Common Terminology – Preferred Terms and Language

Introduction

The purpose of this document is to set out a series of preferred terms and terms to avoid by participants when describing open banking to consumers. We have identified two main language issues in the market:

• The use of jargon or complex terms. In particular, we have seen some legal terms which are being used in customer-facing language.
• The use of inconsistent terms across the market. Given that open banking involves being passed from one entity to another and back again, it is clearly helpful if consistent language is used during that journey. More broadly, it is helpful in terms of familiarity and comprehension if the same terms are used across the ecosystem.

We have seen the value of simplifying language and bringing consistency in other financial services markets, such as the pensions market which has made significant progress in eliminating unhelpful jargon and bringing greater consistency.

This introductory quote from the NEST work on pensions language could equally apply to open banking:

Words alone are rarely enough to change behaviour, especially when the change is needed on a national scale. It’s relatively easy to persuade someone that saving for retirement is a good idea – provided you can gain their attention in an ever-noisier communications environment. Yet decades of industry experience and academic studies have shown that it’s quite another matter to translate this good intention into action. The behavioural biases that stand in the way of retirement saving are well-known and they can be much more powerful than any positive intention to save.^[1]Beyond the Defaults, 2020. See here

This document is based on existing research undertaken by Open Banking Ltd (OBL) over the last 4 years, a detailed audit of existing language used in the market, work undertaken on the naming of dashboards undertaken in early 2021 and an interactive workshop held in June 2021 with a range of participants including ASPSPs, TPPs and consumer experts.

This document is intended as guidance and following its recommendations is recommended but optional for participants.

[1] Beyond the Defaults, 2020. See here

Language Principles

In developing this language guide, we have used the following principles, developed and agreed with the Expert Advisory Group which met during May and June 2021

• OBL is committed to demystifying jargon to enable consumers and businesses to understand what open banking is.
• We want to use simple to understand and transparent language direct with consumers and businesses, so they fully appreciate what it means for them to share their account information and are able to move, manage and make the most of their money, or to make account-to-account bank transfers. 
• We commit to reviewing all existing terminology related to open banking standards and where appropriate will come up with recommended new simple phrases to explain them.
• With regards to all future open banking implementation, we commit to ensuring all language is designed with a ‘consumer-first’ lens.
• We will work with all stakeholders to encourage the use of jargon-free language when explaining open banking-enabled products and services. 
• We will only use technical terms and acronyms where absolutely necessary, and this will typically be for communications between open banking companies rather than in consumer-facing communications

Recommended Language – Data Sharing Journeys

[table id=52 /]

Recommended Language – Payment Journeys

[table id=53 /]

Recommended Language – Consent Dashboards

[table id=54 /]

Recommended Language – Access Dashboards

[table id=55 /]

Recommended Language – Variable Recurring Payments (VRPs)

[table id=51 /]

Note: Whilst the SWIFT BIC is required to route the payments, for payments in Euro the customer does not have to provide this, the sending bank must derive it from the beneficiary IBAN