There are two fundamentally opposing points of view when it comes to the best design of voluntary products: CYTT and KISS.

In the product design area there's a tendency to play the “Can you top this?” game.

In some ways I've been very good at playing this game, having been part of some incredibly complex product designs before joining Mutual of Omaha. For example, I was part of a team that developed a product described technically as “Interest Sensitive Flexible Premium Adjustable Life with Cost of Living Increases.” It was hard for competitors to top, but almost impossible to explain and nearly impossible to administer.

We see this in the voluntary world today. Just think of how some products are designed to “extend this” and “restore that.” Critical illness products often have benefits based on contingency upon contingency, covering employees and insured dependents for very unlikely chains of critical events.

Or the product adds illnesses like dengue hemorrhagic fever to the list of covered events. It's classic CYTT product design—and it's driven by us. We carriers want to differentiate ourselves, and adding a few benefit twists or diseases can set us apart from competitors. Brokers want the same kind of edge. After all, it's more impressive to the employer when you can pile up disease names, extensions and restorations of multiple benefits, etc. as part of the sales pitch for a product.

But employees are paying for voluntary benefits, and they are the ones who need to understand them. Is CYTT what they want?

When considering voluntary marketing and enrollment, KISS—Keep it simple, stupid—becomes essential. An effective enrollment is one in which an employee can easily understand what's being offered, how it will benefit them, and can connect with the product on both an intellectual and emotional level. Affordability is the other characteristic of a good voluntary product, and all those complicated benefits ultimately increase the cost of products. Employees want benefits they can understand and afford—products designed and supported on a KISS basis. Meanwhile, employers also like KISS enrollments, because they're likely to take less time and are likely to result in fewer questions later from employees about what they bought.

The CYTT or KISS debate comes down to the question of whether we offer products for ourselves or for customers. Industry insiders might be excited about the new shiny object represented by a complex product, but employers and employees are much more likely to prefer benefits they can understand: KISS products.

Instant Insights /

Keep it simple, stupid

More From HR Executive

Related Stories

Recommended For You