Tag Archives: Majesco

Market Boundaries Are Blurring

The year is 1959. Neuroscientist and psychologist Bela Julesz tests the ability of the brain to perceive images in 3D. With circular dots and a double image, subjects could begin to see a circle floating above a printed background. Fast forward 20 years, and two of Julesz’s students use a computer to accomplish the same feat in just a single image. By 1991, Magic Eye pictures used repeat patterns to control the depth of perception. A complete 3D image could be hidden inside a 2D pattern. The only way someone could see the image was to relax the eye, blur the pattern and let the brain do the rest. What looked out of focus, blurry and flat, was transformed into an image of stark clarity that leapt off the paper.

Is this a magic formula for considering today’s insurance? A jumble of patterns exist. Focus is difficult to maintain. Thousands of details and past assumptions threaten to distort what insurance executives need to decipher. But…if we relax just a bit and allow the blurriness to exist for a few moments, a certain clarity arises. Not only does the picture become clear, it jumps off the page in 3D. As market boundaries blur and evaporate, new answers to insurance technology, processes and business models are coming to life.

Which boundaries are reshaping the industry?

Four years ago, Majesco published its first Future Trends report that examined the converging “tectonic plates” of people, technology and market boundary changes that are redefining the world, industries and businesses — including insurance. Recently, we released the latest report, Future Trends: Looking Back and Leaping Forward, where we once again discussed shifting market boundaries under six trending categories:

  • Insurtech
  • Channels
  • Blurring Boundaries (between industries)
  • New Competition
  • New Products
  • Competition for Talent

From the start, we recognized that insurers were going to begin competing in a new paradigm beyond their brand, product, price and distribution. This new paradigm required insurers to compete also on the customer experience and to move from vertical market boundaries to porous market boundaries, or ecosystems.

Ecosystems are fluid, porous and operate across and within verticals and multiple channels. The first platform companies like Amazon, Google, Apple, Netflix and Uber disrupted multiple industry verticals and demonstrated why market boundaries limit revenue generation, customer value and market valuations. By bursting the boundaries, they lost predictability, but they gained market reach.

The boundary lesson for insurers is that the industry isn’t simply being reshaped, it is being “unshaped.” 

It’s no wonder, then, that many insurers are finding themselves and their strategies adrift — no longer safely anchored to traditional assumptions. Insurers now have to wrap their heads around a new image that will allow them to escape 2D frameworks and find answers in new dimensions.

See also: Insurtech 2020: Trends That Offer Growth  

Can we find clarity among the blurriness of market boundaries? 

With traditional market and product assumptions (and constraints) evaporating before our eyes, clarity has to be found in a whole new definition of insurance products and services. From ecosystems to technologies, some picture has to emerge that will allow our brains to think “outside the page.”

In words, this image might be, “Escape linear thinking. Embrace the idea of plug and play, partners, networks and ecosystems.”

What is affecting our boundaries and how can we use an ecosystem approach to take advantage of these boundary shifts? We can find out by considering four of the boundary-breaking areas — Insurtech, Channels, Blurring Boundaries and New Products.

Insurtech

If you have been keeping an eye on insurtech, then you’ll know how volatile and substantial investment has been. Based on Venture Scanner data, insurtech investment in 2015 was $1.78 billion as compared with $3.37 billion in 2018 (89% growth) and just over $5 billion through Q3 2019.

Even more interesting are the top funding areas. From the recent Venture Scanner report, Q3 2019 showed the largest influx of funding was in the Insurance Infrastructure/Backend category, with $1.12 billion.

This is a major flip given that channels/front-end were originally the top priority. This flip in focus recognizes the criticality of next-gen technology platforms for insurers that provide flexibility, agility, speed and scale. What does this mean for insurers that are looking for clarity?

First, insurers can take advantage of insurtech investments without making direct investments in insurtech. This is the one of the major takeaways. Insurtech capabilities are now ready as plug-and-play, ecosystem-based, cloud-available services such as Majesco’s Digital1st Insurance,

Channels

Today’s customers have introduced new time requirements and pressures into the insurance equation because they are looking for solutions that meet their needs on their terms (when and how they need it), and with speed. There is the time to quote, time to underwrite and time to purchase, which are all opportunities to lose or to gain the sale.

In this new era of insurance, nearly every insurance process is rapidly becoming frictionless, including buying. If distribution channels are easy to use with products that are easy to understand, then insurance has the opportunity to grow through a friction-free, multi-channel distribution system.

The industry is now exploding with new concepts in distribution, including new distribution channel options from marketplaces like Bold Penguin and digital MGAs like Slice Labs. We have also seen the shift from portals to digital experience platforms like Majesco Digital1st Insurance, which has allowed companies like Burns & Wilcox, a major wholesaler, to bring innovative specialty insurance solutions to brokers and agents. Ecosystems can rewrite channel strategy and open the windows to allow for unprecedented levels of channel partnership.

Blurring Boundaries (between industries)

Embedded insurance is an example of boundaries becoming invisible. There is a “hidden channel,” connecting insurance with another ecosystem, such as rental properties, auto manufacturers or even baby gift registries – and embedding the opportunity to purchase within the existing process.

To capture the opportunity, insurers must create an ecosystem of partnerships with a range of digital capabilities and channels to reach new and existing customers. How do insurers recognize the opportunities that exist within the flow of the current of buyer needs, events and lifestyles, to fit the product to the flow of life instead of trying to sell “upstream”?

Majesco Consumer and SMB research has found that customers are very interested in innovative channels like embedding insurance. The answer boils down to alignment. Clear strategies will align the right channels, technologies and partnerships, considering the synergies of partner organizations and the expectations of today’s and tomorrow’s customers. In many cases, insurers will need to quickly build relationships and cross industry verticals. In most cases, strategic clarity will be found through rapid test-and-learn cycles.

New Products

Over the last four years, we have seen a growing proliferation of new products and value-added services. These products use new data sources, offer new customer experiences, leverage new technologies and, most importantly, are focused on meeting a new set of risk needs and expectations, particularly for millennials and Gen Z.

The most important change, driven by startups and greenfields, is the unbundling of “one-size-fits-all” insurance into products based on specific needs at specific times. Unbundling, coupled with the growth in the sharing and gig economy has powered the development of micro-insurance or on-demand products across all insurance segments and lines of business.

See also: Future of Insurance Is Clear (but Hard)  

Initially, unbundling was best accomplished by a range of small and agile insurance or MGA startups. As traditional insurers and reinsurers have begun to re-envision their responses to blurring industry and market boundaries, they have begun forming clear approaches to on-demand product development. Fast forward to today, and we are now seeing the emergence of on-demand voluntary benefits, life insurance, rideshare, cyber and so much more.

These four boundary-breaking trends are proving that insurers of all sizes can now find an alternate picture within a blurring universe — clear answers rising above the background of tradition and disruption.

Are You Innovating, or Chasing the Leader?

It’s the relay runner’s nightmare: You just can’t seem to catch up. Maybe you’re in the lead, but you can’t shake the person on your shoulder. How do you get ahead and stay ahead?

In insurance, whether you’re looking over your shoulder or trying to catch up, you need to know as much as possible about the market and the competition. That’s why Majesco helps insurers assess their technology positioning with our Strategic Priorities surveys. Here are some highlights from this year’s report:

Competitive Position — Recognizing Leaders, Followers and Laggards

Too often, strategic planning does not yield the bold changes needed because insurers do not rapidly move into a leading position by going from knowing to doing. This year’s research shows an ever-widening gap that is defining a new era of leaders.

The June 2019 McKinsey article, “How to win in insurance: Climbing the power curve,” emphasizes the gap between leaders and followers or laggards. McKinsey’s research shows that the capital allocated to each business unit from one year to the next is nearly identical – rather than reallocating capital to make bold changes for the future.

Capital shifts indicate priority shifts. They also point to investment strategies. This is consistent with the growing Knowing-Doing Gap emerging in the industry, highlighted by our Strategic Priorities research over the last five years, a gap that is putting some companies at risk given the pace of change and limited resources. Investments aren’t necessarily being made where they are most needed. Many insurers still aren’t recognizing that investments today may result in long-term reductions in the need for technology investments due to platform efficiencies. 

See also: Insurance Innovation’s Growth Challenge  

Taking decisive action around strategy is crucial, particularly with the pace of change and rapidly evolving competitive landscape. As the McKinsey article points out, strategy is about playing the odds, increasing the amount of “doing,” even if some plans fail, to ensure overall success. Insurers must focus on both optimizing today’s business and boldly creating tomorrow’s business – a two-speed strategy.

Strategic Priorities Report Highlights

This year’s research highlights how leaders have replaced legacy, expanded their channels, introduced products and business models and produced higher growth. Even more important, they see greater growth over the next three years. 

If your organization isn’t currently in the leadership position, you CAN catch up. If you know where leaders’ investments have been paying off, you have a guide for transformation, optimization, innovation and growth.

Here are some key insights from this year’s report:

  • When we asked insurers about the state of their business (growth, systems, products, models and channels), last year was challenging for laggards, which had a 41% gap to leaders, and for followers, which had a 15% gap.
  • Leaders are laser-focused on both speed of operations and on speed of innovation. This is reflected in their work on legacy replacement, channel expansion, new products and new business models; followers and laggards are primarily concerned with speed of operations.
  • Leaders’ replacement of legacy core is greater by 75% than laggards, and by 20% than followers – putting leaders at a clear advantage
  • Leaders are creating products and business models nearly 55% faster than laggards and 20% than followers – enabling leaders to capture market share and revenue more quickly.
  • Leaders are expanding channels at a staggering rate of 19% higher than followers and 88% higher than laggards – expanding leaders’ market reach and their ability to acquire and retain customers and revenue.
  • Over the next three years, laggards and followers will drop even further behind leaders.

Bold moves to optimize today’s business and create the future business substantially increase an insurer’s potential for success.  Leaders are blazing trails with new business models, channel expansion, new products and core system replacement while followers are attempting to do a few things and laggards are primarily watching.

Platforms, Production and Products

One of the most fascinating portions of the Strategic Priorities report is what Majesco found regarding platform planning, development and use. We wanted to understand where insurers were in their core system transformation, defining four answers within two simple concepts: Platform and Non-Platform.

  • Platform was defined as cloud-enabled, API and SaaS-based solutions or next-gen that were cloud-native, API and microservices solutions.
  • Non-Platform was defined as old, monolithic, legacy and modern on-premise solutions.

Consider these two, related findings.

  • P&C and L&A and group insurers are operating with Non-Platform core solutions at a staggering 60%, affecting their ability for innovation, speed and agility.
  • Insurers introducing new products and services are more likely using Platform-based solutions in the range of 60%-70%, a complete flip from the existing business and reflecting the growing focus on greenfields and startups.

So, many insurers are missing out on agile product development processes that can be found through platform vs. traditional core systems.

Response to Regulatory and Rating Agency Developments

This year, Majesco added an area of focus to cover insurer responses to the rapid advancements in the regulatory arena during 2019. The adoption of the AM Best innovation rating and the introduction of sandboxes by state regulators to test new products in a more rapid, managed manner, are certain to have a growing impact on insurers’ innovation timelines. The question we asked was, “How actively is your company responding to these recent regulatory developments?”

For the most part, we found a lack of understanding and planning around these highly important changes within certain market segments. For example, L&A and group insurers lag significantly behind P&C and multi-line insurers in preparation for the AM Best innovation rating, with a gap of nearly 30%. Multi-line insurers outpace both P&C and L&A and group insurers by upward of 35% in the use of sandboxes. For more insight, check out the replay of this webinar, titled, “The Future of Insurance and Regulation:  Optimization, Growth and Innovation” that features individuals from AM Best, Ohio Insurance Department of Insurance and a former first deputy commissioner for Iowa. Their insights highlight the growing need for insurers to be innovating.

See also: How to Innovate With an Agency Partner  

In Summary

Insurers must gain clarity on how to succeed in the future of insurance, which is coming faster than most realize. Insurers must lay the groundwork of a new digital insurance business model that embraces customer, technology and market boundary changes with vision, energy and speed.

How do your strategies align to what leaders are doing? What specific plans can you take to improve your odds of success? How can you rapidly move from knowing to doing?

Your answers will determine your readiness in a new decade and the future of insurance.

To Be or Not to Be Insurtech

It is probably a bit presumptuous to liken the insurtech startup movement to Hamlet’s famous “To be or not to be” soliloquy. It is, after all, a well-known and historical Shakespearean reference. However, the similarity is in the questions asked, and such a question has probably been asked prior to many defining moments. And just as Hamlet pondered many questions, there are many questions that revolve around the state of the insurtech movement. At this juncture, some five years into this movement, the one question that has most likely gone by the board is – Is it real?  You can debate whether we are at the beginning of the insurtech cycle or at the end. However, there are several strong points in favor of the fact that it is real.

See also: Convergence in Action in Insurtech  

SMA has been following the insurtech startup trends since 2013. Currently, we track approximately 1,200 insurtechs. It is definitely a fluid number. Some startups go out of business, and others come in to fill the void at a regular pace. In the 2013-2015 timeframe, the insurtech startup landscape was a tsunami of activity – it was difficult to get one’s arms around what was happening. In the latter half of 2017, some strong realities emerged. SMA’s recently released research findings have revealed several major insurtech trends or themes that are specific to insurance and have meaningful implications for the industry. In response to the “is this real” question, three of the 10 themes anchor the insurtech movement firmly in reality.

  • Insurtech has spread to all tiers and lines of business – Originally, most of the activity was in personal lines and health. Now, of the P&C contingent, which SMA data indicates is 39% of all the activity, a little over half is personal lines; 35% is commercial lines; 13% is workers’ comp. Historically, technology providers have targeted particular tiers for their sales efforts. The startup community targets insurance business problems without a specific tier focus. What this means is that insurers of all sizes are able to adopt insurtech-provided technology. SMA partnering data shows that there are insurtechs with customers ranging from top 10 insurers down to single-state insurers. The bottom line: The fact that insurtech is not focused on the top echelon of global players but rather on business problems across the insurance ecosystem lends itself to the “it’s real” theme.
  • Live implementations are increasing – Not surprisingly, in the beginning of the startup movement, most of the activity was around fundraising and proofs of concept. In 2017, and continuing at an accelerating pace in 2018, insurer “go lives” are happening. Some insurtechs have 10, 12 or more insurer logos on their websites. These are not investor listings; they are the names of insurers that are rolling out capabilities in the marketplace. In particular, drone usage, smart home/connected property and connected vehicle initiatives are common and growing. The “it’s real” indicator is that insurers are not going to roll out technology that affects their customers just for the fun of it – customers are not guinea pigs. Insurers are seeing the value in insurtech offerings and are executing.
  • Insurtechs are partnering – While there is nothing wrong with a technology provider staying in their space, a long-standing trend within the insurance industry has been partnering for greater value. This has not escaped the attention of a number of insurtechs. For example, Bold Penguin and Ask Kodiak have partnered, as have Elafris and Hippo and Betterview and Understory. Mature technology providers also see the value of startup partnering; for example, Willis Towers Watson and Roost, Verisk Analytics and Driveway. Majesco partners with a network of insurtechs. The “it’s real” factor is that insurtechs are not simply attempting to see what they can do just for today – but, rather, what they can do for the long haul, to become strategic contributors within the insurers they work with.

While there are still questions about the insurtech movement, one of them should not be – Is it real? Business value is being generated by many startups – and no insurer is going to walk away from that. New channels and service opportunities are emerging that are generating interest and execution. New products are sprouting up at a regular pace. Not every startup and every idea is going to be a winner, but many will be. And some already are. Bottom line? Both Hamlet and Shakespeare would be proud of the insurance industry for seeing the possibilities and not just the questions.

See also: 4 Key Qualities to Leverage Insurtech  

How to Innovate With Microservices (Part 3)

In Part 2 of this blog series, we shared how a microservices architecture is applicable for the insurance industry and how it can play a big role in insurance transformation. This is especially true because the insurance industry is moving to a platform economy, with heavy emphasis on the interoperability of capabilities across a diverse ecosystem of partners. In this segment, we will share our views on best practices for adopting a microservices architecture to build new applications and transform existing ones.

Now that we have made a sufficient case exploring microservice architecture’s abilities to bring speed, scale and agility to IT operations, we should contemplate how we can best think about microservices. How can we transform existing monoliths into a microservices architecture? Although the approach for designing microservices may vary by organization, there are best practices and guidelines that can assist teams in the midst of making these decisions.

How many microservices are too many?

Going “too micro” is one of the biggest risks for organizations that are still new to microservices architectures. If a “thesis-driven” approach is adopted, there will be a tendency to build many smaller services. “Why not?” you may ask. “After all, once we buy into the approach, shouldn’t we just go ‘all in’?”

We encourage insurers to be careful and test the waters. We would caution against starting out with too many smaller services, due to the increased complexity of mixed architectures, the steep curve of upfront design and the significant changes in development processes as well as a lack of DevOps preparedness. We suggest a “use-case-driven” approach. Focus on urgent problems, where rapid changes are needed by the business to overcome system-inhibiting issues, and break the monolith module into multiple microservices that will serve current needs and not necessarily finer microservices based on assumptions about future needs. Remember, if we can break the monolith into microservices, then later we can make microservices more granular as needed, instead of incurring the complexity of too many microservices without an assurance of future benefits.

What are the constraints (lines of code, language, etc.) for designing better microservices?

There is a lot of myth about the number of lines of code, programming languages and permissible frameworks (just to name a few) for designing better microservices. There is an argument that if we do not set fixed constraints on numbers of lines of code per microservice, then the service will eventually grow into a monolith. Although it is a valid thought, an arbitrary size limit on lines of code will create too many services and introduce costs and complexity. If microservices are good, will “nanoservices” be even better? Of course not. We must ensure that the costs of building and managing a microservice are less than the benefit it provides — hence, the size of a microservice should be determined by its business benefit instead of lines of code.

Another advantage of a microservices architecture is the interoperability between microservices, regardless of underlying programming language and data structure. There is no one framework, programming language or database that is better-suited than another for building microservices. The choice of technology should be made based on underlying business benefits that a particular technology provides for accomplishing the purpose of microservices. Preparing for this kind of flexible framework will give insurers vital agility moving forward.

See also: Are You Innovating in the Dark?  

How do microservices affect development processes?

A microservices architecture promotes small, incremental changes that can be deployed to production with confidence. Small changes can be deployed quickly and tested. Using a microservices architecture naturally leads to DevOps. The goal is to have better deployment quality, faster release frequency and improved process visibility. The increased frequency and pace of releases mean you can innovate and improve the product faster.

Putting a DevOps pipeline with continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) into practice requires a great deal of automation. This requires developers to treat infrastructure as code and policy as code, shifting the operational concerns about managing infrastructure needs and compliance from production to development.

It is also very important to implement real-time, continuous monitoring, alerting and assessment of the infrastructure and application. This will ensure that the rapid pace of the deployment remains reliable and promotes consistent, positive customer experiences.

To validate that we are on right path, it is important to capture some matrices on the project. Some of the key performance indicators (KPIs) we like to look at are:

  • MTTR – The mean time to respond as measured from the time a defect was discovered until the correction was deployed in production.
  • Number of deploys to production – These are small, incremental changes being introduced into production through continuous deployment.
  • Deployment success rate – Only 0.001% of AWS deployments cause outages! When done properly, we should see a very high successful deployment ratio.
  • Time to first commit – This is the time it takes for a new person joining the team to release code to production. A shorter time indicates well-designed microservices that do not carry the steep learning curve of a monolith.

Principles for Identifying Microservices and Examples

More important than the size of the microservice is the internal cohesion it must have, and its independence from other services. For that, we need to inspect the data and processing associated with the services.

A microservice must own its domain data and logic. This leads to a domain-driven design pattern. However, it is often possible to have a complex domain model that can be better presented in interconnected multiple small models. For example, consider an insurance model, composed of multiple smaller models, where the party model can be used as claim-party and also as insured (and various others…). In such a multi-model scenario, it is important to first establish a context with the model called bounded context that closely governs the logic associated with the model. Defining the microservice for a bounded context is a good start, because they are closely related.

Along with bounded context, aggregates that are used by the domain model that are loosely coupled and driven by business requirements are also good candidates for microservices, as long as they exhibit the main design tenets of the microservices; for example, services for managing vehicles as an aggregate of a policy object.

While most microservices can be easily identified by following the domain model analysis, there are a number of cases where the business processing itself is stateless and does not result in a modification of the data model itself, for example, identifying the risk locations within the projected path of a hurricane. Such stateless business processes, which follow the single responsibility principle, are great candidates for microservices.

If these principles are applied correctly, loosely coupled and independently deployable services will follow the single responsibility model without causing chattiness across the microservices. They can be versioned to allow client upgrades, provide fallback defaults and be developed by small teams.

Co-Existing With Legacy Architecture

Microservices provide a perfect tool for refactoring the legacy architecture. This can be done by applying the strangler pattern. This gives a new life to legacy applications by first moving the business functions that will benefit the most gradually as microservices. Applying this pattern requires a façade that can intercept the calls to the legacy application. A modern digital front end, which can offer a better UX and provides connectivity to a variety of backends by leveraging EIP, can be used as strangler façade to connect to existing legacy applications.

Over time, those services can be built directly using a microservices architecture, by eliminating calls to legacy application. This approach is more suited to large, legacy applications. Within smaller systems that are not very complex, the insurer may be better off rewriting the application.

How to make organizational changes to adopt microservices-driven development

Adopting microservices-driven development requires a change in organization culture and mindset. The DevOps practice tries to shift siloed operation responsibilities to the development organization. With the successful introduction of microservices best practices, it is not uncommon for the developers to do both. Even when the two teams exist, they have to communicate frequently, increase efficiencies and improve the quality of services they provide to customers. The quality assurance, performance testing and security teams also need to be tightly integrated with the DevOps teams by automating their tasks in the continuous delivery process.

See also: Who Is Innovating in Financial Services?  

Organizations need to cultivate a culture of sharing responsibility, ownership and complete accountability in microservices teams. These teams need to have a complete view of the microservice from a functional, security and deployment infrastructure perspective, regardless of their stated roles. They take full ownership for their services, often beyond the scope of their roles or titles, by thinking about the end customer’s needs and how they can contribute to solving those needs. Embedding the operational skills within the delivery teams is important to reduce potential friction between the development and operations team.

It is important to facilitate increased communication and collaboration across all the teams. This could include the use of instant messaging apps, issue management systems and wikis. This also helps other teams like sales and marketing, thus allowing the complete enterprise to align effectively toward project goals.

As we have seen in these three blogs, the microservices architecture is an excellent solution to legacy transformation. It solves a number of problems and paves the path to a scalable, resilient system that can continue to evolve over time without becoming obsolete. It allows rapid innovation with positive customer experience. A successful implementation of the microservices architecture does, however, require:

  • A shift in organization culture, moving infrastructure operations to development teams while increasing compliance and security
  • Creation of a shared view of the system and promoting collaboration
  • Automation, to facilitate continuous integration and deployment
  • Continuous monitoring, alerting and assessment
  • A platform that can allow you to gradually move your existing monolith to microservices and also natively support domain-driven design

his article was written by Sachin Dhamane and Manish Shah.

3 Key Considerations for Multi-Channel

We know the agent channel isn’t disappearing from the insurance and financial services industry anytime soon. However, it’s not going to look the same way it did 10, five, even one year ago. That’s because consumer expectations are changing rapidly, due in large part to the multi-channel shopping experience made possible by mobile and social media and delivered by companies like Amazon.

“All those expectations consumers have are coming to the insurance space,” said Chip Bacciocco, CEO of TrustedChoice.com, during Denim Summit 2017. “Insurance customers have an expectation of interacting with an expert to buy insurance any time of the day or night. They want to know where their friends buy insurance from. They want to know the ratings and reviews of different agents. They want transparency in value.”

Here are three important things to keep in mind as you develop your multi-channel customer experience:

  • Customer service. For most consumers, shopping for insurance doesn’t start on the phone any more. People want to have a conversation with a person after they’ve done their own research about the products and services offered. They want to feel informed and empowered — and many of them will be. Be sure your customer service representatives are well-trained and given the authority to perform higher-level service for those consumers who have already exhausted all self-service channels. After all, the last thing a consumer who is used to having requests completed quickly and seamlessly wants is to be transferred to another representative. Bacciocco recommends observing what you’re doing today in terms of customer interaction. “The number one way to do it: Listen to your phone calls,” he said. “Record every inbound call. We record 10,000 inbound phone calls every single month through TrustedChoice.com.”
  • Consistency. It’s no surprise that in a digital, multi-channel world, your brand is being represented through multiple channels — agent, website, social media, call center and so on. It’s critical that consumers receive the same information and experience no matter what channel they’re engaging with. “What is the consistency of the products you’re offering? The price of those?” asked Denise Garth, senior vice president of strategic marketing for Majesco, during Denim Summit 2017. “If I go to different channels, and the price is different, you’ve lost credibility, you’ve lost trust and you’ve lost any aspect of having value.”
  • Buying vs. renewing. Agents still dominate new insurance policy sales with both consumers and small- to medium-size businesses. However, renewals tend to be less of a face-to-face process. “That is really, really critical because that’s when you’re going to lose them,” Garth said. “If you don’t have a digital channel to engage with them really well to renew that policy and provide that service, you probably will lose them.”

See also: Global Trend Map No. 12: Cybersecurity

With 224 million smartphone users in the U.S. spending an average of two hours every day consuming social media, you have too much to lose to put the mobile and social media channels on the back burner. As you develop your multi-channel strategy throughout 2018 and beyond, be sure you are keeping in mind the customer service experience you’re delivering, its consistency across channels and the process for renewing policies in a digital way.