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.
Archive for the ‘complexity’ Category
Jan 7th, 2010 by Irene Etzkorn
Legislation that starts as plain language, should stay as plain language
Jan 7th, 2010 by Gail Nelson
Siegel on AP Radio: Healthcare reform bill is ‘monument to complexity’
Ross Simpson, AP Radio News Anchor:
A plain language expert says the health care reform bill is a monument to complexity. AP Correspondent Warren Levinson has more:
Warren Levinson, AP Correspondent:
Let’s say the Senate and House come to agreement on the health care reform bill and pass it. Will anyone be able to understand it?
Alan Siegel, Siegel+Gale Chairman:
It’s one of the most unintelligible things I’ve ever seen.
Levinson:
And Alan Siegel, a brand consultant who has spent decades simplifying insurance forms, tax forms, and credit card bills, knows from unintelligible, and says the health bill is like a perfect storm of jargon.
Siegel:
Medical jargons meets legal jargon meets people who are fighting with other trying to put something together at the last minute jargon.
Levinson:
Sure it may pass, Siegel says, but he contends no one really knows what they’re passing.
This interview aired on AP Radio the week of January 3, 2010.
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.
Dec 15th, 2009 by Dona Wong
“Great presentation. You are a rock star!”
That’s what you want to hear after you step down from the podium.
Getting to that point can be painful for many professionals though. Most people create presentations by trial and error, often co-mingling clear and concise copy with complex graphics that yield no benefit to the audience. As in creating any communications piece, attention to clear mechanics, simple style and artistry is key to designing good information graphics. Yet 99 percent of presenters make charts and graphics on the fly, right before show time.
As a result, many presenters lose their audiences in slide after slide of complex charts and graphs that muddy the message they’re trying to deliver.
Working at Siegel+Gale, a brand consultancy and pioneer in simplified communications, I’ve combined my training in information design with simplified communications techniques to help an array of audiences communicate their messages clearly. Whether it’s reporting financial information, creating a client presentation, interactive communication, or customer document, understanding how to design information graphics that complement the message is key to business success.
In my new book, The Wall Street Journal Guide to Information Graphics, I begin with the basics – the data content – that drives all graphics. You will learn to make the right choices about filtering and displaying your data. For example, plotting a stock index in actual values versus plotting the percentage change will yield two different pictures. By charting the same data in a different framework, you provide a new reference point for your audience. When you supply the reference point, you control the message.
The book goes on to cover how to use colors to your advantage, how to manage costs and resources through the use of graphics, and many other practical applications through numerous dos and don’ts.
The great feedback that I’ve gotten from reviewers shows that graphics sensibility is an essential ingredient of effective business communications today. After reading the examples from the book, you will never look at any communications piece the same way.
Sep 18th, 2009 by Alan Siegel
New Poll: Americans Still Confused by President Obama’s Health Care Plan
Siegel+Gale survey finds dramatic lack of understanding of basic points in plan, even among Democrats
Only 36.9% of Americans believe they understand the plan
NEW YORK – September 18, 2009 – As President Obama prepares to make back-to-back appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows and David Letterman in an effort to garner support for his proposed health care plan, his primary challenge will be in helping his audience to understand what the plan entails.
According to a recent survey commissioned by global strategic branding firm Siegel+Gale, Americans across the political spectrum are significantly confused by major points of the President’s proposed health care plan – even after his nationally televised address to Congress.
The online survey of 1,042 adults and 102 health activists from WEGO Health, conducted last weekend following President Obama’s health care address to Congress, finds that even among supporters of the President and his plan, most Americans could not correctly identify key aspects of the proposal – including funding, who would be covered by a public option, and when the plan would go into effect.
“Clearly the whole health care issue is fraught with complexity, political in-fighting, and emotion that is not helped by poor media coverage. So I’m not surprised that the American people have thrown up their hands – even sophisticated consumer advocates are not clear about the plan,” says Alan Siegel, Chairman and Founder of Siegel+Gale.
Key findings include:
• Only 16.5% of the public believes the plan would not add “one dime” to the federal deficit, and 36.1% believe that the plan will add a “massive amount” to the deficit
• When asked about how the plan would be funded, less than one-third of the respondents cited one of the key funding sources that Obama mentioned – fines to be levied on large companies that don’t offer health insurance to their employees
• Almost 20% of respondents answered that funding would come from a fine levied against wealthy individuals – an answer included in the survey questions that has never even been discussed
• While health activists – online consumer health opinion leaders – were significantly more accurate than the average consumer on most points, the majority also reported a low understanding of the President’s plan
• Online health activists also confirmed that typical consumers they encountered online had a poor comprehension of the Obama health care plan
Taking the nation’s temperature
Conducted on the weekend following the President’s September 9th speech, the Siegel+Gale survey asked respondents whether they understood the proposal, and inquired about its details based on President Obama’s speech. Among the general population, just 36.9% said that they understood the President’s plan. Of those who actually watched the September 9th address to Congress, the number was higher: 57.9% claimed to understand it. Yet even these respondents provided incorrect answers with surprising frequency.
The Siegel+Gale poll reveals that many aspects of the proposal – particularly the impact it will have on the U.S. deficit – are widely misunderstood or not believed.
Perhaps the most significant conclusion of the survey is that only 32.4% of the public actually supports the President’s proposal at this time. Even among WEGO Health’s health care activists – a group that leans predominantly Democratic according to the survey – fewer than half (44.7%) support the plan.
Fear of mounting deficit
Despite the President’s statement that, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future,” only 16.5% of the public believes this. 12.8% believe it will add “a modest amount,” and 36.1% believe it will add “a massive amount” to the deficit. Of those who watched the speech and claim to understand the proposal, 28.8% believe the plan will add a massive amount to the deficit.
Source of confusion: funding
While the President cited three sources of funding – savings from reforms, fees from insurance companies, and fees from large companies that don’t offer health insurance to employees – there remains widespread confusion about how President Obama proposes to finance the plan. Despite the President’s assurances, people think funding will come from the sources below:
| Source of funding | President | Public |
| Through higher health insurance premiums | No | 11.0% |
| Through higher taxes | No | 28.4% |
| By increasing the federal deficit | No | 25.3% |
| Through savings from reforms to the health care system | Yes | 32.1% |
| Through fees paid by insurance companies that sell expensive health insurance plans | Yes | 20.2% |
| Through fees paid by large companies that don’t offer health insurance to their employees | Yes | 26.7% |
| Through reductions in Medicare benefits | No | 18.7% |
| Through special levies against wealthy individuals | No | 19.6% |
| I don’t know | 40.1% |
Confusion also reigns when it comes to abortion coverage, one of the most emotional issues. Among the general public/health care activists, 19.6/16.5% believe the Obama proposal will pay to terminate pregnancies, 28.9/36.9% believe it won’t, and 51.5/46.6% don’t know. Even those who watched the speech and claim to understand the proposal are split: 23.2% say yes, 48.8% say no, and 28.2% still don’t know.
Lack of clarity about the “public option”
The majority of the public acknowledges that the plan still contains a “public option,” but it is confused about who would participate in it. Again, even those who watched the speech and claim to understand the plan betray a lack of understanding of the meaning of the “public option,” as evidenced below:
| Who would be required to participate in the “Public Option”? | Percent |
| Everyone | 18.6% |
| Everyone except for certain groups of individuals such as members of Congress | 15.8% |
| Those who do not currently have insurance | 42.5% |
| No one | 17.9% |
| I don’t know | 5.3% |
When would the plan be implemented?
The President cited 2013 as the target date for full implementation of the plan. Despite that, over 40% just don’t know:
| Effective Date | Percent |
| Immediately | 2.8% |
| 2010 | 7.6% |
| 2013 | 18.1% |
| Whenever it is approved by Congress | 30.2% |
| I don’t know | 41.3% |
Confusion over business’s role
The public also does not understand what the Administration is asking of large businesses. Again, even the cognoscenti who watched the speech demonstrate confusion: 42.8% say all large companies will be required to offer health insurance to their employees, 47.0% understood the President to say that large companies that don’t offer health insurance will be required to help cover the cost of making insurance affordable to individuals. And, among the general public, 34.6% have no idea.
What the speech did accomplish
Among those who claimed to understand the President’s proposal, the speech did increase the percentage of people who can identify certain specific aspects of the plan correctly:
• 91.2% of those who watched said the President’s plan will cover all U.S. citizens, versus 84.8% of those who did not watch the speech but still claim to understand the proposal
• Only 18.6% believe the plan will cover those who are in the country illegally, versus 37.4% among those who did not watch the speech
• 36.1% stated that the plan will add nothing to the deficit compared to 17.2% among those who did not watch
• 28.8% of those who watched the speech said the plan will add “a massive amount” to the deficit, versus 59.6% among those who did not watch
• 87.6% state that people with insurance coverage today can keep that coverage if they want to, versus only 51.6% of those who did not watch the speech
Of those who listened to the speech and claimed to understand it, 67.4% came away convinced that the plan incorporates ideas from both Republicans and Democrats.
Who supports the proposal?
The public still needs a lot of convincing to support the plan. 56.7% of Democrats support the President’s plan, while just 54.0% of Independents who lean Democratic support it. Less than 10% of Republicans and Independents who lean Republican support the plan. Of the 16.3% of the respondents who identified themselves as true Independents, only 21.2% of them support the plan.
| Political Identification | Support Plan |
| Democrat | 56.7% |
| Independent who leans Democratic | 54.0% |
| Independent who leans Republican | 8.5% |
| Republican | 9.0% |
| None of the above | 21.2% |
Interestingly, those with lower incomes – who are more likely to be part of the public option – are less likely to be supportive of the proposal than are those with higher income levels, suggesting that the outreach and educational efforts might be profitably focused on that audience:
| Household Income | Support Plan |
| Under $25,000 | 28.8% |
| $25,000 - $49,000 | 31.9% |
| $50,000 - $99,999 | 35.7% |
| $100,000 - $149,999 | 36.5% |
| Over $150,000 | 40.9% |
African-Americans are much more likely to support the plan than are other ethnic segments:
| Ethnicity | Support Plan |
| Caucasian | 29.1% |
| African-American | 57.9% |
| Hispanic | 44.4% |
| Asian or Pacific Islander | 38.5% |
The Bottom Line
“The bottom line,” says Alan Siegel, “is that this survey reinforces in very dramatic terms that the American people are extremely confused about the President’s well-intentioned desire to bring universal health care to our broken system. The White House, in my opinion, should outline the basic architecture of the plan instead of reacting to criticisms and emotional issues brought by critics.”
Survey Methodology
The survey was conducted by Siegel+Gale LLP, a strategic brand consulting firm in New York City. The survey of the general public was conducted on September 12-14, 2009 among 1,042 individuals 18+ years of age using Greenfield Online’s consumer panel. The maximum sampling error of the survey is +3.0 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.
The survey of health care activists was taken by 102 members of Boston-based WEGO Health’s panel of health care experts, bloggers, and other activists. The maximum sampling error of this survey is +9.7 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.
About Siegel+Gale
Siegel+Gale (www.siegelgale.com) is one of the world’s premier strategic branding companies and a pioneer in simplifying complex customer communications. Since it was founded by Alan Siegel in 1969, the firm has applied the art and science of simplicity to create branding programs that have helped many of the world’s best-known organizations excel. Driven by its philosophy of “Simple is Smart,” Siegel+Gale has led the way in bringing innovation to the corporate branding field, including transforming complex, incomprehensible customer communications into plain English; helping clients create distinctive brand voices across all their communications; transporting brands onto the Internet; and aligning the brand experience with the brand promise.
The firm’s clients include AARP, Aetna, American Express, Bank of America, Dell, The Four Seasons Hotel Group, The Internal Revenue Service, Lexus, Merrill Lynch, 3M, Microsoft, Motorola, the National Basketball Association, Pfizer, and Sony PlayStation. Siegel+Gale has offices in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, London, and Dubai, and strategic partnerships around the world.
Siegel+Gale is part of the Omnicom Group Inc. (www.omnicomgroup.com), a leading global marketing and corporate communications company. Omnicom’s branded networks and numerous specialty firms serve over 5,000 clients in more than 100 countries.
About WEGO Health
WEGO Health (www.wegohealth.com) is first online home for consumer Health Activists, social media’s most active 10 percent, passionate about helping others lead healthier lives. Health Activists – organizers, connectors, leaders and contributors – meet at WEGO Health, then carry knowledge, content and relationships back to the health social Web. In addition, WEGO Health’s Activist Social Network is the trusted community liaison to pharmaceutical and health marketers, who engage the Activist Social Network through innovative sponsorships, industry advisory panels, collaborative content development, widget distribution and more. Founded in 2007 and led by online health pioneers Jack Barrette and Bob Brooks, WEGO Health gives consumer health activists a voice to industry, and helps the world’s top health brands support, navigate, and participate in the evolving world of health social media.
Sep 8th, 2009 by Irene Etzkorn
$25 billion? Use Short Form; $100,000? Use Long Form
Little did I expect to find a nugget of simplification in an article about Henry Paulson and the distribution of TARP money, but that is exactly what I found in the October 2009 issue of Vanity Fair. It seems that while homeowners were asked to read and sign dozens of pages of legalese to get measly home mortgages, the CEOs of the nation’s major banks signed a lightly populated two-page commitment to borrow billions. Consisting of four clear, concise bullet points, the “Application for TARP Capital Purchase Program” demonstrates that the need to get something done is best achieved through brevity and clarity. There was no time for the banks to take the application away for legal review and wordsmithing—four clear, one-sentence bullet points stated the commitment each bank was making.
If billions can be borrowed on a short form, can simplified applications for car loans, mortgages, and student loans be far behind? Will the CEOs of these banks consider the time, money, and effort they would save if they adopted this approach in their day-to-day transactions? Why, that would be an economic stimulus in its own right.
Nov 3rd, 2008 by Alan Siegel
Ballot Complexity Continues to Undermine Electoral Process
"Voters in New Jersey will be voting on two public questions that are so confusing the ballot includes interpretive statements longer than the questions themselves," says Alan Siegel, Chairman and CEO of Siegel+Gale, a strategic branding firm.
"Try reading ‘Public Question #1′ and its ‘Interpretive Statement’ if you want to be bewildered," says Mr. Siegel.
Public Question #1:
Voters to Approve State Authority Bonds Payable from State Appropriations
Do you approve the proposed amendment to the State Constitution which provides that, after this amendment becomes part of the Constitution, a law enacted thereafter that authorizes State debt created through the sale of bonds by any autonomous public corporate entity, established either as an instrumentality of the State or otherwise exercising public and essential government functions, such as an independent State authority, which debt or liability has a pledge of an annual appropriation as the ways and means to pay the interest of such debt or liability as it falls due and pay and discharge the principal of such debt, will be subject to voter approval, unless the payment of the debt is made subject to appropriations of an independent non-State source of revenue paid by third persons for the use of the object or work bonded for, or are from a source of State revenue otherwise required to be appropriated pursuant to another provision of the Constitution?
Interpretive Statement:
This amendment to the State Constitution will require voter approval of new laws that allow the State to borrow money by issuing bonds through any State agency or independent authority backed by a pledge of an annual appropriation to pay the principal and interest on the bonds. New laws to allow the issuance of these State authority bonds for State government purposes will be subject to voter approval. State courts have ruled that the State constitutional requirement that the Legislature and Governor must seek voter approval for bonded debt does not apply to such borrowing. That requirement is followed only for proposed State bonds that contain a binding, non-repealable pledge to pay off the bonds directly with State taxes. Most State authority bonds can be issued without voter approval because the payment of the bonds is backed only by a promise of the Legislature and the Governor that they will enact appropriations in the future to meet the bond payments. The courts have said this is a legal means of avoiding submitting the issuance of debt for voter approval. Laws to permit such debt that are enacted after this amendment becomes part of the Constitution will have to authorize voter referenda for approval of such debts. Exceptions to voter approval for authority bonds will be permitted if the bonds are to be paid off from 1) a source of revenue dedicated by the State Constitution, which only the voters can establish, or 2) an independent non-State government source of payments for use of projects build or obtained with the borrowed money, such as highway tolls or user fees.
"An informal research study I conducted with voters from Union County, New Jersey confirmed that most people aren’t going to vote on these public questions because they can’t understand them," says Mr. Siegel.
"This kind of gobbledygook doesn’t belong on a ballot. It’s about time public voting officials who prepare these ballots use professional communications people to create user-friendly, accessible ballots where complex public questions and referenda are translated into plain English.
"Public officials, including Governor Corzine, should provide voters with a ballot that enables them to make an informed decision," concludes Mr. Siegel.
Apr 9th, 2008 by Irene Etzkorn
A 2007 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (NAIC) SURVEY REVEALED THAT ONE-THIRD TO ONE-HALF OF HOMEOWNERS’ INSURANCE POLICYHOLDERS WERE MISINFORMED ABOUT WHAT PERILS ARE COVERED BY THEIR POLICIES AND HOW MUCH THEY MIGHT RECEIVE IF THEY MADE A CLAIM.
Complexity Is to Finance as Obesity Is to Health
Is anyone else as amazed as I am that people are admitting without shame that they didn’t know what they were agreeing to when they signed their mortgage note? The fact that closing documents are so universally acknowledged to be incomprehensible has sanctioned financial irresponsibility.
All over the nation, people are walking away from their homes and mortgage obligations. When asked why they didn’t foresee adjustable rates moving up and requiring higher monthly payments, they all say that they didn’t understand the documents they signed to get the mortgage. While stunned by the cavalier attitude of the borrowers, I’m equally amazed by the lenders who seem to acknowledge that the borrowers couldn’t have been expected to understand what they were signing.
Have legalese and the confusion it engenders moved from being a nuisance to an economic cataclysm? After all, “small print” exists in large quantity. Do you understand your health insurance policy? Your credit card agreement? Your homeowners’ policy?
A 2007 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (NAIC) SURVEY REVEALED THAT ONE-THIRD TO ONE-HALF OF HOMEOWNERS’ INSURANCE POLICYHOLDERS WERE MISINFORMED ABOUT WHAT PERILS ARE COVERED BY THEIR POLICIES AND HOW MUCH THEY MIGHT RECEIVE IF THEY MADE A CLAIM.
We shouldn’t be surprised. Policies are lengthy legal documents constructed with boilerplate language that is then modified with numerous notices and endorsements.
Oct 23rd, 2007 by Irene Etzkorn
How Many Ways Can You Misinterpret Unsubscribe?
I have been getting emails from a reputable organization which are of no interest to me because they are statistics about money flows in mutual funds. I had erroneously subscribed when I thought it was a different type of data. So, today I tried to unsubscribe. And this is what I got as a confirmation email acknowledging my request (I’ve masked the name of the organization).
We have received a request for the removal of your email address, “ireneetz@siegelgale.com” from the www-update@lists.oho.org mailing list. To confirm that you want to be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact. Or visit this web page:
http://lists.oho.org/mailman/confirm/www-update/761256e6d2e5b7df1ffdcbaa335f133f7bddead0
Or include the following line — and only the following line — in a message to www-update-request@lists.oho.org:
confirm 761256e6d2e5b7df1ffdcbaa335f133f7bddead0
Note that simply sending a ‘reply’ to this message should work from most mail readers, since that usually leaves the Subject: line in the right form (additional “Re:” text in the Subject: is okay).
If you do not wish to be removed from this list, simply disregard this message. If you have any other questions, send them to www-update-owner@lists.oho.org.
Is this a joke? Instead of giving me four unintelligible options, how about one that is clear? Why must I jump through hoops to stop getting emails from them? Does anyone realize that this message is literally jibberish? Do I really need to be protected from “unsubscribe” pranksters–if such a class of criminal really exists?
Jun 18th, 2007 by Irene Etzkorn
Are We Really Surprised That They Don’t Know?
96% of homeowners have it and they spend an average of $868 per year for it. Yet, a new survey shows that they don’t understand what they bought. A 2007 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) survey revealed that one-third to one-half of homeowners’ insurance policyholders were misinformed about what perils are covered by their policies and how much they might receive if they made a claim.
We shouldn’t be surprised. Policies are lengthy legal documents constructed with boilerplate language that is then modified with numerous notices and endorsements. Even motivated readers who put on their reading glasses are unlikely to be able to relate the significance of the policy provisions to real-world events. Consider the term "actual cash value." Shouldn’t we admit that it sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing? To real people (not lawyers), it sounds like what it costs to buy the item, not its depreciated value.
What’s more, insurers have practically trained customers to be passive consumers. Many policyholders don’t even read the policy because they don’t expect to be able to understand it. So, customers coast along in blissful ignorance until they hit the rare event of a claim and then they understand the significance of what they did or did not have covered. Consider your own circle of family and friends; typically, they will have only one or two homeowners’ claims in a lifetime. As an industry, does it really make sense for property-casualty insurers to rely on ignorance to stave off customer dissatisfaction?
What would change the scenario? A sales process laden with plain English explanations and reality-based modeling would enable homeowners to understand what they are buying. Basic technology such as on-line calculators and scenario builders would help homeowners customize their policies to the risks and characteristics of their location, building type and weather conditions. In addition, examples could help them relate risks to circumstances that they could envision. Homeowners might even be inclined to be less "penny wise and pound foolish" and pay more for better coverage.