Question about servicing bottom 10%

[LostDollar]

Just commenting as an observer here, I think of one agent who is a regular poster on the forum who personally visits (what I assume is a significant portion of ) his book each month to collect payments. I don't think he is firing people because he has to do that.

 

[LostDollar]

Life insurance -

Cleaning my book years ago was freeing. Not premium wise but repeated service calls, rudeness, lapses.

As a non-agent reader of posts, asking about service calls?

A few years back I remember seeing one or two posts where agents were fussing about having to do change of address paperwork for life insurance policies. As I remember, your basic response (forgive the lack of proper technical terminology) was "send me the agent changing forms and I'll take em all".

What is the difference between "Service Work" and "Service Work"?

Thanks.
LD

 

[DHK]

What is the difference between "Service Work" and "Service Work"?

The difference is whether it's truly client service... or nagging.

If I have to call and nag you to make a premium payment... that's nagging and that client and policy is a drag to service. And why are those calls made? Primarily as a courtesy. But it's also to keep the policy on the books, commissions coming in, and your protection in-place.

I am not (necessarily) going to care more about your protection than you are. If you, as the client, aren't happy with your policy and don't see the need to keep paying premiums... please go elsewhere.

It's not a good relationship when I want your policy in-force more than you want to pay your premium.

Updating a client file for new address, beneficiaries, etc., for someone who is responsible... is (can be) a JOY. Plus, these are the kinds of opportunities to be with your client when you can ask for introductions and determine other needs.

Just my opinion if I was in the P&C space.

 

[AgentGeneral]

10 % of your customers will always take up 99% of your time, whether it is chasing premium or processing claims/answering questions. Best time to fire them is at renewal. You've collected the premium for the policy period that is ending and you don't need their premium/problems going into the next policy period.

Sounds about right. Not premium wise for MAPD clients, but....

I just thought this week, that next AEP when I'm helping a certain few beyond rude customers go over changes, I'd lean them into another plan that's as good or better and have them enroll on medicare.gov themselves, then delete/block their number. I'll get it cued up for them, have them sign and buh bye. I'd just stop taking their calls altogether, but don't want a complaint from a roody.

Maybe even sooner, like during this OEP. For a few roodies, a charge back would probably save me time and that's worth it's weight in gold.

 

[marindependent]

I think this really depends on the field of insurance that you are in.

Also not sure what exactly you mean by "firing" . You sort of have to be careful telling a client they are fired. You may consider a client fired, but that does not necesarily remove your E&O exposure.

However allowing the bottom 10% to leave is another story [and I sort of assume that this is what you mean.]

 

[Markthebroker]

You guys are missing my point, which is revenue and profit. Just because a client is late and a call may be made, does not automatically mean that client goes to the bottom 10% for firing. Assume a book of business of 200, 100 of them never need a call and 100 of them need a call every month. In my example below would you fire the clients with a call every month?

	Clients	Clients
	100	100
Monthly Rev	$50	$20
Late Pay Call	1 Per Month	0
Est Cost of Call	$5	$5
Adj Monthly Rev	$45	$20

Alright. You've convinced me. I'll BOR all my crappy clients over to you. Buckle your seatbelt.

 

[LeeV]

I understand your point of view, but they can be profitable, not all of them mind you. But you need to put a pencil and paper to the numbers first. Some of these problem clients should be let go, but some should stay if they are contributing to your profit.

 

[Life Hawk]

I understand your point of view, but they can be profitable, not all of them mind you. But you need to put a pencil and paper to the numbers first. Some of these problem clients should be let go, but some should stay if they are contributing to your profit.

The issue at times though, life guy here, when a client is profitable at the expense of new business or disruptive to your gray matter. I agree with using a sharp pencil to protect the bottom line, but when you don't protect your sanity... you miss the freedom this profession affords. You could cripple future sales or worse, train yourself to see viability in non-viable clients.

 

[Markthebroker]

It's not a good relationship when I want your policy in-force more than you want to pay your premium.

That is a really, really good point.

 

[DHK]

I think this really depends on the field of insurance that you are in.

Also not sure what exactly you mean by "firing" . You sort of have to be careful telling a client they are fired. You may consider a client fired, but that does not necesarily remove your E&O exposure.

However allowing the bottom 10% to leave is another story [and I sort of assume that this is what you mean.]

I agree that there's a difference between an actual termination of a client vs just letting them go and not fighting to keep the policy on the books. I don't want to use the term 'neglect' because that could be misinterpreted, but essentially, you stop trying or putting any effort into the relationship to do anything with them or for them proactively.