An interview with Joe Craig of Quietroom
PG: I said to you recently that it’s really hard to engage people who aren’t already engaged, and that responsible investment doesn’t change behaviour. But you pushed back on both, which made me really want to discuss further.
Joe Craig: I did. Because in both cases, it’s not that engagement is impossible. It’s just that most schemes are going about it the wrong way. Take responsible investment. When it’s vague or generic, no one cares. But when it’s done well, when it connects to something real and specific, it changes how people feel about their pension. I’ve seen members respond differently when they realise their money is being used to build housing or fund climate tech. It makes it real. It gives them something to care about.
PG: So engagement is possible, but we’re getting the approach wrong?
Joe Craig: Yes. There’s still this idea that if we just give people more information, they’ll become pension experts and suddenly engage. That doesn’t work. And at the other end, there’s the view that we should not explain anything at all. Just nudge people or default them into action. That can work in some cases too. But the real value is in combining both approaches. Tailor the method to the kind of engagement you actually need. The problem is that many schemes haven’t stopped to define what they mean by engagement. They just want more of it, without knowing what it’s for or who it’s serving.
PG: So we’re chasing engagement without knowing why?
Joe Craig: Exactly. And there’s this assumption that more communication means better engagement. It usually just means more noise. What’s often missing is a real understanding of what members want and need.
PG: So what should schemes be doing instead?
Joe Craig: Start with what members are already doing. Look at their behaviour – a lot of schemes don’t. I remember one that logged every phone query, but their most-used category was “other.” Totally unhelpful. That’s where AI could really help. Instead of dumping everything into a vague category, it can help you spot patterns, flag behaviours and make sense of what is actually going on. Surveys are another default tactic. But they tend to get low responses, attract only the already-engaged, and ask the wrong questions. It’s much more effective to have focused conversations with small groups. Test ideas, get feedback, make changes. Then test again.
PG: What other mistakes come up again and again?
Joe Craig: Long emails with the call to action buried at the bottom. Forms you have to print, sign and scan. Every extra step is a reason for people to drop off. Schemes sometimes think they’ve cracked engagement when they get big responses to a simple yes or no question. Like asking people whether they want to opt out of digital communication. But that’s not engagement. That’s just clicking a box.
PG: So schemes can spend millions and still miss the point?
Joe Craig: Yes. Because they skip the most important question: does this actually solve a real problem for members? If it doesn’t help someone take action or understand something that matters to them, it’s just more clutter.
PG: And what about personalisation? That’s often held up as the gold standard.
Joe Craig: Personalisation can help, but only if the basics are right. I’ve seen beautifully designed pension tools that don’t work on older phones, or can’t be used during work hours because staff have to lock their phones away. If people can’t even access what you’ve built, it doesn’t matter how tailored the content is.
PG: Why do these patterns keep repeating?
Joe Craig: In part, it’s structural. Schemes often rely on providers with narrow expertise, someone who builds websites, someone who manages phone lines, someone who prints letters. They’ll recommend the solution they know best. What’s missing is strategy. Someone to ask: what are we trying to achieve, what do members need, and how do we bridge that gap? Too often, a bad survey or failed campaign leads people to conclude that members can’t be reached. The real problem is that it was the wrong tool or poorly executed.
PG: And the idea that this is a genuine specialism hasn’t really landed?
Joe Craig: That’s right. Real communication in pensions means understanding behaviour, building trust and choosing the right tools. It’s not just sending out a newsletter or updating a portal.
PG: So if schemes aren’t learning from each other, who’s supposed to lead this?
Joe Craig: That’s the thing. Too often, people are waiting to see what others do or worrying about what the regulator might think. We need to stop waiting. Some of the best thinking happens in quiet conversations, not conference stages. We need more open dialogue, more shared learning, and fewer excuses. And no, we can’t sit back and wait for government either. There’s already too much buck-passing. Schools should teach it. The regulator should fix it. But if we know what’s wrong, we have to push for the change ourselves. We’re the ones who know how this stuff works.
PG: What role do you think AI can play beyond data?
Joe Craig: Externally, AI is already shaping how members access information. People are using AI-generated answers when they search for pensions questions. If that answer is wrong, or not from you, that’s a problem. Schemes need to make sure their content is clear, accurate and structured so it’s the one that gets pulled in. That’s not just about AI. That’s what good communication should have looked like all along.
PG: So AI helps, but only if the fundamentals are already in place?
Joe Craig: Exactly. Uploading a chatbot doesn’t mean you’ve solved communication. AI is only useful if you understand what your members need, what they are doing and how they’re thinking. It is a tool, not a strategy.
PG: That’s a great place to end. Thanks, Joe. This has been brilliant.
Joe Craig: Thank you. I’ve really enjoyed it.
Leave a Reply