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.

(more…)

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?

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.

(more…)

Dante viewed Opportunists as minor sinners, dwelling just outside the first circle of Hell, perpetually stung by wasps and hornets, and we presume, by their consciences. As a simplifier, I view opportunists who use simplicity as a “come-on” even more harshly.

The mere mention of the word “simple” is a hook for purchasers (just ask the publishers of the very successful magazine, Real Simple). For that reason, advertisers and marketers stock their copy with the words: “easy,” “convenient,” “quick,” and “simplified.” The thought of assembling a product sends shivers through most consumers who envision hours of frustration and a few pieces “leftover.” The promise of technology, investing or medicine made simple is alluring.

Of course, if a product or service lives up to its advertising promise, I applaud it. Unfortunately, many do not and yet others really stretch the meaning of Simple. I recently came across a print ad for Simple a nice little shoe companyTM. I looked at their website and the shoes look great; however, how complicated is any shoe? Their link to the notion of simplicity seems to be their statement that “To reduce our environmental footprint we’re changing the way we make shoes by using sustainable materials like recycled car tires, core and bamboo.” For me, this raises the question—is noble virtue akin to simplicity? Is doing something good for the mankind by definition simple? I’d like to think I’m earning entry points for Heaven by toiling as a simplifier but I must say I’m not banking on it.

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.

Yesterday, two of my colleagues mentioned that changing their addresses when they moved was a tremendous hassle. Forwarding their mail was the least of it. Changing magazine subscriptions was almost impossible since the magazines posted no contact information in the magazines or on their websites. Ironically, even the phone company did its best to hide its customer service phone numbers (heaven forbid a customer should call them). Companies who did provide contact numbers kept them on hold or tangled in endless decision trees for minutes on end.

As I investigated a bit further, I found that this sad tale is very common and in fact it is estimated by some sources that it takes 30 minutes on average to notify each company. I also discovered that it would be a far better experience if they lived in the United Kingdom. To my surprise and delight, I found that www.iammoving.com is a one-stop, free change of address service in the UK, presented in association with Royal Mail (isn’t that clever)? The site claims to be safe and secure and won’t pass along your personal information without your consent. They seem to have thought of everything: you can notify essential services (water, electricity, phone, etc.) as well as charities, subscriptions, memberships, government agencies and financial services. You can even send electronic moving announcements to friends. So, if you are moving anyway, consider London.

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:

(more…)

As an advocate of the power of information graphics, it pains me to complain about their use but there are times when a graphic is superfluous and even confusing. A perfect example is the graphic that accompanied the article titled, “Narrowing the Religion Gap?” in the magazine section of The New York Times on Sunday, February 18, 2007. The graphic was intended to convey the percentage of American churchgoers whose clergy members spoke out about social and moral issues such as the death penalty, stem-cell research, abortion and immigration. However, the wheel-shaped graphic with radiating spokes of differing lengths and a numbered legend for the nine issues was confusing. It did not work as well as a simple table would have.

A table could have included just two columns consisting of the topics and the percentages arranged in descending order. The meaning would have been clear and more readily accessible. The moral of the story is make sure that the graphic conveys the information either more quickly, more readily or with more impact than text alone.

Jane Brody wrote an article in the January 30, 2007 issue of The New York Times discussing the topic of health literacy. Although she mentions that “health illiteracy” is pervasive because it affects many strata of our society, the misinterpretations she cites will not be rectified by plain language and point to a more fundamental problem. One example—“Medication Should Be Taken With Plenty of Water”—was misinterpreted to mean “Don’t take when wet” and “Don’t drink hot water.” These misinterpretations point to general illiteracy, not health illiteracy. Unfortunately, I suspect that the people who were confused by such simple instructions are barely able to function in any aspect of their lives. They must require assistance to travel, to drive, to work, to dine out, etc.

My concern is that by muddying the issues of general illiteracy and health illiteracy, the medical community will find that solutions are unattainable and give up too easily. If we set a standard of communication for health topics that aims too low, many projects will never make it to the marketplace because the standard will be unrealistic. If someone can’t understand the words, “plenty of water,” it is absurd to think that they will ever understand a written explanation of “a 3% chance of death or serious injury from surgery.” However, many literate, well-educated people cannot understand medical consent forms and would benefit from plain language explanations and innovative information design techniques. The two topics—general illiteracy and health illiteracy—need to be disentangled because the solutions are not the same.

I recently bought a new mattress and box spring. Very luxurious, very comfy but very, very high–so high that the delivery men burst out laughing after they put them on the bed. I literally would need to pole vault to get into the bed. After a return trip to the store, I discovered that what I required was a “low-profile” box spring since I had chosen a pillow-top, extra-deep mattress and was putting it on a wood-frame, four-poster bed. What makes this so ironic is that my mattress-shopping experience had already involved more interrogation than an interview at the CIA. The choices and decisions had seemed endless—did I want memory foam, coil-spring, latex, pillow-top, firm, soft, adjustable, etc.? Then, having made a choice, I tried to comparison shop for price—turns out no two mattress retailers call their models the same name so you can’t really compare. So, after all that, I was quite surprised when the bed was taller than I am.

I’m not alone in feeling overwhelmed by all of these choices for household items. One of my colleagues is remodeling her entire house and she is losing her mind choosing hardware, tile, bath fixtures, lighting, flooring and paint. Barry Schwartz, author of “The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less,” is also a professor of psychology at Swarthmore College and he makes the point that unbridled choice is a burden and a source of dissatisfaction. He compellingly points out that too many choices leave us feeling that we missed out on the “best” option and that the time and effort necessary to discern the differences between myriad choices is unrealistic. Ultimately, too many choices lead to inertia as no decision becomes the final decision. So how are manufacturers benefiting? I maintain they are not. They are simply making me unhappy and dissatisfied.

Am I the only person on Long Island who was motivated to read and understand the 16-page 2006 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report sent to my home? Unfortunately, I still can’t tell you what it said.

The frightening words, “arsenic,” “radon,” “molybdenum,” and “strontium 88,” certainly caught my attention, but I can’t tell you if my water has them and whether I should be worried about them. That’s because I would have to find my location within 35 Distribution Areas, and translate the low, high and average values for dozens of possible contaminants. This is a classic example of inundating people with data that yields no actual information. It’s presented on 16 pages of newsprint and literally looks like a sea of gray type. The only way to make this useful would be to customize the content so that it focused on the water supply for the location of my home and then wrote the conclusion in plain English.

If Best Buy or Circuit City were forced to display the instruction manuals next to their products in the stores, no one would ever buy another digital camera, plasma television or home theater. A classic example is the 147-page instruction manual that came with my newly purchased surround sound receiver. Once my eyes saw the manual, my ears no longer wanted surround sound.

Had I thumbed through the manual in the store, I would have seen the warning signs:

• 36 part names on the front panel; 14 more on the display and 19 more on the rear panel;
• dozens of illustrations that looked like plates of spaghetti (a preview of the many wires I would find shortly); and
• the coup de grace—a chapter titled, “Easy Set-up and Operation.”

Why is it that the words “easy” and “simple” are only present when the task at hand will be anything but?

Of course, the electronics retailers are not to blame. The manufacturers, specifically their engineers, are the ones who dream up the hundreds of features. Then the writers of the manuals make it worse. The manual I was reading seemed to be written for either a moron or a rocket scientist. One page had cartoon drawings of the receiver crying, melting and otherwise exhibiting human traits while the next talked about “connecting the pre-out terminals, the trigger-out terminals and the multi-zone terminals.” I can’t even say that this manual seemed to have been translated into English from another language. I think someone actually wrote it this way.

Since I had 146 pages to wade through, I didn’t appreciate the writer’s inability to get to the point. You tell me whether it was necessary to have these as three distinct steps, “Read instructions…,” “Retain instructions…,” and “Follow instructions…” At that point, the only one I wanted was “Burn instructions…”

Will I ever buy another piece of electronics—yes, but not from this company.