Many large carriers (e.g., Progressive) and most consumer insurance shopping sites (e.g., InsWeb) provide comparative quoting for auto, homeowners, and sometimes life. It's not clear yet how many of these quoting sessions turn into real leads or eventual sales. And the process is often frustrating or disappointing to the consumer, who may spend a great deal of time keying answers to mysterious questions only to get back an inadequate or confusing answer. Nonetheless, the bar has been raised. Consumers now expect comparative quoting from insurance Web sites.
One theme of this newsletter is that it is possible and realistic for agencies with limited resources to field Web sites that are superior to the multi-million dollar efforts of the "big guys." And, by providing these excellent sites, agencies can take back the initiative ceded to the companies and others over the last decade or two and solidly re-intermediate themselves. Comparative quoting is potentially an important part of a well-outfitted agency Web site. But how do you do add quoting to your site? Rating Services offers one solution.
Rating Services provides in-agency comparative auto and homeowners rating in 43 states. Over the last year or so, Rating Services has retrofitted its rating software with an HTML front end, simplified the input, and located the software on a server agency sites can connect into seamlessly. Within minutes after making arrangements with the vendor, literally, agency Web sites can be up and running with comparative quoting.
How it works
QuoteNETWorks assumes agents will use Web site quoting for marketing purposes only and will actually make the sale via a CSR using internal rating software. Here's how it can work. The prospect or existing customer comes to the agency Web site and chooses auto quoting. They are then transferred to the Quote-NETWorks server, though as far as the visitor is concerned, they're still on the agency site. QuoteNETWorks leads them through a series of questions and then generates a comparative quote. The system makes clear to the visitor that the quote is an estimate and that agency help is required for a firm quote.
During the session all the visitor-keyed data is stored on the Quote-NETWorks server. The agent later downloads the data into their internal Rating Services system. A CSR calls the prospect, reviews the quote data and asks relevant additional questions. A firm quote can then be created and the sale closed quickly and with little key-entry by the CSR. QuoteNETWorks is not intended to be an automated Web site insurance sales capability. It is intended to give consumers a chance to compare estimated rates on their own and then work with an insurance expert to complete the sale.
From time-to-time I try out Web quoting sites, and almost always find them excruciatingly slow. Often the quotes are peculiar (at best) or not returned (at worst). It's a wonder that anyone has the patience to deal with most Web-based insurance quoting. So how does QuoteNETWorks do? Actually, not too bad.
The first thing the program asks for is identifying information, including name, e-mail address, and phone number. If the visitor abandons the session without getting to a quote, at least their identity has been captured for follow-up (assuming it's accurate). Hockley and O'Donnell, a QuoteNetWorks user, has gotten good use out of the identity information, even when the visitor hasn't completed the quote process.
Because the intent is to provide an estimate with CSR follow-up, rather than complete the sale on the Web site, the Rating Services program can shorten the dialog by assuming standard answers to a number of questions that real rating requires. When the data is transmitted to the agency and viewed through the CSR's rating screen, the default answers are visible and can be reviewed - and changed if necessary - during the dialog with the prospect. So even though the entry process is somewhat protracted, it's not as awful as many of the Internet quote systems.
The process
The QNW flow is from one panel to the next. Time between panels is generally about 5 seconds, except when the quote is being created (more below). The first panel asks about LOB and state (if the agency is set up for multiple states). The second panel requests basic identity information, including what's needed to find the territory and number of vehicles. The third panel lists any questions needed to resolve territory assignments. Often there aren't any, but the panel is displayed anyway. (Why bother?) The fourth panel asks for model year (drop down) and VIN (optional); the fifth, make in the model year (drop down); sixth, the model in the make; seventh, body style/engine in the model; and eighth, the rest of the information needed to generate a symbol (most fields are pre-filled). One could argue that proceeding through all these panels is clumsy and time-consuming, but symbol generation is a very large logic-tree exercise that's too large to send to the agency in only one panel. In any case, the process is very clear.
Vehicle assignment and driver information are on the next panel, followed by a driving record confirmation, then coverages panel, and finally an estimates disclaimer. The entire input process for two drivers/ two vehicles took me about six minutes. With the input done and the estimate disclaimer acknowledged, the server goes to work calculating the rates. Each time a rate plan is calculated, it is identified on the screen, so the user has assurance the program is actually doing something. By the way, the panels include a horizontal menu at the top, so that the user can return to a particular panel and make a change without having to move sequentially back and forth.
Calculation time depends on the number of plans/vehicles/drivers. In my experiment with the Hockley & O'Donnell site, calculation took about two minutes to process 37 plans. The results are displayed from lowest to highest premium. The visitor can choose a plan and then specify how and when to be contacted. When things go as planned, and while viewing the quote in the agency, the CSR will call the prospect, ask questions, make changes, and provide a definitive and sometimes bindable quote.
Suggestions
I can imagine some improvements. The coverage panel is likely to be the most confusing to the visitor, but there's no provision for ex-plaining the coverages. For instance, in my Hockley & O'Donnell experiment, the coverage screen offered Catastrophic Medical, Accidental Death, Funeral Expense, and Work Loss as "optional coverage." What are they and in under what circumstances do I need them?
The session times out when idle for a while. I was interrupted half-way through the process. While gone, the server timed me out. I couldn't pick up where I left off, but had to start from the beginning. I don't object to the time-out provision (that's an important element of server-based systems), but I should be able to recall my quote any time and be able to finish or revise it. Some quote sites, Allstate's for instance, will save your quote. Couldn't something like that be done with QNW, perhaps keyed on the visitor's e-mail address acquired at the very beginning of the session? It would also be useful to allow the visitor to print out both the comparison list and any individual quote.
A completed quote has no direct connection with the agency Web site. So if an agency has an auto app on its site, the quote cannot pre-fill it. The visitor must re-enter all the information. Finally, existing customers should be able to re-rate their existing policy, trying a new vehicle, but there's no way to do that.
Agency set up
So, what's involved in setting up QNW? For now, at least, your agency must already be a subscriber to the in-agency Rating Services package. Having QNW available through your Web site involves an additional charge.
Once you talk to a Rating Services sales person and subscribe to QNW, you receive an e-mail telling you your account number, how to get to the QNW Console, your login and password, and instructions on how to connect your site to the QNW server.
The QuoteNETWorks Console allows subscribers to download or delete completed quotes, view a list of browsers (visitors who didn't pick a company and ask to be contacted), complete setup and change preferences, access to a help manual, and to report systems problems.
Setup involves agency identity information, where the quotes should be downloaded, choices about how QNW should look "on the agency's site," which companies should be quoted for which LOBs (auto, home, condo, tenants, BOP), and coverage default values (by state).
Rating Services, through Mike Larter, father of QNW, was kind enough to set up a test account for me that included Colorado Auto for The Travelers and The Hartford. I linked from the new subscriber e-mail Mike sent me to the Console site, filled in some information, and chose the two companies in the auto section. I then went to Trellix, my Web site building tool on my computer, added a container page that used the URL provided on the new subscriber e-mail, published my site, and was in business in under five minutes. My site now had comparative quoting and it worked. Excellent! That's the way it should be.
My only real problem was matching QNW colors to my site colors, but the Console provides a good number of choices. By the way, to see an elegant implementation of QNW, take a look at www.clovis-insuranceagency.com.
I then went through the quote process on my site pretending to be a prospect. At the end of the session, I chose the "notify the agency" option. Virtually immediately I received an e-mail from the QNW server telling me someone had been to my site and generated a quote. The e-mail contained a link to the Console, making it easy to link and pick up the quote. Unfortunately for me, the quote was in a Rating Services proprietary format - appropriate to feed their rating software, but useless to me.
Naturally, I wished I could download a text or XML version of the quote to use as I pleased. But for now, Rating Services' policy is to provide QNW only to Rating Services in-agency subscribers. I'd like to see them allow any agency to subscribe. My guess is that ultimately they'd have higher revenues being open rather than being exclusive.
Currently Rating Services has integration partnerships with AMS Services (Prime, AfW, Sagitta), ADR/ZapApp, DORIS, Inc., IBQ Systems, InStar Corporation, North American Software Association (NASA), and Strategic Insurance Software, Inc. (SIS). QuoteNET-Works is available in 40 states, the 43 Rating Services supplies with its in-agency software less Texas, Minnesota, and Michigan.
©Copyright 2001 by Sound Internet Strategy. All rights reserved