Ah, August, the dog days of summer. And what better way to catcha bit of relaxation than a lounge or hammock in the shade, somesweet iced tea and killer tunes on the iPod? Yet as I tap throughmy various playlist options, what I really want to know is whetherthe sound files are stored in MP3 or AAC format (or, heaven forbid,WMA)–last thing I need is a codec conflict, right?

Yeah, right. What it really comes down to, Mr. Jobs: I buy yourdevice, you give me my tunes and no one gets hurt.

Related: Read Chris Amrhein's July column “Want fireworks?Make like Tchaikovsky.”

We all instinctively get this. For decades sales folks haveheard, “They buy the sizzle, not the steak. Focus on benefits, notfeatures.” Or my personal favorite from way back in the '70s when Istarted as a John Hancock agent: “Last year Sears sold millions of1/4-inch drill bits; yet no one wanted a drill bit, what theywanted was 1/4-inch holes.”

So why does the world around us, including insurance, still seemdetermined to get it exactly backward?

For example, when the iPod appeared, tech pundits disdainfullydismissed it as yet more proof of Steve Jobs' long fall from hisonce true engineering genius to mere purveyor of popular tunes. Howsad that his little white gimmick would soon crash and burn in themarketplace, easily swept aside when the truly intelligent usersrealized under all that style was simply an “inferior” MP3 player.Wait until they saw the newest model from Creative or Sony!

When Windows and Apple first introduced graphical interfaces,the masters of all things ASCII howled that anyone who preferredclicking on “cute little pictures” to the ability to crank aslash-filled execution statement directly into the DOS promptcommand line must be an illiterate sheep unworthy of access to thewonders of the computer world.

These are but two of the ongoing confrontations in between“intelligent purists” and “ignorant laypeople.” Remember “Windowsversus OS2″? “VHS versus Betamax”? “Hulk Hogan versus The UltimateWarrior”? And lest we forget, an insurance equivalent: “risk ofloss versus policy language”?

Just like the engineers and programming geeks in the tech world,our industry often seems to award the highest levels of esteem tothe master of the mundane, the policy wordsmith extraordinaire andthe coverage interpretation guru. From our pre-licensing and CEcourses to our most exalted designation programs, the clear if notsole emphasis is on mastering coverage technicalities. If Descarteshad been an insurance philosopher, his famous phrase no doubt wouldhave come down to us as “I know exclusions, therefore I am.”

Full disclosure requires I admit to some contribution to thisstate of affairs. Heck, I like mucking about in the coveragedetails. For me, a new and creative drop-down provision may elicita quiet moment of analytical pleasure commensurate with a childstumbling upon a heretofore unexpected cloud of summer fireflies.Why, I've even been known to wax poetic over the implications ofthe Civil Authority provisions within the business income form–andnot the one including extra expense either, baby!

But fortunately in an earlier life I was blessed with years asan agent, actually tasked with selling said highly complex andtechnical products and services to mere laypeople possessing littleof the secret knowledge of the mystic forms. My frustrations withthe great unwashed public grew ever greater as I spent far too muchtime dashing myself against the often E&O-seminar-inspired“careful and complete explanation of all key policy provisions”rocks to so many obviously uninspired and uncaring ingrates. Didn'tthey understand how crucial understanding why a water well-drillingrig is mobile equipment and not an auto, even if permanentlyattached to a Ford pickup? How the unawareness of such a criticaldetail had the potential to wreak real havoc with the coordinationof coverages between their BAC and CGL, to say nothing of theirexcess layers? Until, of course, ISO changed the auto and CGLpolicy definition to say it was an auto, depending upon thelicensing, compulsory liability, financial responsibility or othermotor vehicle insurance laws affecting its state of licensing orprincipal garaging. Seriously, prospective clients, you need toclear your schedule for the greater part of the month, because Ihaven't even gotten to the sections on subcontractor exceptions tothe “your work” exclusion, unless the carrier has eliminated thatexception through the seemingly mandatory “optional” endorsement.And impaired property will rock your world!

Finally, my brain coalesced the vapors of consumer reality andthe truth dawned: with few exceptions, they really didn't give arip about all that technical geek speak. Basically I kept trying tointerest them in how to build an iPod, when all they wanted was aclean, easy way to get to their tunes.

Don't misread me and think I'm saying that the detail andcomplexity is unimportant. It matters a great deal, but only as ameans to an end–mitigating or eliminating the risk of loss.

Take our computer geeks. They seem to assume that people whocan't appreciate the technicalities are stupid or unworthy ofmaking the proper choices, and thus mere babes set to be taken bythe swindlers and con artists. “Linux rules, Windows drools!” istheir cry.

Quite the contrary. Users and consumers may be the only ones whotruly understand that great architecture and technical achievementonly matter when they deliver something of value. And value isalways in the eye of the beholder. What Steve Jobs seems to havemastered is the ability to see what a user will value, and thencreate a company that can master the technical details to deliverthat experience. As another example, I only care about the buildingmaterials and the talent it took to build my home in relation tohow much it makes me happy to live here. I don't have to knowanything about construction skill sets to understand that draftydoors, leaking pipes and shoddy workmanship lead to pain, expenseand misery.

Note this also encompasses the “it's all just price” mantraheard everywhere these days. If true, how does Apple consistentlycharge more–in many cases significantly more–for devices thetechnical “experts” often rate as equal, or even inferior to, othersimilar products, and still be so successful? “Hype or consumerignorance!” claim the technocrats. “I love the way this is a thingof beauty and just works!” responds the consumer, as they opentheir wallets for the latest and greatest.

For example, wireless phone companies almost universally offerdeeply discounted phones only in exchange for a 2- year agreement.You want a new phone before the agreement is up? Then pay fullprice or pay a significant penalty. But when Apple introduced thenew iPhone, AT&T was hit by tsunami of demand from currentcustomers to allow an immediate upgrade or suffer the consequences.Result? AT&T did the unthinkable (for phone companies) andcaved.

When was the last time an ISO forms revision created a flood ofclients rushing to your doors, filling your e-mail or crashing yourFacebook page demanding an immediate upgrade to the newestversions, even if midterm in the policy period? Yeah, that's what Ithought.

Bottom line: Somewhere between those who are incredibly talentedin technical coverage and policy language analysis creating greatcoverage scenarios few will understand enough to buy, and greatsales people who terrorize E&O underwriters by pushing whateversells, lies a dream. That in our industry are those like Jobs, whocan claim that middle ground with the best of both worlds: theability to connect with what the consumer wants (protection fromfinancial loss), and sufficient grasp of the technical details todeliver it. It is the ability to take every policy language detail,whatever its complexity, and answer the most basic of all consumerquestions: “So what?”

If we can use our technical prowess to answer that question, inthe words of Queen, “We are the champions, my friend!” If, however,we are seduced by our industry's incessant focus on coverage detailinto thinking mastery of same is somehow the point, then we riskour perhaps vast knowledge being best described by Shakespeare:“Full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.”

Speaking of Led Zeppelin versus Blue Cheer, back to the iPod.Rock on!