Cost benefits and quality advantages of using plain language

What can go wrong

Five excerpts from "Total Quality Business Writing" by Michael Egan in THE JOURNAL FOR QUALITY AND PARTICIPATION, October/November 1995, v.18, n. 6:

1. Computer manufacturer Coleco lost $35 million in a single quarter in 1983--and eventually went out of business--when customers purchased its new Adam line of computers, found the instruction manuals unreadable, and rushed to return their computers.

2. An oil company spent hundreds of thousands of dollars developing a new pesticide . . . only to discover that the formula had already been worked out five years earlier--by one of the same company's technicians. He wrote his report so poorly that no one had finished reading it.

3. A nuclear plant supervisor ordered "ten foot long lengths" of radioactive material. Instead of getting the ten-foot lengths it needed, the plant received ten one-foot lengths, at a cost so great it was later classified.

4. Prof. Dorothy Winsor showed "a history of miscommunication" to be one of the root causes of the Challenger disaster in 1986.

5. Researchers concluded, "The Navy alone could save between $27 and $57 million worth of wasted time if its officers used a plain style."

Cost Savings from Plain Language Initiatives

The following examples have been culled from publications and articles produced in the plain language movement in the past decade:

(Canadian Dollars)

Australia


United States
Canada
Britain

Back to press release