Initially there were holdout companies that were forced into credit scoring as all the low credit scores flowed to them. I see this as a trend that will eventually force all drivers to have their snapshots taken as the only way out of what will become an adverse selection pool. Credit scoring, snapshots and other data recording devices, GPS tracking, centralized medical records data banks, traffic and security cameras, etc, etc, etc.. Does anyone else feel threatened by the erosion of privacy? or should I become just another sheep following the heard?
What a whiner. Whenever something new is introduced to the consumer, many independent agents are the first to worry about how they will lose business rather than how to embrace the technology to help them compete against captive channels. It’s not “required” to buy this way, but rather an option. Think of it as a product to sell to every insured who feels they pay too much for auto insurance but “I swear, I only drive to church and the grocery store!”
Well, now they have a way to prove it, and agents are more competitive because of it.
I guess I side with Bob. However, rating like this makes more sense to me then giving discounts for prior insurance, credit scores and grade point averages. This product “sounds like” it will be able to rate based on how the car is really driven. I am in favor of this if it provides consumers with better rates based on their driving habits.
There are plenty of companies that still do not look at insurance score to help determine the rate. Its up to the companies to determine if the investment is worth it. It costs insurance companies to be able to pull insurance scores, and if the client happens to have a bad insurance score, they run the risk of losing the business to someome who doesn’t check insurance scores and thus has a possible lower rate for that client because of that fact.
Just because someone isn’t against credit scoring, security cameras, snapshot, GPS tracking, that doesn’t mean that they are “just another sheep following the heard”.
Credit rateing is “MUD” made up data. Snapshot could be away to reduce the cost of insurance. Being a former independent agent and haveing progressive as one of our commpanies they are a profit driven company. In Nevada the auto rates are 30 to 35% to high, I see a nich!! this can allow them to steal business from the other insurance carriers. What we need is an elected INSURANCE COMMISSIONER WHO REPRESENTS THE CONSUMER AND NOT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY!!
I think my point was missed. As we give up more and more information about ourselves then our data defines us. Our personal freedom is curtailed for the pursuit of a lower rate. Suppose someone quits volunteering because it drives up their mileage (rates)? Are we better off? My comment was more of a lament against the gradual erosion of privacy whether it is caused by credit reports or “Snapshot”, I believe the end does not always justify the means.
“Snapshot” is completely voluntary. Using your credit to purchase things in voluntary. Going outside where there are security cameras is voluntary.
Even if all auto insurers require a snapshot type program, its still not “taking away personal freedom” Driving is voluntary. You don’t have to do anything of these things. No one is forcing you to drive. All this snapshot program is attempting to do is reward the people that are statiscally better risks (people who drive less, don’t drive late at night, ect ect) and yet somehow you still seem to take issue with it.
Snapshot is a program to attain, achieve or continue profitability for Progressive by identifying and pricing for exposures – it has nothing to do with rewarding people. I do believe in capitalism but as I also see the need to guard against complete government and corporate control in the shaping of our behavior.
You’re kidding, right? Why can’t snapshot do both? Both identify and price exposure properly to insure a healthly bottomline AND reward their clients? How is “Hey, if you drive less and more safely, we will lower your rates” some kind of corperate scheme to control the populus?
Are you against proof of prior insurance discounts as well?
Are you an agent? I am and I can not tell you how many times I heard people telling me that they bearly drive and that they think they should get a lower rate for it, and I completely agree. If you rarely drive, you have less of a chance of causing an accident then someone who is on the road constantly. Snapshot is a way for those clients to show why they should be paying a lower rate.
I can see were arguing apples and oranges, I think we all need to just be careful what we wish for.
March 15, 2011 at 9:49 am
Mr. Solvent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What’s wrong with an odometer reading every 6 months? Unfortunately it’s not just about miles. It’s about when you drive, how you drive, if you have panic stopping situations.
Sure it’s voluntary now, but what happens when it becomes standard practice, like credit? Should the Doctor working midnights pay more than Sally Homemaker if they have a comparable driving and risk profile?
March 16, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Insurance girl says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What insurance companies do you represent that do NOT use credit scoring?
barely drive? what you have not put in consideration is how many accidents actually happen close to home! just because you drive less than 3000 miles a year does not preclude you in having more accidents. it’s more likely that you will have an accident closer to home.
credit = more likely to file a claim, well, i disagree… it matters not whether i have a low credit score to file a claim.. because i paid for the service provided, i can use it… so why should it matter that i have a low credit score? it’s almost like stating, well, let’s take a look at your salary… it should be based on my driving ability and not if i am more likely to file a claim. afterall, i can make a mess on my carpet and i could either run the vacuum every day or every other week.
I don’t want to get into the old credit nonsense argument but here’s what we know. If you drive under 7,500 miles per year you’re less likely to file a claim. More miles = more opportunity to have an accident. I don’t like this device because it’s more than just miles.
On the credit side of things, we’ve already got location, age, claims, and driving record. Many of these things directly correlate with a credit score. Studies have found particular zip codes within communities that have eerily similar insurance scores. Since we’ve already rated for that risk in territory I don’t see the need to add the extra layer. Are credit scores racist? Nope it’s all just numbers. Do they discriminate based on socioeconomic conditions? You had better believe it.
Is credit scoring a tool used because people with higher credit scores are more responsible drivers? Or, it that people with lower credit scores are more likely to miss payments and have lapses/reinstatements/rewrites.
I know some carriers will require payment in full if a credit score is too low. I don’t think I have a problem with that.
I do have a problem with requiring someone with a low credit score to pay in full. I have a problem with requring ANYONE to pay in full for 6 months or more for their car insurance. The reason being is because if you require someone to pay in full for 6 months or a year, and they don’t have it, they will just go without insurance and pray they don’t get caught. Sure, that happens now, but if you make it harder and harder for the lower income people to buy insurance (I am not saying that low credirt score = low income), in theory, the amount of uninsured drivers will go up. Let’s face facts, there will be people that will still drive, even if they can’t “afford” insurance. They will justify it all day long on why they don’t have insurance, but if we make is easier for them to purchase insurance (such as allowing flexible pay-plans) then there is less and less excuse for them not to have insurance.
The snapshot program certainly isn’t for everybody. But if you’re one of those people who drive less than 50 miles a week, I would definitely look into it.
Snapshot isn’t designed for the typical high risk driver, nor does it have to be used on all vehicles in a household. It is an OPTION. Even Progressive admits that that it shouldn’t be offered to everyone. Personally, I think that it will be a lot easier to explain to clients than credit scoring or some of the other “black box” algorithms that other companies use and abuse.
I like the idea of having something new to talk about with clients. I like the idea of something new to advertise. I like the idea that GEICO doesn’thave it yet. I like the idea that consumers may call or stop by our office to learn about Snapshot, and even if it isn’t a good fit for them, I have a chance to sell one of our other companies. I like the cutting-edgetechnology, which will be of interest to the young adult clients, and many of the engineers in my marketplace.
So, if I had it available, would I sell it proudly? Yes! But not
exclusively. It is one more tool in my independent agent toolbox that allows me to distinguish myself from the direct writers and captives.
what about when drivers who don’t use this device? Will they automatically be considered risky drivers and be percieved as those who don’t want their risky habbits seen? Will this drive up their rates eventually?
Safeco has a similar device for your “Teen”. Problem with it is that it doesn’t differentiate who’s driving the car. Now your insurance company (and your wife, with Safeco) will know when and how many times you stop at the liquor store, when and how many times you drive through the wrong section of town, when and how many times your car is stopped at the “no-tell” motel, when and how many times you car is at the “gentlemen’s” club; not to mention how many times you drive over the speed limit.
In states like CA where estimated annual mileage is the rating basis for usage, this type of appraoch benefits all parties: insured, agenta and company. The insured doesn’t have to worry about odometer readings; the agent can simply serve as the middleperson, freeing him/herself from needless scrutiny; and, the company goes by the numbers that are supplied via the tracking device and saves tons of correspondence. Seems like a win-win-win propostion.
I wouldn’t think so newguy because there would be too small of group to bring that kind of significance. Like I said, this program is only for a small percentage of people.
new guy, this won’t affect risky drivers at all. to read more about how it works, I’ve attached a link to my latest blog article. This you give you better understanding of how the snapshot program works (click on my name above). the main two things they are looking for are people who don’t drive a lot and people who don’t stop suddenly very often. other than that, the device can’t do much for identifying risky driving behavior.
Please update your websites to include logging in to a customer’s policy to view the results of the snapshot device installed in their car. I have been searching around and cannot find 1t.
NO MENTION ON LITERATURE SENT WITH DEVICE. ALSO NO MENTION ON TELEPHONE LISTING WHEN I PHONED 1-800-PROGRESSIVE. INCIDENTALLY IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU PUT THE NUMBERS UBDERNEATH THE NAME PROGRESSIVE. PLEASE REPLY — RIGHT NOW I AM ON LINE HOLDING
Initially there were holdout companies that were forced into credit scoring as all the low credit scores flowed to them. I see this as a trend that will eventually force all drivers to have their snapshots taken as the only way out of what will become an adverse selection pool. Credit scoring, snapshots and other data recording devices, GPS tracking, centralized medical records data banks, traffic and security cameras, etc, etc, etc.. Does anyone else feel threatened by the erosion of privacy? or should I become just another sheep following the heard?
What a whiner. Whenever something new is introduced to the consumer, many independent agents are the first to worry about how they will lose business rather than how to embrace the technology to help them compete against captive channels. It’s not “required” to buy this way, but rather an option. Think of it as a product to sell to every insured who feels they pay too much for auto insurance but “I swear, I only drive to church and the grocery store!”
Well, now they have a way to prove it, and agents are more competitive because of it.
I guess I side with Bob. However, rating like this makes more sense to me then giving discounts for prior insurance, credit scores and grade point averages. This product “sounds like” it will be able to rate based on how the car is really driven. I am in favor of this if it provides consumers with better rates based on their driving habits.
@Bob
There are plenty of companies that still do not look at insurance score to help determine the rate. Its up to the companies to determine if the investment is worth it. It costs insurance companies to be able to pull insurance scores, and if the client happens to have a bad insurance score, they run the risk of losing the business to someome who doesn’t check insurance scores and thus has a possible lower rate for that client because of that fact.
Just because someone isn’t against credit scoring, security cameras, snapshot, GPS tracking, that doesn’t mean that they are “just another sheep following the heard”.
Credit rateing is “MUD” made up data. Snapshot could be away to reduce the cost of insurance. Being a former independent agent and haveing progressive as one of our commpanies they are a profit driven company. In Nevada the auto rates are 30 to 35% to high, I see a nich!! this can allow them to steal business from the other insurance carriers. What we need is an elected INSURANCE COMMISSIONER WHO REPRESENTS THE CONSUMER AND NOT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY!!
I think my point was missed. As we give up more and more information about ourselves then our data defines us. Our personal freedom is curtailed for the pursuit of a lower rate. Suppose someone quits volunteering because it drives up their mileage (rates)? Are we better off? My comment was more of a lament against the gradual erosion of privacy whether it is caused by credit reports or “Snapshot”, I believe the end does not always justify the means.
“Snapshot” is completely voluntary. Using your credit to purchase things in voluntary. Going outside where there are security cameras is voluntary.
Even if all auto insurers require a snapshot type program, its still not “taking away personal freedom” Driving is voluntary. You don’t have to do anything of these things. No one is forcing you to drive. All this snapshot program is attempting to do is reward the people that are statiscally better risks (people who drive less, don’t drive late at night, ect ect) and yet somehow you still seem to take issue with it.
Snapshot is a program to attain, achieve or continue profitability for Progressive by identifying and pricing for exposures – it has nothing to do with rewarding people. I do believe in capitalism but as I also see the need to guard against complete government and corporate control in the shaping of our behavior.
You’re kidding, right? Why can’t snapshot do both? Both identify and price exposure properly to insure a healthly bottomline AND reward their clients? How is “Hey, if you drive less and more safely, we will lower your rates” some kind of corperate scheme to control the populus?
Are you against proof of prior insurance discounts as well?
Are you an agent? I am and I can not tell you how many times I heard people telling me that they bearly drive and that they think they should get a lower rate for it, and I completely agree. If you rarely drive, you have less of a chance of causing an accident then someone who is on the road constantly. Snapshot is a way for those clients to show why they should be paying a lower rate.
I can see were arguing apples and oranges, I think we all need to just be careful what we wish for.
What’s wrong with an odometer reading every 6 months? Unfortunately it’s not just about miles. It’s about when you drive, how you drive, if you have panic stopping situations.
Sure it’s voluntary now, but what happens when it becomes standard practice, like credit? Should the Doctor working midnights pay more than Sally Homemaker if they have a comparable driving and risk profile?
What insurance companies do you represent that do NOT use credit scoring?
all of my carriers do. that’s for sure
barely drive? what you have not put in consideration is how many accidents actually happen close to home! just because you drive less than 3000 miles a year does not preclude you in having more accidents. it’s more likely that you will have an accident closer to home.
credit = more likely to file a claim, well, i disagree… it matters not whether i have a low credit score to file a claim.. because i paid for the service provided, i can use it… so why should it matter that i have a low credit score? it’s almost like stating, well, let’s take a look at your salary… it should be based on my driving ability and not if i am more likely to file a claim. afterall, i can make a mess on my carpet and i could either run the vacuum every day or every other week.
I don’t want to get into the old credit nonsense argument but here’s what we know. If you drive under 7,500 miles per year you’re less likely to file a claim. More miles = more opportunity to have an accident. I don’t like this device because it’s more than just miles.
On the credit side of things, we’ve already got location, age, claims, and driving record. Many of these things directly correlate with a credit score. Studies have found particular zip codes within communities that have eerily similar insurance scores. Since we’ve already rated for that risk in territory I don’t see the need to add the extra layer. Are credit scores racist? Nope it’s all just numbers. Do they discriminate based on socioeconomic conditions? You had better believe it.
This device can help determine one’s driving habits.
As for credit scoring, I think there is plenty of room in the market to have both insurance scored and non-insurance scored companies out there.
Is credit scoring a tool used because people with higher credit scores are more responsible drivers? Or, it that people with lower credit scores are more likely to miss payments and have lapses/reinstatements/rewrites.
I know some carriers will require payment in full if a credit score is too low. I don’t think I have a problem with that.
I do have a problem with requiring someone with a low credit score to pay in full. I have a problem with requring ANYONE to pay in full for 6 months or more for their car insurance. The reason being is because if you require someone to pay in full for 6 months or a year, and they don’t have it, they will just go without insurance and pray they don’t get caught. Sure, that happens now, but if you make it harder and harder for the lower income people to buy insurance (I am not saying that low credirt score = low income), in theory, the amount of uninsured drivers will go up. Let’s face facts, there will be people that will still drive, even if they can’t “afford” insurance. They will justify it all day long on why they don’t have insurance, but if we make is easier for them to purchase insurance (such as allowing flexible pay-plans) then there is less and less excuse for them not to have insurance.
The snapshot program certainly isn’t for everybody. But if you’re one of those people who drive less than 50 miles a week, I would definitely look into it.
Snapshot isn’t designed for the typical high risk driver, nor does it have to be used on all vehicles in a household. It is an OPTION. Even Progressive admits that that it shouldn’t be offered to everyone. Personally, I think that it will be a lot easier to explain to clients than credit scoring or some of the other “black box” algorithms that other companies use and abuse.
I like the idea of having something new to talk about with clients. I like the idea of something new to advertise. I like the idea that GEICO doesn’thave it yet. I like the idea that consumers may call or stop by our office to learn about Snapshot, and even if it isn’t a good fit for them, I have a chance to sell one of our other companies. I like the cutting-edgetechnology, which will be of interest to the young adult clients, and many of the engineers in my marketplace.
So, if I had it available, would I sell it proudly? Yes! But not
exclusively. It is one more tool in my independent agent toolbox that allows me to distinguish myself from the direct writers and captives.
what about when drivers who don’t use this device? Will they automatically be considered risky drivers and be percieved as those who don’t want their risky habbits seen? Will this drive up their rates eventually?
Safeco has a similar device for your “Teen”. Problem with it is that it doesn’t differentiate who’s driving the car. Now your insurance company (and your wife, with Safeco) will know when and how many times you stop at the liquor store, when and how many times you drive through the wrong section of town, when and how many times your car is stopped at the “no-tell” motel, when and how many times you car is at the “gentlemen’s” club; not to mention how many times you drive over the speed limit.
In states like CA where estimated annual mileage is the rating basis for usage, this type of appraoch benefits all parties: insured, agenta and company. The insured doesn’t have to worry about odometer readings; the agent can simply serve as the middleperson, freeing him/herself from needless scrutiny; and, the company goes by the numbers that are supplied via the tracking device and saves tons of correspondence. Seems like a win-win-win propostion.
I wouldn’t think so newguy because there would be too small of group to bring that kind of significance. Like I said, this program is only for a small percentage of people.
new guy, this won’t affect risky drivers at all. to read more about how it works, I’ve attached a link to my latest blog article. This you give you better understanding of how the snapshot program works (click on my name above). the main two things they are looking for are people who don’t drive a lot and people who don’t stop suddenly very often. other than that, the device can’t do much for identifying risky driving behavior.
Please update your websites to include logging in to a customer’s policy to view the results of the snapshot device installed in their car. I have been searching around and cannot find 1t.
NO MENTION ON LITERATURE SENT WITH DEVICE. ALSO NO MENTION ON TELEPHONE LISTING WHEN I PHONED 1-800-PROGRESSIVE. INCIDENTALLY IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU PUT THE NUMBERS UBDERNEATH THE NAME PROGRESSIVE. PLEASE REPLY — RIGHT NOW I AM ON LINE HOLDING