There is an old folk tale about two frogs: One lives on the edge of a deep, secluded pond. The other lives on the edge of a shallow pond near a country road. The first frog exhorts his friend to relocate; if he stays in that shallow pond, bad things will happen. But that second frog stays because he is afraid to abandon what he knows—however uncomfortable or unsustainable it might be—for the unknown.

Soon after, disaster befalls the frog of the shallow pond. In Aesop's telling, a wagon comes by and crushes the frog. In another version, the shallow pond dries up, leaving the frog to bake in the sun. And in another version, because the shallow pond is so easy to reach, lots of additional frogs move in, and they soon eat all the flies and collectively starve. The end result is always the same: Those who are unwilling to face change invite self-destruction.

A McKinsey & Co. report in 2013, “Agents of the Future: The Evolution of Property & Casualty Insurance Distribution,” seems to echo this parable. McKinsey identifies the usual suspects that spell supposed doom for any agent or broker selling personal lines insurance: increasing product commoditization; a rise of multichannel distribution (at the expense of traditional walls between older product channels); a desire among customers to buy directly from the carrier—and an increasing willingness of the carrier to accommodate them. “There are signs that the economics of the traditional agent model are beginning to unravel,” McKinsey writes, suggesting that perhaps the personal lines pond had too many frogs and not enough flies.