Hello hello đ
This episode is a sort of public service announcement. If youâre into brands and writing you most likely know about these guys already. Whatâs weird to me is that they havenât permanently raised the bar for their entire industry â or, indeed, an entire category of writing, full stop.
So Iâm partly writing this so you can forward this to colleagues who really oughta know. (Thisâll make sense soon.)
Today, weâre looking at Lemonade insurance. They launched in America in 2018 with home contents insurance (they also do car and pet insurance too). Theyâre now also in several European countries, with more coming soon.
I notice Tone Knobs often end up sounding like a sort of written version of a âreaction videoâ. That seems appropriate here, cos I know their stuff well, and itâd be good to look at it afresh. So, letâs visit their website:
Good start. Thereâs a bold challenger message. And thereâs that snappy tagline âInstant everything. Great prices. Big heartâ. In fact, thatâs really nice: three benefits squeezed into just six words that are both super-clear and tonally interesting. Oh, and if youâll forgive me a little syllable-counting digression, notice how the rhythm works:
In-stant ev-ery-thing. (5 syllables)
Great pri-ces. (3 syllables)
Big heart. (2 syllables).
That move from longer to shorter words guides you to solidly land on âheartâ. Read it out loud. Now try the statements in a different order. Nah. (Is there a Latin term for a rule-of-three-with-diminishing-syllable-count-rhetorical-device? Please write in.)
Donât worry, Iâm not gonna dissect every single sentence. Letâs continue:
Those are big claims, but thereâs something about the simplicity that makes it feel sincere. Thereâs also that light dusting of emoji. (I reckon if youâre a financial services start-up and you can pull off emojis, you should definitely do it. Think app-only bank Monzo, or 60-minute car insurance Cuvva: itâs an exclusive club.) Letâs read on:
OK, so now weâre getting to the heart of things. Notice that as the message has got âbiggerâ, the tone has relaxed a bit. And exclamation marks! Ha! If you listen, youâll hear the sounds of half the worldâs copywriters tutting in disapproval. Funny how weâve rolled with emojis, but still shudder at a screamer.
So far, so good-but-not-particularly-distinctive. Itâs a fairly typical âfriendly tech start-upâ vibe. But Policy 2.0 is the money shot. Letâs take a look:
This isnât marketing selling the policy. This isnât the web page introducing the policy. This is the actual policy. Theyâre right, this isnât like any policy Iâve ever seen before.
The document quickly establishes a rhythm of âwhatâs coveredâ then âwhatâs not coveredâ. This is from a not covered section:
I was originally only gonna screengrab the first couple of sentences, but I kept thinking âoh but that next oneâs good, too!â. Itâs an insurance policy that made me want to read on. Thatâs never happened before.
You might have already noticed couple of recurring themes: the word stuff works really hard for them. (I bet there was a looooong discussion with lawyers about that: âDoes âstuffâ mean the same as âpossessionsâ? âhome contents?â âBelongingsâ?â Pretty sure I have a policy that calls my things âchattelsâ somewhere. )
Theyâre also very big on using real, tangible examples. Hereâs a terrific one from the section on âglass breakageâ:
And notice how these real examples work: someone else breaking something on your property helps to clarify what counts as an accident. The mention of stove-top glass gets you thinking about what the ânon-obviousâ glass things are in your house. Theyâre both vividly specific and conceptually expansive.
OK, one last big chunk â hereâs how they explain what a âdeductibleâ is:
Itâs not perfect. (âAn amount that defines your participation in potential damageâ feels confusingly like I might have participated in causing the damage). But that aside: they explain why itâs called a deductible, give me an example of how a deductible works, then explain how this is connected to my monthly payment.
Three things to love and learn from
One of the fascinating things about Lemonade is that the tone of voice of Policy 2.0 ends up being more distinctive than the brand itself. This comes from the blend of a few distinctive flourishes (repeated use of the word stuff; the tendency to use very-slightly unexpected examples) with an absolute focus on being really, really helpful.
đ§ Figure out what the real problem is.
The whole story of Policy 2.0 is fascinating. Hereâs a great blog by one of Lemonadeâs founders, Daniel Schreiber, talking about how in order to make insurance properly transparent, they needed to âtake a bulldozer to its foundational document, the policyâ. And they identified one thing in particular that turns insurance policies into âthe ultimate word saladâ â the âexceptionâ. Schreiber gives this walkthrough of how the exceptions create exponential confusion:
Thereâs a $1,000 limit for the removal of your neighborâs fallen trees⌠But thereâs a $500 limit for any one tree⌠And you get nothing if the trees didnât damage âa covered structureâ; Except, that is, if they block the driveway; On condition the blockage âprevents a âmotor vehicleâ from getting by; Except, that is, if the âmotor vehicleâ isnât âregistered for use on public roadsâŚâ
To get rid of the insane bamboozling exceptions, itâs not enough just to âwrite it in a nice toneâ. You have to start again, do the hard thinking, and painstakingly rebuild the whole thing from the ground up. Every business will always benefit from asking âwhere is confusing language evidence of muddled thinking?â. More specifically, âwhatâs our foundational document?â is a great question . (Followed by âare those foundations are solid?â)đ Treat your readers with respect.
The main way that most brands attempt to make their small print palatable is either with a lipstick-on-a-pig humorous distraction (eg. calling the Ts&Cs âthe boring bitâ or saying âthe lawyers make us say thisâ) or helpful precis (âwhat this really means is Xâ). Both of those approaches are predicated on the belief that itâs not worth fixing the problem cos people donât want to be bothered with the detail anyway. Lemonade start from the belief that people genuinely want to know, and will take the time to read through it all â as long as you explain everything clearly, logically, and helpfully.
đ˛ Acknowledge the game has changed.
Lemonade have been around for five years. Theyâre gaining customers, opening in more countries (which means âsuccessfully negotiating ever more regulatory regimesâ) and are clearly pioneering a radically better way to communicate around legal and regulatory content. Yet I regularly talk to senior people who work in similar areas (legal, finance, regulatory) who have either never heard of them, or who do know them, but still mumble about ânot sure if we can say it like that because of regulatory or legal or somethingâ. What the fuck? Sure, doing similar inside a global corporate may be insanely hard to implement. And there will be other ways to approach it, too. But letâs not pretend anythingâs actually stopping us.
The bar has been raised. The trail has been blazed. The lemon has been squeezed. The idea that formal legalese is in any way necessary when talking to customers is completely and utterly dead. The rest of the industry is like a cartoon character thatâs run over the edge of a cliff â the ground has already gone, and the only reason they havenât gone splat is that they havenât noticed yet.
Thanks for reading. Hit reply and say hi.đ
And forward this to the person who comes into your mindâŚ. now!