Using narrative theory to question assumptions in financial content

When we plan financial communication, we often begin with a picture of the person who will use it. We may imagine someone reading alone, on their own phone, in one preferred language. We may assume that they will scan the information and already understand how the product fits into their life. These assumptions can feel so ordinary that we forget to investigate them.

The difficulty is that they reflect a particular experience of the world. If we build them into our content without checking, we can make a service harder for other people to use. Simplifying the wording will only address part of that problem. We also need to examine the picture of the reader that shaped the explanation in the first place.

What narrative theory adds

Narrative theory studies how stories work, including the people involved, the setting and the way events unfold. In our approach, we borrow five of those elements to examine the context of a communication. The protagonist directs attention to the reader, while the setting concerns the situation in which the information appears. The medium and language concern how it reaches them, and the plot draws attention to what happens over time.

This gives us a structure for questioning assumptions that might otherwise remain hidden. A rule such as “make it skimmable” can seem sensible until we consider a reader who works through the text word by word. Similarly, a choice to communicate through an app can seem straightforward until we consider how someone actually accesses a phone. The framework helps us investigate the circumstances in which our content needs to work.

The protagonist: understand the person using the information

In a story, the protagonist’s knowledge and motivations help us understand what they do. In financial communication, we need the same care when deciding what a reader will understand and why they might read. Financial difficulty does not establish that somebody has little knowledge of money. They may already have considerable experience of budgeting, interest or their rights under a contract.

If we assume otherwise, we can spend time explaining what the person already knows while overlooking their actual question. The more useful starting point is to investigate their existing knowledge and the information that matters in their circumstances. This also means reconsidering assumptions about motivation. A person who has previously experienced a problem with a contract may have a strong reason to read its conditions carefully.

Reading behaviour needs investigation too. Some readers scan headings to choose a section; others read closely from the start and may need more guidance about the document as a whole. Reading may also involve another person who helps interpret the information or discuss a decision. These differences affect how we organise content and how we plan research with the people who will use it.

The setting: consider how people recognise the situation

The setting of a story gives events their context. For financial content, we need to consider the subject as the customer encounters it, alongside the physical and social circumstances of reading. The organisation’s categories may not be the ones the customer uses. What a firm classifies as an insurance product may be understood through the practical need it meets or the service alongside which it is offered.

This matters when deciding where information belongs and how to introduce it. A heading based on an internal product category may make sense to the firm while giving the customer little help. We need to establish how people recognise the situation and which explanation connects with their experience. The same care applies to imagery, which can introduce assumptions about place, lifestyle or familiarity with a service.

The medium: examine what access actually involves

The medium concerns how the communication reaches its audience. Choosing a digital channel can seem to settle the question of access, especially when we know that customers use mobile phones. Yet ownership of a phone tells us little about the circumstances in which it can be used. Devices may be shared, connections may be unreliable and data may carry a cost that affects what someone can access.

These conditions change the decisions a content team needs to make. A video may be convenient for one person while a text explanation is more practical for another. A service that assumes one person, one device and one login may be difficult to use when a family shares access. The review needs to connect the proposed format with those circumstances, rather than treating the channel as a neutral delivery choice.

The Centre for Global Development’s discussion of digital financial inclusion makes this distinction useful. It examines access beyond the immediate transaction, including the practical costs of using a digital service. For content teams, the implication is to investigate how people reach and use information before deciding that making it available online is sufficient.

The relating: understand language as it is used

The way a story is told influences how its audience understands it. In this framework, the relating directs attention to language and the assumption that each reader has one fixed preference. People may use different languages for different purposes or combine them in a conversation. A single language choice on a form can conceal those patterns.

Before planning a translation or deciding which language should lead, investigate how people communicate in the relevant situation. They may recognise a financial term in one language while discussing its meaning in another. They may also draw on family or community conversations when making a decision. Understanding those practices helps us decide which explanations and forms of support will be useful.

The plot: reconsider where the experience ends

A plot develops over time and has an ending. In financial inclusion work, this encourages us to examine the point at which an organisation considers its task complete. Opening a bank account or registering for a service may be an important event, but it does not establish that someone can use it successfully. The person may still need to understand charges, resolve a difficulty or get help with an unfamiliar task.

If we treat registration as the final outcome, those later needs can receive too little attention. We need to consider how the relationship continues and which explanations people need after access has been established. This also changes what we evaluate. Evidence that someone completed an application answers a different question from evidence that they can use the service effectively afterwards.

Turn the assumptions into work your team can do

The value of the framework is in the questions it helps a team investigate. It makes our picture of the reader more explicit and connects that picture with decisions about structure, format and language. Some assumptions may be supported by research; others may need to be revised. The important step is to identify them before treating them as rules for everyone.

Choose a communication your team already needs to review and consider the five elements together. Record what you know about the readers and where you are relying on an assumption. Those gaps can guide customer research and testing, so the findings lead to specific changes. Our guide to testing financial documents with customers explains how to assess what people understand and can use.

How Narratology can help

We help financial firms and inclusion programmes review content in the context of the people it should serve. This can involve investigating customer understanding, reviewing an existing communication or training a team to apply the findings. Contact Narratology about a financial content review to discuss the material you are working on.

Further reading

Centre for Global Development: India may not have as much digital financial inclusion as it seems.