We think, therefore, we are. What do you think?

Author Archive

Aug 30th, 2010 by Irene Etzkorn

Of course we don’t know the difference

The SEC wants to know whether you know the difference between a broker and an investment adviser. My guess is that you do not and while you are pondering the answer, you might also consider what the terms financial consultant, financial advisor, investment executive and financial planner mean since they are also bandied about by brokerage firms and financial institutions. The Securities and Exchange Commission wants to know your answer by the end of the day today, August 30. You can submit comments online by sending an email to rule-comments@sec.gov and include “File Number 4-606” in the subject line.

The SEC is studying the issue to look at setting up new regulations for brokers. I assume that they already know the answer—the brokerage industry has benefitted from multiple terms which are easily confused. They would hope that you know that brokers and dealers don’t have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their clients while investment advisers do. Since the term “fiduciary duty” isn’t the most commonly spoken phrase, they might look into that one as well.

The SEC needs to come up with just a few, memorable terms, no more than 5, with easily distinguishable meanings. Think of how it will simplify their business cards.

Irene Etzkorn is the executive director, simplification for the Siegel+Gale New York office.

Add Comment.

Permalink

Jul 13th, 2010 by Irene Etzkorn

Why hospitals need to be in the hospitality business

Over the past ten years, hospitals have begun to compete for patient’s business. Traditionally, hospitals have relied on direct-to-consumer advertising that touts nationally-recognized rankings for things like specialized services and access to high-tech equipment. In an attempt to persuade patients to choose quality over geography, the ads suggest that the time and distance spent traveling to a top-tier facility is worthwhile.

But interestingly, most patients are hard-pressed to define “the best.” Is “the best” hospital the one with the lowest mortality rates, or the facility performing the highest amount of surgeries? Mortality rates can actually be deceiving—if hospitals don’t take the sickest patients, they can easily have better survival rates. Numbers of surgeries is also a standard measure. And although the “practice makes perfect” school of thought may seem logical, it may also go hand in hand with larger institutions and more impersonal care.

Gradually, the medical community has realized that the majority of the hospital experience is made up of numerous mundane moments rather than the surgical procedures or medical tests. In a hospital, vulnerabilities are made manifest and patients remember a million little details that make up the overall experience. The time it takes for a nurse to answer the call bell, the availability of food on request, a dusty blood pressure cuff, how and if the staff identify themselves and even the patient check-out process (which could include the dark and distant walk to the parking garage at night) all contribute to the makings of an acceptable or unacceptable customer experience. Certainly successful procedures are paramount, but also viewed as table stakes. After all, a patient wouldn’t undergo a procedure at all if they expected it wouldn’t be successful.

So, if hospitals want to encourage people to choose their facilities no matter where they are located, they will need to consider the frequently overlooked “niceties” such as assistance with hotel accommodations for loved ones, easy access to online follow-up care and local support after discharge.

The advent of social media has made it very easy for patients to comment, gripe and complain in real time—making it harder for hospitals to stake their reputation on just a few rankings touted in their ads. Faster than ever before, patients can easily find out if the hospital has poor coverage on the weekends, Legionnaire’s disease in the water supply, confusing bills, lack of internet connectivity, harried staff, etc.

Furthermore, the largest healthcare systems are likely to see an influx of physicians as an outgrowth of the Healthcare Reform Bill. Attracting physicians and attracting patients is an infinity loop—the needs of both will need to be addressed. Large hospitals won’t be able to rely on high-tech equipment as a lure if the day-to-day experience is one of hassle and paperwork for patients and physicians. So, hospitals would be wise to think of themselves as in the hospitality business.

Irene Etzkorn is the executive director, simplification for the Siegel+Gale New York office.

Add Comment.

Permalink

Jun 3rd, 2010 by Irene Etzkorn

Simplicity and luxury—are they compatible?

A luxurious experience can mean sumptuous, elegant and rarified. However, for me, luxury means hassle-free, pampered and reassured. Simplicity delivers the latter by making people feel confident that they’ve made the “right choice”—assuring them that they don’t have to second-guess themselves. Luxury services achieve this by doing the legwork for the customer, anticipating needs and exceeding expectations. They give the customer a simplified experience by foreseeing and removing customer burdens.

Complexity and unpleasant purchase surprises are so commonplace that eliminating them is a luxury. Consider a luxury vacation—elegant surroundings and comfort are essential but eliminating the fine print, removing hidden fees and simplifying choices are also part of delivering a feeling of luxury. Simplicity means shortening the distance between the customer and the company—whatever that takes. Delivering this type of simplicity is so rare that it warrants a premium price and delivers an exceptional experience.

As a side note—many luxury brands make a mistake by overwhelming customers with options, choices and features. They equate luxury with choice rather than service. Research shows that people feel bad about their decisions when they are confronted with too many choices, often suffering from a nagging feeling that they made the “wrong” choice. For example, I just purchased a Mercedes E350—the car has so many features that I keep losing track of how to access them from the dashboard computer screens. To me the luxury is in the handling, the styling and yes, in the plain English leasing document which Siegel+Gale rewrote ten years ago and that Mercedes is still using (it’s called the First Class Lease—the name Siegel+Gale recommended). I also like the service feature of free car washes and free at-home delivery of a loaner car when my car needs maintenance. To me, that’s a luxury because it saves me time and hassle—after all, time is the greatest luxury.

Irene Etzkorn is the executive director, simplification for the Siegel+Gale New York office.

Add Comment.

Permalink

May 13th, 2010 by Irene Etzkorn

If it makes your immortal soul feel any better…

Game Station deliberately hid a clause claiming ownership of people’s souls in its agreement to prove no one reads the terms. While hilarious, it raises the sad reality that consumers have sold their souls by conceding their right to understand consumer contracts. Selling free will and privacy may prove even more painful than forsaking immortality.

Add Comment.

Permalink

May 11th, 2010 by Irene Etzkorn

Job-seekers beware—must speak governmentese

Today, President Obama issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments calling for them to improve the Federal recruitment and hiring process. Specifically, he said, “Americans must be able to apply for Federal jobs through a commonsense hiring process and agencies must be able to select high-quality candidates efficiently and quickly.” Why would such a directive be needed—recruiting and hiring isn’t rocket science, (unless you are applying to NASA) right?

If you are seeking employment, consult opm.gov (for Office of Personnel Management) and click on the link titled, “Job Seekers”, you are immediately confronted by:

Recovery Jobs
USAJOBS
Jobs in Demand
Senior Executive Jobs
Job FAQs
Veterans’ Employment Resources
Persons with Disabilities

Most people would want a “job in demand” rather than a job in decline so I naturally clicked on that only to be led to just one job opening: associate director for budget at the National Institute of Health. Is this supposed to be a featured opening—surely there can’t be just one position in the entire federal government that is “in demand?” It is clearly a case of the government speaking to itself—these links are a mixture of special programs, names of websites and types of job seekers.

And then it gets worse. If you find a job that is of interest, you confront this instruction to determine if you are qualified:

“A combination of education as described under letter A above and specialized experience as described under letter B above which when combined are equivalent to 100% of the qualifications requirements. To compute this, first determine your qualifying experience as a percentage of the experience required under letter B above. Second, determine your undergraduate education as a percentage of the education required under letter A above. Then add the two percentages together. The total must equal at least 100% to qualify.”

Frankly, if you can do that calculation, you should be tapped to head up the Federal Reserve.

Of course, this confusion arises only if you actually seek out a federal government job. There is actually a critical shortage of federal workers looming as large numbers of employees reach retirement so the government needs to attract talent. Many people mistakenly think that most federal jobs are based in Washington DC—far from it—most are dispersed throughout the nation. Shouldn’t that statistic be plastered on the home page? We want the best and the brightest public servants—instead we catch mice who can follow a maze.

Irene Etzorn is the executive director of simplification for the Siegel+Gale New York office.

Add Comment.

Permalink

Mar 25th, 2010 by Irene Etzkorn

Banks make even good news sound bad


“What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

That adage sprang into my mind when I read a letter from a major commercial bank today about changes to my business checking account. The letter proudly announced that “we are revamping our overdraft services to make them clearer and simpler.”

Doubtful, and I certainly wasn’t reassured by the 39 different fees which were included on two enclosed pages. It doesn’t seem that they have eliminated many.

Most importantly, what was missing was context. Apparently, the Bank thinks I have memorized their current fee structure and therefore would immediately recognize how these changes differed and would be beneficial.

For example, they said that they will now post items to my account in the order that they hit the account. If I didn’t know this new sequence is instead of their current practice of posting from largest to smallest, I wouldn’t understand why this could produce fewer overdrafts. (If one big check is deducted first, then lots of little checks could go through in overdraft, each incurring a fee instead of only one big check overdrawing the account and incurring one overdraft fee.) However, they didn’t tell me that—I had to delve into my arcane banking trivia trove.

Similarly, the Bank seems to have confused the word “simply” with “only.”

Repeatedly, they say that a fee is “now simply $.50 when you order currency straps” (yes, I think I need those to keep their grubby hands away from my money) or “coin roll fee is now simply $.15 per coin roll.” An amount of money is neither simple nor complex—it is either cheap or expensive. Again, without context, how am I to know how appreciative to be of these new fees?

Banks have become so used to hiding behind gobbledygook that even if they have good news they manage to bury it.

Comments (1)

Permalink

Mar 23rd, 2010 by Irene Etzkorn

A lesson in “Unthink”—reading privacy policies


A dark and twisted revisiting of Alice in Wonderland is in the movie theaters again and it is timely. I feel much like her when I read the privacy policies that keep appearing in my mailbox.

First of all, “privacy policy” is a misnomer. To me, that implies a company plans to ensure my privacy, not violate it. They should be renamed “blabbing” policies because apparently financial institutions can’t stop themselves from sharing everything they learn about you. In addition to mysterious sharing with “affiliated” and “non-affiliated companies”—if they share with both doesn’t that mean basically share with absolutely everyone? —they are getting even more creative in the age of online surveillance.

My Saks Fifth Avenue account takes this to a new level by suggesting that they are watching me, analyzing my actions and sharing their analysis to serve me. Here’s how they express it: “to help us learn which products, services and sections of our websites interest you, and to improve your experience, we may use ‘cookies.’ Cookies are small files that our web server places on your hard drive to track activity on the website during a browsing session, and across multiple sessions…”


http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/8sDlP8aIkYB3HbBX7tS_3Q


It is no accident I am sure that they use a pleasant name like “cookies” instead of “bloody footprints.” Leaving a trail of crumbs in my wake sounds less alarming than spewing DNA evidence. Imagine if this practice were occurring when you shopped in bricks and mortar Saks Fifth Avenue stores. They would interrogate you at the door to find out your identity, place helmet on your head with eye tracking software, slip on gloves with sensors to monitor everything you touched and do a full body scan to record your measurements.

I can’t help but see the grinning Cheshire cat peering over my shoulder as I open my mail and I am tempted to quote from the Queen of Hearts—“off with their heads.”

Add Comment.

Permalink

Feb 23rd, 2010 by Irene Etzkorn

11 pages instead of 1100 strikes me as right

President Obama unveiled his health care proposal yesterday and I was delighted to finally be able to form an opinion. The key elements of his proposal, available on the White House website, are only 11 pages in length. Prior to this, I really couldn’t express an opinion because I didn’t have the time, inclination or fortitude to read the 1100 page version put forth by Congress. At least now, I can actually understand what he is proposing. I don’t have to rely on spin doctors to interpret for me.

To be clear is to be brave. There is nowhere to hide in brevity. Long-winded legalese is like verbal brush in which all manner of unpleasant consequences can hide. I applaud the presentation of the President’s plan—significant differences from previous, Congressional versions are called out, a table of contents runs alongside the text and the highlights are easily accessible via a prominent tab and easily printed. Unlike previous mind-numbing versions, this one is clear enough to allow me to form an opinion.

Add Comment.

Permalink

Jan 7th, 2010 by Irene Etzkorn

Legislation that starts as plain language, should stay as plain language

While I applaud Ezra Klein’s notion (Making transparency into a reality, Ezra Klein’s Washington Post blog, January 7, 2009 at 12:15 p.m.) of disseminating the plain English documents that are created as the underpinning of Senate legislation, rather than the Bills themselves, why doesn’t anyone ask why the final Bill must be unintelligible? Why are we going through a two-step process to complicate and mystify if we have a source document which is straightforward and intelligible? Perhaps it makes more sense to rethink the structural outline of Senate legislation.

Add Comment.

Permalink

Dec 28th, 2009 by Irene Etzkorn

Plain talk replaces police lingo

I cheered when I read that police departments around the nation are rapidly dropping their “10 code” lingo in favor of Plain Talk radio transmissions. The events of September 11 precipitated the changeover when dozens of emergency responders couldn’t communicate because each had their own set of coded messages.

It is a classic example of how “insider jargon” can be both glamorous and dangerous at the same time. I admit I loved Adam-12 and other television shows and movies that glamorized police jargon—after all responding to a 10-22 sounds a bit more intriguing than chasing a burglar. Speaking in code is fun when it makes you feel part of a club. But, it can be dangerous when it becomes exclusionary in a moment of crisis.

I’m hopeful that the medical profession will jump on this bandwagon. It’s disconcerting when doctors and nurses ask, “How are you doing since the cabbage?” when you have just had major surgery and haven’t eaten in days. Most open heart surgery patients don’t know that a Coronary Bypass is called a cabbage by doctors and nurses (some shortening of Coronary Arterial Bypass and Graft).

So, over and out for now.

Add Comment.

Permalink