I am reluctant to criticise colleagues in my own profession, but I read all too often the defensive positions adopted by some, one which is clearly illustrated in Graham McKean's recent letter on "Why we must fight 'obnoxious' insurers'". This attitude unfortunately perpetuates the gulf which exists between insurers and brokers at a time when both should be co-operating more than ever to achieve their mutual objectives.

Regardless of size and position in the market, insurance companies and brokers must be allowed the ability, as in any other business, to trade profitably. How this can be achieved is a matter of personal choice and what must be good for one business is not necessarily good for another.

If insurers prefer to solicit business on a direct basis, then clearly this is their own choice and will presumably attract a market which prefers to do business in this way rather than through a broker channel. It is, of course, a different matter if insurers actively solicit business which the broker has introduced, without due cause.

It cannot escape anyone's notice in the insurance industry that we live in an age of immense change . This brings ever increasing options for our customers to purchase insurance products and services, posing considerable threats to brokers and insurers alike. It is pointless wasting energy fighting change. Such energy is best employed examining how your particular business can respond and remain successful. The idea of setting up a fighting fund, as McKean suggests, is surely not the way forward.

The fundamental principles which are driving the current insurance market are based on customer expectations and choice, efficient distribution channels, control of expenses and profitability from underwriting. It is a successful business which performs well in each of these spheres. The rewards for those that succeed are potentially great, and for those who fail, potentially fatal.

As brokers, we have no automatic right to depend on insurers for our continued success, but conversely, insurers who fail to recognise the full benefits and potential of the broker market, do so to their own detriment. The market is plagued with insecurity and instability. And whilst I am sure there are many who would share McKean's cynicism, the success we are all desperate to achieve will come from co-operation rather than conflict.
--
Bill Hulse
Managing partner
Graybrook Insurance

It's quantity not quality in merger
I note both letters by Messrs Bourn and Blanc last week (Insurance Times February 3) are confused on the subject of customer care. Of course the English language develops all the time and the expressions "customer care" and "quality" mean two quite separate things.

For example, following your recent merger, your accountants instruct you to sack most of your experienced senior staff and give your claims work to a shed full of teenagers on an industrial estate with a phone system that plays Hits of the 80s.

"Customer care" (often imposed by a "quality manager") is a technical term to explain that you have fewer customers and are losing money because you need to merge again and buy a bigger shed.

You can then sack what remaining senior staff you have (not already on long-term sick leave through stress) to fund a report on "quality culture" from management consultants with a sound accountancy background. You will have "quality targets" which ensure a different teenager will answer the phone within 30 seconds, and a meaningless, random computer generated reply sent to all letters within 24 hours.

This is known in the trade as "customer responsive automated provision service", a shining example of English brilliance at achieving exactly the opposite of what they started out trying to do.

It should not be confused with living and working with your customers over many years, developing a relationship with them, understanding their needs, doing your utmost to give best advice, always putting their interests first, caring about the consequences of your advice, considering yourself as providing a service to your customers, taking pride and joy in giving the best possible service and other outdated stuff.
--
Andrew Sharpe
Penmans Solicitors
Coventry

Mother tongue not the problem
Re Miss Porter's letter about the stress of being in an overseas hospital "with possibly foreign speaking staff" (Insurance Times February 3 Sick State of Health Service).

I am quite sure that a French doctor working in France, or his/her Spanish counterpart working in Spain, would not consider himself or herself to be foreign speaking.

It is they who have to deal with foreign speaking patients!
--
James L Napier
Church of Scotland
Insurance Company
67 George Street
Edinburgh
EH2 2JG


Topics