I have come across a letter from an insurance company which I thought could be improved with more emphasis on the characteristics of the 7Cs. The content of the letter is as stated below.
Dear Policyholder,
Policy Plan: Dependant’s Protection Scheme (DPS) – Top up
We would like to inform you that the sum assured allowed under the DPS is $46000.
Do take note that there are insufficient funds in your CPF Ordinary/Special Account to deduct the premium for this sum assured, we therefore encourage you to do a top up premium to enjoy the full coverage.
You may pay the premium by sending us a cheque made in favour of “XXXXX” (Company name) together with the completed “Application for Top-Up” form. Please indicate your name, NRIC no. and policy no. on the reverse of the cheque. Alternatively, you may pay by Cash/NETS at any of our servicing branches.
Should we not hear from you by 19Feb 2009, we will deem that you are no longer interested to top up your premium. We would then proceed to cease your policy coverage.
__________________________________________________
In the first paragraph, the word “allowed” is redundant which makes the sentence structure incorrect.
Suggested phrasing:
We would like to inform you that you are insured under the DPS for $46,000.
The suggested phrasing has reflected more courtesy as it suggests a closer affinity between the insurer and client.
_________________________________________________
In the second paragraph, it lacks courtesy in the phrasing.
There is a punctuation error as well, the sentence is too long.
There is a lack of clarity for the following phrase, “to deduct the premium for this sum assured”. The premium for the sum could be stated more clearly.
Suggested Phrasing:
Kindly note that there are insufficient funds in your CPF Ordinary/Special Account to deduct the premium of the above mentioned policy. We encourage you to do a top up premium to enjoy the full coverage of the policy.
_________________________________________________
In the third paragraph, there is a lack of completeness as inadequate information was presented. The details such as the amount of the monthly deductions were not stated. There was no mention of the amount of top-up to be done. Furthermore, since such premiums are paid on a regular basis, it is not stated the number of months that this particular top-up would cover.
__________________________________________________
In the fourth paragraph, there is definitely a lack of tact and courtesy.
Suggested phrasing:
As XXXX (Company name) wishes to continue insuring you, we hope to hear from you by 19 Feb 2009. Should we not hear from you by then, we shall assume you have other plans and would cease your policy coverage.
Please do give your comments. Thanks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Terrence,
ReplyDeleteI feel that u have done a very thorough analysis of this letter. You have pointed out most of problems and have provided quite constructive suggestions. I totally agree with you that this letter really lacks clarity and courtesy. In addition, the sentences are at times too long which will make the reader looks his or her focus easily. Besides, i have spotted some weird sentence expressions. An example is "we therefore encourage you to do a top up premium to enjoy the full coverage." It can be improved to "we therefore encourage you to do a top up of your premium to enjoy the full coverage."
Thank you, Terrence, for this fine effort. You present a clear sample correspondence and a very comprehensive analysis. I like the way you suggest alternatives.
ReplyDeleteMy only question is about this phrase: "to do a top up premium"
Is that Singlish? Frankly, I can infer the meaning, but just based on the words, I don't understand it.
Hey Terrence,
ReplyDeleteGreat example of a letter to be improved. I think most of your suggestions were pretty accurate and I do agree with them. However, I do have a few counter-arguments on your suggested phrasing of certain sentences.
To begin with, I think the "allowed" in the first paragraph is not redundant. This is due to the fact that, the Dependant's Protection Scheme would naturally have a maximum sum allowed to be assured under it just like most insurance schemes. Hence, in my opinion, the word allowed is pretty critical here. However, I do agree that sentence structure could have been improved.
I also feel that the third sentence, rather than the second, is too verbose. This can clearly be seen, as there are too many comas in places which clearly require a full-stop.
Overall, great job once again!
Thanks all for the very constructive comments.
ReplyDeleteThe part on the "to do a top up premium", I was rather fumbled by the phrasing too but thought it was an understood term which I was not too sure. That is the reason I left it as it is.
Regarding Dhinesh's comment, looking at it now, it seemed critical for the "allowed" to be there. In fact, they are making themselves clearer in that sense, which is one of the attributes of the 7Cs.
Thanks...
whoa!!!, you had a passion in blogging, thumbs up for your work of love.. Hehe very inspiring ideas,
ReplyDeleteanyway I'm william
mind if I put a link back to you?
see my works here ------> Mans Suit