Remember when pink was the new black? No? I don't either – but fashions and fashion statements come and go (thank goodness – no more kipper tiers) and we give them the attention they deserve – which is very little. My contention for 2013 is that "Grey is the new grey."

A few years ago the press talked of an apocalyptic world (well, at least we made it further than the Mayas predicted...) in which rogue nano-technology had proliferated to the point where everything had turned into grey goo. Even Prince Charles was dragged into this but fortunately, we are no closer to that technological nightmare than we are to the Mayan one!

Or are we?

There is a grey gloom settling over my world – the world of pensions communication. I know you probably don't care, but you should; you really should.

We've recently encountered a variety of likely scenarios being scoped out by occupational pension schemes (Trustees and employers, pension managers and other cognoscenti). This is the brave new world of the Master Trust.

We all know what a master trust should do, which primarily centres around the benefits of scale and large member numbers:
- lower fees, better charging structures, efficiencies in management
- investment pooling, sharing risk and allowing more diversified opportunities
- better management for more people
- better communications (again – the argument is that it becomes "worth doing really well" as the per head cost reduces)

Unfortunately I haven't seen that happen from any big providers in the UK, although NEST might be getting close. The problem is that the rationale of 'economies of scale' drives other institutional behaviours as well:
- You get broad generalisation – rather than specific, targeted action for individuals.
- The lowest common denominator wins – so communications can become worse.
- Governance is further removed from the employer and workforce for whose benefit the trust is working.
- There will be an inflexibility and slowness to react to new opportunities or threats.
- There is a lack of impartiality – investment options may be tied into one platform or one small set of managers. If the AMCs are not competitive, is the process of changing too difficult or slow to achieve easily?

I'm not any sort of expert on the investment issues where a master trust might have other advantages which offset these and make it still worth doing. But I am an expert in pension communications.

Do we want a world where bland and non-targeted communications fails to engage, fails to educate and fails to keep members thinking about their retirement saving? Of course not, but my fear is that the drive for economy in a master trust may well drive the communications to be one shade – of grey. I feel a book title coming on. Let's call it, "One shade of grey."

Will employers want this devolved responsibility, where they may save money, but they won't achieve the employee appreciation that is consistently part of high quality pension offerings?

I suspect that master trusts which are successful, will only be successful because of cost saving, but may not achieve the real success of good member outcomes since engagement may be sorely reduced. Of course, we won't know for a few years and by then, it will be too late.

Let's hope that, whatever else changes over the next two to three years, we see master trusts radically improving their member engagement and communication, or employers continuing to commit to excellent communications, even off their own bat, irrespective of the level at which the master trust operates.

Written by Alex Thurley-Ratcliff, strategic consultant, SHILLING Communication