Senior Life Insurance Company-worth adding??

[shonceman]

Since SL raised commissions on the super preferred and the preferred, you'll see a lot of that is now being written where appropriate. Before this commission raise agents were writing standard, at higher premiums, because the commissions were the highest at that time. So you are probably comparing the standard rates for SL with your debit company.

If you're not concerned with price, as mentioned above, why would you find it distasteful to use a price buster when needed to get the business.

I was half joking about not being concerned with price. I do consider price among other things when making a recommendation to a prospect or client. But I don't feel the need to always be the absolute cheapest. The carriers I work with are all competitively priced for their particular clientele. It just strikes me wrong to think about making a solid recommendation, then pulling out a "special" when I can't close the sale any other way. It feels like the car dealership where the salesman swears that he's giving me the best rockbottom offer he can until I get up to walk away! I guess I'm Old school and can't wrap my brain around the idea of "negotiating" life insurance premium rates.

I don't mean to badmouth SL or you over this. I have a great deal of respect for you and your company. This "pricebuster" thing is something nearly everybody seems to do, not just SL. And maybe SL has felt the need to adopt the idea just because of the competition. Maybe I'll think differently about it in the future, too. But so far it's always rubbed me the wrong way. ("Replacement artists" stick in my craw kind of the same way, but that's another subject!)

 

[theinsuranceman]

I was half joking about not being concerned with price. I do consider price among other things when making a recommendation to a prospect or client. But I don't feel the need to always be the absolute cheapest. The carriers I work with are all competitively priced for their particular clientele. It just strikes me wrong to think about making a solid recommendation, then pulling out a "special" when I can't close the sale any other way. It feels like the car dealership where the salesman swears that he's giving me the best rockbottom offer he can until I get up to walk away! I guess I'm Old school and can't wrap my brain around the idea of "negotiating" life insurance premium rates.

I don't mean to badmouth SL or you over this. I have a great deal of respect for you and your company. This "pricebuster" thing is something nearly everybody seems to do, not just SL. And maybe SL has felt the need to adopt the idea just because of the competition. Maybe I'll think differently about it in the future, too. But so far it's always rubbed me the wrong way. ("Replacement artists" stick in my craw kind of the same way, but that's another subject!)

No harm taken. I would not back pedal from super preferred to ultimate preferred to beat someone else's rates.

Before I even quote any rates I know if there is another carrier or more in play. I also know what the other carrier(s) are showing Ms. Jones. So far, super-preferred has been all I needed. I've never had to use the ultimate preferred. If I felt that ultimate preferred was going to be needed then that's why I'd show.

 

[goillini52]

I don't mean to badmouth SL or you over this. I have a great deal of respect for you and your company.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Abrasax]

Why would you get appointed, then bad mouth them even though you've not written any business?

Why would I need to write business for a company before discussing their approach? Regardless, I have written for them, just not this time around. And explaining why I don't write them is not bad mouthing them.

There are things about SL that I like. In many ways, it's extremely competitive toward the agent, but I don't find it competitive enough for the client to write it in most situations. If they found a way to offer more value to the client compared to other carriers, I'm sure I'd write them more.

 

[theinsuranceman]

Why would I need to write business for a company before discussing their approach? Regardless, I have written for them, just not this time around. And explaining why I don't write them is not bad mouthing them.

There are things about SL that I like. In many ways, it's extremely competitive toward the agent, but I don't find it competitive enough for the client to write it in most situations. If they found a way to offer more value to the client compared to other carriers, I'm sure I'd write them more.

The savings on the casket, vault, and monument is more than enough extra value.
If you don't feel they offer enough value to the prospect, why did you even get contracted with them? That's the part that I don't underdtand.

 

[Abrasax]

I was half joking about not being concerned with price. I do consider price among other things when making a recommendation to a prospect or client. But I don't feel the need to always be the absolute cheapest. The carriers I work with are all competitively priced for their particular clientele. It just strikes me wrong to think about making a solid recommendation, then pulling out a "special" when I can't close the sale any other way. It feels like the car dealership where the salesman swears that he's giving me the best rockbottom offer he can until I get up to walk away! I guess I'm Old school and can't wrap my brain around the idea of "negotiating" life insurance premium rates.

I don't mean to badmouth SL or you over this. I have a great deal of respect for you and your company. This "pricebuster" thing is something nearly everybody seems to do, not just SL. And maybe SL has felt the need to adopt the idea just because of the competition. Maybe I'll think differently about it in the future, too. But so far it's always rubbed me the wrong way. ("Replacement artists" stick in my craw kind of the same way, but that's another subject!)

What's wrong with replacing an inferior product with a better one, or for that matter, making it a business practice to seek out these inferior products so you can help people replace them with better ones? If it's best for the client, why would it bother you?

 

[Abrasax]

The savings on the casket, vault, and monument is more than enough extra value.
If you don't feel they offer enough value to the prospect, why did you even get contracted with them? That's the part that I don't underdtand.

When they adjusted rates and commission, I contracted again. But the standard rates and lower just don't seem competitive given my other options. I'm not saying there aren't situations where they'd be the best fit for a client. I just haven't come across many yet.

 

[theinsuranceman]

When they adjusted rates and commission, I contracted again. But the standard rates and lower just don't seem competitive given my other options. I'm not saying there aren't situations where they'd be the best fit for a client. I just haven't come across many yet.

They never adjusted rates. They adjusted commissions and renewals higher.

 

[shonceman]

What's wrong with replacing an inferior product with a better one, or for that matter, making it a business practice to seek out these inferior products so you can help people replace them with better ones? If it's best for the client, why would it bother you?

I knew that would hit a nerve! I guess I was feeling ornery and just stirring the pot a little!

I know most FE agents replace business, some more than others. I sometimes do, too, although not often. Doesn't bother me when it's as you describe, if it's actually in the client's best interest. The trouble is that the standard for that is entirely subjective. Too often an agent is able to convince himself and the client that he's putting them in a better position when in reality he may be putting them at risk. (And if he was being honest he might find that his real motive was to put himself in a better position!)

But that's not even what I mean by "Replacement Artist". What I'm thinking of is those agents who can see nothing but the biggest sale possible. They replace policies because they can with little regard for whether they should. They'll replace another agent's perfectly good business without actually improving the client's situation in any meaningful way (and sometimes even put them in a worse position). They may rationalize a way to feel ok about it, but some don't even care. The ones I really hate are the ones that imply (or outright lie) that a product is inferior when they know it's not, or imply that the writing agent was dishonest when there's no reason to believe that.

So, just curious: What kinds of things would make a product inferior, in your opinion?

 

[Abrasax]

I knew that would hit a nerve! I guess I was feeling ornery and just stirring the pot a little!

I know most FE agents replace business, some more than others. I sometimes do, too, although not often. Doesn't bother me when it's as you describe, if it's actually in the client's best interest. The trouble is that the standard for that is entirely subjective. Too often an agent is able to convince himself and the client that he's putting them in a better position when in reality he may be putting them at risk. (And if he was being honest he might find that his real motive was to put himself in a better position!)

But that's not even what I mean by "Replacement Artist". What I'm thinking of is those agents who can see nothing but the biggest sale possible. They replace policies because they can with little regard for whether they should. They'll replace another agent's perfectly good business without actually improving the client's situation in any meaningful way (and sometimes even put them in a worse position). They may rationalize a way to feel ok about it, but some don't even care. The ones I really hate are the ones that imply (or outright lie) that a product is inferior when they know it's not, or imply that the writing agent was dishonest when there's no reason to believe that.

So, just curious: What kinds of things would make a product inferior, in your opinion?

I think I'm mostly on the same page as you. I feel similarly toward those who use scare tactics in regards to fraternities and certificates. At the end of the day, if the companies are paying claims, an agent shouldn't replace them just because he can put them with his go-to carrier and solve a false problem. I think replacing B companies with A companies may be equally petty, though I'm not sure about that. Even if a company went out of business, their policies are still in force, right?

I'm not a "replacement artist". Your comments didn't hit a nerve for me, I just don't hear people talk like that much so I was wondering what your reasoning is.

Maybe it's because I'm in South Florida and I'm the 3rd agent this month in half the houses I go into, but I think nowadays if you're not writing business within $5 of the price buster with full first day coverage whenever possible, you're asking to be replaced. I understand what you're saying, but at the same time I don't have much sympathy for the guy who wrote Americo or RNA for 150/mo when she can get Lifeshield for $30/mo less.

Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Goes for both the replacement artist and the "company man" pushing the higher priced carriers that benefit the agent more than the client. If an agent doesn't write business that connects a client with all of their eligible benefits, he's basically asking for someone else to finish his job for him.

There's a lot of gray area too, I'm sure. I've seen a couple situations like that now, but I try to think about what I would recommend my mom do.