-1.svg "Close Icon (3)-1")
.svg "Close Icon (3)")
- Share
-
Have the efforts of financial services organisations to keep their communications simple failed? Were they always destined for failure? And will Australia win the World Cup? Here we check in with the simplicity police to find out. (Warning: this blog contains acronyms and complex themes.)
Does financial services have a complex? I mean a complexity complex? I think so.
Not that long ago we had a huge collective push towards creating plain English documents, punter friendly communications and talked in earnest (but simple) language of our real commitment to simplify everything, from product statements to websites to scripts used by our call centres when calling our customers.
Simple language experts from afar came to our industry events and extolled the virtues of the short form prospectus. Lawyers argued (don't they always – you would too if you got paid by the hour) about the dos and don'ts of plain English product disclosure statements and credit contracts.
We all rejoiced and jumped on the bandwagon promising to create simpler everything: superannuation, credit cards, banking products, insurance, listed synthetic exchange traded commodity funds, transition to retirement strategies and strategic asset allocation signals ... Great stuff! We even rushed out and bought a best-selling recipe book based on using just four ingredients. Weird, but, hey, how very simple! We were on a simplification roll that would endure until eternity.
Well, sorry, we have failed.
Recently, in my capacity as self-appointed simplicity police I have detected a disappointing slide in the level of commitment to simplification. Complexity has crept back. Yes, we can blame the carbon tax and FoFA, but I suspect that would be a convenient distraction.
No, I reckon we have become so focused on looking like we are committed, that we actually have forgotten what real commitment looks like. (Or to put it in simple terms – we routinely make a show of our commitment to the game when – like a member of the Iraqi national soccer team – it is actually about giving an elaborate impression of our pain).
Too harsh? Well, the sporting analogy also got me wondering: is the nirvana of simplification like a World Cup finals berth, the impossible dream?
Or, have we in fact over-engineered the whole simplification thing and gone too far the other way?
The evidence for this case is mounting. Take for example the acronym. This lowest form of the simplification species is everywhere, and suggests to me it has become the industry default for proving its simplification credentials.
We name our products with acronyms and talk everyday about them as though its normal language: TDs, SMSFs, TTRs, ETFs ... the list goes on. Has anybody seen those brave AMP (another acronym) advertisements reminding commuters at bus stops and new arrivals to our airports that they should stop and think about their SMSF administration? Sorry?
Two questions: does the average punter want to be reminded about their taxation issues, complying income streams, asset allocation and trustee duties on a Monday morning waiting for the bus? And second, does the average punter even care about our industry's language. In other words: on a scale of one to 10 how many Australians would accurately answer the question: "I know what the letters SMSF stands for?" It would score pretty low I think. (But good on AMP for trying to redress the balance).
Acronyms. We even name our industry bodies with them: ASFA, FSC, FPA, AFA, SPAA. And even the bodies that govern them have one: ATO, ASIC, APRA. The odd one out here is Treasury. But Treasury is always the odd one out.
If we don't love this predilection for acronym-ising, then too bad. It is here to stay.
Take the most prominent acronym to have fallen into our everyday language: FoFA. It is the end result of years of wanting to avoid having to talk about the long form Future of Financial Advice. And for those of us, like me and a host of industry journalists, who have bashed the keyboard of commitment to create those words and letters literally millions of times, we couldn't wait for the new industry acronym to emerge. Our chiropractors couldn't wait for a new acronym, too. The repetitive strain injury (RSI in case you didn't know) that’s caused by typing capitalised F, small cap o, capitalised F, capitalised A was on the brink of being managed. Well folks, relief has arrived in the form of TASA our new acronym du jour.
As I say, it's everywhere, this acronym stuff.
Time to get back to the real job of genuinely simplifying our message, sticking to it, and creating enduring understanding and connection with our customers, leading to the greater wealth and wellbeing of them all.
I am keen to hear other accounts of the simplification bug, Any takers? If so, please comment below.
