The Hidden Cost of Jargon-Heavy Pension Communications

ㅤ

Pension providers are communicating with members across a relationship that can span three to four decades. Every touchpoint, whether it’s a welcome pack, an annual statement, or a retirement guide, is either building trust or damaging it. When those touchpoints feel consistent, members develop a genuine sense of relationship with their pension. When they don’t, members feel more like a number in the system, with a perception of their provider as one that doesn’t quite know who it is.

But consistency alone isn’t enough. Each of those touchpoints also needs to be clear, accessible, and free from the technical language that creates barriers before the message has a chance to land. When a welcome pack is warm and welcoming with clear language, but an annual statement buries the member in jargon, the inconsistency damages trust.

Our new Pensions Playbook, Speaking Their Language, examines how pension providers can build trust, improve engagement, and create communications that members actually respond to. The playbook draws on decades of financial services experience and real-world case studies to show what works, what doesn’t, and where the biggest opportunities lie for schemes looking to strengthen their member relationships through clear, consistent, and accessible communication.

Download Speaking Their Language: The Pensions Playbook now ↓

ㅤ

ㅤ

The Structural Problem 

When communication inconsistency persists, the instinct is often to point to brand guidelines that weren’t followed, or creative execution that missed the mark. But in most pension schemes, the root cause is structural.

Compliance content and member engagement content are produced by different teams, to different standards, with different sign-off processes. The compliance team prioritises regulatory requirements and legal accuracy. The member engagement team prioritises clarity, tone, and user experience. Neither team is wrong, but there needs to be accountability for closing that gap.

The result is communications that feel like they come from different organisations. A member can receive a beautifully designed digital welcome experience, then a dense, institutional annual statement that immediately signals “compliance document” rather than something that will add genuine value. Both are technically compliant and serve a purpose, but together, they create friction that undermines the relationship the scheme is trying to build.

Beneath the brand inconsistency lies a deeper problem: language. Nearly half of UK adults have a numeracy attainment age of 11 or below. The reason that dense and technical communications fail is not because they’re too demanding, it’s because the language creates a barrier that prevents the message from getting across in the first place.

ㅤ

Every Touchpoint Needs to Speak Their Language 

The FCA’s Consumer Duty, fully in force since July 2024, creates a clear mandate for communications that demonstrably support member understanding. Schemes are now required to show that their communications help members make informed decisions, not just that information was disclosed.

This applies to each and every communication that members receive. A scheme that produces a brilliant digital onboarding experience but sends annual statements written at a reading age of 16 hasn’t met the standard. Consumer Duty requires that every touchpoint supports genuine understanding.

In practice, this means: 

Plain English across the entire communication cycle. Not just in welcome packs or retirement guides, but in annual statements, compliance letters, and portal notifications.  

Illustrative examples built into communications as standard. A member who sees “Your projected pot at retirement is £47,230” learns very little. A member who sees “You’re on track for a pension worth around £47,000. Here’s what that could mean day-to-day” has something to hold onto. 

Consistency in how you explain key concepts. If your welcome pack explains contributions one way and your annual statement explains them differently, the member has to do the work of reconciling two competing explanations. That’s effort they shouldn’t have to expend. 

It’s a pension provider’s responsibility to remove any unnecessary barriers, and it will work in their business’ favour in the long run. A member who understands their pension contributes more, consolidates more, and stays longer. A member who has never felt genuinely communicated with is one contribution increase away from disengaging entirely.

ㅤ

The Commercial Cost 

The business consequences of inconsistency and unclear language compound over time. 

Lost assets under management (AUM) 

Members who feel uncertain about their scheme are less likely to consolidate previous pension pots into it. An estimated 3.3 million lost pension pots hold £31.1 billion in assets, a figure that has risen 60% since 2018. In many cases, these are members who never felt that maintaining their relationship with a previous scheme was worth the effort, and unclear, inconsistent communications played a role in that. 

Lower contribution rates 

A member who receives generic, jargon-heavy communications is less likely to increase contributions when prompted. Conversely, schemes that communicate with clarity and consistency see measurably higher responses to contribution increase campaigns. When a member understands what a 2% contribution increase could mean to their retirement income, they’re more likely to act on it. 

Increased operational risk 

When communications are inconsistent, compliance risk increases. Materials produced outside your documented standards may not meet regulatory requirements. And when regulators ask how you ensure communications support member understanding, fragmented processes make it difficult to provide a clear answer. 

The Opportunity 

The opportunity to fix inconsistent and unclear communications is one of the most cost-effective improvements a scheme can make. Better communication improves engagement, increases contributions, strengthens member trust, and creates the evidence base Consumer Duty requires. 

Trustees should be asking: 

• Do we have a documented tone of voice guide that covers both compliance and engagement content, with a clear plain English standard? 

• Are our five most-read member communications consistent in tone, brand, and reading level? 

• Can we demonstrate to a regulator that our communications support genuine member understanding? 

• Do our annual statements, welcome packs, and retirement guides all speak the same language? 

If the answer to any of those questions is no, the scheme has a structural gap that governance can close.

ㅤ

Speaking Their Language: The Pensions Playbook 

Speaking Their Language: The Pensions Playbook provides a practical framework for addressing these challenges, with detailed guidance on creating consistent, accessible communications that members actually respond to.  

You’ll find step-by-step approaches to building a plain English standard, a communication maturity model to benchmark where you are today, and actionable recommendations for trustees and scheme managers looking to improve member outcomes through better communication.  

The playbook makes the case for why this matters commercially and regulatorily, and shows exactly how to move from compliance-first communication to member-first communication. 

Download Speaking Their Language: The Pensions Playbook now ↓

ㅤ