Do any of you have a good set of rules for the agents in your agency to call dibs on an account? We have been simply using the first in with a submission theory, but as we get more agents closer together I think we need more defined rules.
The problem is that one agent quoted this account last year. Since quoting another agent who is geographically closer has built a really good relationship with this account. Although the original agent was technically first in because he quoted it last year I think the other agent has a better shot at writing the business.
We have had a few disputable instances lately and I do not want our producers wasting time quoting the same accounts or arguing over accounts. I also do not want to drag the prospect into it and ask them to pick an agent. I am just looking for some guidelines we can put in place to keep things fair and efficient.
I hated dealing with this situation when I worked for a large agency. Older producers would "claim" just about every prospect in the area. I figured if they had such a great relationship with the owner... then they should have written the business at some point. We eventually went to using ACT as a main prospect database with prospects assigned to each producer. At the end of the year you could only protect 90 prospects (we are in a large metro area) and everything else was up for grabs. This kept producers from sitting on prospects that they were never going to write.
In your situation... give it to the producer that has the best opportunity to write the account.
Sticky situation, as the prior agent could get pissed about being shut out of re-looking at the account. However, I worked at a brokerage where this became an issue. One producer worked on the account one year and totally screwed it up and lost any opportunity to quote the account. Another agent in an office that was closer to the prospects home office went in the following year and did all the work necessary, and wrote the account.
The agency decided that, once a prospect is lost, it was fair game to anyone else in the agency to pursuem. (mind you, this was a large national "alphabet" house).
Hopefully, your agency management system has the flexibility to show who worked on an account previously, why it was lost or never written, and provides the ability to track activity.
In the agency where I work, if you quoted it last year, its your quote this year. If I'm not around when the risk asks for another quote and someone else submits the application, it is still my account. It's called helping each other earn a living. I help them when they are on vacation, etc. in apps, referrals, and binding quoted prospects. They also do it for me. It gives good service to the client, its good for the agency, and good for the agent.
CSP - sounds like you have some team players in your agency! I wish I was as lucky
Volstrike - I would LOVE to just give it to the agent who has the best chance of writing it, but 1) they would both argue they each would have a better chance to write it and 2) I am setting a precident to have to judge these on an individual basis in the future.
I am just looking for a 'best practice'. A hard and fast rule. Something I can put in writing that levels the playing field for all of them so they are all playing by the same rules.
Bronco: The only way to have a "hard and fast" rule is to continue using the first in. Perhaps with a qualifier that if it has not been worked (sub to even more definition) after a certain time period then it is free game for anyone.
I personally feel that using logic to arrive at whom has the best opportunity to be successful is best. Yes it does sometimes result in someone feeling they "lost" but you have to go with that route. If the "old" producer truely had a chance at writing and has been "working" on it for 3 years...he/she should have already been successful!
Good luck...this is a very tough one...but if the rules are stated in advance and applied evenly...no one should be too upset.
This situation is never easy from any perspective. I had this happen to me when I was a producer - I did all the hard work of selling the client & getting the client approved for issuance. It didn't matter that i had the solid relationship with them since another producer had prospected the account previously, it was assigned to her. That practice left a sour taste in my mouth.
It might have been better handled if the producer who had prospected the account but not written the account got a 1% split of the commission - not the entire commission for all my hard work. That I could have accepted. Have you talked to them to see what they feel is fair?
Fortunately for me, my current crop of producers seem to coexist to help each other. Someone will come across an account that another producer will better handle (for whatever reason) and they hand them off.... without getting me involved.
We are a small agency and also use the team approach. On many occasions we will split an account, particularly when our personal lines producer is trying to learn the commercial side and brings in the prospect... and when the commercial producer is cross-selling and picks up a personal lines opportunity. Everybody seems to like it. On the life insurance side we always split cases using a 20% rule... rep with the prospect gets 20%, the person that does the fact-finding gets 20%, then 20% to the prep (back-office) person, 20% for the presentation / close. Obviously, one person gets more than 20% and often they get 100%. But, it works.
An agency I worked in did this:
Pure NB: first to get it in the system and a submission in to a market has it.
Second (or third, fourth, etc) year opportunity: agent from last year has until 120 days from ex date to meet with client, get markets ready, basically do some work. If the original producer has not done anything by the time 119 days rolls around (and can't prove it somehow) than anyone has it.
Two schools of thought on continuing to work on an unsuccessul prospect: eventually you'll get the business, keep trying, build up rapport, etc. I don't buy that much, I go for the second: there is a reason you did not get the biz: uncompetitive, bad program, did not get to decision maker, hosed by client, whatever. Give someone else a shot, I think they probably have a better chance.
But then this: do you want a client who shops every year? Every two or three is better for all concerned.
