Financial insurance company marketing firms hash out bland advertising.
See how one marketing firm develops a financial marketing idea designed to knockout traditional insurance company compensation.
Look through a financial or insurance industry trade publication and focus on the ads.
Insurance marketing firms compete for brokers with emphasis on financial commissions.
One financial insurance company pays 75% for term life insurance.
For another company, commissions hit 80% payout.
Not to be outdone a third offers a financial incentive of 90% commission for selling that insurance company plan.
This same practice is done for financial insurance company competition of annuities.
With the life insurance plans the marketing firm advertises, rarely are the renewals mentioned.
Therefore a company pay 5% higher compensation the first year, might pay renewals at a 5% lower rate the second year.
You would think that financial insurance company executives would get the idea that many brokers replace the business they wrote the first year for financial reasons.
Then the broker once again receives a high first year compensation versus a lowly renewal fee.
Property Casualty insurance company compensation planners developed a plan that discourages replacing the business you wrote with another carrier when it comes up for renewal.
A writing agent typically receives a commission of 15% to 20% on the car and homeowner policy they write.
Next year the same insurance company again pays 15% to 20% for the second year premium.
The incentive for an agent marketing a new company to this client makes no sense.
Life and financial insurance companies marketing life insurance plans have little excuse for not re-evaluating their 100 year old system of first year commissions and next year renewals.
This is especially true, when you consider how many life insurance claims are paid within the first two policy years compared to car and home insurance.
Greed by the insurance company causes a chain reaction to the agent or broker to also get greedy for their personal financial reasons.
Finally I reviewed an advertisement by a relatively unknown to me, insurance company marketing firm.
The company had a financial rating of "A" and not "A+" which to a producer viewing recent economic turmoil is no big deal.
The advertising caught my eye with two great ideas.
They were doing the unusual practice of having agents financially serve the middle class market.
Almost every competitor focuses on marketing to the affluent market.
The bullseye however was the compensation plan.
A financial marketing idea that struck dead center was an insurance company not following the other sheep, but wanting to be innovative.
Writing a competitive universal life product through this marketing firm would produce commissions like no other.
The broker would receive 80% commission the first year and another 80% commission the second year.
You can bet this insurance company will have very little insurance replaced by another insurer the second year.
The financial reward is so enticing; I almost forgot that I am an advisor and not a licensed seller, so I put down the phone.
I hope that for the sake of a financial insurance company marketing firm, more insurers will follow the lead.
Unless this advertising was a big misprint, I see it as a rare win-win-win situation for company, marketer, and producer.
See how one marketing firm develops a financial marketing idea designed to knockout traditional insurance company compensation.
Look through a financial or insurance industry trade publication and focus on the ads.
Insurance marketing firms compete for brokers with emphasis on financial commissions.
One financial insurance company pays 75% for term life insurance.
For another company, commissions hit 80% payout.
Not to be outdone a third offers a financial incentive of 90% commission for selling that insurance company plan.
This same practice is done for financial insurance company competition of annuities.
With the life insurance plans the marketing firm advertises, rarely are the renewals mentioned.
Therefore a company pay 5% higher compensation the first year, might pay renewals at a 5% lower rate the second year.
You would think that financial insurance company executives would get the idea that many brokers replace the business they wrote the first year for financial reasons.
Then the broker once again receives a high first year compensation versus a lowly renewal fee.
Property Casualty insurance company compensation planners developed a plan that discourages replacing the business you wrote with another carrier when it comes up for renewal.
A writing agent typically receives a commission of 15% to 20% on the car and homeowner policy they write.
Next year the same insurance company again pays 15% to 20% for the second year premium.
The incentive for an agent marketing a new company to this client makes no sense.
Life and financial insurance companies marketing life insurance plans have little excuse for not re-evaluating their 100 year old system of first year commissions and next year renewals.
This is especially true, when you consider how many life insurance claims are paid within the first two policy years compared to car and home insurance.
Greed by the insurance company causes a chain reaction to the agent or broker to also get greedy for their personal financial reasons.
Finally I reviewed an advertisement by a relatively unknown to me, insurance company marketing firm.
The company had a financial rating of "A" and not "A+" which to a producer viewing recent economic turmoil is no big deal.
The advertising caught my eye with two great ideas.
They were doing the unusual practice of having agents financially serve the middle class market.
Almost every competitor focuses on marketing to the affluent market.
The bullseye however was the compensation plan.
A financial marketing idea that struck dead center was an insurance company not following the other sheep, but wanting to be innovative.
Writing a competitive universal life product through this marketing firm would produce commissions like no other.
The broker would receive 80% commission the first year and another 80% commission the second year.
You can bet this insurance company will have very little insurance replaced by another insurer the second year.
The financial reward is so enticing; I almost forgot that I am an advisor and not a licensed seller, so I put down the phone.
I hope that for the sake of a financial insurance company marketing firm, more insurers will follow the lead.
Unless this advertising was a big misprint, I see it as a rare win-win-win situation for company, marketer, and producer.
SHARE
