P RO T E C T I O N Opinion
Rethinking the language of protection
T
he Consumer Duty requirements around clear communication could give us an opportunity to rethink the language we use across the protection sector. On an individual level, it has prompted me to think about the language we use today, and how we came to use it in the first place. For me, it starts in my a ic of all places! In a recent clear-out, I came across my university dissertation and gave it a quick reread. I was shocked to realise that university had trained me to write so formally. The topic was retail store layouts, and how that influenced buyer behaviour. Not exactly a topic that required the level of formality I’d wri en it in. This led me to question whether there’s a mismatch in the language and communications skills being taught at university, and to many school leavers, and the approach we need for effective customer communications.
Being customer-friendly Of course, graduates o en then move from academia straight into a world of business language. You might not be encouraged to use ordinary language at all in these two key stages, or certainly not in terms of communications with customers. This quite typical career background is surely part of the current challenge. I did avoid some of these pitfalls, as my first boss and mentor always encouraged me to write as I spoke. Over the years, I’ve heard debates about using plain, accessible language. There are excellent communications consultancies that can help, as well. And yet, when I go to the pub with my friends, it’s still quite difficult to convey exactly what it is I am
96
The Intermediary | August 2023
marketing, or certainly to give an accurate picture of the industry I work in. They still view protection as something that’s too complicated, or not for them, or that won’t pay. Can these objections be addressed with clearer, easy-to-understand language? Even terms such as ‘sum assured’ or ‘benefit amount’, which aren’t even at the deeply technical end, are not exactly in everyday use. I am not convinced that the phrase ‘covering your mortgage’, which we hear in industry circles, is quite right either. ‘Protecting your family home’ sounds much closer to what families are concerned about. I’m not suggesting we change the entire vocabulary. However, it’s interesting to consider communications in great depth given our programme of work on the duty.
Detailed communications Every single customer or adviser communication has gone through an approval process. Everyone with a role in writing our communications is going through ‘clear language’ training. We intend to introduce clear language champions in every department. This isn’t just in the obvious areas such marketing, but underwriting and operations as well. We’re also testing our terms and conditions (T&Cs) with both quantitative and qualitative research. We’re surveying 800 customers to test snippets of these, and asking a smaller group of customers about them oneto-one, particularly what they do and don’t understand. All of this will feed back into the next version. There are some limits. You do need a certain level of detail, because protection involves a legal contract. There are many ‘what ifs?’, and you can’t be too general. So, T&Cs will
RACHAEL WELSH is head of marketing at Guardian
still be fuller and more technical than other communications – but they should still be much clearer. You are, a er all, establishing and communicating the legal position. More broadly, a lot of this work will be er equip our adviser partners. For example, we offer a ‘reasons why’ tool with approved paragraphs about all of our covers that can be built into le ers and follow-up communications. The latest set on income protection (IP) was produced with the Consumer Duty’s requirements very much front of mind.
A new foundation The Consumer Duty has given us a rationale and some significant momentum for change, and we have an opportunity, as an industry, to be more ambitious.We see a huge potential benefit across the sector where, like Guardian, many providers will be reviewing communications and retraining staff. In the coming weeks and months, I would like to see us all think beyond the wri en communications of websites, client documents and marketing collateral to challenge conversations, vocabulary and perhaps even the terms we use. We may need to challenge some approaches that have been schooled and trained into us over the decades. Given our view that be er understanding helps make the case for protection, and in current circumstances, for customers retaining policies, a big improvement in communications – both wri en and verbal – is a significant prize. We should reach for it. ●