Discussion - Why so bland?
Public information on the law and rights has a familiar and not always attractive style. Too often it consists of page after page of unbroken text, unrelieved by illustrations, diagrams, photographs or anything that might vary the tone or change the pace. The content is generally readable and well laid out, complete with bullet points: the Plain English Campaign has done its work well. But the overwhelming impression, whether by accident or design, is uninviting and horribly dull.
Contrast this with almost any other printed material from magazines to adverts, packaging to websites. We take for granted that these publications make a big effort to be attractive. They draw us in with illustrations, stories, headlines. They want to grab our attention and hold it; keep us reading in order to get their message across. These are proven techniques used to great effect by journalists and advertisers. Why don't we use them to make our information more attractive?
The media are good at grabbing attention and they are also good at reaching a wide audience including people with limited literacy skills. The tabloids are past-masters at this and use a combination of people's stories, illustrations, diagrams and explanations that keep their readers interested and coming back for more. This approach echoes that of education where teachers will routinely explain things in different ways to cater for different learning styles and use repetition and reinforcement to ensure they get their point across.
Rights information is almost unique with its over-reliance on plain discursive text. We wouldn't accept such a dry approach in almost any other context - so why is it seen as acceptable for rights and legal information?
A distressed purchase?
Is it because legal information is so often a 'distressed purchase'? When someone looks for information it is because they have a problem, so it doesn't matter how it is presented? People are desperate for a solution and so a barebones minimalist approach will meet their needs?
But this view ignores the need to get information across to people before they reach a desperate state; to reach out to help them avoid problems and to provide the knowledge and confidence to take action early before the problem escalates. This approach requires an attractive style that can grab attention and maintain interest. The plain approach also ignores the need to accommodate different learning styles and abilities through a more varied approach.
I was discussing this issue with an experienced information worker in a housing charity and her view was that they set out with high ambitions to produce lively and attractive material but the production process led them to a drab conclusion. This process involved legal experts, policy staff and must take into account organisational standards for written information. Once all views had been accommodated the resulting publications were disappointingly dull.
I also asked an information manager in a large advice charity why they produce their information in the form they do. His answer, honestly enough, was that that is the way they have always done it.
Was a pattern set at some point in the last 50 years which we now slavishly follow? If so, it's certainly time for a rethink.
Money
Is the main reason money? It's a truism that information is neglected, under-resourced, and always the Cinderella issue. Even though good information is the foundation of much of advice work, information always has a low profile within organisations and is often the first in line for cuts when times get hard. But does this lack of resources lead inevitably to a plain and minimalist approach in producing information? I'm not so sure. It may cost slightly more to produce information in a more imaginative way but it is likely to be more effective. Is bland really cheaper in the long run?
A lack of money does have one profound effect: it limits the amount of evaluation that takes place. If we don't know what works and what's effective, then we may feel justified in delivering information in a very plain way. Similarly, a lack of clarity about what we want to achieve can lead to a lack of purpose and ambition. In these circumstances it isn't surprising if what we produce is rather bland.
What next?
What do you think?
Give us your comments below and we'll publish them here.
It surely falls to information staff to take up this issue and raise the overall profile of our work. We need to look honestly at the assumptions we make, the techniques we use and see if a more inventive approach would increase our impact. We know that our information can play a vital role in helping people deal with their problems. We just need to be sure we are delivering it in the most effective way.
Martin Jones
May 2007
Comments
I agree that public information on the law and rights is often plain and dry. But I don't think that it's because information is a 'distressed purchase' at a time of crisis. After all, look at the health sector which makes a wealth of supportive and attractive information available to patients on sensitive and serious conditions.
Of course money is a key factor, but I also think that the style of much legal and rights information is a reflection of the culture of the sector. Legal/advice organisations which produce information rightly believe that it should be impartial but are likely to interpret this to mean plain or neutral in tone. Using techniques employed by magazines and tabloids is viewed as detracting from the seriousness of the topic and undermining the authority and credibility of the information and organisation.
Perhaps clients think the same thing. I used to work for an older people's organisation. Research carried out with users of their information found a roughly 55/45 per cent split between readers in favour of chatty language versus formal language. And this is a key point, how do we know what our audience considers attractive? Maybe they like bland.
Theresa Harris
ASA Advicenow
Yes of course legal information is often provided in a dry, passive, lifeless and unnecessarily expensive way - that's how too many see the law and unfortunately it often lives up to its reputation. Like many experts, lawyers and I suspect advice workers, largely believe that only they can produce 'proper' legal and advice information - try loosening the reins and allowing a copywriter or journalist in and there are squeals of protest. Of course there must be accuracy but that counts for nothing without clarity.
You are too kind to the achievements of the Plain English Campaign. Too many professionals are still just awful at writing in plain English. Even if they try they expect Plain English to be short and sweet and easy to write. In fact it requires concentration, practise and the abandonment of long cherished nostrums about 'correct' English, not ending sentences with prepositions or starting them with 'And'.
And how many legal and advice writers consider the white space as much as the black letters?
Unfortunately 'we've always done it this way' and money are also part of the problem. In my professional legal life I rarely came across a client who wanted to pay for their documents to be re-written in plain English save where they saw a distinct marketing advantage say from the Crystal Mark award.
The keys are to think about the audience before the message; to ground the information in the audiences' experience-stories yes, but true ones; and to make sure that something of value is taken away from reading the piece. It's not enough for a reader to think 'that's interesting', they must also think 'that's useful'.
The language used must be fresh, modern and suited to the target audience - which doesn't mean it has to be colloquial or slang or that it cant be formal where formality is required for clarity.
There's certainly a long way to go before we can collectively be proud of our communication skills and the legal and advice sectors should be taking a strong lead. I would say it's a professional obligation to all of us.
Dan Mace (solicitor, retired)
Type your comment
* indicates a required field.