of ninety-six.  On 10 March 1942, she died after contracting influenza.

So, Mrs Carlill, having used the smoke ball three times a day for almost two months before she developed influenza sued for breach of contract and the court held the offer made in the advertisement was not “mere puff” but constituted a valid offer of contract; the Smoke Ball Company’s offer was thus a misrepresentation because, in the particular circumstances detailed, a “reasonable person” would be likely to believe that they would receive £100 and thus, relying on the claim, be persuaded to purchase the product.  However, all the circumstances must be considered on a case-by-case basis and an individual’s simple reliance on a claim they sincerely believe to be true is not sufficient to for something to be held a misrepresentation.

Something will be regarded as "mere puffery" if obviously a "joke line", even if it could be disproved with enough research and analysis.

In the famous Red Bull lawsuit in 2013, the court noted the company’s advertising slogan “Red Bull gives you wings” was “mere puffery” in that no reasonable person would believe ingesting even many cans of the stuff would mean they would “grow wings and fly” (although there are other consequences which can follow high consumption) but the lawsuit claimed that implicit in the slogan was the allegedly deceptive and fraudulent suggestion that the drink was a “superior source of energy”, something not backed up by scientific evidence.  heard before US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the class action was lodged by someone who had been drinking Red Bull for a decade-odd.  His claim was not that he expected feathers to sprout but that idea drinking Red Bull would increase performance and concentration (as advertised on the company's television, on-line and marketing campaigns) was “deceptive and fraudulent and is therefore actionable”.  The scientific basis for the action was research which found energy drinks gained their “boost” through caffeine alone, not guarana or any other ingredient, adding although there was no academic support for the claim Red Bull provides “any more benefit to a consumer than a cup of coffee”, the defendants persistently and pervasively market their product as a superior source of “energy” and thus worthy of a premium price over a cup of coffee or other sources of caffeine.  Red Bull, while denying any wrongdoing or liability and maintaining its “marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate”, the company settled the lawsuit “to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation”.  As part of the settlement, anyone resident of the US who claimed to have purchased a can of Red Bull at some time after 1 January 2002 was eligible to receive either a $US10 reimbursement or two free Red Bull products with a retail value of approximately $US15, a webpage created to enable those affected to lodge their claim.  To avoid any similar claims, the company “voluntarily updated its marketing materials and product labeling".

Advertising is often a mix of puffery and specific claims which can be actionable, depending on the circumstances, either in damages or restitution.

So every case is decided on its merits.  A case before the Federal Court in Australia in 2017 held that a false assertion an app had “the most property listings in Sydney” was a misrepresentation because uncontested evidence proved otherwise although the court note were the app to claim it was “the best” app of its kind that would be mere puffery because, in that context, the phrase “the best” means nothing in particular because it’s not something which can be reduced to a metric or precisely defined.  More intriguing for those who like to speculate when grey turns black or white was the Pepsi Points Case which was in many ways similar to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.  PepsiCo’s advertising included a point system which customers could use to redeem prizes and one campaign had offered a military jet fighter (then invoiced by the manufacturers at US$23 million odd) in exchange for 7 million "Pepsi Points" (then worth US$700,000).  Mailing a $700,000 cheque to PepsiCo, a customer asked to collect his jet.  The court held the offer was “mere puffery” on the basis of (1) aspects of the campaign which clearing indicated “its jocular nature”, (2) that no reasonable person would believe a US$23 million jet could be obtained by exchanging US$700,000 and it was (3) anyway impossible for the company to deliver a military fighter jet in operable condition to a civilian customer.  It was an interesting case because it might have been decided differently if the object had been closer in value to the points mentioned and been something there was no legal impediment to supplying (such as a US$1 million car).  Were it a US$143 million car (there is one such used car), the promotion would presumably still be judged puffery but at some point, it must be that the relative values would be close enough to for the “reasonable person” test to apply.  That however is something impossible to reduce to an equation and each case will be decided on its merits.  Just to be sure, PepsiCo bumped up by several orders of magnitude the points required to start one’s own air force and added some text to make it clear the whole thing was just a joke.

In the matter of Tyrrell’s Crinkly Crisps.  Often packaging & advertising will contain a number of claims, some of which will be mere puffery (even if it’s easy to prove blatantly they’re untrue) while others need to be verifiable:

2 Pack: Not puffery; every pack must contain two packets.  There have been instances when customers have complained they’ve received more than was advertised and paid for but it’s rare.  Usually, such things are treated as “windfalls”.

Vegan: Not puffery; the contents must be vegan (as defined in the regulation of whatever jurisdiction in which they’re sold).

Triple Cooked: Probably puffery because it’s doubtful the term has any legal definition although were it possible to prove the production process is essentially the same as for any other crisp (chip), it might be actionable.  Because “triple” does have a defined value, were it proved the goods were cooked only twice as long as the practice of other manufacturers, that would presumably compel a change of text to “Double Cooked”.

More Crunch: Probably puffery because the measure of such things is so subjective and there is a point at which to increase crunchiness becomes self-defeating because other desired qualities will be lost.

Crinkly Crisps: Not puffery; the crisps must to some extent be crinkly although it might be fun to have a judge explore the margins and tell us how slight a corrugation can be while still being called “crinkly”.

No Artificial Nasties: Not puffery; these packets probably contain artificial ingredients because they’re almost impossible to avoid in the industrial production of food.  What constitutes a “nasty” is however a thing of quantity as well as quality; something millions every day harmlessly (even beneficially) can be a toxic “nasty” in large quantities so what’s included in the packet will be safe as supplied.  If potential “nasties” are found to exist in a quantity above a certain point, it’s actionable.

Gluten Free: Not puffery; unless there is an allowable quantity (ie trace amounts) permitted by regulation, there must be no gluten.

Sea Salt & Vinegar: Not puffery; sea salt is a particular type of salt so it must be used and there must be evidence of the use of vinegar.

165 g Net: Not puffery; each pack must contain 165 g of edible content +/- the small % of production line variation a court would deem acceptable.

Content guide (fat, energy etc): Not puffery; again, what’s claimed must be a reliable indication of the products within whatever small variation is acceptable.

Photograph with giant crisp: Puffery and an example of how the “reasonable person” test works in conjunction with an objective test of truth.  The packs do not contain crisps as large as is represented in the image (indeed, such would be too big even to fit in the packet) and no reasonable person would believe this is what they’re buying.

Smith's Double Crunch Chips, now available in Hot & Spicy Chicken Wings, Ultimate BBQ Ribs, Original and Cheesy Garlic Bread.

The advertising for Smith's Double Crunch was a handy case-study in the way courts treat the words and phrases used in “mere puffery” in a different way from when they appear as warranties, guarantees, contractual clauses an such; in that, it’s an example of one of the exceptions to use usual convention in common law jurisdictions of following the “Vagliano rule”.  The rule was established by the House of Lords in Bank of England v Vagliano Bros (1891) AC 107 and although technically a principle in statutory interpretation, it has influenced other areas in law; it holds that when interpreting a statute, courts should start by considering the natural meaning of the words in the statute itself, without referring to previous case law or historical background, unless the language is ambiguous.  The rule is of such significance because it prioritizes the literal and ordinary meaning of words over any interpretation which could be derived if other factors are allowed to intrude.  In his judgment, Lord Herschell (Farrer Herschell, 1837–1899; Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain 1886 & 1892-1895) wrote: “I think the proper course is, in the first instance, to examine the language of the statute and to ask what is its natural meaning, uninfluenced by any considerations derived from the previous state of the law, and not to start with inquiring how the law previously stood, and then, having ascertained that, to see whether the statute will bear an interpretation which is in accordance with it. If the statute is clear, its provisions must prevail, whatever the previous law may have been. If the statute is ambiguous, then, and only then, may the history of the law be referred to.”

Smith's Double Crunch Chips, Flamin' Hot flavor.

The “Flamin' Hot” claim would be “read down” as being understood by any “reasonable person” as being a piece of puffery suggesting “spicy” and nobody would open the packet expecting to find flaming chips inside (indeed, that would demand very different text on the packaging).  The Flaming Hot flavour is no longer on sale.

Obviously, the strictures of the Vagliano rule can’t be applied to what genuinely is “mere puffery” and courts need to decide which words & phrases “at the margins” should be subject to the usual rigor (and treated thus as conveying their “natural meaning”) as opposed to those which may be accepted as just the way things are done in advertising.  The advertising may be deconstructed thus:

While the company may claim their Double Crunch Chips are “irresistible”, it’d not be required to remove the assertion even it was proved an individual (or thousands of them) indeed could resist the inclination to eat the product.  It would however have to be truthful in the claim to being “gluten-free” and manufactured with “no artificial flavours” and “no artificial colours”.  In saying they’re a “deep ridged chip” it would be necessary for a court to determine only that ridges exist and they’re not obviously “less deeply ridged” than other comparable products.  The manufacturer is not claiming the ridges are the “deepest” or even “deeper than most”, just that they are “deep”.  Of course the core claim for a product called Double Crunch Chip was that it delivers “twice the crunch”.  While it might be possible to quantify the quality of “crunch” (in terms of audio volume or sensation), no court would require the findings to suggest “twice the audible volume” and the experience of biting a chip is so individually variable as the make the use of the term to vague to be of use in this context.  The same would apply to the “big, bold flavour you love”, the first element being impossible to define and the latter a classic piece of puffery.

Puffer

Puffer (pronounced puhf-er)

(1) A person or thing that puffs.

(2) Any of various fishes of the family Tetraodontidae, noted for the defense mechanism of inflating (puffing up) its body with water or air until it resembles a globe, the spines in the skin becoming erected; several species contain the potent nerve poison tetrodotoxin.  Also called the blowfish or, globefish.

(3) In contract law, the casual term for someone who produces “mere puff” or “mere puffery”, the term for the type of exaggerated commercial claim tolerated by law.

(4) In cellular automaton modelling (a branch of mathematics and computer science), a finite pattern that leaves a trail of debris.

(5) In auctioneering, one employed by the owner or seller of goods sold at auction to bid up the price; a by-bidder (now rare, the term “shill bidders” or “shills” more common).

(6) In marine zoology, the common (or harbour) porpoise.

(6) A kier used in dyeing.

(8) In glassblowing, a soffietta (a usually swan-necked metal tube, attached to a conical nozzle).

(9) Early post-war slang for one who takes drugs by smoking and inhaling.

(10) In mountaineering (and latterly in fashion), an insulated, often highly stylized puffy jacket or coat, stuffed with various forms of insulation.

(11) As Clyde puffer, a type of cargo ship used in the Clyde estuary and off the west coast of Scotland.

(12) In electronics and electrical engineering, a type of circuit breaker.

(13) A manually operated medical device used for delivering medicines into the lungs.

(14) As puffer machine, a security device used to detect explosives and illegal drugs at airports and other sensitive facilities.

(15) In automotive engineering, a slang term for forced induction (supercharger & turbocharger), always less common than puffer.

In 1620–1630: A compound word puff + -er.  Puff is from the Middle English puff & puf from the Old English pyf (a blast of wind, puff).  It was cognate with the Middle Low German puf & pof.  The –er suffix is from the Middle English –er & -ere, from Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought usually to have been borrowed from Latin –ārius and reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (The Anglo-Norman variant was -our), from the Latin -(ā)tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  Added to verbs (typically a person or thing that does an action indicated by the root verb) and forms an agent noun.  The original form from the 1620s was as an agent noun from the verb puff, the earliest reference to those who puffed on tobacco, soon extended to steamboats and steam engines generally when they appeared.  The sense of "one who praises or extols with exaggerated commendation" is from 1736, which, as “mere puff” or “mere puffery” in 1892 entered the rules of contract law in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892, QB 484 (QBD)) as part of the construction limiting the definition of misrepresentation.  The remarkable fish which inflates itself in defense was first noted in 1814, the meanings relating to machinery being adopted as the industrial revolution progressed although the more virile “blower” was always preferred as a reference to supercharging, puffer more appropriate for the hand-held inhalers used by those suffering a variety of respiratory conditions. 

Puffer Jackets and beyond

Calf-length puffer coats.

The first down jacket, a lightweight, waterproof and warm coat for use in cold places or at altitude and known originally as an eiderdown coat, appears to be the one designed by Australian chemist George Finch (1888-1970) for the 1922 Everest expedition but a more recognizable ancestor was the Skyliner, created by American Eddie Bauer (1899-1986) in 1936, his inspiration being the experience of nearly losing his life to hypothermia on a mid-winter fishing trip.  Using trapped air warmed by the body as a diver’s wet suit uses water, Bauer’s imperative was warmth and protection, but he created also a visual style, one copied in 1939 by Anglo-American fashion designer, Charles James (1906-1978) for his pneumatic jacket, the Michelin Man-like motif defining the classic puffer look to this day.

Lindsay Lohan in puffer vest with Ugg boots, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2013 (left) and in puffer jacket, New York City, 2018 (right).

It was in the late 1940s it began to enjoy acceptance as a fashion item, marketed as evening wear and it was sold in this niche in a variety of materials until the 1970s when a new generation of synthetic fibres offered designers more possibilities, including the opportunity to create garments with the then novel characteristic of being simultaneously able to be bulky, lightweight yet able to retain sculptured, stylized shapes.  These attributes enabled puffer jackets to be made for the women’s market, some of which used a layering technique to create its effect and these were instantly popular.  Although initially in mostly dark or subdued colors, by the 1980s, vibrant colors had emerged as a trend, especially in Italy and England.  By the twenty-first century, although available across a wide price spectrum, the puffer as a style cut across class barriers although, those selling the more expensive did deploy their usual tricks to offer their buyers class identifiers, some discrete, some not.

The puffer started life as a jacket and it took a long time to grow but by the 2000s, calf-length puffers had appeared as a retail item after attracting comment, not always favorable, on the catwalks.  Although not selling in the volumes of the jackets, the costs of lengthening can’t have been high because ankle and even floor-length puffers followed.  Down there it might have stopped but, in their fall 2018 collection released during Milan Fashion Week, Italian fashion house Moncler, noted for their skiwear, showed puffer evening gowns, the result of a collaborative venture with Valentino’s designers.  Available in designer colors as well as glossy black, the line was offered as a limited-edition which was probably one of the industry’s less necessary announcements given the very nature of the things would tend anyway to limit sales.  The ploy though did seemed to work, even at US$2,700 for the long dress and a bargain US$3,565 for the cocoon-like winter cape, demand was said to exceed supply so, even if not often worn, puffer gowns may be a genuine collector’s item.

A Dalek.

It wasn’t clear what might have been inspiration for the conical lines although the ubiquity of the shape in industrial equipment was noted.  It seemed variously homage to the burka, a sculptural installation of sleeping bags or the stair-challenged Daleks, the evil alien hybrids of the BBC's Dr Who TV series.  It also picked up also existing motifs from fashion design, appearing even as the playful hybrid of the mullet dress and a cloak.

A monolith somewhere may also have been a reference point but the puffer gown was not stylistically monolithic.  Although to describe the collection as mix-n-match might be misleading, as well as designer colors, some of the pieces technically were jackets, there were sleeves, long and short and though most hems went to the floor, the mullet offered variety, especially for those who drawn to color combination.  Most daring, at least in this context, were the sleeveless, some critics suggesting this worked best with gowns cinched at the middle.

By the time of the commercial release early in 2019, solid colors weren’t the only offering, the range reflecting the influence of Ethiopian patterns although, in a nod to the realities of life, only puffer jackets were made available for purchase.  Tantalizingly (or ominously, depending on one’s view), Moncler indicated the work was part of what they called their “genius series”, the brand intending in the future to collaborate with other designers as well as creating a series of Moncler events in different cities, the stated aim to “showcase the artistic genius found in every city”.  The venture was pursued but in subsequent collections, many found the quality of genius perhaps too subtly executed for anyone but fellow designers and magazine editors to applaud.  The shock of the new has become harder to achieve.

Broad

Broad (pronounced brawd)

(1) Of great breadth.

(2) A quasi-standard expression of lineal measurement (from side to side).

(3) Of great extent; large; extensive, ample, spacious, vast.

(4) Wide-open; full (applied usually to daylight).

(5) Not limited or narrow; of extensive range or scope (applied to knowledge, experience etc).

(6) Liberal; tolerant (semi-institutionalized as one of the three factions of the Anglican Church (Low, broad & high).

(7) A generalized summary of something (often as broad outline); general rather than specific.

(8) Something made plain or clear; outspoken.

(9) Indelicate; indecent, vulgar (now rare).

(10) Of conversation, rough; countrified, unrefined.

(11) Unconfined; unbridled; unrestrained.

(12) In linguistics, of pronunciation, strongly dialectal; the most exaggerated of its type; consisting of a large number of speech sounds characteristic of a particular geographical area or social class.  As applied to Gaelic languages: velarized (ie palatalized).

(13) In phonetics, of a transcription, using one basic symbol to represent each phoneme; of or relating to a type of pronunciation transcription in which symbols correspond approximately to phonemes without taking account of allophonic variations.

(14) In (mostly historic US & Canadian) slang, a usually disparaging term for a women, often one that hints at promiscuity (but not prostitution); often in the plural.

(15) In film & television production, an incandescent or fluorescent lamp used as a general source of light in a studio.

(16) A type of wide-bladed battle sword.

(17) A gold coin of England and Scotland, minted first in 1656 and issued by James I and Charles I; equal to 20 shillings.

(18) As broadband, a term now vague in meaning which implies a high-speed internet connection but which has been applied to any service rated faster than the highest speed possible using a single analogue modem connected with a conventional phone line (copper pair (Cat3)).

(19) In public finance, as broad money, denoting an assessment of liquidity including notes and coins in circulation, bank holdings, most private-sector bank deposits, and certain bank-deposit certificates; usually classed as M3 in the (sort of) standardized system by which OECD countries measure the money supply.

(20) In UK dialectal use, a river spreading over a lowland (in East Anglia, a shallow lake).

(21) In woodworking, a wood-turning tool used for shaping the insides and bottoms of cylinders.

(22) In the UK, a common pronunciation of B-road (a secondary road).

Pre 1000: From the Middle English brood, brode, brod & broad from the Old English brād (broad, flat, open, extended, spacious, wide, ample, copious; not narrow), from the Proto-Germanic braidi, from the Proto-West Germanic braid, from the Proto-Germanic braidaz (broad), of uncertain origin.  It was cognate with the Scots braid (broad), the West Frisian breed (broad), the Saterland Frisian breed (broad), the Low German breet & breed (broad), the Dutch breed (broad), the German & Old High German breit (broad, wide), the Danish, Swedish & Norwegian Bokmål bred (broad), the Norwegian brei (broad), the Icelandic breiður (broad, wide), the Old Norse breiðr (breithr), the Old Frisian brēd and the Gothic braiths & brouþs.  The word is not found except in Germanic languages and there has never been any clear distinction between broad & wide although there are conventions of use but they vary widely (and presumably in some places broadly) by geographical region.  Related and sometimes synonymous words include deep, expansive, full, large, vast, comprehensive, extensive, far-reaching, sweeping, universal, wide, wide-ranging, clear, explicit, straightforward, radical, improper, indecent & roomy.  Broad is a noun & adjective, broadly is an adverb; broadness is a noun, broaden is a verb, broadening is a noun & verb and broadest & broadish are adjectives; the noun plural is broads.    

Circa 1300, broad also had the specific meaning "breadth", now obsolete, which was from broad the adjective.  The sense of "shallow, reedy lake formed by the expansion of a river over a flat surface" was a Norfolk dialect word from the 1650s and broad had assumed its (broad) meaning as "the broad (wide) part" of anything by 1741.  The broad-brim hat was first described in the 1680s and the phrase “broad-brimmed” or “broad-brimmer” was eighteenth & nineteenth slang for a "Quaker male", so described because of their characteristic attire.  Broad-minded (in the sense of open-minded, liberal, less judgmental) was from the 1590s but this abstract mental sense of broad existed also in Old English as bradnes which meant both "breadth" & "liberality".

German broadsword, Waloon pattern, circa 1650.

Some swordsmiths insist the only true broadsword is one of the “basket-hilted swords”, characterized by a basket-shaped guard at the hilt which protects the hand, an elaboration of the quillons added to swords' cross-guards since the later Middle Ages.  What everybody else now calls the broadsword is a bladed weapon of the early modern era (sixteenth-seventeenth century), the construct in Old English being brad + swurd and, exclusively a battlefield weapon, they were always distinguished from rapiers and other dueling swords by their wide and often long & thick blades.

The term broadsheet was first used to describe a newspaper in 1705 when the distinguishing characteristic was being a “large sheet of paper printed on one side only”; by 1831 the usual phrase was “"a broadsheet newspaper" which in the twentieth century evolved into a distinction between the sober publications of record, reflection and reporting (The Times of London, The New York Times, The Manchester Guardian etc) and the popular tabloid press concerned with entertainment, sport and (increasingly) celebrity culture (the News of the World, The Sun, the New York News etc), based on the former being printed in larger formats, the latter half-sized (tabloid in printer’s jargon.  Even when some broadsheets switched to the smaller format, the phraseology remained and seemed to have survived even where some have abandoned print editions entirely, tabloid journalism still something simultaneously popular and disreputable.

Lindsay Lohan on Broadway, attending the production MJ The Musical, New York, July 2022.

Broadway (like High Street or Main Road) became a common street name apparently as early as circa 1300, applied obviously to particularly wide roads or streets, the allusive use for "New York’s theater district" dating from 1881.  The derivative “off broadway” (sometime with initial capitals) described smaller theatres in the New York City area, those with fewer than 300 seats, or a production in such a theater, usually away from the "Broadway" theater district and which operated under special rules from the theatrical unions which permitted productions to be mounted at much lower cost.  Use of off-broadway was first noted in 1953 as the volume of productions began greatly to expand in the buoyant post war economy and off-off & off-off-off (etc) broadway followed, the number of “offs” hinting progressively at the diminishing size of the budget, theatre and reputations of those associated with the production.

Broadcasting in the modern understanding of the word attained critical mass first in the 1920s as medium-wave AM radio became popular as the cost of vacuum tube radio transmitters and receivers fell to affordable levels.  Broadcasting was based on the idea in agriculture of broad-sowing, the casting of seeds over a broad area and was electronic communication on a one-to-many basis, as opposed to earlier radio, telephone, and telegraph models which were one/few to one/few.  Although the technology and the distribution platforms have since much evolved, broadcasting remains conceptually the same but the technological changes have greatly affected the behavior of audiences and much of what “broadcasters” now do is really stranded narrowcasting, the content designed not for the large-scale, even nation-wide catchments which once were available but aimed instead at specific demographics also served by the narrowcasters proper.  So changed is the environment that the terms are now less useful than when there were clear distinctions between them.

Dean Martin (1917-1995) and Frank Sinatra (1915-1998) carry "strike" signs demanding "Free Broads" as part of a gag during a show at the Sands' Copa Room, Las Vegas, 1960.

Although the "rat pack" persona was cultivated as something edgy and anti-establishment, their audience was politically conservative and, by the 1960s, part of an older generation which mostly didn't approve of young people marching with protest signs.  For a couple of old pros playing Las Vegas, this was an easy laugh and, by the standards of the time, self-deprecating.

The apparently etymologically baffling use of broad to describe a woman with some suggestion of promiscuity has attracted speculation.  It’s been suggested it might be an alteration of bride, especially through influence of the cognate German Braut, which was used in a similar sense (young woman, hussy) and there was the Middle High German brūt (concubine) but, especially given it came to be noted as a generalized slang term for women only circa 1911 in US use, etymologists prefer to link the development to the earlier slang “abroadwife”, used to mean both “woman who lives or travels without her husband" and “woman maintained in another place by a man and unknown to his wife”.  It’s now a dated form, used sometimes ironically but has often been misapplied with a suggestion of prostitution.  Because of these negative associations, and the increasing popularity of women's athletics, the name of the track and field “broad jump” (dating from 1863) was changed to “long jump”, beginning in the US in 1967 and soon adopted by athletics federations worldwide.

Some broadband is more broad than others: Indicative speed (January 2022) of internet connections in selected countries based on Ookla’s speedtest.net data, the informal standard for consumer-level speed testing.

The noun broadband actually dates from the 1620s in various senses from dressmaking to engineering.  It was used in electronics from 1956 with the meaning "a band having a wide range of frequencies" but the now most familiar use is as a descriptor of high-speed internet access.  Although the term broadband had since the 1970s been used in the technical language of the then embryonic industry of networking and distributed communications, it was little known by the public until the first standards were published for Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL), a consumer-level version of digital subscriber line (DSL) technology.  Ever since, it’s been used in the sense of “high-speed internet” but except for some local (and usually quickly outdated) legislated definitions, it’s never had a universal or even generally accepted meaning beyond the very early implementations when it was understood to imply a connection faster than the fastest service attainable by a single (8000/8000 baud; V.92; 56.0/48.0 kbit/s down/up) analogue modem connected with a conventional phone line (untwisted copper pair (UTP-Cat3)) which was usually accepted to be 56 kbit/s.  That soon was not a great deal of help and now, unless in a jurisdiction where use of the term broadband requires the maintenance of minimum up & download speeds, it’s really just an advertising term and unless a service so advertised turns out to be so slow that the use might be held to be deceptive or misleading, is often little more than “mere puffery”.  Hotels which in the 1990s and early 2000s spent a lot of money to install the hardware and software to support what was then “broadband” which they advertised as such soon, faced complaints as rapid advances in technology rendered their infrastructure quickly obsolescent and slow, the only solution sometimes to replace all the equipment although many instead took advantage of the profit-sharing industry which emerged, third-parties handling the installation and support, the hotel taking just a commission on total revenue.  Just as a precaution, some gave up on advertising “broadband” and instead offered the even more vague “hi-speed” which definitely meant nothing in particular.     

Contemporary art museum The Broad, Grand Avenue, Los Angeles.  The building's name is a reference not to the architecture but the philanthropists Eli (1933-2021) & Edythe (b 1936) Broad, who paid for it and provided the core of the collections exhibited.  It opened in September 2015, the architecture generally well-received.

Broadcloth (also as broad-cloth) was a "fine woolen cloth used in making men's garments" and dates from the early fifteenth century, the name derived from its width (usually 60 inches (1.5m)).  The phrase “broad daylight” emerged in the late fourteenth century and broad was first applied to speech and accents during the 1530s. To be “broad in the beam” is to be overweight, the term, predictably, applied almost exclusively to women.  To have “broad shoulders” suggests an ability to take criticism, or accept responsibility, an allusion to the figure of Atlas from Greek mythology who was condemned to forever carry on his shoulders the weight of the world.  In admiralty jargon, “broad on the beam” is a nautical bearing 90° to the heading of a vessel while “broad on the bow” is a bearing 45° to the heading of a vessel.  Broadacre farming or agriculture is a generalized reference to activities undertaken on large-scale open areas as opposed to smaller, fenced enclosures and can be used to describe either cropping or animal production.  The expression, like “mileage” or “tons” has survived metrification; “broadhectare” does exist as jargon in the field of residential land supply but is not widely used.

The Anglicans

Some time ago, the ever-entertaining Anglican Church, sort of formalized their three warring factions as the low and lazy, the broad and hazy and the high and crazy:

The Low and Lazy

Like the high churchers, the low lot still believe in God but, their time not absorbed plotting and scheming or running campaigns to stamp out gay clergy and opposing the ordination of women, they actually have time to pray, which they do, often.  The evangelical types come from among the low and don’t approve of fancy rituals, Romish ways or anything smelling of popery.  Instead, they like services where there’s clapping, dancing and what sounds like country & western music with sermons telling them it’s Godly to buy things like big TVs and surf-skis.

The Broad and Hazy

The broad church is more a club than a church, something like the Tory Party at prayer.  The parishioners will choose the church they (occasionally) attend on the same basis as their golf club, driving miles if need be to find a congregation acceptably free of racial and cultural DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion).  They’re interested not at all in theology or anything too abstract so sermons are preached to please the bourgeoisie.  The broad church stands for most things in general and nothing in particular, finding most disputes in Anglicanism baffling; they just can't see what all the fuss is about.

The High and Crazy

The high church has clergy who love dressing up like The Spice Girls, burning incense and chanting the medieval liturgy in Latin.  They disapprove of about everything that’s happened since the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer and believe there’d be less sin were there still burnings at the stake.  Most high church clergy wish Pope Pius IX was still running the show from Rome and some act as though he’s still there.

Of money

All will be pleased to know there is narrow money and broad money.  Narrow money includes notes and coins in circulation and bank deposits (if available to conduct transactions).  Broad money includes all narrow money and other liquid assets that can be used to buy goods and services.  Collectively, the money circulating in an economy is called money supply, movements in which are tracked and sometimes manipulated governments and central banks.  There are economists who insist the distinction between narrow and broad money is mainly theoretical and they have a point in that the relationship between national wealth and (1) physical notes and coins and (2) the notion of asset backing (such as a gold standard) are both now somewhat abstract and the money supply can now be expanded without the effects of the physical economy which would once have been inevitable but the measures are still of great interest, as is the strange fact that the actual definitions of money used by governments and central banks in major trading economies vary from country to country.

The United States

The US Federal Reserve provides only two main measures of money M1 (narrow) and M2 (broad).  M1 consists of currency in circulation, travelers’ checks of nonbank issuers, demand deposits, and other checkable deposits (eg negotiable order of withdrawal accounts at depository institutions).  M2 is M1 plus savings deposits and money market deposit accounts, time deposit accounts below $100,000, and balances in retail money market mutual funds.  The interesting thing about the US is that the Fed’s M1 & M2 excludes a lot of what most economists regards as money but it’s very difficult to estimate how much, all agreeing only that it’s big number.

The Euro Zone

The European Central Bank (ECB) publishes M1, M2 & M3, each measure becoming progressively broader.  M1 includes currency in circulation plus overnight deposits.  M2 is M1 plus deposits redeemable at notice of up to three months and deposits with an agreed maturity of up to two years.  M3 is M2 plus repurchase agreements, money market fund shares, money market paper, and debt securities issued with a maturity of fewer than two years.

The United Kingdom

The Bank of England uses four measures of money, M0, M2, M4, and M3H, M0 the narrowest, M4 the broadest.  M0 is currency in circulation plus bankers’ deposits held by the Bank of England.  M2 is M0 plus deposits held in retail banks.  M4 is M2 plus certificates of deposits, and wholesale bank and building society deposits.  The mysterious M3H is a parity device which exists to allow the Bank of England to align their reporting for statistical purposes with the money supply measures published by the ECB and this is M4 plus foreign currency deposits in banks and building societies.

Australia

The Reserve Bank of Australia used to use M1, M2 & M3 but now publishes M1, M3 & Broad Money.  M1 is currency in circulation plus bank current deposits from private non-bank entities.  M3 is M1 plus other deposits from building societies and credit unions with banks.  Broad Money is M3 plus borrowings from the private sector by non-bank depository corporations excluding holdings of currency and deposits of non-bank depository corporations.

Japan

The Bank of Japan is a monetary classicist and publishes M1, M2, and M3, where M1 is the narrowest and M3 the broadest.  M1 includes currency in circulation plus deposits.  M2 is M1, plus certificates of deposit.  M3 is M2 plus savings and deposits at financial institutions and post offices.

For countries which run modern economies with convertible currencies and a high degree of interoperability and (usually), little (at least by historic standards) in the way of exchange controls, it may seem strange that the definitions of money vary to the extent they do, the only feature of commonality really that each maintains a measurable concept of narrow and broad money.  Only a few central banks, such as the Bank of England, include a device with which those interested in such things can align the numbers more accurately to compare one with another; it’s almost as if the central banks and governments like some vagueness in the system.

In theory there need not be a direct relationship between the volume of the money supply and its value expressed as purchasing power but the two values do in theory (and, in practice, typically) move in the opposite directions.  German children during the hyper-inflation experienced in 1923 under the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) would play with literally trillions, using bundles of currency with a face value in the billions (of the then current Papiermark) as toy building blocks.  Although the purposes for which it was originally set up have long been overtaken by events, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) still exists (which is interesting in itself) and although the BIS organizes interesting conferences and seminars and publish a wealth of meaty material, it’d be helpful were they to devise a standardized money supply model which could augment (ie not replace) the machinery to which the central banks would no doubt cling.  Even if restricted to members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), it would be an interesting data-set to align with other charts but the chances of this seem remote.  It might frighten the horses.