Why Imarket doesn't click with brokers

The technology gulf between insurers and commercial lines brokers is growing. While insurers are confident that broker take-up of Imarket and other systems is improving, many of their broker partners remain sceptical about the benefits of the technology.

Has Imarket turned the corner since its roll-out, which Peter Knowles, strategy and marketing director, admits may have disillusioned many early adopters? Groupama's newly installed distribution and customer service director, Cathie Bruce, certainly believes so.

Bruce optimistically predicts: "2007 will be the real sea change in Imarket.

And as connectivity to insurers and software houses is improving, processes will become a lot simpler."

Vivek Banga, head of e-commerce and emerging channels at NIG, is also upbeat. "The volume of business we are transacting online is increasing," he says.

Although the insurer's broker website, NIG Network, already allows brokers to generate online quotes, convert them into policies and receive instant documentation, NIG supports Imarket as the industry standard. Knowles says: "Insurers are adding new product capability to the system on an ongoing basis." Groupama is rolling out its property owners' policy towards the end of October, while Allianz Cornhill is bringing out its office and tradesman policies later this year.

And Imarket's newest insurer partner, Ace, is going live with its PI product in September.

But Bruce puts the onus on brokers. She says: "Commercial lines brokers could do more to adopt Imarket."

There is no doubt there remains widespread scepticism in the broker fraternity towards Imarket. In Insurance Times's recent Imarket survey, one broker commented: "It would be helpful if insurers could make several products available in a single release, (as) making individual policies available doesn't create the momentum needed to see more usage of Imarket."

Lack of products

Another broker responded to our survey that "as it stands there are quite simply not enough products on Imarket to make it a viable proposition".

Yet many insurers continue to roll out their products on a piecemeal basis. Dennis Morgan, operations director at WestInsure, points out

it's a "chicken and egg" situation. "Insurers will want to put more products online when brokers show more interest in Imarket and vice versa."

Knowles' response is the usual spiel in favour of Imarket. "Commercial lines brokers can access comparative quotes for nine commercial classes: shops, tradesman, hair and beauty, offices and surgeries, commercial combined, small property owners, fleet, commercial vehicle and pubs, restaurants and hotels."

Morgan says: "But frustration remains that the 'click through' ability is still not there for most market transactions."

So what's his solution? Insurers should sponsor "a single, 'free', Polaris-compliant, broker back-office system". Morgan believes this will "save huge costs in the need to interface with numerous different IT systems".

Given that technology is probably the second biggest cost to brokers, after staff, this would surely attract more brokers to the system.

But brokers shouldn't be categorised as Luddite refuseniks. The take-up of premium finance solutions over the past few years has proved that, presented with the right technological solutions, brokers are fully receptive to fast, easy-to-use, systems with features that help them with their business, according to Tim Wilson, sales and marketing director at Close Premium Finance.

Insurers attribute the slow broker take-up of Imarket to a number of factors. Jason Potter, commercial lines e-trading manager at Allianz Cornhill, cites the failure of past initiatives: a lack of appreciation of the benefits of technology in general with Imarket in particular, and the failure of past standards.

To this, Mark Whitehead, of Ace European Group, adds tradition, inertia, scepticism resulting from the Kinnect debacle and the fact that delivery has not lived up to promises.

Broker services

In order to combat this, Potter believes that services that support the broker market are the answer.

Allianz Cornhill has offered brokers extra services, such as claims tracking and point-of-sale documentation. The insurer is also looking at future enhancements, such as accounts reconciliation.

But education is also key. Potter says that Allianz's Imarket broker presentations have helped change attitudes formed in the early, dark days of the system.

Knowles himself acknowledges that "expectations were raised too high initially".

Whitehead favours a back-to-basics approach, looking at the specific question types on the system. He reckons "technology is starting to refocus attention on what this business is all about" - namely, the quality of the insurers' offerings.

He believes in minimising and targeting questions: "The internet is not the place to answer 80 to 90 auto-rated questions." After all, he says brokers don't expect to have to enter reams and reams of data.

Whitehead also draws a distinction between full-blown electronic commerce and technology-enabled trading, which just initiates the process online. E-commerce shouldn't just be quote and bind, he says. It should also incorporate adjustments, renewals, documentation and cancellation.

At the moment, however, Whitehead cautions that the vast majority are just quote and bind systems. Brokers simply log in and initiate the process online.

He adds: "Basic office packages need to be e-commerce, with reduced question sets, auto-rated, quick and easy to use. This will allow brokers to focus on those insurers that offer the best products."

Other incentives for brokers would be making the systems cheaper, offering more commission and improving the coverage - "more bang for your buck", according to Whitehead.

Range crucial

Biba chief executive Eric Galbraith emphasises: "discounts and incentives are only one aspect of Imarket's development". He feels the range and depth of policies that can be accessed is crucial to broker enthusiasm.

So are there simply too many competing systems on offer?

While Morgan expresses frustration that for years interested parties have tried to use technology itself for competitive advantage, Galbraith isn't so sure. "It would be wrong to suggest we have too many systems.

The broker and intermediary distribution channel is very diversified and there are many opportunities for innovative software and systems."

Whitehead agrees: "Insurers must distribute products via all channels to give broker customers choices." That means utilising the features and relative advantages of systems such as Imarket, Risk Placer and extranets in cooperation with software houses.

Creating balance

Banga, too, feels that like any classic evolution, there will be a good number of platforms, as in any competitive market. And Potter says it's about creating a balance between giving brokers choice and not diluting the message.

Groupama, for example, says it is 100% committed to Imarket. According to Bruce, it has launched its own trade and professional product on Risk Placer, which is also supported by QBE. However, Bruce emphasises that the insurer will not look at developing stand-alone commercial packages with software houses.

And insurers must overcome broker scepticism about the benefits that software houses can bring to the table. But it is unlikely that Morgan's call for a single back-office system to support Imarket will be heeded.