language bias
Some Simple Truths About Language Usage Among U.S. Latinos
Give me a break  — 55 million Latinos in the U.S. and confusion still lingers about the best language to use when communicating with Latinos?  Corporate America continues to pour millions of dollars into Spanish-language media, documents, and campaigns despite the fact that Latinos are becoming increasingly more English-dominant, and audiences for Spanish-language television, radio and print have been losing audiences for some time. Apparently, few marketers have come to grips with the demographic reality that two-thirds of U.S. Latinos are native-born and depend primarily on English-language communications.

This paradox has lingered for two main reasons.  First, too many self-serving marketers and media shops have sold the Spanish language as the single gateway to the Latino community in the U.S., reinforced by a history of biased, self-serving research studies.  Secondly, our nation’s academic institutions continue to produce graduates with little knowledge about the language and other characteristics of U.S. Latinos. In short, the collective Latino IQ of Corporate America is embarrassingly low and unable to distinguish fact from fantasy.

To clear up some of this confusion, I would like to share some simple truths about language usage gleaned from my 36 years of practical experience in conducting surveys and experiments with Latinos for a broad spectrum of private, public and academic clients. I am not a linguistics expert, but have studied the use of language in these studies. This experience has been reinforced by teaching undergraduate and graduate courses on Hispanic marketing, survey research, statistics, and mass communications.  Thus, these simple truths are not just subjective impressions about language usage, but grounded in academic and real-world experiences.
1. Not all Latinos communicate in Spanish.
We have heard and read about it for many years – Latinos have better recall of advertisements in Spanish, Latinos make love in Spanish, the love affair with Spanish telenovelas, and so on.  As a result, marketers continue to pour millions of advertising dollars into Spanish-language media and communications believing that they are reaching all segments of Latinos. However, substantial research evidence confirms the following two facts:
·       Spanish-language audiences are comprised primarily of recent immigrants who are generally less educated, have lower incomes, are the least connected to the Internet, and primarily apartment dwellers.
·       By contrast, native-born Latinos are more dependent on English-language communications,  and generally include children, voters, higher income earners, homeowners, the more highly educated and Internet connected, and professionals.

Although many marketers may prefer to bury their heads in the sand and remain loyal to their Spanish-language strategies, the organizations that are paying for advertising and media placements should be informed that their Spanish-language advertisements may not be reaching a sizeable segment of Latino consumers.
2. Do you understand what I am saying?
It is often the case that a Latino customer is presented a form to complete a transaction or register for a program or service.  Attorneys, healthcare providers, and mortgage companies often present documents that need signatures on documents that involve important decisions. In such circumstances, Latinos are typically asked if they understand what is being explained or what they are reading, and a head nod or “yes” response is usually accepted as confirmation that the information was “understood.”  But is this type of confirmation a valid one?   Perhaps not in some cases,  because there is no follow-up evidence that the information was really understood.  Latinos, especially immigrants, will often confirm that they understand an instruction or a document to save face and not admit that they lack the ability to read or understand that language. Consequently, it is important to ask a Latino customer to explain or demonstrate their comprehension of an instruction by asking them to repeat in their own words what the instruction means, or asking them to physically demonstrate their comprehension. In a healthcare setting, for example, it would be advisable to ask a Latino to repeat, in their own words, the instructions for taking their medication(s)  – clearly a more valid measure of comprehension than a simple head nod.
3. Translators are not the last word on language decisions.
Over the past years, I have used translators for a variety of tasks and languages, and appreciate the function that they serve. With few exceptions, I always use a certified translator with experience in the subject matter at hand, whether legal, healthcare, insurance, etc. – which helps to affirm the accuracy of the translation. However, it is a mistake to think that your job is done when a translator submits their finished product.  In addition to the accuracy of the translated document, it is equally important to know who the intended audience will be and their ability to read and understand the document.  Translators do not always know who the intended audience is, and sometimes produce documents whose reading difficulty level is too high, or include words or phrases that are unfamiliar to the intended audience. By copy testing or pilot testing the translated document, one can have the added assurance that the appropriate communication has been established with the Latino consumer.    
Hence, your customer, not the translator, should have the last word on the acceptability of translated documents.

4. The use of Spanish is decreasing, not increasing.
Although media stories often talk about the large numbers of Latinos that watch Spanish-language television, the media hype contradicts what has been known by demographers for the past decade. That is, the number of Latino immigrants in the U.S. – the primary audience for Spanish-language media – has been decreasing in recent years. As explained by the Pew Research Center, the demand for Spanish-language communications of all types is expected to decrease in the coming years, while the demand for English-language communications will increase as the children of the immigrants comprise a larger component of future population growth.  Of course, this does not mean that an organization should not offer or eliminate Spanish-language support; on the contrary, it underscores the importance of also including English-language communications when reaching out to Latino consumers.
5. Speaking Spanish is not an automatic qualifier for reading or writing in Spanish.
Naïve marketers are often surprised to observe that Latinos can be conversing in Spanish quite comfortably, but may have difficulty when asked to read or write in Spanish. What some marketers fail to understand is that a language usually has at four basic functions or components —  reading, speaking, writing, and listening —  and proficiency in one of these functions does not necessarily mean proficiency in the other functions. In addition, many immigrants from Mexico lack formal education and cannot read or write in Spanish, while other immigrants from Latin America tend to be more highly educated and literate.  By better understanding the origins and educational background of Latinos, marketers can develop communications that will be understood by Latinos in their target audience. Thus, one should always consider the language function being utilized when evaluating a translated document.
6. While the U.S. Census Bureau collects language data, it can be misleading.
Organizations often quote language statistics collected by the Census Bureau as evidence about the number of Spanish-speaking households that reside in the U.S. at any point in time.  The quality of this language data, however, is limited in several ways.  First, one question in the American Community Survey (2015) asks:  “Does this person speak a language other than English at home?” If the question is answered “yes,” then the next question that follows is:  “What is this language?  Thus, we learn from these two questions the number of persons that speak Spanish and other languages as well.  But it does not ask how well Spanish is spoken, or the extent to which that person uses Spanish in any given task.  Presumably, if a person utters one word in Spanish, then they are considered a “Spanish speaker.”

The only other language question included is:  “How well does this person speak English?” – to which one is provided four options:  “Very well,” “Well,” “Not well,” and “Not at all.”  While this type of language proficiency question is useful in providing some guidance on how well a person speaks the English language, other research that I have summarized elsewhere shows that Latinos tend to over-estimate their language skills on self-reported measures like the one used by the Census Bureau – a consequence of social desirability.  That is, native-born Latinos who are more English-language proficient often want others to think that they speak Spanish better than they actually do.  Immigrants, who are more Spanish-language proficient, often want others to think that they speak English better than they actually do.  Even when they claim proficiency in both languages, 9 in 10 native-born Latinos will choose an English-language interview when given a choice, while 9 in 10 immigrants will choose a Spanish-language interview.  Hence, the language that a Latino chooses when provided a choice is a more valid indicator of their language dominance than their self-reported language proficiency.  Our experience suggests that Latinos should always be provided the choice of English or Spanish when asked to complete a task – such as an interview or a written document. This simple procedure will usually assure that you will get a more valid response.  These Census Bureau language questions, while useful, are crude measures of language behavior that should be used cautiously when evaluating the language behavior of U.S. Latinos. Click on this link to read the white paper entitled “Are Latinos Over-Estimating Their Language Abilities with Self-Reported Measures?”  https://www.rinconassoc.com/category/publications  
7. Employers take great risks when using Latino employees for translations or language advice. 

As a shortcut, some companies will utilize Latino employees to translate documents or interpret on the spot when the situation demands it.  Unless you know the training and education of that employee, you are taking unnecessary risks in assigning them this responsibility. Latinos that are born in the U.S. rarely study Spanish formally in school and rely on the Spanish that they have heard or used growing up in their communities – often a mixture of English and Spanish.  Important documents that relate to employee personnel procedures, healthcare, safety, insurance or legal matters should only be translated by a certified translator and copy-tested to ensure that employees understand the translated documents or other visual aids.  Experience also suggests that graphic symbols, such as those used in hazard warning signs, also have cultural components that may not communicate the same message to culturally-diverse groups. Copy testing is especially important with signage that relies on graphic symbols since they are often used to warn or prevent injuries or accidents. 
8. Knowing a language does not necessarily mean that you know the culture. 
In the employment world, many occupations require proficiency in one or several languages.  While proficiency in a language other than English is a definite asset in many jobs, it should not be confused with knowledge of a particular culture.  It is not uncommon, for example, for a foreign-born Latino with an excellent command of the Spanish language to receive more consideration for a job than a similarly educated Latino whose Spanish proficiency is not as well polished —  the assumption being that a higher language proficiency also means more knowledge of the culture.  This assumption may not necessarily be a valid one since a native-born Latino may indeed have more knowledge of the U.S. Latino culture than a foreign-born Latino who happens to communicate well in Spanish. If the job  involves responsibilities with U.S. Latino consumers, then knowledge of the Latino culture in the U.S. should be just as important in employment decisions as proficiency in a language.
9.  Are Latinos really diverse?
I often hear statements about the wide diversity in Latino communities, a reference to the numerous countries of origin represented throughout the U.S.   Indeed, the U.S. Census Bureau tells us that about 22 countries are represented in the category known as Hispanic or Latino.  A look at the Latino population in some geographic areas, however, would lead one to re-think the use of the word “diversity.”  For example, the State of Texas included  10.1 million Latinos in 2013, representing a broad variety of Spanish-speaking countries.  However, fully 88 percent of Texas Latinos were of Mexican origin – not exactly the picture of diversity. Decisions regarding language usage should consider the primary countries of origin represented by the Latinos living in a particular community since the type of Spanish utilized can vary by country of origin.  How can you find out about the country of origin for a particular community?  It’s easy – just visit the Census Bureau Factfinder web site at http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtmlto obtain the Latino country of origin for any city, county, metropolitan area or state.

10.  Language ability depends on sight and sound as well.

My experience in conducting hundreds of focus groups with Latinos has shown that their ability to understand a written document or verbal instruction is sometimes influenced by limitations related to their visual acuity and hearing impairments.  Latinos will not readily admit when they are unable to see very clearly, but an astute observer will notice non-verbal cues that suggest a vision problem.  Similarly, hearing impairments can be subtle and not usually something that will be readily apparent.  As a moderator, I have addressed such issues by reading a document out loud so that everyone can hear and understand the instruction, and ensure that any written documents are provided in large fonts to enhance their readability. Rather than embarrass a person because they cannot see or hear very well, it makes more sense to offer options that will allow all persons to participate in the task or activity. 
The Texas Recipe for Muting the Hispanic Voice in Public Opinion Polls


If you are a tax-paying Texas resident, should your opinion matter in decisions related to publicly-funded programs or services in Texas?  Of course, you may say, the opinions of all Texas residents are important.  But one Texas state agency thinks that it is acceptable to exclude Spanish-speaking Hispanics from state-funded public opinion polls that are used to decide how tax dollars are spent.  I would like to share the details of an actual case study that vividly illustrates how one Texas agency is being allowed to silence the voice of Texas Hispanics in its public opinion polls.
The State of Texas has plans to spend billions of dollars to improve their transportation system, including the possibility of high speed rail. To ensure that the improved system meets the needs and expectations of Texas residents, the Texas Transportation Institute has the responsibility for conducting important surveys of Texans that reside in specific geographic areas, or corridors, that are likely to be impacted by these improvements.
A recently released report by the Texas Transportation Institute for the first of these two surveys, conducted during the Fall of 2012, provides concrete evidence that the voice of Texas Hispanics was muted by the survey planners.  Indeed, Hispanics represented only 20 percent of the survey respondents, despite their current representation of 38 percent in Texas (American Community Survey, 2011).  Even worse, only 19 percent of the few Hispanics included in the study were interviewed in Spanish – which compares poorly with other state surveys that have shown that 50 to 67 percent of Hispanics prefer a Spanish-language interview.
How could this occur, especially when the study design was reviewed by a “panel of experts” at the Institute?  A careful review of the study methodology reveals several missteps in the planning and execution of this survey:

  • The 16,000 households selected as respondents received only an English-language version of the survey.
  • The cover letter that was included with the English-language survey was provided only in English, and did not offer respondents any support to complete the survey in another language.
  • A question that asked respondents to identify their race-ethnic background provided only one ethnic identifier for Spanish-speaking respondents — “Hispanic” – which could partly explain the under-count of these respondents because other labels are often preferred over the “Hispanic” option.
  • A call center was supposedly set up to receive incoming calls from survey respondents that had questions or needed Spanish-language support. But this call center probably received few calls from Spanish-speaking respondents since the cover letter did not provide the needed contact information.  Moreover, the report did not include a copy of the Spanish-language telephone survey that was supposedly used by the survey vendor’s call center to capture incoming calls by the survey respondents.  
  • The study design required that automated advanced calls (or “robo calls”) be made to the selected households prior to the survey mailing.  Automated calls are a recognized nuisance from telemarketers and political campaigns that often discourage response rates to legitimate public opinion polls.
  • The report indicated that the survey “participation rate” was 34.6 percent – a rate that appears subjectively created and not recognizable by the American Association of Public Opinion Research (2011).  Instead, the overall survey response rate was more likely to be a much lower 9.7 percent (1,559 completions /16,000 invited participants) – not surprising given the recognized shortcomings in the methodology.
  • While the vendor acknowledged that Hispanic respondents were significantly under-represented and non-Hispanic whites were over-represented, no explanation was provided about the potential causes or consequences of this imbalance.
  • The fact that the survey planners ignored a previous warning about the potential flaws in the survey methodology suggests that the poor survey outcomes did not result from just simple carelessness.

         To make matters worse, the same survey vendor was awarded a second contract to conduct another public opinion poll of Texas residents using the same flawed methodology.  Why are state officials allowing such flawed practices to take place, especially at a time when the state’s population is being heavily impacted by the growing Hispanic population?

As one of the vendors that competed for both survey contracts, Rincón & Associates LLC monitored both competitions with some concern. In both competitions, state procurement staff decided to award the contract to the lowest bidder, which may not have been the brightest decision given the poor study outcomes.  As both studies required a mixed-mode survey methodology that few U.S. companies were capable of executing, more weight should have been given to proven experience using this specialized methodology with diverse communities in Texas. Procurement staff did not have to settle for the lowest bidder as other Texas vendors were ready, willing and able to conduct both studies.
Fortunately, an investigation was initiated on March 3, 2013 to find out why a state agency like the Texas Transportation Institute is allowed to deliberately design a study that minimizes the participation of Hispanic residents, especially Spanish speakers.  The outcome of this investigation is important because it could either (a) allow other state agencies to exclude Spanish-speaking Hispanics from state-funded studies, or (b) raise the standards of research for all state agencies to ensure that all state-funded studies provide adequate Spanish-language support.
The practical significance of this issue cannot be over-stated. Spanish-speaking residents are often the most likely to be overlooked in the delivery of public services, the most likely to receive the lowest quality services, and show distinctive attitudes or values that differ significantly from English-speakers.  Thus, excluding Spanish-speakers from opinion polls can lead to more positive satisfaction ratings than is actually the case, and result in erroneous public policy decisions.
It is time to require a higher standard for public opinion polling in communities that are linguistically and culturally diverse. Although professional research organizations have always defined quality and ethical standards for the research industry, it is apparent from the case just discussed that public agencies may not feel the need to follow these guidelines.  Following are a few ideas suggested from our experiences with public agencies like the Texas Transportation Institute:
  • Research firms that compete for opinion polls in the public sector should be required to produce evidence that they have the staff, facilities and past experience to conduct polls in linguistically and culturally diverse communities. If a research firm does not produce a representative sample of such communities in a contracted study, they should not be rewarded with another contract that utilizes the same flawed methodology.
  • The committee members convened by public agencies to evaluate research proposals may not have the expertise to judge these proposals in terms of their adequacy for diverse communities. The inclusion of experts with experience in conducting polls in diverse communities may have prevented the missteps in the Texas A & M studies.
  • In the haste to award a contract to the lowest bidder, proposal evaluators do not regularly check the references provided by the different bidders, but oddly enough still find a way to rate the relevant experiences of the bidders without this information. Prior to contract award, an audit should be conducted to ensure that such references were verified for all of the vendors that submitted a bid in such competitions.

       It is unclear that the State of Texas got the “best value” by selecting the lowest bidder from outside of Texas. Indeed, what is the economic benefit to Texans when a contract is awarded to a non-Texas vendor whose payrolls, taxes and local spending for goods and services will only benefit another state? 

Legislators and advocacy organizations, especially those that represent the needs of Texas Latinos, should show their concern about public opinion polling practices that minimize or eliminate the voice of the constituents that they represent. Can we afford to remain silent on this issue? 
The more conservative members of the Texas community may believe that all public work should be conducted only in English, and that no special accommodations should be made to non-English speakers. Unless we are willing to also exempt non-English speakers from the payment of taxes as well, then I believe that they should be given the option of voicing their opinions on topics that impact their quality of life.  Although many Hispanics and Asian residents have proficiency in English and their native language, about 50 to 70 percent of these residents still prefer to express their opinions in their native language.  By providing the appropriate linguistic options, public opinion researchers are more likely to establish rapport, increase response rates, and obtain more valid responses to their questions from ethnic respondents – all desirable outcomes for high quality research.     
Texas public agencies, especially the Texas Transportation Institute, must be required to raise their standards when conducting opinion polls of Texas residents, and legislators must take a more assertive role to ensure this outcome. We cannot afford to bury our collective heads in the sand on this issue.

Segmenting Multicultural Consumers: Old Dinosaurs Die Slowly

Eventually, any organization that plans a marketing program comes to grips with the realization that their product or service cannot please everyone. Consequently, the need to define a target segment – those customers whose needs are most likely to be satisfied with a product or service – becomes a critical decision for the marketing program. Indeed, it makes little sense to introduce a product and spend significant advertising dollars only to discover later that the customers that you had hoped would buy the product are not interested.

Although market segmentation is a well-established concept in the marketing world, I am often amazed at the many companies who invest considerable financial resources to launch a multicultural campaign with little more than their own personal insights or advice from ethnic employees to guide these campaigns. To such marketers, segmentation research is not a priority because, for all intents and purposes, ethnic consumers tend to think alike, speak the same language, watch similar media, desire the same products, and shop at similar places. Ironically, when the campaign struggles or just fails, consumers are readily blamed for their lack of interest.

Even marketers who understand the need to segment multicultural consumers have been misguided by the industry’s preoccupation with language segmentation or “language buckets,” as I like to call it. Language buckets are created from responses to questions about the language that a person speaks most often at home. In the case of Hispanics, the language buckets typically used are Spanish all the time, Spanish most of the time, Spanish and English equally, English most of the time, and English all of the time. Marketers often use these language buckets to select a segment of Hispanics that they believe will be more responsive to their advertising campaigns, such as Spanish-dominant Hispanics (i.e., speaks Spanish all the time or most of the time). Despite the often biased and self-serving nature of their research, Spanish-language advocates have been successful in convincing Corporate America to spend nearly 90 percent of all Hispanic-targeted media expenditures on Spanish-language media – quite a remarkable achievement given that 60 percent of U.S. Hispanics are native-born and primarily use English-language media. It is not difficult to understand why some industry stakeholders would not want to change how language segmentation is currently practiced.

Nonetheless, choosing potential customers based on their self-reported home language speaking skills is problematic for two important reasons. First, it makes little sense to select a target segment of consumers based on their language abilities without first determining whether a product or service will meet their needs – like putting the cart before the horse – a practice that overlooks other consumer segments that may also find the product appealing. As a case in point, it seems reasonable to assume that most Hispanic homeowners need home improvement supplies, regardless of their language skills. Rather than focus on Hispanic consumers in a specific language bucket, it makes more sense to identify segments of Hispanic homeowners according to their propensity to buy home improvement supplies, and then design the marketing mix that reaches the desired segments effectively – which may include a combination of English and Spanish-language media. The home improvement company could clearly lose sales if their advertising agency recommended a specific linguistic strategy without first understanding the home improvement needs of all Hispanic consumers and then selecting the most desirable target segment.

Secondly, it is disturbing although not surprising to observe how the marketing industry has embraced such a vague and simplistic concept as home language usage to segment Hispanic consumers. The credit goes to The Nielsen Company for popularizing the use of language buckets to segment Hispanics. Nielsen sponsors national telephone surveys each year of U.S. Hispanics to create the needed information for their television ratings, and shares these universe language estimates with other research firms like Arbitron to compare or adjust their language data on Hispanics.

But the language behavior of Hispanics is not as simplistic as The Nielsen Company would have us believe. Based on various studies of U.S. Hispanics, our research shows that the language that one speaks at home varies considerably within any one Hispanic household – it depends on the subject matter under discussion, the age of the individuals engaged, their country of origin, the task at hand, and general proficiency with the language. In a typical Hispanic household, Spanish or English may be used when talking to specific family members but may take a different path when viewing television, completing homework assignments, listening to radio, playing games, talking to friends, and other activities. Because the language that one speaks at home is influenced by many factors, it lacks the stability needed to reliably segment Hispanic consumers and highly questionable when used to adjust television and radio ratings.

Language usage among multicultural consumers can lead to some unexpected surprises. In recruiting consumers for focus groups, we have learned that consumers who speak proficiently in one language do not necessarily know how to read or write in that language. In telephone interviews, we find that respondents often over-state their proficiency in one language as they try to impress the interviewer with their language skills – a social desirability response set. A more valid and practical measure of language ability can be achieved by being more specific about the language skill needed for a particular task or situation. For example:

  • How often do you speak English when talking to friends?
  • How often do you read Spanish when reading a newspaper?
  • How well did you understand the English-language advice provided by your doctor?

Going forward, I believe that multicultural marketers should re-evaluate their campaigns to ensure that they have taken the appropriate steps to identify their target segment(s), and that their marketing strategies are aligned with the needs of the segments that appear the most attractive. Although language segmentation has been a popular way to identify target segments, the quality of the language data used is suspect and distracts attention away from more useful segmentation bases such as product usage, benefits, and lifestyles. Level of acculturation, which is typically defined by language usage and country of origin, has also been used in the past to understand and segment multicultural consumers; however, it has the same potential as language segmentation to mislead marketers by focusing on a specific linguistic strategy rather than one that is based on product consumption.