Toops Scoops: Do Agents Need Two Trade Associations?

It's an issue that has been simmering for years: Are independent insurance agents best represented with a single trade association?

The latest wrinkle comes with the independent agents' associations in Delaware and Pennsyvania withdrawing from their affiliation with the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents starting in 2012.

Boards of both state associations cited “fiduciary responsibility” as the reason for the move, and reiterated the need for a single association.

At a time when businesses must squeeze every nickel out of their discretionary budgets, do agents really need two trade associations which are essentially focused on the same big-picture issues?

A little background:

IIABA isn't called the “Big I” for nothing. Founded in 1896, the trade started life as an association of fire insurance agents, expanding to include property-casualty agents in 1913, and has been growing ever since.

Interestingly, the PIA started in 1931 as the National Assn. of Mutual Insurance Agents, an association composed solely of agents representing mutual insurance companies–a big distinction back when stock agents accused mutuals of being “socialistic.”

(An ironic aside: In the current toxic economic atmosphere, the old stock-versus-mutual company issue is once again relevant. One of the big 2012 initiatives for NAMIC, at the request of its members, is a branding campaign emphasizing how mutual insurance companies are less beholden to Wall Street than stock companies.) 

Back in the day, Big I was best known for its lobbying war chest and clout, while PIA had carved out a reputation for advancing agent education. When I first began writing about agents, each association carried a distinct flavor: Big I members emphasized the “big,” actively promoting brand affiliation with national ad campaigns (the first spokesman was Raymond Burr!), while PIA cultivated its reputation as smaller and more personalized than Big I.

Today, with overlapping memberships and mission statements, dual membership seems redundant, especially in these economically pressing times. And it's kind of a chicken-and-egg issue: Some say insurance issues would have more clout in Congress if agents were represented by one big group; others maintain multiple associations get the message across better through repetition.

Although as a non-agent I have no say in the debate, I can state from personal experience that when two associations merge–even if both share similar members and goals–one group's identity (and typically, its leadership and core professionals) inevitably will be absorbed and subsumed by the other's. And based on the rich history and knowledge base of both Big I and PIA, that would be a shame.

However, if both organizations could somehow be blended into a marriage of equals (always a tough balancing act), the current economic climate might make now the perfect time to do it.

I'd love to hear from our agent readers on this issue. What do you think?