Search CompleteMarkets

... such as accessories, components, devices, equipment, food, materials, parts, ...

Put Your Marketing To The Test And See How You’Re Doing
PUT YOUR MARKETING TO THE TEST AND SEE HOW YOU’RE DOING by John Graham All marketers are liars. Because we’re all marketers of one thing or another, we’re all liars. To give proper credit, Seth Godin, the provocative business pundit, started it with his book, All Marketers are Liars. As the syllogism makes perfectly clear, he was 100% on the mark. This isn’t an indictment of P&G, BofA, Chrysler, Goldman Sachs, McDonalds, or any other organization, big or small. There are probably more liars on LinkedIn, Facebook, and any of the other social media, where tens of millions of self-marketers have a feast day making claims that wouldn’t stand up before a sixth grade class. As a recent USA Today noted, some 70% of self-marketers admit to doing some “fabricating” with their countless unsupportable claims, as they do their best to “sell” their product. This, of course, doesn’t take into account the desperately doctored job applications, resumes and college applications, but it does include at least a few U.S Presidents and a rather long list of Members of Congress. Even though Godin was on to something significant, he changed the title (but not another word) of the latest edition of his book. It’s now, All Marketers Tell Stories. We’re all marketers and we tell some whoppers that make us feel better about ourselves, give us an advantage, or enhance our image. At the same time, the Internet gives us opportunities ad nauseam to “tell stories.” However, this is neither a defect nor the downfall of truth telling. Happily, millions of people are constantly setting the records straight, which is why Wikipedia and tens of thousands of reviews work so well. Fraud detectors are always at work! The only ones who are deceived by making unsupported claims are those who make them. Today, the Marlboro man would be sent packing and Virginia Slims have lost their femininity. All of which is to say that no one marketing a product or service should deceive themselves into believing that what they’re doing is the exception to the rule. Marketing today must past the truth test. In fact, much of what we market is better, often far better. For some reason, many marketers think success depends on lying. A good example is the fast food industry, which seemed to think that consumers would ignore 1,200-calorie burgers forever. So, here’s a four-question marketing test that provides a simple way to see if your marketing passes muster. 1. Why would customers want to buy what you’re selling? This is a serious question, although many marketers might consider it totally irrelevant. Does what you’re marketing solve perceived problems for customers or trumped up ones? Can they count on it to deliver on your promises? “How does it help me?” is a significant question. Take the issue of national brands vs. store brands at the supermarket and other places. In the past, consumers opted for the “leading national brands,” until the recession hit. Suddenly, store brands were getting far more shelf space, as consumers gave serious attention to the cost question. 2. Are you telling the truth? It might seem strange to align marketing with truth, because they appear to be such strange bedfellows. As easy as it is to be cynical, consider this. On the day that Steve Jobs announced the Apple iPad, before more than a handful of people had one in their hands, he boldly stated that it was “a truly magical and revolutionary product.” He then went on to say, “What this device does is extraordinary. It’s the best browsing experience you’ve ever had. It’s unbelievably great ... way better than a laptop. Way better than a Smartphone”. Wow! So many over-the-top claims in so few words! However, they were not hyperbole in the case of Steve Jobs and the iPad. Anyone else who tried it would have failed. Jobs wasn’t laughed off the stage for one reason: he had a proven track record of delivering on his promises and telling the truth. Instead of boos, he garnered applause The truth works. Unfortunately, most marketers haven’t learned this lesson. 3. Is your marketing message compelling enough to move prospects to action? To put it another way, robust offers work, while wimpish ones don’t. A case study in the marketing publication BtoB, describes an AT&T campaign directed to a group of 75 top executives of leading hotels. Based on the J.D. Power and Associates finding that WiFi is the most valued amenity travelers want to know about before they check in. AT&T wanted to make sure the executives knew about the availability of WiFi. Ironically, AT&T decided on a direct mail campaign, designed to get meetings with AT&T sales reps. Recognizing that high level executives are well insulated from invasive attempts, they took a “you’ve got to see this” approach. The first mailing was an attention-getting package with an actual Wi-Fi locator device inside, and this message: “Locating Wi-Fi at [name of hotel chain].” Sales reps made follow-up calls to verify that the package had arrived and to ask for a meeting. The second mailing went to those who didn’t respond to the first. This was “a custom dimensional piece consisting of a cardboard mockup of a Notebook-like computer,” reported BtoB. Rather than a screen, it sported a video-in-print technology that played a two-minute video personalized for each hotel chain. Next-day delivery upped the ante even more by requiring the signature of the recipient. Again, the sales team followed up, using several ways to contact the prospects. It was a powerful combined effort between marketing and sales. Those who made a commitment to meet with the sales reps received a special thank- you, a real Notebook computer. Rather than the traditional 2% response rate for direct mail, AT&T reached 9%, based on face-to-face sales meetings. 4. How do our products or services stand up to those of the competition? The objective of marketing is not to outdo the competition, even though that’s quite common; rather, the goal is to out-think competitors. The tendency is to pile on the bells and whistles, even though, as we all know, no one has a clue how to use them and wouldn’t use them even if they knew how. How many people have mastered the common cable TV clicker? How many can use 10% of the capability of a basic digital camera? They call them “smart phones” because they’re clearly smarter than their/ users. Whether less is more is debatable; however, many times “less best” meets the customer’s needs. After using a particular computer program for analyzing Workers Compensation data, Kevin Ring, the Lead Workers’ Comp Analyst at the Institute of WorkComp Professionals (Asheville, NC), wondered why so many of the Institute’s advisors weren’t using the software. For what they needed, it was too powerful and seemed somewhat daunting. Ring then developed a new program, designed to give salespeople exactly what they wanted that’s easy to use, quicker and costs less. This offers a perfect example of how out- thinking the competition is a powerful marketing strategy. Conclusion Test your marketing with these four questions. If it passes, congratulations. However, if your marketing leaves something to be desired, now’s a good time to get to work. In the end, we’re all marketers and, thus, all liars. At the same time, some of our stories have a clear ring of truth.

Trade Secrets: What Are They ...
It’s important to identify what can be considered a “trade secret” and why trade secrets are the most valuable assets of an agency - and thus worthy of having their confidentiality protected. The insurance industry speaks in terms of “books of business” or “expirations” or “customer lists.” Federal and state courts have ruled that “expirations” are property and, as a body of information contained in the files of each individual insurance agency’s accounts, these “trade secrets” represent valuable assets. Thus, the trade secrets (i.e. the book of business, customer lists, etc.) embody the agency’s true value. Just how does an insurance agency, or any other service firm, protect the time and resources spent in developing the knowledge of individual accounts that, if revealed, would benefit a competitor? The answer begins with executing a properly drafted employment agreement with each of the agency’s employees and producers. The employment agreement, or producer agreement, should address the issue of confidentiality of information in order to prevent a former employee from misappropriating confidential information and using it in an unauthorized manner to the agency’s detriment. Those agreements must be equitable for both parties and must balance the agency’s desire to protect its trade secrets and confidential information with the departing employee’s wishes to stay in the business of their common calling and to use their innate skills in pursuing their insurance career with another employer. An agency’s employment agreements and producer agreements should also include well-crafted non-competition or non-piracy provisions that meet the test of the jurisdiction(s) in which the agency operates. Although this article does not address the specific requirements and limitations of such restrictive covenants. They’re closely related to the protection of trade secrets and confidential information. What constitutes the confidential or trade secret information that requires protection, and how does it play a part in giving the employer a competitive advantage? Some information about any insurance account is available in the public domain, such as the firm’s Web site, advertisements, and other sources of information. This type of information is generally not confidential information, nor worthy of protection as trade secrets. What are Trade Secrets? A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information that is used in one’s business and that provides an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who don’t know or use it. A trade secret is a process or device for continuous use in the operation of the business. It might be a formula for a chemical com-pound, a manufacturing process, or a list of customers. When money and time are invested in the development of information and procedures that are not generally known, trade secret protection issues exist. Further, when an effort is made to keep information from competitors, trade secret protection is warranted. Trade secrets are not limited to secret formulas. In fact, “absolute secrecy” is not a prerequisite; only “substantial secrecy” is required. The definition of trade secrets is quite broad, and may include any of the following: Customer or client lists, billing information, customer and client preference information, and contact lists Pricing information and marketing plans Computer programs and data compilations Training and service manuals Vendor information The exact language used to define a “trade secret” varies by state. However, three factors are common to such defini-tions. A trade secret is some type of information that: Is not generally known to the public Confers some sort of economic benefit on its holder Is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy Some of the factors courts consider when determining whether information is a trade secret are: The extent to which the information is known outside the agency The extent to which it’s known by employees and others involved in the agency The extent of measures taken by the agency to guard the secrecy of the information The value of the information to the agency (or its competitors) The amount of effort and/or money expended by the agency in developing the information The ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others How Do You Protect Your Trade Secrets? An agency must carefully plan and implement an organized program that identifies its trade secrets and then take steps to protect against their misappropriation. Documenting this program, will put the agency in a position to demonstrate to a court of law the measures taken to protect its trade secrets. At a minimum, a trade secrets protection program involves the establishment of internal security procedures, which should include: A written policy of confidentiality included in employee procedures manuals and employment practices guide-lines, emphasizing that all internal communications should be handled in strictest confidence. The agency’s confidentiality standards included in employee training and educational programs. A process where customer lists, client information and other trade secrets are distributed only on a need-to-know basis, and marked “confidential” where possible. Execution of well-drafted Confidentiality/Non-Disclosure agreements with all employees, producers, and independent contractors. Security codes or barriers in the company’s data processing computer systems and other management records that are revised on a regular basis to prevent infiltration. A process for storing confidential information in a secure manner and shredding documents when no longer needed. In our view, the best way to determine confidential information is to examine an insurance account and identify the information that the agency has spent time and money developing, which is not readily available to a competitor, and that gives the agency an advantage. Here’s an offering of questions to help determine what the agency knows about an account that could qualify as “confidential information”, and thus be worthy of trade secret protection: What is the ownership of the insured company, and who among the owners controls the insurance program? Who is in control of the insured company today, and who will control it in the future? What is the financial condition of the insured company Who are the insured’s major clients and/or vendors? Does the insured company require specific coverage modifications to meet the contracts normally executed with its customers? What is the claims history of the insured company? Has the insured company had any lawsuits filed against it, and what is the nature and current status of those lawsuits? What loss control measures has the insured initiated? Does the insured manufacture products, or modify or assemble the products of others? What products or services of the insured cause major exposures? What is the history of the insured’s workers’ compensation and/or general liability experience modifiers? Does the insured carry specialized Products Liability and/or Professional Liability coverage? Does the insured need contingent Business Interruption coverage? Stay Vigilant! Although the confidential information and trade secrets you need to protect might be as simple as customer lists and client information, it’s essential that you take effective steps to protect this information from misappropriation. Consult with an attorney who is well versed in matters of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and employment practices to assist you in devising and implementing an information protection program. Should you encounter a breach, or threatened breach, act expeditiously to retain competent counsel to take immediate action to protect your competitive advantage. A trade secret, once lost, is gone forever.

Tracking Compliments And Complaints
Customer satisfaction is subjective on the part of consumers. It is how they feel about you and the product or service you provide. The difference between satisfaction and dissatisfaction is what the customer expected versus what he or she actually experienced. Tracking these two emotions will identify negative patterns that need repair and positive patterns that need repeating. The complaint log is the perfect tool for documenting customers' dissatisfaction levels. Focusing on customer complaints serves to pinpoint weaknesses within an organization. Equally important is keeping a log of all customer compliments so you can see what you're doing right. Evidence shows that people work best when they feel good about themselves and what they do. If all you hear all day is what's wrong, and never what's right, it will be considerably harder for you to do a good job. Hearing positive feedback, as provided by a compliment log, offers the following benefits to CSRs: Enhanced self-esteem Confidence in decision-making ability Improved job satisfaction Evidence of level of performance Self-motivation to serve The compliment log should be set up to record positive reactions from customers. (A sample compliment log appears at right.) The compliments will show areas in which you're hitting the mark. Additionally, the log presents management with the opportunity to recognize and praise individuals and teams for outstanding customer service. Benefits to management (in case you need to sell them on the idea) include: Promotion of strong team spirit Creation of a performance-appraisal tool Reinforcement of positive behavior If posted every week and recognized in staff meetings, the compliment log can become a job perk, in addition to being an effective satisfaction measurement device. Get the Main Ideas Track satisfaction and dissatisfaction to identify habits that need repeating or repairing Use a complaint log to document customer dissatisfaction Create a compliment log to discover what is being done well Use the compliment log as a vehicle for positive feedback, as well as a satisfaction measurement device

... For auto insurance, telematics devices measure actual driving patterns. Is ...

Agentic AI-Based Insurance Claims Adjuster Software or Human Adjusters: Why 2026 Says Both
Ask a carrier whether agentic AI will replace human claims adjusters, and the honest 2026 answer is neither. It is both. Software now runs the routine work, people own the consequential calls, and the deciding factor is the skill mix a claims team builds rather than the number of seats it removes. That split did not emerge by accident. Regulators wrote a version of it into policy, and the market followed. Insurance claims adjuster software has crossed a real threshold this year. The current generation does not just triage and recommend; it can open a first notice of loss, pull policy data, verify coverage, order an estimate, and settle a clean auto glass claim before a person ever opens the file. What it does not do, and what no serious carrier lets it do alone, is decide a disputed total loss or a large bodily injury reserve. The line between those two jobs is where 2026 draws its answer. What Insurance Claims Adjuster Software Actually Handles in 2026 Start with the mechanics, because the hype tends to skip them. At its core, this software is a decision and workflow layer that sits on top of the policy administration system and the claims ledger. It ingests a loss report from any channel, structures the unstructured parts, checks the facts against the policy, and either advances the file or flags it for a person. Agentic systems add a further step. Rather than waiting for a rule to fire, an agent plans a sequence of actions toward a goal, calls the tools it needs, and adjusts when a step returns something unexpected. On a straightforward fender bender, that looks like a chain of small decisions: confirm the policy was in force, match the damage photos to the reported point of impact, price the repair against a regional labor rate, screen for fraud signals, and issue payment within the policy limit. Each step leaves a logged reason. The whole file can close in minutes. The value shows up in three places. Speed, because clean claims no longer wait behind complex ones in a shared queue. Consistency, because the same coverage logic runs on every file instead of drifting between desks. And capacity, because the routine volume that used to eat an adjuster's morning now clears itself, freeing licensed staff for work that actually needs a licensed mind. The Routine Insurance Claim Adjusting Work Agentic AI Now Owns Most claims are not dramatic. They are small, well documented, and repetitive: minor auto damage, single-item property losses, straightforward medical-only workers' compensation, travel interruptions, device protection. These files share a profile. Clear coverage, bounded severity, low dispute risk, and enough structured data to reason over. Agentic insurance adjuster software handles that profile well. Consider a representative mid-size property and casualty carrier that routes windshield and minor collision claims to an automated pipeline. The agent validates coverage, reads the estimate, checks the shop against the approved network, and releases payment when everything reconciles. A human sees the file only if a signal trips: a mismatch between photos and description, a repair cost above a set band, a policy that lapsed within the loss window, or a claimant with a flagged history. That design does two things at once. It clears the high-volume base of the pyramid without a person touching it, and it uses exceptions, not approvals, as the trigger for human attention. Adjusters stop rubber-stamping the obvious and start looking only at the files where their judgment changes the outcome. The routine work does not vanish. It stops being a person's problem. The Consequential Claims That Stay Human by Design Now the other half. Some claims carry consequences that no carrier is willing to let an algorithm own outright: a contested liability decision after a multi-vehicle accident, a six-figure bodily injury reserve, a suspected arson total loss, a coverage question that turns on how a policy exclusion reads. These files are ambiguous, adversarial, high in dollar value, or all three. Human adjusters keep them for reasons that go past accuracy. Negotiating with an injured claimant's attorney is a relationship, not a calculation. Reading whether a fire scene feels staged draws on pattern sense that resists full codification. Interpreting an exclusion the way a court eventually might is legal judgment. And when a decision goes against a policyholder, someone has to be accountable for it in a way a model cannot be. This is where the software earns its keep as an assistant rather than an actor. It assembles the claim file, surfaces the relevant policy language, models reserve scenarios, and drafts the correspondence. The adjuster decides. The best insurance claims adjusting software makes that handoff clean, giving the human a complete, well-organized picture instead of a raw pile of documents, so the judgment call starts from a strong position. Carriers that want that assistant-plus-expert model built into their insurance claims adjuster software platform tend to treat the boundary between routine and consequential as a configurable business rule, not a fixed feature. Regulation Drew the Line Before the Market Did for Insurance Claims Adjusters Here is what makes 2026 different from the earlier automation waves: the split is not just a best practice. It is close to a requirement. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Model Bulletin on the use of artificial intelligence, now adopted in some form across a majority of states, sets the expectation plainly. Insurers must govern their AI systems, document how decisions are made, test for unfair discrimination, and keep a human accountable for outcomes that affect consumers. Read that against claims, and the design implication is direct. An adverse action, a denial, a lowball reserve, a coverage rescission, cannot rest on an unreviewable automated decision. A person has to be able to explain it, and a regulator has to be able to audit it. Fully autonomous denial of a contested claim is not an efficiency gain under this regime. It is exposure. So the routine-versus-consequential boundary is partly a compliance boundary. Automating a clean, in-limit payment carries little regulatory risk, because approving a valid claim rarely harms the policyholder. Automating a denial is a different animal. Sound insurance claims adjuster software encodes that asymmetry: it moves fast on decisions that benefit the claimant and routes anything adverse or ambiguous to a licensed human, with the reasoning preserved for audit. What Sits Under the Hood of Agentic AI-Based Claims Adjuster Software The capability people call agentic rests on a stack of older parts finally working together. Natural language processing (NLP) reads the messy inputs, a first notice of loss typed by a stressed policyholder, an adjuster's field notes, a repair invoice, and turns them into structured facts. Computer vision scores damage photos and matches them to the reported loss. A rules and reasoning layer checks those facts against policy terms and coverage limits. Fraud models weigh the file against known patterns and flag anomalies. The agent layer on top plans the steps, calls each service in turn, and decides whether the file is clean enough to close or needs a person. Two supporting pieces matter as much as the models. The first is integration: the software has to read and write the policy administration system, the document repository, and the payment service in real time, or the automation stops at the first data gap. The second is the audit log. Every automated action records what it decided, which data it used, and why, because a decision a regulator cannot inspect is a decision a carrier should not have automated. That logging is not a nice-to-have in 2026. It is the difference between a defensible program and a liability. Building the Skill Mix, Not Cutting the Insurance Claim Adjuster Headcount The headline fear is that agentic AI thins the adjuster ranks. The more accurate read is that it changes what an adjuster does. When the software absorbs the routine base, the remaining human work concentrates in the hard middle and top of the claims pyramid, where experience compounds. That reshapes hiring and training more than payroll size. The roles that grow look different: Exception Handlers: Adjusters who work only the files the software flags, moving fast across a stream of edge cases rather than a fixed caseload. Complex-Claim Specialists: Senior people on injury, litigation, and large-loss files, where negotiation and legal reading decide the number. Automation Supervisors: Adjusters who monitor the agents themselves, review sampled decisions, and tune the rules when loss patterns shift. Model and Data Reviewers: Staff who check the software for drift and bias, a role the NAIC governance expectations effectively create. None of those jobs is entry-level data entry, and that is the point. The skill mix moves up. Independent claims adjuster software follows the same logic in the field: an independent adjuster covering a catastrophe deployment uses the agent to document and price the straightforward losses quickly, then spends the saved hours on the severe and contested files that carry the real dollars. The person handles more claims and more valuable ones without a longer day. Rolling Out Insurance Claims Adjusting Software Without Breaking Trust Adoption is where good intentions meet legacy reality. Most carriers run claims on systems that predate this technology, so the software has to connect to a policy admin platform, a document store, payment rails, and often a fraud engine that all speak different formats. A rollout that ignores that plumbing stalls. The approaches that hold up share a pattern. Start narrow, on one high-volume, low-complexity line, and prove the automated decisions against human ones before widening scope. Keep a human in the loop on a sampled percentage of automated files even after go-live, so quality gets measured rather than assumed. Write the routing rules with the compliance team in the room, because the boundary between what the agent decides and what a person decides is a legal artifact as much as a technical one. Watch the failure modes too. Over-automation invites regulatory scrutiny and erodes claimant trust when a person cannot explain a decision. Under-automation wastes the investment and leaves adjusters buried in the same routine load. Poor explainability turns an audit into a crisis. The teams that get this right, often with an experienced partner who has integrated these systems before, instrument every automated decision from day one, so the reasoning is there when a policyholder or an examiner asks for it. Where the Insurance Claims Adjustment Technology Is Actually Heading The near-term direction is less about smarter denials and more about wider, safer autonomy on the benign end. Expect agents to close a larger share of clean claims across more lines, to draft consequential-claim analysis in richer form for the human who owns the decision, and to carry a tighter audit trail as state adoption of AI governance rules broadens. The human role keeps climbing the value curve rather than disappearing from it. A claims desk in 2027 will likely run fewer routine touches per person and more judgment per file, with the software handling the volume and the adjuster handling the stakes. The 2026 Answer, Settled The versus framing was always the wrong question. Insurance claims adjuster software in 2026 does not pit agentic AI against human adjusters; it assigns them different jobs and holds a person accountable where it counts. Software owns the routine, high-volume, benign files. Humans own the contested, severe, and adverse ones, because regulation and good sense both demand a name behind those decisions. Carriers that build the right insurance claims software solution around that division, and staff for the skill mix it creates, will settle claims faster and defend them better. The next few years reward the teams that treat the machine as a colleague on the desk and keep sharpening the judgment only their people can provide.