A couple of years ago I was asked to be the co-leader of a major project to design a claims “brand proposition”. Flattery (and money!) will always attract my attention so, of course, I accepted the offer. The only problem was that I had no idea what the client meant by a claims “brand proposition” and, in truth, neither did they. Moreover, even if a brand-driven claims offer were to be designed, the devil is in the detail of delivery.

Fortunately, the project was adjudged to be a resounding success but even to this day I wonder if we fully grasped what was needed to create and then deliver a fully integrated brand-driven offer. How, for example, can you involve a supply chain that is delivering services to claimants on behalf of several insurers? Can we really expect them to differentiate the work they do according to the brand identity of different clients?

Frontline Drive Claims Differentiation

Equally, will a Claims Director ever be able to escape the intense strictures of focused cost management in favour of a broader brand-driven approach. Will the front line FNOL staff understand the subtle differences expected of them when dealing with the brand proposition of multiple in-house books of business?

The simple truth is that the brand-driven claims proposition is not actually established in the claims department. Instead, it is a consequence of decisions taken elsewhere in the business. An insurer driving their prices downwards and determined to be #1 in the price comparison website results will need a very different claims service than the High Net Worth insurer. Establishing a brand reputation for care, compassion and customer-centricity will necessitate a claims department with a laser focus on service. Others may prefer the impersonal but nevertheless speedy and decisive allure of automation, AI, and data analysis.

Brand Positioning Needs Total Commitment

Of course, every modern study of brand management invariably
drags the likes of Apple and Nike into the discussions. But let’s be clear.

“…the claims function must play the same tune and sing the same songs as the frontline breadwinners. Claims does not exist independent and of itself.”

The deserved reputation of Apple for innovation and user experience is not built in the aftersales function. Nike may opine us to ‘Just Do It’ but a logo and strapline does not make a brand. Nor is it possible to build a truly differentiated proposition without the investment of major skill, knowledge, and resource into the packaging and the messaging.

All of this leads me to the sad but inevitable conclusion that the claims department is the mere puppet of the sales, marketing, and underwriting divisions of the insurer. Claims digitisation, if it is to be a weapon in the brand wars, will not be instigated within the department. Unless, of course, it is seen as an easy shortcut to saving money. Instead, the claims function must play the same tune and sing the same songs as the frontline breadwinners. Claims does not exist independent and of itself.

Consistency & Claims Integration

This connectivity of claims with the rest of the business could have massive advantages – if only insurers would use the skill and resource already available to them. Too often though the claims department is a mere afterthought instead of sitting centrally in the brand proposition design department.

In contrast, some insurers (Direct Line, NFU) are beginning to reposition their entire brand offer around the aftersales claims service and all power to their elbows for doing so. Other insurers would do well to learn from their experience and adopt this style of integrated approach. The claims department can be a major source of brand support and positioning but not if treated as a side show. Insurers seeking brand advantage are unlikely to gain it from the claims department – but that is definitely where they could lose it!