Insurance Times asked its web subscribers for their views on the future of Imarket. The results were often surprising, sometimes contradictory but never less than interesting.

Peter Knowles, strategy and marketing director at Polaris, responds in his usual forthright fashion to some of your comments

1.Brokers feel that if they call insurers they are likely to be able to "negotiate" a premium, whereas an automated quotes solution takes away that flexibility. What processes are insurers implementing to deal with this problem?

  • Brokers still phone to negotiate. In most cases premium quoted is cheaper

  • I feel that setting up special deal arrangements with a panel of insurers will mean that negotiated deals are a thing of the past. Insurers are just providers.

    • PETER KNOWLES: Nothing in Imarket prevents brokers and insurers discussing specific risks. It may, however, not be financially sensible to do so and this is a decision for the individuals concerned. Allianz Cornhill, Norwich Union and Royal & SunAlliance are offering 10% discounts on business traded via Imarket.

    As the portal develops, we may look at adding some flexibility allowing brokers to make pricing adjustments.

    2.There is some concern that with the failure of Kinnect the time taken to implement Imarket is taking too long. Would brokers prefer to wait until the whole solution is more established before they start using it?

  • Imarket has taken too long. However, if brokers wait any longer it will never happen. They should have confidence that this will aid the industry and the insuring public and commit now

  • If brokers wait until the whole solution is established, their share of the whole market will have diminished even more as dissatisfied customers source their insurance elsewhere.

    • KNOWLES: We acknowledge that Imarket has taken too long and that expectations were raised too high initially. Creating one common interface and integrating it with all the insurers' different legacy systems is a highly complex process which has taken more time than anyone envisaged.

    Imarket is not perfect and it is not the panacea for all ills. It is, however, a massive step forward and a solid foundation on which to build. Imarket is a 'by the industry, for the industry' solution, but it will only work if everyone commits to it on all sides.

    3.Some brokers have been frustrated by the time taken for Imarket to get off the ground? Do you think there is an alternative solution?

  • There isn't a viable alternative yet, however if Imarket continues to flounder a cheaper and quicker alternative could grab its intended market

  • If the problem is that insurers cannot agree on uniform fields with Imarket then the software houses will simply develop peer-to-peer applications. Alternatively, brokers will have to key in details to each insurer's website.

    • KNOWLES: Imarket represents a trade-off: brokers using a single extranet will have fewer questions to fill in, but they will be limited to one quote.

    Brokers using Imarket will have to fill in more information, but they will only have to do this once. Even if a broker only fills in two individual extranet forms, it's still 25% shorter to fill in the one Imarket form.

    We recognise that the long data capture forms have been a problem and we are now working on a new design which will make them much quicker and easier to use.

    4.Has Imarket launched the services of most interest to brokers? If not what would you like to see included?

  • Everything on Imarket is of some interest to brokers, otherwise it wouldn't be there in the first place. However, it's confusing and product roll-outs are slow and intermittent. I would prefer to see a few simple products working really well than the current 'all things to all men' approach

  • Needs to offer more uniformity of service across the Insurers. I certainly find the services available with AXA are better than those from others.

    • KNOWLES: With eight of the UK's leading insurers on board, plus two underwriting agencies, brokers using Imarket can access nearly 80% of the total UK commercial insurance capacity (ex London).

    But we are in constant discussions with a number of other big industry names and hope to have more announcements soon.

    5.Should Polaris focus on defining and managing message standards and leave the technology programming to a specialist software house?

  • Yes. Undoubtedly the fastest way forward would be to develop and open source set of messaging standards and let the technology market do the rest. Imarket seems simply to act as a half way house between brokers and insurers acting almost as a translator between the two.

  • Please leave as little as possible with software houses. They are a drain on the industry and are profit rather than service focused.

    • 6. Does Imarket make it easier for a pure online player to launch a service direct to SMEs?

  • Yes it would make it easier but it depends on whether the insurers want to stab brokers in the back the same way that they have on household and motor business

  • Yes! And that is a real threat to brokers who are under attack from insurers and all the different direct distribution channels in all the various hidden brand names and associations such as confused.com.

    • Insurance Times Fantasy Football

    Topics