Though severe weather forecast products, such as the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) convective outlook, have shown to be significantly more accurate than climatology at day-to-week time scales, tornadoes and severe thunderstorms still claim dozens of lives and cause billions of dollars in damage every year. While the accuracy of this outlook has been well documented, less work has been done to explore the value of the product for non-governmental users like broadcast meteorologists and the general public. This study seeks to fill this key knowledge gap by interviewing a set of broadcasters from regions affected by severe convective weather, as well as collecting data from a representative survey of U.S. adults in the lower 48 states, about their use and interpretation of the SPC convective outlook. Data from broadcasters, collected through a combination of Cognitive Task Analyses and focus group interviews, are analyzed through thematic coding schemes, while survey data is processed through statistical tests and into visualizations. Results suggest that both broadcasters and the public take issue with the words that define each level of risk in the outlook, though overall the outlook is considered a valuable product that has a meaningful impact on users’ decisions. Multiple linear regression tests also reveal that younger, White, and numerate individuals that objectively understand the difference between tornado warnings and watches are better able to interpret the SPC outlook words and colors. Overall these findings suggest that the words used in the convective outlook may confuse users as they try to derive meaning from the outlook, and that future work should use input from broadcasters and data from public surveys to develop potential replacements for the words. Using more easily understood words may help to increase the outlook’s decision-making value and potentially reduce the harm caused by severe weather events.