The customer seemed to appreciate receiving a policy that included all changes. I, on the other hand, had a problem with it. Besides issuing a new policy, the carrier generated a separate copy of the policy for each lienholder named, even though the changes did not impact any of the 29 other lienholders.

The first time I received a box full of policies from the carrier after a simple change, I thought it was pretty funny. I shook my head and laughed at how inefficient the carrier was. In an era before heightened privacy concerns, those copies went in the trash.

After the third box arrived, I started getting disgusted. This carrier clearly was wasting money, and, at the same time, tightening the terms of our contingency agreement, reducing our commissions and transferring to us the cost of new business MVRs.

Never one to mince words, I challenged the carrier about these changes, which turned out to be the start of a dramatic cost shifting that continues today. I was told that operating costs were increasing, and they had to balance the cost shift between policyholders and agents.

Needless to say, this did not sit well with our agency. The next few boxes of policies weren't trashed but were sent to our marketing representative instead. I'd love to say the endorsement practice immediately was resolved, but it wasn't.

After discussing it with the marketing representative, underwriting manager and, finally, branch manager, I gave up. As one little agency in Kansas, we could not shape how an insurer operated, even though I could see and prove that its inefficiencies were costing both of us money.

Today, the battle rages on. Most carriers seem to believe the path to internal efficiency requires shifting tasks to agents. So, agents are responsible for much more of the work necessary to service and maintain accounts. In an era when agencies are more highly automated and efficient, carriers think this is reasonable.

The problem is that carriers have not only shifted work, but they have, at the same time, made agency efficiency more elusive by requiring us to enter new business, changes and claims into their computer systems for them. We must enter data into our own systems, and then turn around and do it again, using their Web sites.

Why do they insist on creating this extra work for us? I think many carriers mistakenly believe that if we make the effort to enter data into their Web sites, especially for new business, we won't take the time to enter it again into another carrier's. Think about it.

How would you make independent agents think like a captive agent? You can't. But you can make them work like one, by forcing them to allocate time and effort.

Carriers are making agents choose between writing more business with one carrier and providing multi-carrier quotes to fewer prospects. Requiring that business flow via Web sites effectively has taken away our ability to do comparative rating.

If this is news to you as an agency principal or manager, then perhaps you should spend more time with your customer service representatives to see which they're choosing–quotes for more prospects or more quotes for each. Whether they, or you, realize it, they make this choice every day, all day long.

Now the Good News

The good news is that the fight to operate both efficiently and as a true independent agent, fulfilling the promise to quote multiple carriers and coverages, doesn't need to be waged alone, and it does not involve every carrier in the market. More enlightened carriers already provide agents with what we call “real-time interface.”

A real-time transaction is defined by agency technology advocates as one that begins and ends in the agent's management system, and returns the desired information–a quotation, endorsement, billing or claim inquiry, for instance–directly back to the agency system. Agents need not access a carrier's Web site as a separate step, nor wait for a download to populate the agency management system with the new data.

What causes some carriers to see value in real time, while others can't? One key factor, I believe, shows up in an experience related to me by a fellow agent. The agent asked his largest carrier why it wasn't offering real-time quote and issue. The carrier responded, “We don't want to be spreadsheeted.”

Spreadsheets Happen

I suspect carriers that fear comparative rating–or spreadsheeting, as they call it–believe they have little or nothing more to offer than price. They have failed to create an identity, both internally and externally, that differentiates them from the competition. So, they fear competition.

The irony is that carriers should know that, as independent agents, we already spreadsheet quotes for our prospects. In any case, this agent's response to the carrier was right on target. He said, “Fine, if you do not want to be spreadsheeted, I can guarantee you won't be on any of the coverage and price spreadsheets I present to my prospects and customers.”

Until all carriers hear this kind of response, agents will be burdened with some companies pushing their operational inefficiencies back onto us. It's time for all agents to ask carrier representatives, at every level and at every opportunity, when they're going to treat you like an independent agent and help you write more business, not less.

Robert “Robby” E. Dunn, III is vice president and agency manager of Hotchkiss Insurance Agency, Houston, and president of the Applied Systems Client Network (ASCnet) agency management system users group, based in Altamonte Springs, Fla. He can be reached at [email protected].

“It's time for all agents to ask carrier representatives, at every level and at every opportunity, when they're going to treat you like an independent agent and help you write more business, not less.”

Robby Dunn, ASCnet