Daily sales & marketing tips for insurance professionals

We just added a new article to the resource center that may interest you: Tips for Email Mastery.

Email is fast becoming (or already is) the dominant medium for communication. Call it impersonal, call it lazy, email is not going anywhere, so working to improve your writing skills is an endeavor that will bring significant rewards.

So check out these Tips for Email Mastery. And learn how to:

• Write better subject lines
• Set the right tone
• Get a response

While it’s not essential that you wax poetic in your every electronic correspondence, it is essential that you communicate clearly and persuasively. As legendary copywriter Donna Baier Stein said, “Response is the end goal of everything you write.”

Email can be a great way to get in touch with prospects in clients, filling them in on a new product or gently reminding them that renewal time is near. But how can you make sure your next email campaign generates a few sales leads? Copywriting guru Tom Chandler has a few tips:

1. Don’t ignore the subject line (This can determine whether a recipient opens it…or deletes it)
2. “Write tight” (Short chunks of text with pertinent info)
3. Test before you send (Send it to your private email address to see how it looks)

Also important: Let your readers opt-out of your emails and newsletters. As Tom points out, some of it’s legal…but most of it’s just good marketing.

And, if you really want to have a successful email marketing campaign, hire some professionals. If you don’t want to hire a full-time creative team, look for freelance writers and graphic artists that can help you put your next email together.

Read more email tips from Tom here.

[Previously]:
7 Tips for Email Marketing Campaigns
Is Your Netiquette Turning Customers Off?
The Problem with Newsletters
What Should Your Marketing Message Say?
Poor Writing Skills Cost Companies Time and Money

Happy Monday, y’all. I hope a phenomenal weekend was had by all and that you have, by now, watched the first Agent Blog Wrap-Up featuring Aurora Borealis. The fan mail is already streaming in. I have a feeling Aurora Borealis is going to take off from here.

Once you’ve watched the video, don’t forget to leave a comment on last Wednesday’s post. You could $100. So far no one’s posted anything, making your chances of winning…well, pretty awesome.

I’ve spent most of this afternoon reading up on insurance news and various hot topics through my favorite sales and marketing blogs. A couple things piqued my interest but not enough to send me into a 700-word diatribe. So without further ado, here are today’s links:

Not Much Employer Backing for HSAs [The Health Care Blog]
Sidecars (relating to reinsurance) [Specialty Insurance Blog]
Minn. Boy Sues Parents Over Injuries Sustained in Accident [Insurance Journal] Make sure to check out David Rossmiller’s stellar commentary of this story here.

I’m running short on time this afternoon, but did notice the developing auto insurance news from California: the DMV has sent out more than 180,000 letters over the past two months warning uninsured drivers to provide proof of insurance–or else.

A motorist who is given a suspension warning has 30 days to buy insurance or show proof of coverage to avoid suspension. Ignoring the notice could lead to fines exceeding $1,000 and seizure of the vehicle if a motorist is cited for driving with the registration suspended.

Check out the full story via the Insurance Journal here.

Check out this week’s insurance blog wrap up here.

Homeowners in Hawaii who have taken precautions and steps to strengthen their homes against hurricanes may be eligible for grant money from the state.

According to the Insurance Journal, qualified homeowners could stand to get one-third of their costs covered by the Loss Mitigation Grant Program, which will begin next month. State Insurance Commissioner J.P. Schmidt said that about $4 million is available for the program this year, and an additional $2 million will be available next year. The goal, Schmidt said, is to increase state protection against natural disasters, as well as to lessen the impact of those disasters.

While a more in-depth description of the program will be available via the Web in October, IJ reports that eligibility requirements include things like foundation strengthening, roof wood sheathing fastening and roof-to-wall restraint ties.

Thumbs up, Hawaii. This sounds like a great way to protect properties and encourage residents to be proactive in disaster prevention and protection. Well done.

Earlier this week, Riskprof provided some commentary about the issues facing the New Jersey auto insurance market and the serious savings NJ drivers have reaped as a result of the deregulated market.

The post provides some context via this article from The New York Times, part of which reads:

Some of New Jersey’s worst drivers are paying more than before and some drivers have experienced little, if any, change in their premium costs. But agents around the state say costs have fallen for most of their customers and many are paying as much as 30 percent to 40 percent less. Even some drivers with poor records are saving money. Over all, state regulators say, drivers have saved more than $500 million since the regulatory controls were relaxed.

Check out Prof’s post here and see if you can note the similarities between the New Jersey auto insurance market and the Florida home insurance market. Interesting indeed.

Fellow InsureMe blogger, Jeb Foster, recently posted some good news over at the Insurance Blog: 90 percent of homeowners in Louisiana and Mississippi are satisfied with how their insurers handled their post-Katrina claims. Furthermore, only two percent of post-Katrina claims are in dispute.

According to a press release from the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.), other positive highlights include:

• Insurers have paid out over $15.5 billion to homeowners in Mississippi and Louisiana
• Claim settlement rates are over 94 percent in both states
• Claim payments equal 11 percent of state income in Louisiana and 10 percent in Mississippi.

In his post, Jeb hits on three significant takeaways from the I.I.I. report, one of them being that insurers should consider throwing some of their huge profits at PR campaigns to negate negative media coverage and highlight their Gulf Coast successes.

I have to say I’m in agreement here. And while I also think there’s something to be said about being humble and having the integrity to realize that doing the right thing doesn’t always mean receiving over-the-top recognition, I think the industry would do well to stand up to negative media attention and remind people of all the good that’s happening. How will consumers learn otherwise?

I’m anxious to get an insurer’s point of view here. Leave your thoughts via comments and let the discussion begin!

[Related post]:
Can The Insurance Industry Turn It Around?

The home insurance drama continues.

In an article reported by The Advocate in Louisiana, Allstate has officially ticked off Insurance Commissioner, Jim Donelon.

The mega-insurer says that Louisiana state law allows the company to drop basic hurricane coverage–including hail and wind damange–for 30,000 policyholders in 18 coastal parishes. Donelon maintains that a state consumer protection law prevents insurance companies from changing or dropping a policy if a homeowner has been insured for at least three years and filed no more than two claims not considered “acts of God”.

Allstate’s legal representative, Lorrie Brouse, said that the law deals only with policy cancellations and nonrenewals.

“We’re not disputing the statue. We’re saying what we’re planning to do doesn’t apply [to it].”

In his rebuke, Commissioner Donelon said that the consumer law doesn’t allow insurers to “gut” policies and that Allstate wrote policies with full knowledge of that law. He expects the issue to be settled by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Check out the full story courtesy of the Insurance Journal here; also be sure to take a look at the thread of comments following the article. Feel free to leave your thoughts and impressions via comments. I’ll keep an eye out for updates and post them here!

[POST AMENDED AND UPDATED 7.31.2006]

[8.2.2006] Check out an update of this story via the Insurance Journal, here.

I found brief op-ed piece by way of The Desert Sun newspaper (Palm Springs, Calif.) this morning regarding Proposition 103, which more or less proscribes the use of ZIP codes in private auto insurance underwriting guidelines–instead using a policyholder’s driving record, the number of miles driven annually, and years of driving experience to determine rates.

Prop. 103 happened onto the scene in 1989 after Californians noticed a sizeable disparity in insurance rates based solely on ZIP code. According to the editorial, in a quick survey of one insurance company, yearly rates in Palm Springs were higher by $326 than in Palm Desert’s 92255 delivery area. Conversely, residents in nearby La Quinta saw cheaper rates by over $200.

As a result of Prop. 103, AAA now plans to base its rates on the abovementioned criteria, giving ZIP codes in the back seat.

Insurance companies, not surprisingly, have opposed Prop. 103 from the beginning, saying that ZIP codes are an essential factor in assessing risk and determining cost. The Desert Sun admits that where a policyholder lives can have an affect on their risk, saying, “[...] Where one lives has some bearing on the potential for an accident and auto thefts. Communities with more inexperienced drivers and heavily traveled roads often do see high accident rates. Some communities suffer higher crime rates.”

But does a driver’s ZIP code really warrant increased car insurance rates?

The Sun contends that ZIP code is pretty irrelevant when compared to other factors.

By far what determines if one will file an insurance claim are other factors. More experienced drivers usually have low accident rates as they are better able to avoid and respond to a road hazard, both state and national transportation statistics show. In addition, those who drive more miles usually have high accident rates as they put themselves in harm’s way more frequently.

Indeed, many people go years with out an accident despite living an an area where collisions are frequent. Requiring that good driver to pay a higher rate hardly is fair or equitable.

The editorial ends with a call to action: for other insurance companies to quit fighting Proposition 103 and follow AAA’s lead.

I’m inclined to agree with the editorial, much as I’ve sided with consumers on underwriting issues in the past. It occurred to me this morning that if insurers can tell us that they look at claims on a “case-by-case basis”, why can’t consumers demand that insurers set rates on a case-by-case basis, rather than lumping drivers into broad categories like ZIP code, occupation and education level?

I’m sure someone has an opposing viewpoint. I’m all ears.

According to the Insurance Journal, Vermont’s legislature has passed a bill making insurance fraud a specific crime, leaving only Alabama, Oregon and Virginia without insurance fraud laws.

If Vermont governor signs the measure, it would take effect on July 1 and criminalize:

• bogus claims by policyholders
• fraud by insurers (like the sale of fake insurance)
• scams by agents (such as stealing client premiums)
• scams by public adjusters (such as claim inflation)

Lying on insurance applications won’t be covered by the measure, notes IJ, and prosecutors would have to cite other criminal law in order to convict a policyholder of falsifying application information.

So…I hate to sound like an incompetent jerk about this, but I was quite surprised to learn that insurance fraud isn’t a “specific crime” in all U.S. states. What did Vermont do before this? “You sold fake insurance? Well, that’s not cool, Bob. We’re going to politely ask you to please stop selling fake insurance. We hope you consider our request.”

Seems to me if there’s such a thing as a National Insurance Crime Bureau to deal with insurance fraud, and if insurance fraud is robbing the country of $80 billion per year, insurance fraud ought to be considered a “specific crime” in every state. I’m not totally sure what a “specific” crime is either. A crime is a crime, right?

$80 billion could buy a lot of shoes be used for great things, is all I’m saying. Seems strange that Alabama, Oregon and Virginia are just hanging out without fraud laws. Sort of like driving cars without built-in seatbelts. Just doesn’t seem right.