Showing posts with label Interview Findings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interview Findings. Show all posts

Monday, March 16, 2020

Hi-Touch vs Hi-Tech Is the Insurance : Qualitative Interview Findings


As detailed in the previous chapter, the following persons were interviewed:
 
Qualitative Interview Findings
Interview Questions and Interviewees’ Replies
  • How do you think Fintech/InsurTech (technology) has affected the insurance industry so far?

All the interviewees agreed that technology has affected operations in the insurance industry, but the impact on sales distribution has been limited. Others used the words ‘minimal’, ‘status quo’, ‘unchanged’, etc. Person C said that the use of technology in insurance is more prevalent in ‘backroom’ operations such as automation of routine processes and using chatbots on simpler claims and customer service requests; this was echoed by Person G. Persons D, R, G and J agreed that technology has aided the sales process by making it faster and more efficient. Person G elaborated that at a Million Dollar Round Table (MDRT- www.mrdt.org) meeting a few years ago; the talk was of technology replacing human insurance agents. However, the rhetoric has changed to one of technology making agents more productive.
A cautious tone was sounded by Person R that technology will continue to evolve and may cause consumers who are more tech-savvy to ‘DIY- do it yourself’ by going online to research and potentially bypass the agent when making an insurance policy purchase. Person P suggested that insurance companies need to be on their toes and keep abreast of ever-changing technological developments. Person C also mentioned that his organisation is constantly trying out the technology to replace slow processes currently performed by humans.
  •  How do you think agents/advisers have been affected?

While Persons D and P are of the view that agents have not been strongly affected, the others were more effusive about the need to keep up with technology trends. Persons P and R warned that the trend of buying online will only go up; Persons J, G and C stressed that agents must adapt to this ‘transitional’ phase where customers are trying out online experiences. Person R also highlighted that some customers are well-read; they researched online before meeting the agent for a discussion.
  • What does this mean for customers?

According to Person C, the buying process has been simplified and insurance made more accessible and easier to understand. Customers of Person J have even started trying out a few insurance mobile apps (applications) and researched online before meeting, whereas Persons E and R believed that with greater transparency, the insurers will be forced to lower premiums. Both Persons D and G agreed with the above but feel that there is information overload and in most cases, a trained human professional is still needed to ‘cut the clutter’ and look at what’s relevant to the customer’s situation.
  •  What do you think of Direct Purchase Insurance; directive by MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore) – insurers have to offer selected policies online/direct to the public without advice?

All of the interviewees agreed the results have not been forthcoming as hoped by the authorities. An average of about 200 policies is sold per quarter; a drop in the ocean compared to the overall sold in Singapore. The experts do differ in their opinions of the intention behind the move; Person C thought the MAS is forcing insurers to keep up with the times, while J felt that MAS thinks perceived high premiums are a deterrent, hence lower premiums will spur higher insurance take up. Person D suspected that it was a political move but Person R disagreed and felt that the intention of the MAS was noble in wanting to reduce distribution costs. However, R added that despite the slight reduction in premium and availability of information, people still hesitated as they may not know what they need and were afraid to buy an unsuitable plan. In Person G’s opinion, Direct Purchase Insurance was mostly used as a portal for consumers, agents and insurers to find out about each other’s plans and rates.
  • Why do you think the take-up rate of Direct Insurance is what it is today? What will happen if a bigger discount was offered?

The general consensus was that it may spur a few more to venture into online insurance purchases but again, the numbers will be insignificant. Various theories were offered: Persons D and R felt that the average consumer did not have sufficient knowledge, but more importantly, the Singaporean consumer must still be sold on insurance and will not take the initiative to buy. Interviewees C and J agreed and added that insurance is usually not high on the list of priorities of the average consumer’s mind. G offered another theory: there is so much information online and one will find totally opposite reviews of each plan that the public is confounded. For the online purchase to gain traction, Persons P and J suggested that the publicity and marketing efforts need to be ramped up as few were aware of the availability.
  • Why do you think people still choose to buy direct / from an agent?

Online: People who want convenience (Persons E and C). People who are price sensitive (Persons G, P, E, D). People who are wary of the agent’s underlying motivation (Persons D, C). Agent: People who value relationships, trust and professional advice and holistic planning (All interviewees). Person J offered that it will be people who have limited time and would rather pay someone to help them than DIY.
  • Who do you think is more likely to buy direct without advice?

Millennials (Persons D, E, P) were more likely to do this as they were born into the internet era and more comfortable buying nearly everything they need online. Financially-savvy individuals who know exactly what they want was suggested by Persons P and J. Interestingly, the total opposite was offered as a theory by Person R who thought it may be people who don’t know what they don’t know!
  • How do you see the insurance industry evolving?

A high-tech but still hi-touch relationship was the vision of Person G. Agents meeting clients using an online meeting platform such as ‘Facetime’ or ‘Skype’ to discuss their needs. Policies may be signed remotely without requiring a face-to-face meeting. Person J also envisaged a technology-driven experience for the client onboarding process.
Persons D and P said that the insurance industry will have to become more transparent as information becomes freely available. The future agent will be someone who can put this information together and make sense of it. A warning was raised by both Persons R and D: Agents who do not keep up with the times nor add valuable advice will not be able to survive in this new evolved industry. Those that remain, however, will become more productive and credible (Persons E and D).
  • What has your organisation done to keep in touch/ahead of technology?

A few of the interviewees’ organisations seemed to be on top of things. Person C’s company has had in place a ‘Strategy and Transformation’ task force since 2015. This team reported directly to the Board of Directors and was responsible for using available technology to make things simpler and challenge the status quo. A similar action was being undertaken at the office of Person R. The company has invested in FinTech and a special department was in charge of finding what’s out there to try to take advantage of it. Artificial Intelligence (AI) prospecting was on the cards of the companies that Persons E and G work at. Algorithms are being deployed to crunch the big database of their clients to predict which customers are likely to buy and what plans they would be keen on.
  • Does the agent/adviser still have a role to play? If so, what will it be?

All the expert interviewees were unanimous in agreeing that the agent is here to stay. The agent of the future must provide holistic advice and always have the client’s interest in mind (Person E). Person C concurred and added that the agent will provide the human touch required to manage emotions and other tasks that still cannot be automated. The hi-touch and hi-tech agent will harness technology to have relevant information available at the touch of a fingertip (Person P), use technology to process mundane processes (Person C) to complement his/her ability (Person D) when engaging with the client. Besides knowing how to do the above, the agent needs to be able to advise on a wider range of subjects such as trusts, investments, medical and legal issues (Person J) that are relevant to the client. Person G called the agent of the future an A.I. – adviser and influencer whereas in Person R’s view, the agent is still needed to cut away the internet chatter and noise and to encourage the client to make a decision.
  • What can agents/advisers do now to stay relevant?

‘Education’, ‘Attitude’ and ‘Relationship’ were the refrains heard from all the expert interviewees. Agents will be expected to know matters beyond their traditional scope of advice as outlined in replies to Q10. Agents must read widely and strive to educate themselves and to acquire a multitude of skills. A mindset change is also critical – agents must embrace new technology and use them to their own advantage to become more indispensable and productive. Finally, the interviewees advised agents to still continue to do what they do best at; relationship building by managing client’s feelings and deepening the bond.


Results, Analysis and Findings



The results of the quantitative research will be analysed first, followed by the qualitative interviews.

Quantitative Survey Research Findings
A total of 110 valid responses (N=110) were obtained online from Singaporeans and Permanent Residents domiciled in Singapore. Gender distribution was fairly even with 60 male respondents (55%) and 50 female respondents (45%). Age band distribution was skewed with 76% of respondents in the age range of 31 to 50. This is ideal as most purchasers of insurance are likely to be in this category; in their most productive working years, and tend to be more family-oriented.
 
Quantitative Survey Research Findings
The majority of respondents are married or married with children (78%). Most respondents (72%) have at least a degree qualification or higher and 99% of all respondents own at least 1 type of insurance policy that was purchased through an insurance agent. Only 10 respondents (9%) do not have a trusted insurance agent serving them. Overall, the respondents are well placed and qualified to discuss personal insurance topics and validate the survey outcome. The next section will examine each hypothesis based on the results.

There is a high correlation between current policyholders and their views towards future purchase mode. The majority of respondents (>90%) purchase whole life, endowment and investment-linked plans through an agent; less than 20 indicated they prefer to buy from an online source. Over 50% will not buy a whole life, endowment or investment-linked plan online while about 26% will do so only if there is a large (40-50%) discount offered. Agent’s advice and the plan features top the chart with over 70% of respondents ranking it important or higher when they buy a whole life, endowment, investment-linked or term even. However, for hospitalisation plans, the top 2 parameters during purchase are Plan Affordability and Features. This could be due to the fact that Singapore has a national ‘universal’ hospitalisation plan, Medishield Life (CPF Board, 2015). Overall, the agent’s advice and recommendation are crucial for ‘complex’ policies that require deeper analysis thus the Hypothesis H2: The agent is preferred especially for complex products that require financial needs analysis, is confirmed.

Sunday, March 15, 2020

Investigative Approach and Research Methods

Investigative Approach and Research Methods


This paper uses both quantitative and qualitative methods as each research method has its own weaknesses and is somewhat compensated by the other (Steckler A., et al, 1992). Quantitative data tends to be factual and if enough numbers obtained, fairly representative of the population of which it samples. It is used in this report to obtain information on consumer behaviour and attitude towards insurance purchases and their agent if they have one. Qualitative methods on the other hand sample a relatively smaller number of participants as compared to quantitative; however it delves into the minds of selected participants for deeper perspectives. Thus the selection of candidates for qualitative research is of paramount importance and critical to its success. In this report, leading industry professionals are interviewed for their authoritative views of the research topics. Data from both methods may be viewed as complementary (Jick T.D., 1979) and may then even allow for contrast and comparison. There could also be unexpected uses uncovered when using multi-methods research (Bryman A., 2006)

This paper aims to answer the following hypotheses:
  • ‘Simpler’ general insurance products like motor, travel, home, etc. will see increased traction towards online purchase instead of via an agent.
  • The agent is preferred especially for complex products that require financial needs analysis.
  • Most Singaporeans value quality advice over price discounts when it comes to insurance
  • Despite online purchase options, the agent is still relevant and important
  • People who are satisfied with their agent are less likely to buy online
  • There is a functional relationship between demographics and the perceived value of an agent


Technological Disruption in the Insurance Industry

Technological Disruption in the Insurance Industry


In the earlier years of the internet, the practice of purchasing financial products online was slow to take off due largely to concerns of risk and security (Gerrard et al, 2006). Some were early adopters but others decided to wait and see, depending on each individual’s personal risk perception (Walker and Johnson, 2005, 2006).

As technology developed and internet security improved, new distribution platforms were developed despite initial impediments (Dabholkar and Sheng, 2012), together with new products designed for these platforms (Sousa and Voss, 2009). Despite each platform having its own set of characteristics (Laukkanen, 2007), they have completely altered the way that customers engage with the companies (Patricio et al, 2003) and the relationship between them (Black et al, 2002).

Today, the industrial revolution of the digital age is underway and InsurTech (Insurance Technology) companies have set their sights on the 300-year-old insurance industry. Such technology companies
have sprung up globally, disrupting the way things have been done. The emerging technologies, together with customers’ expectations, are causing the insurance industry to consolidate (PWC, 2018). Insurers used to be working in isolation with few partners outside of the industry; today the insurer that wants to stay relevant has to work in a complex partnership with companies from various industries to provide a total customer experience (Cebulsky M. et al, 2018).

In Singapore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is the central bank and financial regulatory authority. With the advances in technology and online security, MAS has embraced these changes and introduced a FinTech Regulatory Sandbox (Fan P.S., 2017) to encourage innovation and experimentation of new applications for the financial industry. This ‘balanced approach’ allows FinTech providers to operate with relaxed regulations in a controlled environment instead of the ‘real-world’ where more stringent rules. This allows for creativity but ensures financial stability and consumer protection.

From the early days, the insurance industry has been based on a personal interaction ‘hi-touch’ model (Gera R, 2011). Insurance agents (also called other names: Advisers, Consultants, Planners, etc.) are the major distribution channel and often the main point of interaction between the insurance company and the customer (Crosby et al, 1990). In recent years, however, multiple alternative distribution channels have emerged due to intense competition, the availability of applicable technology and the need to retain customers and reduce costs (Jeyakumar N., 2017). One of such channels is ‘Digital to Customer’, where selected insurance plans are made available for online purchase online via a mobile phone application.

In the initial years of the digital revolution, many InsurTech companies set their sights to disrupt the traditional players of the insurance industry. This has shifted gradually to collaboration; the technology players have begun to see more benefits to work alongside the incumbents rather than to go it alone in a ‘David versus Goliath’ fight. Instead of disruption, InsurTech companies look to complement and enhance the insurance companies’ operations from securing transactions, improving efficiency and reducing operating costs. Other InsurTech companies offer software that complements the practitioners’ work such as Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and complex modelling for individual analysis of financial needs.

Perhaps one of the greatest benefits from these recent advancements in financial technology is inclusion. Using recent estimates, there are almost 2 billion people living in poverty and some 200 million ‘micro’ small and medium enterprises (SMEs). These segments were previously marginalised and do not have financial products readily available to them. With high smartphone usage even in developing countries, financial services can now be made available and affordable to these groups and potentially reducing poverty with economic growth (Soriano M.D., 2018).


Relationships in Financial Services


The insurance industry has been existent since classical times and was well established around the 17th century. The majority of policies were sold via intermediaries (insurance agents) as they may not be easily understood by the public and highly intangible (Durvasula et al., 2004; Tsoukatos and Rand, 2006), and these agents are typically the customers’ only contact point with the insurance company (Crosby et al., 1990).

The cost of sale of an insurance policy is typically steep and recoverable only after the policyholder has paid 3-4 years’ premiums (Zeithaml et al, 1996). Thus it is imperative that customer retention and satisfaction remains high, not just for distribution cost recovery; high customer loyalty leads to opportunities to up and cross-sell (Lombardi, 2005), increased referrals, and better overall financial performance (Moore and Santomero, 1999. Diacon and O’Brien, 2002).

To achieve higher customer retention, quality service levels, relationship, advice and integrity of the agent (Toran, 1993) are critical factors (Slattery, 1989). Personal interactions with their insurance agent and insurance service staff perception make up critical components of brand loyalty (Soloman et al, 1985. Gro¨nroos, 1990).

Agent – Customer – Insurer Literature Map


There are 2 journals with relevant cases studies worth analysing. Both were done in Europe; one in Ireland and the other in Italy.

Irish Case Study 
A study was done in Ireland by O'Loughlin, D. and Szmigin, I. in 2005. Their paper titled ‘Customer perspectives on the role and importance of branding in Irish retail financial services’ explores the customers’ perception of the functional and emotional factors when making a financial services purchase. Although the research findings indicate that consumers in Ireland place more emphasis on functional values, the researchers highlight a lack of differentiation in the services and rates offered. Instead of using emotional advertising messages, financial companies could add value by focusing on the ‘people-based process’; providing superior advice, expertise, service quality and flexibility. 

Mediterranean (Italy) Case Study 
Another similar study was conducted by Petruzzellis, L., Romanazzi, S. and Tassiello, V., 2011 titled, ‘Branding relationships in financial services: a Paradigm shift in Mediterranean countries.’ Despite the availability of other channels, Italians have a closer relationship with their financial services staff as compared to the Irish; human interaction, familiarity and personable service are much highly valued and feature strongly in the decision making process. Amazingly, statistics from the Bank of Italy in 2017 shows that 40% of Italians do not use online banking (Banca D’Italia official statistics website, 2017) with many preferring to visit the bank. 

These case studies illustrate that while functional values are on the mind of the Irish consumer more than the Italian, it is still beneficial for the company to focus on the service process. This is especially so when the perceived risk of the product is higher; in such a situation, trust in the brand and the advice of financial service staff is highly valued (Gill, 2008).

What about Singapore?
It is interesting to note that although both Ireland and Italy are in Europe, the attitude towards financial services decision-making show marked differences. This may be attributed to each country’s cultural differences and practices. Culture is usually defined as a set of values, norms, behaviour, etc. that is peculiar to a country, society, or group and differentiate it from another (De Mooij, 2013. Giddens et al, 2016). These are usually formed through socialisation (Ghemawat and Reiche, 2016) and influenced by tastes, preferences and religion (Cohen and Varnum, 2016).

How will the Singaporean consumer attitude towards financial services compare? Against the other 2 countries, Singapore is a young nation (gained independence 1960s) with a diverse mix of people (Chinese 77%, Malays 15%, Indians 6%, Others 2%).

Hofstede Cultural Comparison for Ireland, Italy & Singapore


From Figure 2c, we can see marked differences in some of the dimensions. In Power Distance which marks social inequality and relationship with authority (Bian and Forsythe, 2012), Singaporeans are the most accepting of uneven power distribution in society and organisations (Hofstede, 1980b; Hofstede and Minkov, 2010). Even more remarkable are the gulfs in the dimensions of Individualism and uncertainty avoidance; Singaporeans abide by rules for nearly everything in life!


Will the combination of high power distance, collectivism and need for structure see the Singaporean consumer ‘give face’ and respect the advice of their insurance agent? Or will the thriftiness and eye for a bargain drive the Singaporean to online insurance channels to save on cost?