Plain Language in Progress Congress Houston February 2000

The Economics of Plain Language

Presentation by Joe Kimble
The Thomas Cooley Law School
Reported by Nicole Watkins-Campbell

In the field of plain language practice, we have lots of evidence that plain language saves time and money, but Joe Kimble believes that we need even more.

Joe has found that we need to have passionate commitment, persistence, to convince people and organizations to communicate in plain language. Certainly, he says, we haven't been able to shame lawyers into it. We need to emphasize how readers respond in order to prove that plain language works with readers.

He has been looking for that evidence for some time, publishing an article in the Scribes Journal of Legal Writing in 1997 that has become a banner for many of us using plain language.

In the 1980s, the Department of Commerce published three books: The Productivity of Plain English, Plain English for Better Business, and How Plain English Works for Business.

An example of some of the early evidence comes from the St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. They found that plain language improved their productivity; in particular, plain language made it easier and quicker to do their forms.

The early evidence was mostly anecdotal, but harder evidence—numbers and reliable sources—was needed before any of it could be published.

The harder evidence establishes that plain language helps readers: they read texts faster and understand them better, which means readers are more likely to comply, more likely, even, just to read.

The results of research fall into two related categories:

Saving money and time
Pleasing and persuading readers

Sometimes readers benefit from a plain language document, for example, in health-related information, where they learn more because they can understand more.

Sometimes the company benefits more: for example, when forms are less expensive to process.

Usually, the relationship between easier reading and faster processing means both sides win: satisfied readers make fewer mistakes and have fewer questions, which costs the company less in processing.

When evaluating the success of a document, a consultant might ask: who is expected to read the document; how many actually read it; how much trouble is it causing?

The evidence showed that plain language improved comprehension substantially: 10 to 15 per cent in studies and sometimes much more. However, potential cost savings are huge, depending on the document and the number of readers:

The Veterans Affairs study showed that rewriting one form letter in plain language could save $40,000; the VA uses thousands of forms letters each year.
In the Alberta Department of Agriculture, rewriting forms was estimated to save $3.5 million Canadian.
Studies of US naval personnel who read a plain language business memo showed that the Navy could save as much as $ 350 million if all US Navy personnel read plain documents.

Joe has collected 10 new studies since the Scribes article describing economic benefits. He will publish the results in another Scribes article.

A Veterans' Affairs letter asking veterans to update their named beneficiary was rewritten: the response rate improved from 44 per cent to 66 per cent. The new form saves $640,000.
The Pfizer company was splitting its stock and wanted to issue certificates of ownership electronically. It expected about 50 per cent of shareholders to ask for the traditional paper certificates, which would have been expensive to print and mail out. The company wrote to shareholders explaining the electronic certificates in plain language. As a result, 20 per cent of shareholders asked for paper certificates, saving the company between $200,000 and $300,000.
Customers who understood a life insurance policy bought at a higher rate than normal.
Another plain-language team developed a new statement of U.S. Social Security, with an expected readership of 25 million a year. The new statement generated less than half the calls they expected. An article in Clarity No. 45 gives the details.
New Zealand rewrote its application for citizenship, reducing the error rate to 10 per cent from 66 per cent.

He has also collected new studies describing the pleasing and persuading benefits of plain language:

Nataya Campbell tested four legal documents: she found that plain language did not improve reading time. Their conclusions: perhaps readers don't try to read legal documents, but do try to read plain language legal documents. Readers' comprehension was also tested: it increased in all four plain language documents. This study appears in the Journal of Business Communications.
Robert Gentle found that the majority of readers found financial documents long-winded and hard to understand. (He continues to find this and to complain loudly about it.)
CNN polled Web site readers' opinions on whether all legal documents should be written in plain language. 723 readers voted, with 92 per cent agreeing.
J.K. testing of judicial opinions: At a ratio of two to one, lawyers preferred judicial opinions written in plain language.

Joe has now collected 50 studies and reports, which, he says is not enough. He called upon all plain language consultants to send him studies, even informal ones. We need to keep developing the evidence : the more we have, the more nuanced it becomes and the more convincing. What we have is compelling, but we can and must make it even more so.