Going though the retirement process, deciding what to do with one's pension funds and or going through State benefit applications is a trinity of pain: one-shot, high stakes, and in a technical language few people understand. It is therefore not surprising that a majority of workers in the private pension scheme pay for advice, while many entitled to public benefits leave money on the table by not applying. This decision making impasse can have negative impact on retiree welfare. Delegating pension decisions to someone that `knows best' does not ensure one will get the best offer available, in fact during 2018-19 only 50\% of retirees choose one of the three best alternatives available to them (Duch et al 2020). Not applying to public benefits, when eligible, is a clear welfare loss, however disagreeable it is to deal with bureaucracy if there is a risk of getting left for not meeting inncome requirement. We argue that one way to address this is by reducing the effort needed to access information and we do this by experimentally measuring the impact of changing the structure and format of pension websites on the willingness to engage in decision making tasks. Baseline websites have a Frequently Asked Questions (a.k.a. Product oriented) structure with information in text, while the experimental innovations change to a Profile oriented structure with videos in a 2*2 treatment design. The robustness of the innovation is compared across with and without access to public benefits and information is tailored to specific requirements.