Have you noticed how, in the insurance business, “marketing” means different things depending on context? PIA’s latest survey shows agents aren’t overly concerned about companies’ consumer-oriented marketing. Meanwhile, agents do care about marketing efforts that foster relationships with agents.

The 2009 PIA Company Performance Survey measured companies on two marketing-related items, both geared toward insurance buyers: “Brand helps sell product” and “Message supports agents.”

Another type of marketing aims primarily at agents themselves. This function is personified by the marketing representative. Marketing reps (or their absence) show up in agents’ survey comments.

Marketing scores. Companies were rated by agents (using a 10-point scale) on 20 individual performance items. At 6.4, “Brand helps sell product” received the lowest score on the survey. “Message supports agents,” at 7.2, also scored below the survey’s overall average (7.3).

These particular items were newly added in re-drafting the 2009 survey, after former marketing items got low importance ratings from agents. The new items were thought to reflect more closely agents’ actual concerns.

Agent comments. Agents were asked to name a company’s main strength and something they’d like the company to improve. Topics relating to consumer-oriented marketing made up just 4 percent of all agent comments received. Of these, all but 11 comments referred to a company’s brand value.

Agents were far more likely (by almost 9-to-1) to cite brand value as a company’s main strength than as something they’d like to see improved. The same lopsided proportion held true for both commercial and personal lines. About 6 percent of all comments naming a company’s main strength say it’s the brand.

Although no performance item mentioned marketing reps, comments suggest they can provide a significant resource in meeting agents’ needs and thus companies’ marketing goals.

What agents say—brand and message. The 2009 PIA Company Performance Survey yielded a wealth of information about what’s uppermost on agents’ minds when they think about specific companies. Taken together, these comments reveal valuable insights for anyone working in the independent agency system.

Most marketing-related comments simply identify a company’s brand as its main strength. Not surprisingly, they favor companies that advertise a lot. Only a handful of comments address an actual message, and nearly all are critical.

Typical “main strength” comments: “Great name recognition;” “Its name and reputation.” Sometimes agents associate some other characteristic closely with the name-brand: “Name—Stability.” Not all strong-brand comments apply to national carriers: “Recognized New England company;” “Well-known regional;” “Local brand, name.”

Usually unstated is the brand’s actual value to agents: “Their brand is very well known, which can often sell their product (emphasis added).” Very few improvement recommendations involve branding. When agents say how companies should improve, better brand recognition rarely occurs to them.

The handful of comments about a specific message nearly always criticize plugs for a company’s competing distribution channel. A few express strong opinions: “Company seems to want the public to buy direct instead of through its agents and brokers. It is a slap in the face to the group who put the (company) name in front of the public.”

Role of the marketing rep. Agents’ feedback also cites their marketing representatives (or lack thereof). Clearly, agents respect some reps enough to say this person is the company’s main strength: “Excellent, knowledgeable marketing rep;” “Their marketing rep is one of the best.” As always, agents’ comments contain implied comparisons among companies.

What is these individuals’ actual value? “Presence in our agency on a regular basis;” “Marketing rep adds value and is very resourceful.” (Improve) “In-person communication with agency by marketing reps. We haven’t seen one in over a year.” These people keep their company’s identity alive to the agent, as an actual human connection. Also, they help solve agents’ problems.

A number of agents imply part of a field rep’s value involves understanding the agent’s territory: “Marketing reps, good knowledge of (state).” (Strength) “State-level field management.” (Improve) “Lack of local company reps.”

A key function is to share information agents need: “Underwriting and marketing communication is great.” But, some companies lack this strength: “More communication on what they want to write.” (Improve) “Company contact and introduction of new products. We never see a marketing rep.”

Yes, agents do notice when marketing reps don’t come around: “Establish better communication with agents. We have not had a visit from a marketing rep in over a year.” “Reaching out to agents. I haven’t seen a (company) marketing rep in more than three years.”

Companies should realize that agents sometimes feel this absence as outright neglect: “We have not seen our marketing rep in over a year, so I guess they don’t need business from us.”

Still, not every interaction is positive or business oriented: “My rep ... only contacts me once a quarter to complain that my hit ratio isn’t high enough.” (Improve) “A marketing rep that does more than glad-hand me once a year.” Better interactions would help set joint business strategies and let agents say what they need to improve their “hit ratio” for that particular company.

Conclusion. Despite new marketing survey items, performance scores, coupled with a lack of improve-ment recommendations, still downplay agents’ focus on consumer-oriented marketing by their companies. Considering the amount of time and resources companies spend, it may seem odd that agents don’t show more concern.

Besides having little direct role in planning, agents may see huge investments in a company’s particular brand as somewhat beside the point, relative to the independent agency business model. Agents present customers with their best overall value proposition. Brand and reputation (if well-founded) form part—but only part—of these judgments. Moreover, perception of a company’s “brand” is likely to be more complex and nuanced to an agent than to a purchaser.

Agents take seriously their own role as companies’ “marketing arm.” But, to be effective, agents need the company to communicate its strong points and its appetite. The time-honored way of doing this? Face-to-face.

Marketing reps play a pivotal role in communicating about company direction (i.e., getting agents to focus on the company’s goals and listening to agents’ constructive feedback about its plans). When marketing people don’t stop by, note what agents miss: they don’t get a “visit,” they don’t “see” their rep. Personal interaction, in the service of joint marketing success, is what agents say these companies should improve.—Kiehl