I’m not defending Progressive’s business model, but my CSR’s tell me their software is extremely easy to use. That’s a big plus in any agent’s office. I only wish some of the other independent agent companies could get this accomplished.
It’s a great concept, it is very efficient, and it saves money. While it may save some trees, that is not the primarly reason for going paperless. Saving money and efficienty is the reason and it is a very good reason.
I don’t think I’m ready to concede that Progressive’s motivation is to become a “green” company – seen all those SUVs running around? With Progressive everything is about the bottom line (as well as it should be in a capitalistic society) – whether it is a “free” promotional piece on the appearance of being tree huggers or the appearance of coddling to the PITA aligned people by providing medical coverage for dogs on auto policies (they’ve probably found a connection with dog ownership and lower claim’s cost)
Ultimately, I think they want to cut out the agent. They hope to reduce their commission cost and save a few dollars. Unfortunately, without agents I think they will find that the mistake their policy holders make will cost them more money in the end.
Peter Lewis, the founder of Progressive Insurance has funded radical liberal groups. This is typical of limosine liberals, it’s okay for them to be capitalist (and eliminate agents and employees to make more money), but how dare anyone else try this thing called “capitalism.” Progressive policies in my opinion are watered down forms that are far from the rich insurance clauses that liberal demand. Sadly, the true liberals who have nothing to their names are fools to the elite left!
What’s the correlation between Progessive going “paperless” and their distribution strategy? Yes, it’s probably true that this article is more about a little positive press and lowering costs than it is saving trees.
Progressive doesn’t want to eliminate agents and anyone who thinks so doesn’t understand product distribution. Progressive’s strategy is extremely simple: appoint more agents than any other carrier, pay the lowest commission that the “agent market” will tolerate, and sell their product in every other availaible channel(phone & internet). Why get rid of agents at the commission rate they pay. They don’t have to value agents to make them part of their business plan.
Ray It’s great your CSR thinks the software is so easy but is it worth a 33% revenue cut (10 Vs 15% on average)? As a former marketing rep it was frustrating to find a half a million dollar Progressive book generating $50,000 in annual income rather than the $75,000 (not including our superior profit sharing plan) they could have received from my company – all because the CSR,not the Agency owner, was making the decision to do business with a personal lines company that competes against them.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I’m not defending Progressive’s business model, but my CSR’s tell me their software is extremely easy to use. That’s a big plus in any agent’s office. I only wish some of the other independent agent companies could get this accomplished.
Commission? That’s another story!
It’s a great concept, it is very efficient, and it saves money. While it may save some trees, that is not the primarly reason for going paperless. Saving money and efficienty is the reason and it is a very good reason.
you don’t say?
resource. Cut one, plant three. Next subject.
What? I don’t get the last comment?
I don’t think I’m ready to concede that Progressive’s motivation is to become a “green” company – seen all those SUVs running around? With Progressive everything is about the bottom line (as well as it should be in a capitalistic society) – whether it is a “free” promotional piece on the appearance of being tree huggers or the appearance of coddling to the PITA aligned people by providing medical coverage for dogs on auto policies (they’ve probably found a connection with dog ownership and lower claim’s cost)
Ultimately, I think they want to cut out the agent. They hope to reduce their commission cost and save a few dollars. Unfortunately, without agents I think they will find that the mistake their policy holders make will cost them more money in the end.
Peter Lewis, the founder of Progressive Insurance has funded radical liberal groups. This is typical of limosine liberals, it’s okay for them to be capitalist (and eliminate agents and employees to make more money), but how dare anyone else try this thing called “capitalism.” Progressive policies in my opinion are watered down forms that are far from the rich insurance clauses that liberal demand. Sadly, the true liberals who have nothing to their names are fools to the elite left!
What’s the correlation between Progessive going “paperless” and their distribution strategy? Yes, it’s probably true that this article is more about a little positive press and lowering costs than it is saving trees.
Progressive doesn’t want to eliminate agents and anyone who thinks so doesn’t understand product distribution. Progressive’s strategy is extremely simple: appoint more agents than any other carrier, pay the lowest commission that the “agent market” will tolerate, and sell their product in every other availaible channel(phone & internet). Why get rid of agents at the commission rate they pay. They don’t have to value agents to make them part of their business plan.
Ray It’s great your CSR thinks the software is so easy but is it worth a 33% revenue cut (10 Vs 15% on average)? As a former marketing rep it was frustrating to find a half a million dollar Progressive book generating $50,000 in annual income rather than the $75,000 (not including our superior profit sharing plan) they could have received from my company – all because the CSR,not the Agency owner, was making the decision to do business with a personal lines company that competes against them.