Interesting story. I guess buying a pair of shoes on line is like buying an insurance policy. You never know what you are getting until you have to use the policy or wear a pair of shoes. Responsiveness in my mind is what used to be key. Today in claims situations the carriers do not want to provide any information to anyone involved and the process seems slower than ever.
However I hesitate to draw too many parallels. For one Amazon is able to control much more of the process and has succeeded partly from cutting out the middle man. I highly doubt may people that read this website are in favor of removing the agent experience… Correct? Insurers have been trying to cut margins by selling more direct policies for years and it just doesn’t seem to work.
Also, Amazon sells a product. Select some widget, pay the price, and if said widget show up in 2-3 days have high satisfaction. In out industry a high number of insureds expect to pay the premium and when a loss occurs have the insurance company pay more than required. Without guarding against that claim inflation the company has a hard time making a profit. By itself those processes are going to lower CX scores…
While it is certainly possible that customers’ evaluations of the service provided by their insurance carrier are colored by the quality of service they receive from other companies (like Amazon), you have not empirically demonstrated that link here.
Instead, you have merely shown that customers whose claims are processed more quickly (and within the initial time estimate) are more satisfied. The statement, “If a customer believes you are wasting their time or not responding to their needs promptly enough, you stand a good chance you will lose them as a customer,” is probably no more true today than it was 50 years ago.
Has the speedy service that Amazon provides changed what it means to be served “promptly” in an absolute sense? Maybe, but you don’t show any evidence of that here. I don’t mind you using Amazon as a source of inspiration for insurance companies, but I think the claim you make early in the article would be much more compelling if you had evidence to support it.
Interesting story. I guess buying a pair of shoes on line is like buying an insurance policy. You never know what you are getting until you have to use the policy or wear a pair of shoes. Responsiveness in my mind is what used to be key. Today in claims situations the carriers do not want to provide any information to anyone involved and the process seems slower than ever.
Insurance generally consumes more of the discretionary income pie than other purchases.
However, we also cover big assets or risk areas.
Great for Amazon, pick off the points that might help us; but we can learn more from our direct competitors than from them.
Listen to the employees as well — very cheap “consulting,” with better results.
OK, points taken.
However I hesitate to draw too many parallels. For one Amazon is able to control much more of the process and has succeeded partly from cutting out the middle man. I highly doubt may people that read this website are in favor of removing the agent experience… Correct? Insurers have been trying to cut margins by selling more direct policies for years and it just doesn’t seem to work.
Also, Amazon sells a product. Select some widget, pay the price, and if said widget show up in 2-3 days have high satisfaction. In out industry a high number of insureds expect to pay the premium and when a loss occurs have the insurance company pay more than required. Without guarding against that claim inflation the company has a hard time making a profit. By itself those processes are going to lower CX scores…
While it is certainly possible that customers’ evaluations of the service provided by their insurance carrier are colored by the quality of service they receive from other companies (like Amazon), you have not empirically demonstrated that link here.
Instead, you have merely shown that customers whose claims are processed more quickly (and within the initial time estimate) are more satisfied. The statement, “If a customer believes you are wasting their time or not responding to their needs promptly enough, you stand a good chance you will lose them as a customer,” is probably no more true today than it was 50 years ago.
Has the speedy service that Amazon provides changed what it means to be served “promptly” in an absolute sense? Maybe, but you don’t show any evidence of that here. I don’t mind you using Amazon as a source of inspiration for insurance companies, but I think the claim you make early in the article would be much more compelling if you had evidence to support it.