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 ‘plain English’ 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.
Nov 20th, 2009 by Alan Siegel
Alan Siegel on CNN Situation Room
Siegel+Gale Chairman and CEO Alan Siegel provides a clear, simple solution to complex credit card agreements on CNN’s Situation Room.
Watch “A rush to simplify credit card ‘gobbledygook’“.
Nov 5th, 2009 by Irene Etzkorn
Well-intentioned but misguided
Food marketers have latched onto the idea that having only a few ingredients will make their products appealing to consumers “Marketers such as Starbucks discover that simple sells,” USA Today, October 28, 2009). This is as bad as using readability formulas to judge whether a document is understandable.
What consumers really crave is a short list of familiar, wholesome ingredients. We respond to the idea of just five ingredients because we assume that those five won’t be dehydrated potato flakes, monosodium glutamate, whey solids, artificial coloring and artificial flavoring.
A shorter list may be quicker to read and therefore more transparent, but transparency itself is not the goal—we need to focus on what is revealed behind the curtain. To know all is definitely not to forgive all.
Nov 5th, 2009 by Gail Nelson
Transparency makes a comeback in Washington
Judging by the standing-room only crowd from government, academia and the private sector at last week’s Center for Plain Language Symposium in Washington DC, transparency is again a major focus in government. Siegel+Gale was the exclusive sponsor of the Symposium entitled “Achieving transparency through plain language” on October 30, 2009, which featured an impressive roster of speakers on information design, plain language initiatives in government, and clarity and transparency in financial communications.
Jodi Patterson of the IRS presented a major IRS initiative to clarify taxpayer correspondence. Dona Wong, Strategy Director of Information Design at Siegel+Gale presented “The grammar of graphics,”a primer in effective information design techniques. Other highlights included a study on how plain language at the ballot box impacts election results and a fascinating and important Harvard Business School study on how educational information graphics on credit card bills can positively influence consumer credit behavior. The keynote address was given by Congressman Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), sponsor of the Plain Language Act of 2009, which is making its way through Congress.
The fact that plain language legislation is being introduced in 2009 illustrates how far we still have to go to make clarity and transparency the standard in Washington. It’s been 28 years since President Carter ushered in the Paperwork Reduction Act in 1981. Back in the early 1980s, no one would have predicted that such a common-sense idea – making information accessible and understandable to American citizens—would still need to be debated and legislated almost thirty years later. As Alan Siegel stated in his opening remarks at the symposium, “Clarity cannot be legislated, just like common sense cannot be taught.” But legislation can serve as an important guidepost to lead us on the path to clearer communications.
While there is still much work to be done, it is heartening that there is a renewed focus on transparency in Congress and in the White House, and growing recognition that clarity is the surest path forward to rebuild trust in many of our most important public and private institutions. The Plain Language symposium was one small step in the right direction. Siegel+Gale plans to be involved all along the way.
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.
Mar 21st, 2007 by Irene Etzkorn
Is Real Estate Jargon for Real?
I recently heard a radio ad exhorting everyone to make sure that their real estate agent is a “Realtor.” I wondered what that meant—would a realtor have a special license and how did it differ from the terms “agent” and “broker”? Then, a few days later, I came across an article promoting the use of a “Certified Buyer Representative.” As though buying or selling a home isn’t already filled with aggravation, apparently there are at least 8 designations of types of real estate professionals: CBR, C-CREC, CEBA, CRP, CBA, CRS, ABR and GRI. You can explore this alphabet soup yourself at www.CBRsource.com. What might the difference be between a CBR: Certified Buyer’s Representative and a CEBA: Certified Exclusive Buyers’ Agent? Don’t look to me for the answer, I’m still confused.
Isn’t this a classic case of industry self-absorption? Who has the time or inclination to find out what each of these is and when to use one or another? Even doctors have the good sense to name their specialties in a recognizable way (orthopedist, ophthalmologist, cardiologist, etc.). Industries that don’t look at themselves from the customer’s perspective risk looking like they are trying to dupe the customer. The idea of a buyer’s agent might be a very solid one but at the moment I’m too busy to find out because I’m looking for a headache specialist.
Mar 7th, 2007 by Irene Etzkorn
Congress Chastises Disingenuous Credit Card Companies
The U.S. Congress is holding hearings today to shame the CEOs of major credit card companies into disclosing their fees and interest rates in clearer language and perhaps even changing their policies for imposing them. Certainly, they can’t be surprised by this since most Cardholder Agreements are multi-panel scrolls which unfurl to reveal pages of tiny, light grey type bearing the title, “Important Changes to Your Retail Installment Credit Agreement.” Given the title, “Important,” you might try to read it and you’ll find this:
Feb 12th, 2007 by Irene Etzkorn
Duping Cupid is Just Stupid
Apparently, as they say, “all that glitters is not gold.” Last week, I saw a television ad from Zales, the largest specialty jewelry retailer. It consisted of many pieces of attractive diamond jewelry, each described with a full price and then a markedly lower current price for Valentine’s Day. Clearly, the point of the ad was the fantastic pricing. So, I was amazed to see fine print at the bottom of the screen which said: “Original prices may not have resulted in actual sales.”
What does that mean? I think it means that the original price they quoted was a fiction–no one actually ever bought the jewelry at the higher price. They simply quoted a high number so that they current price sounded dramatically lower.
Really, duping the lovestruck seems unnecessarily cruel.