Case study
Proof instead
of adjectives
The landing page for a service promise campaign. The numbers that would prove the promise already existed, buried in an annual report written for a regulator. My job was to make them worth reading.
See it online01
Organised by worry, not by department
Service data is collected by team, so the obvious layout is by team. Contact centre together, claims together, complaints together.
Nobody wakes up wondering how the claims team is performing. They wonder whether anyone will pick up, whether they will be looked after if something goes wrong, and whether the fund will admit it when it does. Three worries, three sections, and each number filed under the worry it answers.
Will anyone actually help me?
Advice, education, outreach- 5,606
- Member meetings
- 597
- Workplace visits
- 192
- Education sessions
How long will I be kept waiting?
Speed, efficiency, resolution- 37 sec
- Average speed to answer a call
- 97%
- Insurance claims paid
- 91%
- Queries resolved on first call
What if something goes wrong?
Complaints, accountability- 75%
- Complaints resolved at first contact or triage
- 100%
- Complaints answered within the required timeframe
- 2.67%
- Complaints escalated to AFCA
All figures 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, as published.
02
Publishing the number that is not flattering
Any fund will publish the good numbers. Putting the escalation rate to the external complaints authority on a public page, next to the ones that flatter, is what makes a reader believe the rest. Compliance had to be satisfied the figures were in context. Marketing had to be comfortable that a transparency number is an asset.
A page of only good numbers reads as marketing. One difficult number turns the whole set into evidence.
03
Outcome
The page is live and sits in the main navigation under why the fund is worth joining, rather than in fund information where service reporting usually goes. The figures are built as reusable components, so each year's numbers drop in without a redesign.
What I would add next is a measure of whether it changes anything. Time on page says nothing about trust. Specialist bookings starting here, or a question in the join flow about what convinced someone, would say a lot.