The good news is that independent agents and brokers are fairly satisfied with their insurance carrier relationships, but there is plenty of room for improvement–particularly when it comes to giving producers more input on key strategic decisions, such as products and coverage, claims-handling and technology support.

That was one of the major conclusions from a Producer Satisfaction Survey of 1,596 producers from firms of all sizes conducted by Deloitte, in partnership with National Underwriter. Highlights were covered in NU's Nov. 9 edition, available at www.property-casualty.com.

NU and Deloitte invited seven major players–two independent agents, two national brokers and a trio of leading carriers–to review the results and talk face-to-face in New York City about the issues raised in the survey. Three experts from Deloitte also participated, with yours truly serving as moderator.

An edited transcript of our 90-minute discussion appears below.

Sam Friedman:

NU Editor In Chief

Deloitte's survey found that most agents and brokers feel their carriers don't seek enough input from them on key points such as product development, claims and marketing. Yet carriers often point to the partnership relationship they have with their producers. How do you reconcile this disconnect between perception and reality?

Scott Addis, President & CEO

The Addis Group

Past NU Agency of the Year

I don't disagree. However, agent/broker and carrier communication is a two-way street. High-performance agencies understand the importance of carrier partnerships and ongoing communication.

Progressive agencies challenge their carriers to innovate and deliver cutting-edge products, services and resources on behalf of their mutual clients. It is this strategic interaction where intense and productive relationships are built. It is also here where agents and brokers and carriers gain a competitive edge.

If there is a disconnect, it occurs when the parties do not value each other's wisdom. If agents and brokers and carriers are focused on meeting the consumer's needs, a disconnect should never happen.

The concept of triangular risk management reflects the collaboration between the agent and broker, carrier and insured to improve an organization's risk profile. TRM is best evidenced through risk management service plans as well as claims and stewardship reviews.

The benefits of TRM are enormous, as shown by reduced competition on key accounts, elimination of unnecessary bidding, improved retention, enhanced relationships and impact on the bottom-line performance for all three parties.

Alex Soto, President & CEO

InSource Inc.

Past IIABA President

There are varieties and levels of partnerships, and I think that some of the companies we work with really do roll up their sleeves to craft a plan and chart a course with us. But others pay lip service to the process. They come in and say we're going to plan together, but then lay out pretty much what they want and basically say, “This is what we need you to do.” That is not a true partnership.

Also, when a company asks an agency to meet certain goals, it is important that the company commit to providing the tools–underwriting, pricing and products–to meet those goals.

As for advisory boards, I have been in some that were organized around your golf handicap and others that took it very, very seriously and listened carefully about product development, which isn't easy. Those companies that carefully sit with their producers can develop a much closer relationship and get a leg up.

In our agency, our whole focus is about creating stickiness between ourselves and our clients. By that I mean that they have a warm and positive feeling about us, and perceive that they will be hurt if they leave us. We effectively utilize our company partners to help us accomplish this.

Kevin Kenny, Executive V.P.,

Insurance Brokerage–East

Wells Fargo Insurance Services

There are a few basic tenets that serve us and our partners well.

One is to be very active listeners and gain an understanding and appreciation for the roles we both play, as they are somewhat distinct. Brokers are eternal optimists, and wherever we establish a relationship with a client or prospect, it's our responsibility to find a proper home for them. We rarely say no; always say maybe; and when possible say yes.

But our company partners have specific underwriting guidelines and don't necessarily embrace every opportunity with the same optimism.

I would recommend to our carrier partners that their underwriters develop a deeper understanding of the brokerage and agency side of the business.

To be true partners, our carriers have a responsibility to engage with us in business planning, but it's equally important that they have the authority to act on that responsibility and actually assist us in getting decisions made, whether that be on pricing, coverage terms or a claim.

Our points of contact should have the authority to act out on our behalf, but more specifically on our client's behalf.

Eric Andersen, CEO, U.S. Retail

Aon Risk Services

We have always had a good relationship with our major markets as they are developing new products, or asking us for feedback on faults in existing products in an effort to drive innovation.

In some respects, it is easier for us to match up to the insurers. They have product-specific leaders–property, casualty, D&O, E&O, etc.–which matches the structure that a larger broker would also have, so there are natural points of contact so dialogue doesn't have to be forced.

The business-planning process is more around understanding appetite on a macro basis. Is one of the insurers looking to grow in middle-market property in a certain geographic areas, or in a specific industry? We try to get a better sense of where they're looking to grow their business so we can match the appropriate appetite.

There is also the claim aspect to consider. We try to make sure we are in touch with their leadership–because as we always say, you win clients on value and price, then you lose them on claims and poor service. So the ability to get the customer's claim paid appropriately is something we spend a lot of time on.

Sam Friedman, NU:

Let's get some carrier feedback on this. You are all leaders in your markets. How does each of your companies establish and maintain a true partnership relationship with your producers?

Scott Goodby, President, Regional Companies Group

Liberty Mutual Agency Markets

We have organized our field structure so that we have a one-to-one relationship with our producers–whether it's an underwriter, a claims representative, or our territory managers. We all have an assignment and an alignment with the independent agent.

We take planning very seriously, and do a great deal of it with our agents. It goes well beyond calculating how much premium we are going to write in the next year. It's about strategically determining how we are going to grow together and how we can help the agency, whether by bringing new producers on board, acquiring agencies, or succession planning.

We have a depth of advisory boards with our independent agents, and it's not just a producer council. We deal with claims, CSRs and principals as well as producers. So we get a good range of input and we act on that input. It's not simply a listening session. We have takeaways, and we come back to them with solutions or actionable options. We take a very proactive stance.

Harold Morrison Jr., Executive V.P., Chief Global Field Officer

Chubb & Son

We approach it as a longstanding relationship, treating agents and brokers as partners. They represent us in the marketplace. We need each other, and we try to work together to build our businesses.

We look at it from the standpoint of our agents and brokers representing the customer's interest. They've got the knowledge of the customer. They know the customer's needs. They help us understand and underwrite those needs.

At Chubb, we have a strong focus on middle-market business, and having local branch offices is key to pursuing that business. Not only do our local offices do underwriting, but also claims and loss control–things that help the customers make their business better because ultimately they're looking for protection.

We also work closely in terms of some of the challenges facing our agents and brokers. As a large, global company, we are knowledgeable about what's going on in other parts of the country and the world, and have expertise to share.

We offer a lot of training and development courses for our agents and brokers to help them be better prepared to market to their customers.

The tough thing is that the business is kind of 80/20–20 percent of your distribution force generates 80 percent of your revenue. There are times when you can get very tilted in terms of who you listen to.

At the same time, we have a large amount of business at that smaller end, so we have to balance it and reach out and have those planning sessions and discussions to make sure we're incorporating all the distribution views in how we approach the market.

Michael Kerner, CEO, Global Corporate, North America

Zurich North America

The key is communication with brokers at various levels in the organization. Many of us are just back from the annual meeting of the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, where we interact at the very senior levels. But we also have a broker advisory council, which allows us to really dive in much deeper than the kinds of discussions we can have at CIAB.

Where the rubber hits the road is at the office and regional level, and that's where we have people actually meeting one-on-one with our broker partners, planning with full knowledge of the strategic objectives of both the broker and the carrier.

Sam Friedman, NU:

The survey identified nine main attributes that producers look at when they determine which carriers to do business with, including a core trio–products and coverage, pricing, and claims-handling. Let's talk about how well carriers and producers are working together on those areas.

Harold Morrison Jr., Chubb:

We've always been an individual account underwriting company. We strive to customize products to make sure we are meeting the needs of each client.

The pricing is always very dependent on where the market is at that time–whether it's soft or hard–and also what's happening with the competition. We sometimes would like to write an account, but from the risk standpoint we can't get the pricing we would need to have an underwriting profit down the road.

Still, while pricing will come and go depending on the market cycle, we try to offer consistent capacity to our producers.

As for paying claims quickly, that is a promise and commitment we make when customers purchase our products. That's why underwriting and pricing are so critical in maintaining our financial strength, enabling us to be there to pay when customers need us.

Sam Friedman, NU:

Mr. Soto, how much involvement do you and your producers have on these core elements identified in the Deloitte survey?

Alex Soto, InSource:

We did a great deal of research when we launched “Trusted Choice” [the branding initiative launched by the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America]–which, by the way, should be supported by our insurance company partners–and we found that what resonates with consumers is having choices–of companies, limits and coverages. Also, customers really wanted customization of policies, rather than something off the shelf, and they want advocacy. They want a champion, and that speaks particularly to the claims-handling process.

We jump on claims and we show up and we are there–except for the very minor incidents. We are all about proving to the client our worth; the value of what we do. And we want to make sure that relationships are generational.

In terms of price, it depends on the type of client. Smaller accounts tend to focus more on the short-term price. For sophisticated consumers, we can get away from price and talk about the total cost of risk, and how we help them minimize it. So we approach our carriers differently depending on the type of client.

Michael Kerner, Zurich:

Our product ultimately is a promise. It comes across initially as a piece of paper. It's backed up by services on the risk engineering side to prevent losses and on the claim's side if a loss occurs.

We are certainly committed to delivering a competitive set of products and services, competitively priced, but we look at it more holistically beyond what the policy says.

What can we do from a risk engineering perspective to reduce claims? What can we do from a claims-handling perspective to reduce the severity of those claims or develop insights to prevent claims? That is a huge piece of the value proposition.

We came out of the most recent financial crisis in very, very good shape and continue to meet all of our promises, and that's also an important part of the value proposition. As an industry, we don't do a good enough job of actually describing that value proposition and what we bring to the table.

Harold Morrison Jr., Chubb:

We're looking at social media tools as a way to improve communication.

Take loss prevention. Customers don't want to have a loss–it's great to have their claims paid, but they make more money when their business is running. So we are exploring using Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets to keep them informed on loss prevention techniques–for example, our wildfire protection service.

I think with these types of informational services, customers will start to feel that insurance companies aren't just trying to take their money. We're really trying to take care of and protect their possessions.

Michael Kerner, Zurich:

We want to be known for delivering when it matters, and for us that means being on the ground after a disaster strikes. We go to the physical scene in our catastrophe vans. We drive a big RV wherever the event happened. We park and set up to accept customer claims. We also set up a grill out back to feed the firefighters and residents, whether they're a customer or not. One neat thing is that you can come to our RV and plug in your cell phone to recharge.

We park in very visible sites. For the California fires, we parked in the lot of the stadium where the San Diego Chargers play. From all the highways around there, you see that van. You can come and get a check cut for living expenses, file a claim…we really deliver when it matters.

We try to be proactive as well. We call up brokers and customers before an event–those in the path of a storm. We tell them they've got 48-to-72 hours before this event and they should get ready–and by the way, if you have a claim, here's the number to call just to remind people how to contact us.

Rebecca Amoroso, U.S. Insurance Leader, Deloitte:

What's interesting is you never hear about that in the news–you never see the insurance company catastrophe van. You hear about all the suffering, of course, and about all the people who are not insured.

But you don't hear about the people who are reimbursed and made whole and able to live their lives because of what insurance did for them. How do we get that message out to the general public?

Michael Kerner, Zurich:

We ask the insurance commissioner to come down and see what we're doing.

Sam Friedman, NU:

Getting back to the value proposition offered by carriers and agents beyond just the price of a policy, I'd like to hear from Scott Addis, who has earned his stripes by essentially coming in and saying, 'I do not sell insurance for a living,' correct?

Scott Addis, The Addis Group:

The biggest threat to our industry is not regulation, reform or the soft market. It is commoditization, which occurs when the consumer perceives there is little or no distinguishable difference between products, services and resources. When this happens, price becomes the primary point of differentiation.

Picture commoditization as a disease that eats away at one's knowledge, wisdom and professionalism. It is so cruel and debilitating that it strips away the value proposition of even the most seasoned producer to a number.

In a speech last year to CFOs from companies of all sizes, I asked to what degree do you enjoy the process as it now stands of procuring insurance? On a scale of zero (not at all) to five, the response was 1.6.

I also asked, as a CFO, to what degree do you have the time and technical ability to identify the exposures confronting your business? That came to 1.8.

Third, I asked to what degree did they think their agents and brokers have a process in place to uncover and address the exposures confronting their business? That scored 1.3.

The value proposition of agents and brokers must not be product or price. Rather, it lies in our ability to understand the customer and their needs.

We must remember that 99 percent of firms don't have an in-house risk manager. These customers depend on us to pinpoint their exposures and offer loss control, HR and claims management consultation as well as provide coverage.

In medical terms, our job is to consult, diagnose and treat. But what ends up happening far too often is we deliver a predetermined treatment plan–an insurance policy. We forget there is so much more to be done.

Many of us fall into three traps–the commodity trap, the perception trap and the anxiety trap. With the commodity trap, the consumer actually believes there is no difference in Product A versus Product B or Service A versus Service B. What's the only differentiator? Price.

The perception trap is one's preconceived ideas based upon prior experiences. So, by the time we get in, the customer thinks they understand our game, which is to just sell insurance. This is the one trap we must learn to escape.

The anxiety trap is one's fear of considering alternatives. I think both carriers and agents and brokers fall victim to this dangerous trap.

Bertha Fortney, Director

Deloitte Consulting LLP:

The purchasing patterns that are evolving with Gen X and Gen Y tend to drive a lot of the commoditization of insurance products. That's quite frightening because insurance products are highly sophisticated–even with an auto insurance policy, if you don't have the proper coverage, you are really at risk.

Scott Addis, The Addis Group:

I strongly believe we are in the business of education, not sales. Risk management and insurance are complex subjects. We have to market our skills to educate.

Eric Andersen, Aon:

What customers are looking for from us is an opinion, guidance and advice based on hard analytics. Understand their business, figure out what their risks are, and advise them on managing the risk. At the end of the day if you decide you need to buy insurance and transfer the risk, that's fine, too.

One of the shortcomings of our industry is we don't communicate in a language that our buyer wants us to. We talk insurance. They don't want to talk insurance. They don't really want to invest the time to understand it on a technical level. What they want to know is how does it financially impact their business, and should they buy this, and what will it do for them.

We need to communicate policy language in new ways. A lot of the noise is generated because people think they bought something and then find out they got something else. It's very technical language–a legal contract–and most people don't think about it that way until they get into a claim. So the simplification of policy language, especially in the lower segment of the business, would be a huge advantage.

Kevin Kenny, Wells Fargo:

The product offering shouldn't be about the lowest price. It should be a consultative series of dialogues because an informed customer, an educated customer is a confident customer, and with Gen X and Gen Y, they want to be informed and empowered. They will not buy just price.

Sam Friedman, NU:

What about tech support? We have a new generation of consumers living online, on their mobile phones and on their social networks. Their virtual selves are almost as important as their physical selves. Are insurers and producers working together to keep up?

Eric Andersen, Aon:

Don't confuse the medium with the generation. I don't really see an age difference. I don't think every 30-year-old is crazy for data, nor do I see that every 55-year-old has no interest in data. So, it's the medium more than the people. I think it's worth it just to draw that distinction.

Rick Berry, Director,

Deloitte Consulting LLP:

Actually I collaborated with my Deloitte colleagues, Bert Fortney and Rebecca Amoroso, on a research project looking at Gen Y about six months ago, and one of the conclusions was a) it's not a market segment, and b) while Gen Y might be the catalyst customer at the leading edge of using social networking and so forth, Baby Boomers and Gen X are right behind them in terms of wanting to get things instantaneously, not wanting to sit across the table, and happy to talk online.

So, I think the implication is that we all need to get much more sophisticated at understanding the market, both agents as well as insurers, and look at the behavior of people in terms of how they want to get information. It's just not credible to generalize and say, “Young people want to get it this way, and old people want to get it that way.”

Scott Goodby, Liberty Mutual:

One of the many initiatives we're working on with our agents involves social networking tools like Facebook and Twitter. We're exploring how we can use these tools to our mutual benefit. The overarching message we'll want to convey is the benefits customers realize in working with independent agents.

Agency Web site development is also a priority. We want to help independent agents drive customers to their Web sites and utilize them to get answers and make decisions. One of our companies, Safeco, has a program called “Bricks and Clicks,” which basically helps agents build their digital strategies, whether that is constructing their Web sites, tapping social media, or just helping them strengthen their online presence.

We go through search engine optimization routines and Web analytics. We are also experimenting with a content syndication tool, which allows us to push out information to their Web sites so that prospective customers can come in and view information about our companies and products, and the agent doesn't have to worry about updating the information. It's done on our end.

Harold Morrison Jr., Chubb:

Customers are thirsty for knowledge and want to be able to do some of their own independent analysis prior to getting involved in the transaction. We have a lot of training material that we are now looking to put online for easier access to our producers and customers. We think that an informed customer will be better able to balance price-versus-coverage decisions.

We have a fairly senior group of people who are looking at each one of these technologies and how we can start to push information out while also getting feedback from our producers and customers.

Outside of education, technology really does help speed up the lower-end transaction, depending on the segment. The middle-market and above is fairly complex, so it's hard to do those transactions quickly online.

We've got a small-business platform for smaller commercial inland/builder risk customers that allow our producers to price and issue accounts online. We are looking to develop more of these types of platforms.

Michael Kerner, Zurich:

When we think about our operating model, we think about it in the context of effectiveness, efficiency and the customer experience, and the customer experience is evolving in a positive way–using technology, using our processes to get better at interacting with our customers and the brokers who serve them.

With technology, you have to distinguish between customer segments as to what the appropriate approach should be. My colleagues at Farmers launched an app on the iPhone that allows you to make a claim automatically. Take your phone, take a picture of the damaged car, send it automatically and seamlessly to the claims department, and get the claims process started quite quickly.

That works pretty well on personal motor, but it wouldn't necessarily work so well, I think, on workers' compensation and D&O claims.

I kind of like the idea of being in the business of education. That's why we are trying to use technology to push information out to customers and brokers.

We've launched the Zurich Virtual Literature Rack, which has a lot of brochures and marketing material, as well as informational material on the industry.

We also recently launched the Zurich Virtual Concierge, which is a customized customer communications tool. Although we talked about some of the Web 2.0 technology, I actually think that the industry has gone a long way to just using Web 1.0, to get to our customers and our broker partners in an appropriate fashion. There is still a little bit more walking before we run with what the industry can do.

The last point I would make, especially in the larger accounts, is that technology certainly enables and generates efficiency, but this is still a people business and trust is actually very important. You do not build that trust through e-mail or impersonal contact over the Internet. You build that trust with face-to-face interactions, and that is something that we are still very much focused on.

Sam Friedman, NU:

Mr. Soto, is it easy to do business with carriers in terms of processing business? Do we have single-entry, multiple-company interface? Do we have real-time transactions?

Alex Soto, Insource:

There is work that needs to be done in this area. We've actually taken a step back in all of the proprietary company systems that we have to deal with.

Our view is that it is all about touching the client. The less time we can touch the keys on the computer, the more time we can spend creating what I mentioned earlier, which is that stickiness with the client.

Our agency is all about creating a bookshelf of services and values to the client so they understand what we do for them, and to get away from the price part.

For example, we insure about 120 law firms in our area, and I do seminars that are approved by the Bar for continuing education. You've got to talk to them in the language they understand, which is about the bottom line. It is not about just risk and a loss that may happen, or the cost of insurance. It's really how all of the activities we do drop money to the bottom line.

Do the math. Recently, I did a seminar for which attorneys attending got two hours continuing education credit. I had 50 attorneys. We did it over lunch. They did not have to go out and leave their premises. To quantify this, if they bill at $300 an hour, with 50 attorneys and in their office, so no travel time, look what we just saved their bottom line–$15,000. You have to remind them of the value you bring all the time.

Unfortunately, I think we have taken a step backward in terms of the utilization of the computer. Everybody has proprietary systems. Some of them are very easy to navigate–others are not.

Also, as we provide information and have access to that segment of consumers who do their research online, it ought to be through our portal, with companies in support mode.

But what we want is to make sure that InSource is one of the first sites that come up on Google in my particular state when they shop for insurance. They come to my portal, but then they use your tools.

The whole thrust should be Internet-plus, meaning that you are going to get the benefit of dealing with the Internet, but you get the wisdom of an individual agent who will show you where the pitfalls are. It's very important that our company partners help us develop that capability.

Social networking is still in its infancy. It is the wild, wild West. We are not allowing the people in our office to go there very much because from our perspective, right now it is a tremendous time waster, and it also creates E&O problems.

Scott Goodby, Liberty Mutual:

We provide for multicarrier rating, supporting about 16 different comparative raters to help ease the issues that Alex was talking about.

We have our proprietary agent portals, where you can go on and quote and issue policies, and you can download policies and initiate policy endorsements, and do billing, claims and policy inquiries.

We are invested heavily in providing real-time connectivity with agents' management systems. At this point in time, we recognize the need to support multiple options for our agents. Technological capabilities will keep advancing, but the primary objective will always be to provide agents with seamless functionality when and how they need it.

Harold Morrison Jr., Chubb:

I have a coffee cup that says “Paper Free in '83.” It's 2009, and this industry is still far from paper-free.

However, at Chubb we have made progress on this front by developing an e-policy for personal customers, and now have the ability to upload the agent's policy copy into their agency system.

Kevin Kenny, Wells Fargo:

On the employee benefits side of the house I think the innovations have progressed further than on the property and casualty side. There are more online tools, and technology is more universally applicable on the benefits side. I think there may be some lessons there for the p&c side of the house to learn from.

Sam Friedman, NU:

Nearly half of the producers surveyed were very concerned about potential conflicts from their carriers selling direct to clients, while 83 percent expect increased competition from alternative channels. How legitimate is that fear?

Scott Addis, The Addis Group:

This is a legitimate concern for those producers who have not learned to create value for their clients. Alternative channel distribution should not be seen as a concern for those producers who have a unique value proposition and understand the importance of being consultative and diagnostic.

Sam Friedman:

Liberty Mutual recently changed its distribution model to move away from direct sales and emphasize working with independent agents. What drove that transition?

Scott Goodby, Liberty Mutual:

We've been evolving and expanding our relationship with the independent agency system over the last 15 years, and recently–with the purchase of Ohio Casualty and Safeco, and our shift in the middle-market to agents–we feel it's a better value proposition to be able to sell through our independent agency partners.

Specific to the middle-market, about 95 percent of these customers now buy their insurance through agents and brokers. By limiting ourselves to direct distribution in the middle-market, we were missing out on a significant opportunity.

Liberty Mutual's strategic position on distribution recognizes that we can't dictate how our customers want to purchase from us now or in the future, whether that's direct, affinity business, Internet or through agents.

All of Liberty's Agency Markets business is sold mainly through the independent agency system. Group-wide, about 70 percent of all our business is sold through agents and brokers.

Agents understand the client best. They are the ones who can bring the value proposition to life for the customer. They are the ones who understand the differences from carrier to carrier, to help the client make the proper choice.

Eric Andersen, Aon:

One of the key assets for agents and brokers is where they sit in the value proposition of an insurance transaction. I think when the insurer does do a direct push, it can create distribution confusion.

Our role in understanding the full insurance market and how it applies to our client's risk profile can't be replicated by anyone else in the value chain, so I do not think that our role is in danger.

The customer wants a view of the market rather than a view of a particular insurer. We are best positioned to provide that service, and no one else can do it.

Kevin Kenny, Wells Fargo:

I think it's about the customer segment. The presence of alternative distribution channels is a reality–you're not really going to turn the clock back on that. We just have to determine where our value is considered to be enough of a difference to engage with us, and it may not be enough at the transactional level anymore.

We've improved our solutions for this segment over the years, but it certainly looks and feels very different. That's fine. It's all about what the customer wants and expects.

Michael Kerner, Zurich:

On the commercial lines side, we view the sale as consultative, and our biggest distribution channel is the independent one. We do not see any scenario in the commercial lines side that would alter that scenario, but I think Kevin's point about segmentation is correct. You have to be at a point where the distribution channel is bringing tangible value to the equation.

On the personal lines side, my colleagues at Farmers have just purchased 21st Century, which is a direct distributor of personal auto coverage. The thinking behind that is, on the personal lines side, the customers first choose channels, and then second choose a carrier behind the channel.

The idea behind the 21st Century acquisition is to get access to those customers who prefer to go direct. By the way, we then refer those clients to our agents, who cross-sell more complex sales such as life insurance or homeowners–coverage that is not as easy to buy online as perhaps an auto policy might be.

So I think again, depending upon the segment you're in, you have a different way to approach it. But in my core business–which is the global corporate space–the brokers add value to the process, so it would be incredibly inefficient for us to try to duplicate what the brokers can do, and that's certainly not a direction we will go in.

Harold Morrison Jr., Chubb:

We have a long history of being 100 percent committed to the independent distribution channel, due to the tremendous amount of value our producers generate for their customers and carriers.

I think there are probably times we all feel a little bit too much anxiety about the direct writers coming into our business. We have strengths that customers value and direct writers can't provide–coverage/segment expertise and customized solutions.

Increasing automated tools to speed up the transaction turnaround time will help keep direct writers at bay.

Alex Soto, Insource:

I don't like the dual system, but it's not going to go away. It's here, and we're going to have to live with it.

I would appreciate it if companies would spend more resources promoting the value of the independent agency system and Trusted Choice. Protecting the stickiness and the value of what we bring is something that companies ought to jealousy guard.

Sam Friedman, NU:

If you had the power to change the way this system works, what might you have producers and carriers do differently.

Scott Addis, The Addis Group:

If I had a magic wand, I would empower agents and brokers to practice the art of exposure identification and risk mitigation. This is what the customer really needs. It is also the industry's path to improve our perception.

Scott Goodby, Liberty Mutual:

I would encourage the independent agent and broker to speak out often. You have a powerful voice in Washington and with your state governments, so it's very important that you speak up on public policy issues involving insurance.

We're certainly there to back you and help you, but you're local business people. And while some lawmakers will vilify the industry from time to time for their own political positions, you're ones who are protecting your clients in those lawmakers' districts, and you are the ones they listen to.

Eric Andersen, Aon:

I would continue to drive our industry to better describe the value we offer, rather than focus on the transaction, and being able to quantify that value in financial terms for our customers.

I think we get caught up in the transaction, rather than recognizing that what the customer really is looking to us for is advice and a strategy to help them manage their risks–with the purchase of insurance only being a part of what they want.

I think the further along we get on that path, the more value they will afford to us.

Michael Kerner, Zurich:

I think the survey clearly points to a need for increased efficiency, and for increased ease of doing business.

I take away from the survey that we need to do a better job of listening to our distribution partners and our customers, to learn more about what we can bring to the table. Listening will give us a greater understanding and ultimately a much better opportunity in every interaction with distributors and customers.

Kevin Kenny, Wells Fargo:

This is an idea that I have tossed around for 25 years, after being in public accounting–the notion of an annual renewable contract has always bothered me. We have trained customers to test us every year, unlike an attorney or accountant or banker, where a relationship is firmly established and unless your service model breaks down, you are likely to be retained.

I think the whole notion of a relationship being tested on a commoditized basis every year should change. If we could ever break that paradigm, that would be a very significant breakthrough for the industry.

However, I don't think we should get mesmerized by all the external challenges. I think the fundamentals still matter the most–building a sales culture, assembling expert teams and moving resources to the point of opportunity, and we need to do it together.

Harold Morrison Jr., Chubb:

One point that the survey reinforced for me was that we both have the same challenges, and by forging even stronger partnerships, we will be able to provide even better service to our mutual customers.

Alex Soto, InSource:

Our industry does a terrible job in promoting and defending itself.

One thing the public likes about us more than anything else is the work of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. They love that we do research to help them survive auto accidents. Anything that we do showing customers that we're the good guys is incredibly important. The same goes for the Institute For Business and Home Safety, which is all about saving people's lives and their property. Publicizing such positive work is very important.

Local agents involved in their communities can do a lot of good, but we need the resources and the national insurance company organizations to tackle that on a national scale. It is critical.

Secondly, I view my relationship with my clients as having a goodwill account with them, and I make all the deposits I can. I bring them tools. I save money. I protect them. All that goodwill can be wiped away if carriers engage in some cataclysmic changes where all of a sudden somebody in the home office says we are going to dump all of these policies and move in another direction.

Inertia is a wonderful thing. Fight the temptation to disturb the market and your clients. Be as steady as possible. Don't reinvent something that eliminates the stickiness we enjoy with our customers.

Special Reports /

Bridging The Producer-Carrier Partnership Gap

Related Stories

Recommended For You