One theme dominated the lively two-hour discussion, moderated by yours truly--and that was the need for agents to go beyond the sale of insurance on price alone, to become aggregators of services and serve as true risk managers for clients. The key, all agreed, is to focus on lowering the long-term, overall cost of risk, rather than just shop an account on the basis of the short-term, commodity-driven cost of insurance--easier said than done in a softening market.

Capsule profiles of the participants appear throughout the section. (For a more comprehensive look at this year's three agency finalists, see NU's Sept. 12 edition.) Highlights of our roundtable follow:

Sam Friedman,

Editor, National Underwriter:

o ARE ALL BUYERS CREATED EQUAL?

Our cover story on the "NU State Of The Market" survey last spring (June 13) was headlined: "A Tale of Two Markets." We found that even in a softening market, the smaller the account, the lower the average price cut they received on a percentage basis, while bigger accounts enjoyed far deeper premium reductions.

Has it been your experience that the smaller and middle-market commercial accounts have more of a problem getting better price quotes?

Scott Addis,

The Addis Group, 2003 Winner:

The game has changed. There is an intense and demanding underwriting process at work. It is a more logical pricing approach as compared to prior soft markets.

Today, in a softening market, it is those accounts that have earned the right and opportunity to reap the rewards of good performance that get the best price quotes. The sophisticated consumer and agent-broker are well prepared to take advantage of that shift.

Creative risk management strategies are more prevalent today than ever. As a result, middle-market accounts are getting a lot more attention from carriers.

Steven Schill,

Haake Companies, 2005 Winner:

I would concur with Scott. The sophistication and knowledge of buyers is improving, especially if they upgrade their loss control within their own organizations, or hire others to come in and be their risk management arm.

Does that make a difference? Absolutely, for those doing the underwriting at insurers. As a result of risk management, those are the accounts where their performance has been good over the last three, four years--lower frequency rates, lower severity rates. You are now seeing those particular accounts starting to lose some of the short-term costs they have carried through the hard market.

So, in conjunction with their agent or broker and their own staffs they're doing a good job of bringing forward a stronger risk management program. They've changed their risk characteristics, and those are the ones who are getting the better than average pricing.

Timothy Nielsen,

Fullerton & Company,

2005 Honorable Mention:

I think the larger accounts are getting the larger dollar savings, but it's not completely across the board. A really large theme with the carriers right now is to go after middle-market business and to go after smaller-accounts business. If you've got a small accounts department--which we do--we get an awful lot of attention from quite a few carriers, and I think what they are seeing with that is they don't have the same exposures.

When there's a claim, it's generally not as large a claim, and they get a good spread of risk in what they're writing. From that I think they're finding they can make quite a bit of money if they take a significant presence in small-to-middle-market businesses.

Sam Friedman:

How do you define a "small" account?

Timothy Nielsen:

That's changing quite a bit. I think at one point you would have used something around $5,000 or $10,000 in revenue, but that's going up. Why I disagree a little with the "bigger is better" trend is that the percentage of savings you're seeing sometimes on $20,000 or $30,000 premium accounts is dramatic. You can see a 20-to-30 percent change, which means you're talking $4,000 or $5,000 in savings.

The percentage is very large for a relatively small account, and it's all because maybe it was written in a certain package style and some carrier has decided that this now fits into a businessowner's program, and they completely re-rate the whole thing and include all the coverage that you were rating individually before. We're seeing more and more of that going on now.

Two or three years ago when the market was at its peak, we were spending a lot of time rewriting these accounts--out of the package and into some other type of coverage, whether it was two different carriers writing different lines, or just trying to find a way to put the whole thing together.

Now we've got these carriers coming back into the market, saying, "Hey, we'll write that account and we'll put it all under one program." So that piece is having an impact on the percentage savings on the smaller accounts.

David Maki,

Insurance Office Of America,

2005 Honorable Mention:

What is regarded as a middle-market versus small account versus large account? It's kind of like beauty--it's in the eyes of the beholder.

Our agency covers the gamut, and we have many agents that are what I term "Main Street writers." A $30,000 to $40,000 account to them is like gold, yet we have other agents who won't look at an account unless it generates more than that in revenue--all working in the same shop.

My point is that risk management is as applicable to a $30,000 account as it is to one for $3 million, and if the agent can go in and offer something besides policy and price, he's going to win the account. I think risk management gives the opportunity for a more sophisticated agent to negotiate better terms, conditions and prices than ever before.

Sam Friedman:

o CAN AGENTS BE RISK MANAGERS FOR THEIR CLIENTS? CAN THEY AFFORD NOT TO BE?

It's easier, I would imagine, to sell clients on a risk management approach during a hard market when you're looking to contain rising insurance costs. However, now you're up against a softening market, so perhaps it's a little harder pitch with the temptation to shop for whatever carrier can get the lowest rate.

Are agents who are committed to risk management able to deliver the same level of service as premium rates fall? What kind of competitive pressures do you face from more price-driven agencies?

Steven Schill:

You have to determine your culture and how you are going to operate. We always talk about the "three P's." We talk price. We talk products--which includes the service capabilities we can deliver to our clients. We talk about personal relationships.

An agency has to determine how it's going to operate on the macro level, and it can't change that operation just because the market is changing. At the end of the day we can influence pricing--we can work with the client to contain short- and long-term costs--but the underwriter is also going to set the price in some broader context because of the marketplace.

We just want to be able to have the risk indices to fall back on and say our client is doing better than most on controlling costs and exposures. On a micro level, we have to get into each client's operations. We have to look at how they are performing, and show them what we've delivered in terms of service, loss control plans, stewardship reports, and attention paid to their needs.

You have to get to know your client and deliver a unique value proposition to them, and that's a big thing we look at in the total scope. We realize price is always going to be a part of that proposition. But we also have a market condition report. It is included in our service plan, so we bring them up to date with what the marketplace is doing--putting market trends into context and looking at how they have performed against the overall market.

Gray McCaskill,

Senn Dunn, 2004 Winner:

I think it's more important now than ever that you know your client and their business, especially the competitive pressures they face. Some of our clients are in tough times right now, and you're fooling yourself if you don't think price is not very important. But agents must stay the course.

We had a $250,000 account, and a challenging agent came in $40,000 lower. Our producer did a great job trying to reiterate the benefits of sticking with the same carrier and the partnership we had formed together with the client, and all the value-added services we offered. But the buyer said, "Well, I'm sorry, I really like you and the carrier, but I can't look away from that amount of savings."

So they left us, left that carrier. But 60 days later things were not working out at all like they planned, so they called back and asked whether our carrier would write their account again and we got them back. So price is definitely not everything, although you've got to keep reminding clients of that.

Timothy Nielsen:

When premiums were growing in the hard market and income along with them, we did add more services, put a risk manager on staff, put more people in claims and tried to do more to stay on top of workers' comp losses. Along with all that comes an expectation. When the market was hard, a few of our carriers were getting away from loss control and they were getting away from risk management, trying to save dollars and trying to push more of it back onto the agency.

Well, they're getting back into the game now. They're coming in and starting to sell their own services, and they want to augment and work with our people to do those types of things. What I see going on is maybe a slow, not so much transformation, but sharing of responsibility on risk management, where in the past it was either all or nothing.

Steven Schill:

Our clients have become much more sophisticated, and they understand us and what we're trying to accomplish from a risk management standpoint. As they go through this transition, they can gauge the barometers themselves. Our job is to incorporate this and make it a part of the marketing process with carriers. We have to deliver a return based on their risk management investment because we know what happens if we don't deliver on the client's expectations.

But we're also trying to keep the pricing piece as only one part of our service plan--the last part, when it comes to buying insurance. We focus on all the other variables that make up the cost of risk.

On a macro level we try to stay consistent. This is the way we operate, and realize that price is a component of our "three Ps"--with products/services and people being just as important.

Gray McCaskill:

The type of client who really buys into the risk management approach understands that I'm not always going to get the lowest possible price. Price is important, but overall I'm building credits with this carrier and it's a process that's going to pay off over the next five-to-10 years, hopefully bringing down overall costs.

Scott Addis:

Over the past few years, prudent agencies reinvested time, energy and financial resources to build service systems, offering risk management resources and capabilities that may not have been there five-to-10 years ago. That translates into a true partnership with the consumer.

Today, many consumers realize insurance is solely a risk-transfer tool--not a risk mitigation strategy. Agents who are committed to risk management demonstrate significantly higher new business hit ratios and retention percentages as well as exceptional loss ratios. They have become much more of a trusted adviser.

David Maki:

I agree that you can't allow the hard or soft market to dictate the culture of the agency. You've gone out and represented yourself as someone who delivers risk management services. You can't bend on that because the market heads down.

The challenge for the agency is to determine how to deliver that same level of service in a more efficient manner with fewer dollars to work with in a soft market.

The solution is a constant financial management process. We review the cost-versus-service benefit picture every month to retain our profitability.

Gray McCaskill:

It's important if you do a true consultative approach that there's a cost to your client for moving their coverage. If it's a very sophisticated account, you have carrier relationships and support services you provide.

There should be some pain for disengagement, so the client understands you are not interchangeable with another agent just pitching cheaper premiums in the short term.

Scott Addis:

There are many more agencies with an entrepreneurial spirit. They realize that the game has changed where they simply can't shop with 15 carriers and think that's going to get the job done for their clients.

Sam Friedman:

o IS RISK MANAGEMENT A LUXURY OR A NECESSITY?

Ten years ago, risk management was a really alien concept in the agency business. There appears to be a growing awareness that risk management is a key component of an agent's overall service. Do you find yourselves up against more competitors pitching themselves as risk managers?

Steven Schill:

Most of the agencies we consider our peer group have not transformed to the consultative risk management approach. However, they are now beginning to inquire and do things differently. For example, they are going to possibly bring loss control and OSHA compliance people into the mix.

But it's inevitable that more agencies will gravitate toward this approach because the game has indeed changed--because of the sophistication it takes today to be in our business. Between catastrophe modeling, exposure concentration and litigation, you have to look at all of these variables we didn't use to take into consideration. So, our business has a much more analytical element to it than what we've had in the past. That's what risk management is all about.

I think over time, you're going to see more agencies gravitate to a similar approach--that is, being more consultative by nature. I think you're going to have to--competition is going to force them.

We're working hard to stay ahead of the trend and differentiate ourselves, first by our unique approach, and then later by the unique experience and expertise we bring to the consultative game.

David Maki:

Can agents who sell on price only survive in the market? My answer to that is yes--as long as there are price-driven buyers.

The problem is that price-driven buyers disappear, and we are living proof that risk management services will win in the long run. Prosperous agencies in the future will deliver risk management. I think the survivors and thrivers and prosperous agencies will be the ones that can compete on that level.

Our agency has employed experts to provide risk management tools, such as loss control, premium audits, claims management and experience modification analysis. Many small accounts benefit from this "luxury" on a one-time basis, but if it satisfies their single most important need, we have a loyal client that we will retain for life. I view this "luxury" as a necessity in today's competitive environment.

Timothy Nielsen:

The risk management services model is a formidable one to have if you can be price-competitive--or cost-competitive, depending on how you define those terms. You offer value-added services, and then the final thing that puts us over the top is our personal relationships with and knowledge of our clients. That can be a very difficult model for other ways of selling insurance to compete with.

With midsized accounts, we deal directly with the decision-makers. We form a strong bond with the owner of the business and we provide some value-added service and demonstrate that our overall cost has reasonable value to them. Then they lower their expectations on having the absolute lowest price for insurance.

They still expect us to be in the range and to be fair, and they want to know that we're working for them to get costs down as low as possible. Put that combination together and you've got a bright future in this business. It's not common, but we have competitors in our area that are also doing it--but not very many.

Sam Friedman:

What advice would you give to agents who are either going through the transition or contemplating making that leap into risk management?

Steven Schill:

You need to have a stick-to-it attitude. Once you determine this is your culture, the leaders in your agency absolutely need to have the resolve to stand by and continue to say this is how we're going to operate, even though some of your producers may want to back away from what they perceive is a lot of work upfront--and it is. It takes a lot of work to gain the trust of the client and help them understand how you're doing business.

I think most people in this business are fairly open to new ideas, but you have to have resolve as well as the vision to make this work. Once you create your vision, you must be able to instill that new culture into your people's work habits, and you need to ask whether you possess the skills and capabilities you must have in your organization to deliver a value proposition for your clients.

Unfortunately, that doesn't always mean the same faces in the same places, but you really must have the resolve to make whatever changes are necessary.

Gray McCaskill:

What I think a lot of folks try to do is an imitation. It's a "me, too" approach. We can do that, too--me too, me too. Where I think the rubber hits the road is when you can really sit back and have your client say, "Well, you told me you can do all of this. What did you actually do?"

I am confident because we make an agreement that we are going to do certain things, and I say to the client, judge me on what we agreed to do. That will speak for itself. As long as we make sure to hold our producers and associates to that standard, we'll be just fine.

That doesn't mean every agency has to do it the exact same way. Many agencies deal with some tough industries, and often times the market is price-driven. But the point is we can move toward risk management each step of the way.

Scott Addis:

It starts with leadership. It takes the top management of an organization to realize that a transformation needs to take place. However, once the transformation is under way, it is up to front-line producers, account managers and risk control specialists to make it work.

Each organization must build its brand around a unique process. The process should facilitate the producers' understanding of the businesses and industries they are handling. The process must also uncover the risk issues of the client, as well as measure and monitor those issues. This is the essential first step to risk mitigation.

If you have an old-school agency principal or sales manager who says, "We can't afford the time. We can't do that. You need to go get competitive bids," then it's not going to work. Far too often, that's the challenge undermining a large percentage of the organizations out there.

Steven Schill:

You have to demonstrate what your risk management culture is going to mean for everyone. It might be easier to convince your younger producers, because they're always looking for new techniques. They don't have established relationships in the client community, so they're looking for ways to get in to see prospects. A risk management approach might be a great way for them to open the door.

It might be harder with producers who have an established book of business, and you're asking them to transition their existing clients to a different way of thinking. And that's critical. You can't deliver risk management to your new clients but not deliver it to your existing clients. You have to make that transition and you need to have an implementation plan in place.

We announced one day this is the plan going forward. For those with the bigger books who want to know how we implement this, we have a step-by-step, account-by-account process. It's easier with new business because you just start right from scratch, but with an existing book you have to go through an implementation phase.

Scott Addis:

You have to go to your people and tell them we all have a purpose that is so far beyond selling an insurance policy.

Many of the younger professionals in the industry are really challenging the system. As Steve Schill mentioned, it's easier for them to step back and look at the game. They are also expecting more than simply a paycheck. They're expecting a career that is going to be very rewarding to them.

Sam Friedman:

o THE SPITZER IMPACT.

A big part of being a risk manager for a client is establishing trust, which was the theme of our award essay this year. What prompted the question was the challenge to the integrity of the business following probes by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, which led Marsh, Aon and Willis to give up contingency fees to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

How did you respond as an organization to the Spitzer probes, and what impact, if any, did they have on your day-to-day dealings with clients?

Steven Schill:

We took a very proactive approach. We went out to a number of our clients and other business leaders and asked them what they thought of the contingency piece. The first part, of course, was trying to explain the difference between legitimate contingency compensation and criminal activity.

When we went through that process, they at least got an elementary level of understanding. They said, "If you guys are doing work on a contingent basis, based on the loss experience of my account, based on cutting claims through sound risk management, you're trying to make us a better risk and you're trying to help the insurance carriers' results as well. You're helping on both ends. We don't see the problem here."

We haven't had them come back and say, "Well, we think you're making a little too much money in commissions." Most of them say, "Hey, as part of the value proposition, we want to work with our risk management consultative agency as a viable ongoing operation. We want you to be profitable. We don't want your margins cut so thin that you're here today, gone tomorrow." They realize that as businessowners.

We also keep in mind just because some practices are not illegal, doesn't mean they're ethical. We put our practices to the litmus test of our shared values. We make sure clients understand our shared values, and we have a statement--here's how our employees conduct business.

As long as I've been with Haake, we've had disclosure statements pertaining to our compensation. We have tried to be clear we are a full-disclosure agency. We will talk to anybody about how we get compensated. We don't try to hide it. Most of our clients have not asked.

David Maki:

I think the Spitzer situation had limited impact on the smaller agency force. The only change we've made in operations is the disclosure statement on every proposal--new and renewal--that we may earn contingencies.

I have not had one client call and ask me about it. In fact, even clients that are fee-based don't view it as a major problem, and the reason is because we've earned the trust and loyalty of our client base. As long as you do that and focus on the product and service you are selling, the focus for the client is not how much you're making. We just don't see clients put their insurance up for bids. It shouldn't happen if we form a true partnership and establish trust.

Now the Spitzer investigation did uncover criminal activity, which is great. People who break the law should go to jail. It's just sad that our image as an industry is tainted by that development. There are bad apples in every barrel. The probe was a very healthy cleansing action, and I think it's a great opportunity for agents to stand apart.

Timothy Nielsen:

As far as our compensation goes, we haven't seen a large impact from a negative standpoint. There was a study by the insurance commissioner where they asked questions and wanted us to disclose some information, and we were all happy to do that. And from that I think they concluded that the system is pretty straightforward.

There are always exceptions, but as a rule the system works pretty well, and so I think going forward most customers really don't get into asking about specific income and how you get paid.

They really want to understand the cost element, and if you are upfront about how your pricing goes, and give that detail to a customer and then figure value-added services into that, you build a trust level with them as you build their understanding in the overall product they're buying.

Gray McCaskill:

When I tell clients what our average commissions are in this industry for all the good things that we do for them, their reaction is, "How do you stay in business?"

They realize we take those commission dollars and invest them in the best catalogue of services available. Many of the things we do are not free--but there is just no additional cost to our clients.

Sam Friedman:

Marsh has announced it will cut thousands of middle- and small-market accounts that it had on its books--presumably to trigger now defunct volume-based contingency fee deals. Doesn't this mean that a lot of good accounts are going to be in play?

Timothy Nielsen:

There is definitely an opportunity here for the independent agent. Before all this news broke, there was a change going on with the national brokers, who were indeed trying to generate more revenue by creating different models to draw more middle-market business. However, many of those accounts, once sold, were serviced out of some central location far from the client.

That was going to create opportunities anyway for local agents to pursue clients who just want to deal with local people. They want to be able to talk to an individual. They want to be able to see that person face to face. The questions Spitzer raised about big broker compensation and loyalties will only increase those opportunities for agents.

Steven Schill:

It definitely creates opportunity for agents. After these probes, I think we're on a little more level playing field. We live in the middle market, and now the national brokers have to exit more of the middle market, so it creates an opportunity for us.

Sam Friedman:

o WHERE DO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FIT IN?

NU's award recognizes the commercial insurance agency of the year, but all the agencies we've honored over the past four years sell a lot of employee benefits. What role do employee benefit sales play in your overall book of business, and where does it figure in your overall strategic plan to fill all of the insurance buyer's needs?

Steven Schill:

We've had a very strong cross-sell environment between our employee benefits and our p-c operations. I think our penetration is in excess of 70 percent of our p-c clients. That was a vision Haake had over 15 years ago.

As a matter of fact, the way we conduct our benefits business was one impetus sparking the change in p-c to a consultative-based sale. In health insurance sales, helping employers select and design the right consumer-driven health care program for their employees is a consultative-based sale versus price-based.

Benefits are about capabilities and how we'll service the client, rather than price alone. This really was the beginning of our consultative model and how we started our transformation in the p-c area. So benefits fits very well into our model from a consultative standpoint.

Gray McCaskill:

When I joined Senn Dunn 20 years ago, many of our clients said, "Please help me with employee benefits. Can't you just handle it all?" Our business model then was that we really didn't do benefits, because p-c producers were afraid that if they did something wrong with the benefit program, they would lose the entire relationship.

But since then we've learned that there's too much money on the table in benefits to ignore. Today we have 20 people in our employee benefits division. We'll do about $4.1 million in benefits revenue for 2005, of which about 63 percent came from our existing property and casualty relationships.

Our whole model is to be able to provide all insurance-related products that our clients need. For those p-c producers who don't want to turn over their great clients to a benefits producer for fear they will endanger the account, my argument is that we have made the wrong hire. I feel I should be able to send anyone in our agency to my best client and have the confidence they will represent the agency as I would.

So, in our scheme now, benefits is probably representing close to 25-to-30 percent of our revenue.

Timothy Nielsen:

We're in the same position. We've had a culture in the agency for some 25, 30 years that's devoted to selling all products, and employee benefits is just another extension of that philosophy.

To deal with producers who have some concern about bringing in somebody else, either to share or take over employee benefits, we need to work on our culture. We need to work on who we're hiring, because we've got to be on the same team when working together. And selling benefits is another opportunity to keep your competition out of there.

David Maki:

At IOA, our philosophy has always been to share commissions. Whenever we have one of our agents bring one of our benefits specialists into a commercial account, the commission is shared both ways--and forever; it's not a finder's fee. It's a vested interest that our agents have.

We also hire specialists in each area--a real professional in Section 125 plans and 401k specialists in estate planning. The same referral basis holds true that the referring agent will split the commission.

Our whole philosophy is based on sharing among partners, and it's worked wonderfully for us.

Steven Schill:

Beyond employee benefits, one of the challenges for all of the agents in this room and in this industry is to become an aggregator of services. Products and services that we cannot provide, we have to partner with people who can.

More is going to be expected of us to provide additional services for clients. We may not be able to deliver all of them on our own because it's not cost-effective or cost-efficient, but we then have to be in partnership or at least in contact with people who can deliver these services.

Sam Friedman:

o UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL.

Just like with employee benefits, we see many of our award-winning commercial agencies doing a substantial amount of personal lines business. What does the future hold for independent agents in this side of the industry?

David Maki:

We aggressively pursue personal lines, and the premise is that the personal insurance for the businessowner and their family is as important to them as their business coverage, so why would you not come to an agent you trust, who is loyal, and has high integrity to handle that portion of your insurance?

Our volume got so large in this area--we hope to exceed $20 million in personal lines premium by the end of this year--that we hired an older gentleman who didn't want to be on a commission. We pay him a salary, and he goes out and visits all our new larger personal line clients just to make sure things are going well. He loves his job, and we have received many complimentary letters from clients thanking us for his work.

This also goes to the point Steve Schill made earlier about being aggregators. Any time you let someone else in to pitch your clients, your entire book is at risk. So why not handle the personal lines as well?

Gray McCaskill:

We're very deep in personal lines. In fact, we started a private client group.

The risk manager's going to write a check for $500,000 for his firm's commercial insurance, but he's also concerned about making sure his family and personal assets are protected. When all producers buy into cross-selling, it creates opportunities for every department.

Timothy Nielsen:

I agree with everybody on the value of personal lines. It is increasingly becoming a bigger part of our agency, although I admit that the majority of our personal lines growth has come from acquisitions.

It's an area that we still struggle with a little bit in trying to create a career for people to specialize in personal lines. We have a pretty easy time in the employee benefits area. We have a pretty easy time in the commercial area as far as the career opportunity for sales and growth. It's getting people who want to focus on or put a significant amount of time into personal lines. But it's getting better. We pay commission on it--a lot of agencies our size don't.

The next step is probably learning to use the Internet and a few other ways to garner more volume.

Steven Schill:

We have begun to see a rise in our personal lines quote activity. We had personal lines as an adjunct to commercial accounts, taking care of the businessowners and their families. We're now really shifting our gears in this particular area to bring a personal risk management approach to the affluent and emerging professional client.

It comes down to our philosophy as an agency by being a trusted adviser with a consultative approach. We know we have to bring additional services, so we get into anything from jewelry to appraisals to furs and the like. It's an emerging area for us as an agency.

David Maki:

While we are on the subject of filling all of a client's needs, I urge agents to think outside the box as far as being an aggregator of products and services and to go beyond just personal lines and employee benefits.

At IOA, we also own a promotions company, selling everything from golf balls to caps, hats and shirts with the company's logo on it. Our sales the first year exceeded $6 million. We also own Fresh Communications, which is an advertising agency that has worked with our clients.

The premise is that the more products and services you can deliver to your client, the harder it's going to be for the client to change agencies just over insurance pricing, and the more revenue you'll generate.

IN CONCLUSION:

I want to thank all of our panelists for speaking so frankly and insightfully about the state of the independent agency system. National Underwriter encourages agents who feel they have a unique approach and philosophy to share their story by entering our award program in 2006. Who knows? You might be part of our "State Of The Agent" Roundtable next year!

Details will be available in our magazine and on our Web site in February.

Caption for Intro:

Roundtable participants included (l-r): Scott Addis, The Addis Group; T. Gray McCaskill, Senn Dunn; Sam Friedman, NU; Tim Nielsen, Fullerton & Company; David Maki, Insurance Office of America; Steven Schill, Haake Companies.

Caption for Inside Strip of Photos:

Leaders from five of the country's most innovative agencies agree that to prosper, agents need to go beyond merely peddling insurance policies on the basis of price-shopping, and become an aggregator of services and true risk managers for their clients, large and small--even though that might be easier said than done in a softening market.

Roundtable bios--Start with Friedman top page 14, work the others in over subsequent pages, all with mugs --See June 13 state of the market roundtable for format

MODERATOR

Title: Editor-In-Chief

Company: National Underwriter, weekly newsmagazine and daily Web news service serving 47,000 independent agents and brokers, 15,000 risk managers, and over 9,000 insurance company subscribers.

Location: Hoboken, N.J.

Distinction: Mr. Friedman has covered the work of independent agents for over 24 years. He launched the "NU Commercial Insurance Agency Of The Year" award program in 2002.

2005 Award Winner

Title: Chief Operating Officer, Executive V.P. of Property & Casualty Operations

Agency: Haake Companies, doing more than $100 million in commercial premium volume, with seven principals and 61 employees.

Location: Overland Park, Kan.

Distinction: Haake repositioned itself as its clients' risk management adviser--a transition bolstered by advice and encouragement from a prior NU winner, 2003's Scott Addis.

2005 Honorable Mention

Title: President

Agency: Insurance Office Of America, generating over $460 million in commercial premium volume, with 52 principals and 370 employees.

Location: Longwood, Fla.

Distinction: IOA seeks partners, not just producers. All commissions are shared, but so are management and selling responsibilities. IOA has grown into service areas well beyond insurance sales.

2005 Honorable Mention

Title: President

Agency: Fullerton & Company, producing over $42 million in commercial premium volume with eight principals and 60 employees.

Location: Portland, Ore.

Distinction: Fullerton stresses producer autonomy, excelling by abandoning the bureaucratic model and eliminating middle management.

2004 Award Winner

Title: President

Agency: Senn Dunn, winner of the 2004 "NU Commercial Insurance Agency Of The Year" award.

Location: Greensboro, N.C.

Distinction: Excels as an all-purpose agency, leveraging "people power" by creating an outstanding place to work. The agency's motto is, "We'll Handle It."

2003 Award Winner

Title: President and CEO.

Agency: The Addis Group, winner of the 2003 "NU Commercial Insurance Agency Of The Year" award.

Location: King Of Prussia, Pa.

Distinction: The Addis Group utilizes a diagnostic risk management audit process focused on the long-term cost of risk rather than the short-term cost of insurance. Mr. Addis has traveled the country speaking out on behalf of this philosophy, including teaching young agent seminars for the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America and Chubb.