Author: Mike McLaughlin

Aim for Simpler Value-Added Offerings

Posted by Mike McLaughlin on Sep 30, 2010, in Thoughts , tagged with , ,

For fund and insurance marketers funneling products through intermediaries, value-added programs present a classic “damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t” situation:

  • If You Do: Developing and deploying value-added offerings comes with a big expense and, unfortunately, frequently limited uptake.
  • If You Don’t: A lack of value-added offerings means a potential competitive disadvantage and the dangerous appearance of being less-than-committed to help advisors/producers.

So what do we do? Think smaller.

I think part of the problem is that the value-added aspirations of fund and insurance companies are too grandiose.  For example, we worked with a top financial advisor this summer:  15+ years of experience, $100M+ in AUM.  Among the things we did, the one that made him happiest was the reinvention of his client materials.

Take, for example, the previous one-page annual review summary (PDF) he used for a $5M+ client*:

Original review template. Click to view PDF.

Then consider the updated version (PDF) we provided*:

Updated review template. Click to view PDF.

The use of graphics and clean presentation clearly provides an improvement over the original version.  In short order we gave the advisor a template to use as part of the basis of important conversations with his 100+ clients.

Of course there are compliance challenges when it comes to client-ready materials.  Even so, many everyday challenges facing financial advisors and insurance producers require relatively simple, straightforward solutions.

So instead of devising a robust, complex program for segmenting client bases, why not focus on simple tools to support the annual review process or offer 5 concise ideas for developing a good introductory presentation?  Doing so gives solutions to very common problems.  More importantly, this approach fits with the nature of advisors and producers, who usually want quick-wins, not long conversations, from product providers.

The point is:  mutual fund and insurance companies can be much more successful with value-added offerings by thinking simple.

* Sample data used.  Naissance branding used in place of client branding.

Does Focusing on Performance Ever Help Fund Marketers?

Posted by Mike McLaughlin on Sep 26, 2010, in Thoughts , tagged with ,

I recently listened to a webcast with the head of a prominent mid-size fund family.  At one point during the discussion, a slide appeared with performance data on two of the firm’s funds.  A generic version appears below:

First off, the data presented looks great.  The 10-year performance of both funds is fantastic.  The problem lies in what happens after the table is digested.  Smart investors/advisors/instittutions start to ask questions like:

  • How did the funds do during other intervals (1 yr, 3 yr, etc.)?
  • How has the fund performed since inception?
  • How has the fund performed against its peers?

In this case, the firm’s Web site answers some, but not all, of these questions.  Of course representation of performance is tightly regulated, but many firms still have room to grow when it comes to balancing:

  • The message that puts the fund in the best possible light (e.g., the 10-yr data above)
  • Complete, customizable performance data for all timeframes
  • Full transparency against benchmarks and competitive products

This makes me wonder:  is leading with fund performance, even when it’s strong, ever a good thing? Or does it instead result in a slew of questions intended to shoot holes in the data that’s presented?

I don’t think the answer is an absolute yes or no, but it’s increasingly common to look for a catch in marketing material that highlights performance, especially when the source has a vested interest in making a product look good.  And while I’m not saying performance should be ignored, marketers do need to consider using performance only as a supporting character in a product’s story.

The Biggest Gap Between the Home Office and the Field is Marketing

Posted by Mike McLaughlin on Sep 26, 2010, in Thoughts , tagged with ,

Ask an insurance producer about marketing.  Whether it’s a top producer or a newbie, the most common responses are:

  • A blank stare
  • An admission of cluelessness when it comes to creating/executing a marketing strategy
  • Ignorance of or frustration at the home office’s ability to help producers market themselves

Next, ask the marketing team in the home office about the support they provide to producers.  You’ll hear about the myriad resources available, including a slew of one-off programs and materials designed to help producers engage everyone from retiring CEOs to female small business owners.  And you’ll also hear the same frustration about producers’ inability to take advantage of these resources and execute a good marketing strategy.

This is a big problem.  After spending nearly three months this year immersed in the practices of 40+ producers and talking with 25 home office execs, I think marketing represents the biggest gap between the home office and the field.

Consider this progression of what are, to me, true statements:

  • Home offices produce solid marketing materials.
  • Home offices promote these resources, albeit in mostly nondescript fashion (e-mail, Web site postings, etc.)
  • Producers lack the time, ability, and support to effectively navigate and understand all of the marketing resources available to them.

The results?

  • Marketing resources remain underutilized.
  • Producers continue to be lousy marketers.
  • Everyone is frustrated.

Changing the behavior of thousands of producers seems unlikely.  So fixing this requires a different approach from the home office.  Specifically, the marketing team needs to find a way to focus less on materials, messages, and programs, and more on direct, in-person hand-holding and coaching for producers.

While this oversimplifies, what if an insurance company:

  • Slashes spending on developing/producing materials by $500k.
  • Uses the savings to hire 3 full-time marketing consultants.
  • Has the consultants meet with 200-300 producers twice each year to devise a marketing plan.

The point is, I think the home office, and specifically the marketing team, needs to be a lot more hands-on.  And while it’s not the most scalable of approaches, it seems like the best way to change marketing from a source of confusion and frustration to a more valuable asset to producers.

Why Naissance Isn’t on Facebook (For Now)

Posted by Mike McLaughlin on Sep 25, 2010, in Thoughts , tagged with , , ,

It’s somehow become generally accepted that every business needs a Facebook page.  So, in preparing for the Naissance launch, Googling for arguments why a company shouldn’t be on Facebook seemed like a fun exercise.

After 20 minutes I gave up.  I couldn’t find someone who says “here are 3 good reasons why your company doesn’t need to be on Facebook.”  And yet we arrived at that conclusion.  Here’s why:

  • We’re neither big nor retail. Coca Cola has hundreds of millions of customers, many of whom are actually on Facebook.  They need a page.  We’re a small company with a focused group of businesses as clients.  And from what I can tell, most of the people we meet with haven’t taken the Facebook plunge.
  • We know, already use, and prefer other tools. LinkedIn has become indispensible to us for business networking.  So we’re there (here and here).  Twitter is easy and has been fun for two years.  So we’re there, too.  But neither Anu nor I have found a reason to register for Facebook yet.
  • We need a better reason than “repetition”. We think a Facebook presence should bring something different to the table.  Something that people can’t get on a blog, a Web site, or via LinkedIn or Twitter.  Unfortunately, we don’t know what that should be for Naissance.  And judging by the pages of many companies, we’re not the only ones struggling for an answer.

We only have so many things to say.  And so contrary to the prevailing wisdom, we can live without a Facebook page for now.  We suspect many other companies can, too.