The Race to Find the Next Insurance Credit Score (or How, Maybe, to Reinvent P/C Insurance Pricing)

The Race to Find the Next Insurance Credit Score (or How, Maybe, to Reinvent P/C Insurance Pricing)

What is an insurance credit score? Basically it is a set of algorithms applied to data from credit reports which provide guidance for pricing and underwriting personal lines insurance. Although it has been a source of political and regulatory controversy over the years, the use of insurance credit scores is now widespread.

Much of the controversy has been over possible disparate impacts on various societal groups. But a root cause of the controversy has been the non-intuitive relationship between a given person’s use or misuse of credit on the one hand—and that person’s probability of incurring insured losses on the other hand. It just doesn’t seem to make much sense. But statistically there are correlations, which in general have passed regulatory review.

Insurance credit score controversies now ancient history (i.e. were settled before most millennials graduated from high school).

But suddenly something interesting is happening.

The race is on to find the next insurance credit score—and the winners (if there are winners) will gain a pricing (and underwriting) edge.

There are only two requirements to enter in this race.

  1. You have to forget about all the kinds of data and information that insurers have been using to price and underwrite risks.
  2. You have to use your digital imagination to find some new data and models which provide the same or better lift as the old data and models which you have just thrown out the window. (Lift is the increase in the ability of a new pricing model to distinguish between good and bad risks when compared to an existing pricing model.)

So what kind of new data might a digital imagination look at?

  • For personal auto, connected cars will provide a rich data set to mine. How about whether a car is serviced at the manufacturer’s suggested intervals (correlated with whether the car is serviced by a dealer or by an independent repair shop)? Or the use of a mobile phone while the car is in motion (correlated with time of day, precipitation, and whether satellite radio is also playing)? Or use of headlights during daylight hours (correlated with the frequency of manually shifting gears in a vehicle with an automatic transmission).
  • For homeowners insurance, connected homes could supply all types of new data. For example, whether Alexa (or other IPA) controls the home’s HVAC systems, correlated with setting security alarms before 11 pm). Or, electricity and gas consumption, correlated with use of video streaming services on week nights. Or the number and type of connected appliances, correlated with the number of functioning smoke, CO, and moisture detectors.
  • For commercial liability insurance, telematics and IoT will be the key data sources. Does a business with 10 or more commercial vehicles use both fleet management and telematics solutions? What mobile payment options are offered (correlated with dynamic pricing capabilities)? The business’ use of social media and messaging apps, correlated with the degree of supply chain digitization.

Of course obtaining a lot of this data will require permission from policyholders—and even with permission these methods may raise social or political issues. But premium discount and loss control incentives for telematics programs have proven effective. And for better or worse, Scott McNealy got it right in 1999.

Lost in Innovation?

Lost in Innovation?

So, how do you avoid getting lost in innovation? The simple (and maybe glib) answer might be to buy a map, a compass and start to plan your route. However, what do you do when there is no map, no obvious path to take and no-one to follow?

The last 24 months have seen an incredible amount of activity across the sector in experimenting with novel proposition concepts fuelled by emerging technologies in the internet of things, distributed ledgers and bot-driven artificial intelligence. Although each new concept shows promise, we are yet to experience a clear and obvious pattern for winning new clients or delivering a superior shareholder return using them. Many of the most exciting novel ideas (and many are genuinely exciting) are yet to see any real business volume behind them (see my earlier blog for additional context of what insurtech has to offer in defining the ‘dominant design’ for new tech-enabled propositions).

So, as an insurer faced with having to balance how much it should invest in these new concepts versus furthering the existing business in what is probably a highly successful and scalable model, two of the big questions we often hear from clients are: “Which of these nascent concepts are most likely to deliver real business value the fastest?” and “How much effort should I be devoting to exploring them today?” These are the questions that we looked to address at our latest event in London that we called ‘Lost in Innovation’, attended by just over 70 inquiring insurance decision makers.

Faced with uncertainty, we followed an agenda that focused on the things that an insurer can control, such as the innovation-led partnerships they enter, the skills they develop internally, the criteria used for measuring value, and the potential challenges ahead that they need to plan for.

Celent analyst Craig Beattie presenting on emerged software development approaches

Alongside presenting some of our latest research on the topic, we were joined on-stage by:

  • Matt Poll from NEOS (the UK’s first connected home proposition in partnership with Hiscox) shared his experience on the criteria for a successful partnership.
     
  • Jennyfer Yeung-Williams from Munich Re and Polly James from Berwin, Leighton, Paisner Law shared their experience and views on some of the challenges in the way of further adoption, including the attitude of the regulator and potential legal challenges presented by using personal data in propositions.
     
  • Dan Feihn, Group CTO from Markerstudy, presented his view of the future and how they are creating just enough space internally to experiment with some radical concepts – demonstrating that you don’t always need big budget project to try out some novel applications of new technologies.

So, what was the conclusion from the day? How do you avoid getting lost in innovation? Simply speaking, when concepts are so new that the direction of travel is unclear, a more explorative approach is required – testing each new path, collecting data and then regrouping to create the tools needed to unveil new paths further ahead until the goal is reached. Scaling concepts too early in their development (and before they are ready) may be akin to buying a 4×4 to plough through the scrub ‘on a hunch’ only to find quicksand on the other side.

Some tips shared to help feel out the way:

  • Partnerships will remain a strong feature of most insurer’s innovation activity over the next 12-24 months. Most struggle to create the space to try out new concepts. Also, realistically, many neither have the skills or the time to experiment (given that their existing capabilities are optimised for the existing business). Consequently, partnerships create a way to experiment without “upsetting the applecart”.
     
  • Hiring staff from outside of the industry can be a great way to change the culture internally and bring-in fresh new ideas…however, unless there is an environment in place to keep them enthused, there remains a risk of them turning ‘blue’ and adopting the existing culture instead of helping to change it.
     
  • There are several ways to measure value created by an initiative. The traditional approach is a classic ‘Return on Investment’ (RoI). However, RoI can be hard to calculate when uncertainty is high. To encourage experimentation, other approaches may be better suited, such as rapid low-cost releases to test concepts and gather data to feel the way. Framing these in terms of an ‘affordable loss’ may be another way to approach it – i.e. “What’s the maximum amount that I’m willing to spend to test this out?” – accepting that there may not be an RoI for the initial step. Although no responsible insurer should be ‘betting the house’ on wacky new concepts, reframing the question and containing exposure can sometimes be all that’s required to create the licence to explore.
     
  • There’s still an imbalance between the promise of technology and the reality of just how far end-customers and insurers are willing to go in pursuit of value. The geeks (or ‘path finders’) have rushed in first – but will the majority follows? Regardless, to avoid getting lost in the ‘shiny new stuff’, a focus on customer value, fairness and transparency around how data is being used need to be at the heart of each proposition – plus, recognising that the regulator will not be far behind.
     

In summary, the journey ahead needs to be less about the ‘what’ (with all of its bells, whistles and shiny parts) and more about the ‘how’ (deep in the culture of the firm and its willingness to experiment – even in small ways) – at least while the map to future value is being still being drawn.

Celent continues to research all of these topics, including assessing the different technologies and techniques that insurers can use. Feel free to get in touch to discuss how Celent could assist your organisation further.

Celent clients will be able to access the presentations from the event via their Celent Account Manager.

The ABCD of Emerging Technology

The ABCD of Emerging Technology

Alphabet Blocks A to D

Celent has mapped over 45 emerging technologies in P&C and a similar number in Life & Health. That's way too much for an insurer to handle and the pace of technological change outpaces the industry's capacity to absorb it. You could say though that there is a set of 4 emerging technologies with the most potential to profoundly affect insurance; the ABCD of emerging technology:

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Blockchain
  • Cloud
  • Data (big and small)

The four altogether become a strong enabler for Digital. Digital interactions, digital products, digital claims, everything digital. Digital becoming important to meet the expectations of customers that want insurance to be simple, right now, as I want it, when I want it, and relevant to me. On the other hand, many consumers are still not being attracted by insurance; creating a protection gap. Digital comes as a possible response to close this gap, and in the process has the ability to profoundly change insurance as we know it. Actually, we may not call it insurance anymore. It may just be something that comes as a warranty of the product or service. Have I gone mad?

Imagine cars with assisted driving. There is an accident involving the autopilot function and the manufacturer claims no responsibility. Who is going to buy this car after that incident? No surprise then to see some car manufacturers, vested in automated driving, indicate that they will assume liability. Of course they will, and in the process what they are doing is to offer their customers a guarantee that the product will perform as indicated in the user manual. By being able to monitor the car status they are also able to prevent accidents or breakdown. So in the future will you get car insurance or a manufacturer warranty?

You can imagine any other product that can be monitored, for example as part of the IoT. All these products will generate data, and that data will enable their manufacturers to provide a service; in many cases that service will be a preventive one. See the trend here?

Today many digital initiatives in insurance still rely on the use of a call center. That's not digital because it implies human to human interaction. Each interaction needs of a human in the call center, so each interaction adds cost as there is no way you can make the human person be digital. The use of chatbots or robo-advisors enabled by artificial intelligence and natural language capabilities allow digital interactions, where each interaction can be taken simultaneously by a robot with no, or marginal, cost to do it. By robot don't think about a physical robot but software instead. Just as the one used by Lemonade to settle claims fast.

Artificial intelligence with machine learning capabilities also allows us to mess with a huge amount of data; discovering new patterns. The more information ingested to these machines the better answers you get. The more is used, the more it learns, the smarter it gets. Even most importantly, this technology today is very good at taking repetitive and predictable processes and doing it faster, better and cheaper than humans. You are smart, you don't need me to explain how this is relevant to insurance, do you?

Technology as the one described here is available on demand and in the cloud. Need more computing power? being in the cloud can solve that problem very easily. Pay as you go? cloud deployments make this technology available at a per use price. Basically cloud makes technology accessible to anyone.

Blockchain is the glue that can hold it all together. Digital and physical assets (that can be digitized) can be stored in the blockchain. The IoT could be linked to blockchain. Then, any rules applicable to digital transactions can rely on smart contracts. Finally by providing trust and provenance through a decentralized body blockchain becomes the basis to catapult digital in any scale, even when peers don't know each other.

Are you mastering the ABCD of emerging technology? Not yet? Don't be left behind; insurers around the world have already started. Want to find more about how insurers can take advantage of emerging technology and innovation? Contact me or any person at Celent. We will be happy to dive into this with you.

It’s Not Just Twitter’s Problem: What Insurers Need to Know about DDoS and the Snake in the IoT Garden of Eden

It’s Not Just Twitter’s Problem: What Insurers Need to Know about DDoS and the Snake in the IoT Garden of Eden

On Friday October 21 a massive Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) made over 1,000 websites unreachable, including, Twitter, Netflix and PayPal. Two cloud providers, Amazon Web Services and Heroku reportedly also experienced periods of unavailability.

The attack was directed against a key part of the internet’s infrastructure, a domain name system provider, Dynamic Network Services aka Dyn. When a person enters a web address into a browser, such as google.com, the browser in turn needs an IP address (a string of numbers and periods) to actually connect with that web address. Domain name system providers are a critical source of IP addresses.

On Friday Dyn was the target of perhaps the largest ever DDoS, when its site was overcome by tens of million of requests for IP addresses. Because Dyn could not provide the correct IP addresses for Twitter and the other affected sites, those sites became unreachable for much of the day.

It also appears that the DDoS was mounted using a widely available malware program called Mirai. Mirai searches the web for IoT connected devices (such as digital video recorders and IP cameras) whose admin systems which can be captured using simple default user names and passwords, such as ADMIN and 12345. Mirai can then mobilize those devices into a botnet which executes a directed DDoS attack.

There are a number of potentially serious implications for insurers:

  • An insurer with a Connected Home or Connected Business IoT initiative that provides discounts for web-connected security systems, moisture detectors, smart locks, etc. may be subsidizing the purchase of devices which could be enlisted in a botnet attack on a variety of targets. This could expose both the policyholder and the insurer providing the discounts to a variety of potential losses.
  • If the same type of safety and security devices are disabled by malware, homeowners and property insurers may have increased and unanticipated losses.
  • As insurers continue to migrate their front-end and back-office systems to the cloud, the availability of those systems to customers, producers, and internal staff may drop below acceptable levels for certain periods of time.

The Internet of Things will change insurance and society in many positive ways. But the means used to mount the October 21 attack highlights vulnerabilities that insurers must recognize as they build their IoT plans and initiatives.

How the IoT caused the Internet of Upside Down

How the IoT caused the Internet of Upside Down
The architecture around the Internet of Things and the constraints it poses has fascinated me for a long time. The good news for insurers is integrating the Internet of Things into insurance processes has some fairly common patterns now as described in my recent report [http://celent.com/reports/emerging-architecture-internet-things]. For those with responsibility for the infrastructure of the Internet however, it is providing some interesting headaches. 
 
Upside down?
Why do I say upside down? In the early days of the Internet it was a collection of machines each with broadly the same importance connected together. As information services moved onto the Internet, followed by commerce and retail sites, banks and insurers and then streaming companies the Internet shifted more towards many machines seeking to consume from a (relatively) few machines. 
To support this demand architectures evolved to n-tier structures where data storage areas sat behind application servers, which sat behind web servers and then, not that long ago, caching servers and content delivery networks. 
The Internet has become a pyramid with a consumers machines at the bottom, hooked up to broadband geared towards downloading content quickly and increasingly powerful infrastructures delivering that content to be consumed. 
 
And then homes became data rich farms…
Suddenly homes are the sources of data everyone wants! Key information possibly of use to insurers even, now sits on devices at the bottom of the pyramid. In practice the Internet is shifting more towards the structure it had originally, but the infrastructure supporting todays services is not well suited to this new paradigm – or perhaps one that has re-emerged. 
 
In practice, most of this activity has moved from a pyramid to a less structured cloud already but software of the Internet is still catching up. 
 
So as you're looking at InsurTech firms or attending InsTech groups spare a thought for those poor architects and operations staff of the Internet and the headaches you're causing. 

Personal musings from one of the world’s first InsurTech incubators

Personal musings from one of the world’s first InsurTech incubators
Last Friday (and flowing into the weekend), I was privileged to take part as a mentor in the final selection process for the first “InsurTech” cohort of the StartupBootcamp’s accelerator programme targeted at the insurance industry. This programme claims to be one of the first specialist “InsurTech” accelerators to be run globally by an independent firm. The programme has attracted pretty impressive backing from the industry with firms like Admiral, Allianz, Ergo, Intesa SanPaulo, LV=, Momentum, LBG/Scottish Widows, Tryg and UnipolSai taking partnership roles. To give you an idea around the scale of achievement of those who got through, the process started with circa 1.3k interviews, 250+ applications, 42 short-listed ideas and then whittled down to just 18 finalists…from which just 10 could be accepted onto the program. These ten firms will now go on to be mentored during their start-up phase, have their ideas challenged and further developed from people within the industry and independent entrepreneurs and, in doing so, build the network they will need to both attract funding and find new clients. Over the two days that I spent with the finalists, there were a number of themes that came through the submissions. Here are my personal musings: Data featured strongly across nearly all of the initiatives. Having access to either unique sources of data (whether from a home move, from a travel plan or from connected world) and a model for assessing underwriting risk appeared to be a winning combination. Digital engagement, aggregation and ‘robo-advice’ are hot topics. What I found most interesting was the focus on underserved markets, whether targeting prospects with poor health records, in difficult to reach populations around the world, or educating Gen-Y/Z of the value of insurance. Addressing underserved markets profitably is a big issue that the industry often struggles with. A fertile area if tackled well. What impressed me the most, however, was the passion and sense of purpose displayed by the teams in fixing something that just feels ‘plain wrong’ to them. The Internet of Things (IoT) is going to change the industry’s client engagement experience and liability profile. Five initiatives related to the IoT were submitted. Three were focused on wellbeing, one on the connected home and one on drones. Although it didn’t quite make it into the final ten, I found the drone initiative fascinating. With Amazon and others itching to launch commercial drone services at scale, this is a market that is set to grow. Drone insurance could be the next ‘fleet’ or ‘auto insurance’ (as was pointed out by my fellow mentor Charles Radclyffe). Certainly, the current risk models in use today are immature and unlikely to be adequate for a world where autonomous vehicles are delivering packages across our heads 24×7 (assuming the regulator allows it). Sadly, the drone initiative didn’t quite make it into the final ten. Personally, I wonder if it’s just maybe a little too early, but perhaps still one to watch for the future? As with anything IoT related in insurance currently, each initiative will face a shared challenge. Although the proposition concepts may be compelling, the instrumentation rate of adoption will ultimately set the pace for growth. The IoT is still in its infancy across the industry and convincing prospective clients to share their instrumented personal data is no small undertaking. Data permissions are a growing concern for both individuals and regulators. It was refreshing to see some of the propositions pitch personal digital vaults as part of their propositions, whether for managing data from connected devices, personal wellbeing or personal belongings. Although it’s not yet clear how the market will develop for these services or how they will be monetised beyond a simple subscription model, services like these may suddenly find themselves in the limelight once regulators step in to protect personal privacy. Regulatory compliance. It wouldn’t be the insurance industry unless there was at least one idea focused on regulatory compliance. What if you took all of your regulatory compliance reports produced, aggregated them, and then analysed them? A really simple idea without a huge amount of cost involved. It was a refreshing couple of days. I look forward to seeing how their ideas and propositions develop over the next year. If you’d like to know more about each of the final ten, details can be found here.

Kanban Insurance will replace UBI as we know it

Kanban Insurance will replace UBI as we know it
The Internet of Things (IoT) has evolved and matured to a point where pilots and programs are already in place around the world for every major line of business: Auto, P&C, Life and Health. The most mature market unarguably is auto insurance in part because sensors have been in place for many years and the auto industry is driving the use of telematics for its own sake, not just insurance. But it is not just telematics; vehicles are becoming smarter. Collision avoidance and secure driving aids are more common now, and not only in luxury cars. At the end of the road we already know that vehicles will evolve to the extreme of being smart enough to become autonomous. A Celent Report “A Scenario: The End of Auto Insurance” by Donald Light back in May 2012 predicted the end of auto insurance as we know it. Donald’s prediction is now a reality. Smarter vehicles make smarter (and safer) drivers reducing significantly the driving risk. Autonomous vehicles take away the driving risk almost entirely (we still have the risk of the system being hacked or that there is a flaw in the programming). All this is happening while telematics driven auto UBI hasn’t yet become the norm in the insurance industry; and already has an expiration date. So should we continue to invest in auto UBI programs to cover driving risk knowing it will inevitably be disrupted? Is there another approach to consider? Some of you may be familiar with Kanban; a method (and term) used in manufacturing, first introduced by Toyota, for a scheduling system for lean and just-in-time (JIT) production. Is a system to control the logistical chain from a production point of view, and is an inventory control system. I believe insurance is changing in a way it will be lean and just in time also; think of “Kanban Insurance”, driven by IoT and digitally delivered and serviced. Kanban insurance is not limited to auto insurance but can be applied across all LOBs, moving away from the traditional concept of insurance pre-defined products where the customer chooses from a limited set of options (and within an existing LOB), to flexible insurance solutions which are a bundle of coverages, regardless of LOB. Kanban insurance is digitally sold and serviced, tailored to the specific needs of each customer with the solution being created automatically on the fly. Kanban insurance allows customers to easily opt in/out and connect devices and sensors to activate the insurance and monitor in real time the changing aspects of the risk. Imagine a solution that is created on the fly based on your specific needs and will follow your daily journey. A solution that for example could cover your commute, whether you use public transportation, Uber/Lyft, an autonomous vehicle you own or share, or that you decided to drive the old fashioned way (manually). This solution will activate a set of coverages for your home which is in autonomous mode as you left the house (as nobody is at home and sensors are active) which are different coverages to the ones you have when people is there; while your life insurance coverage and insured sum (and premium) automatically adjusts depending on what driving mode you are using (or if you are in a train, cruise or air trip). Kanban insurance makes more sense to me than just UBI programs. Insurers that agree with my view should focus on the implications and requirements to be able to support this approach. These will include core systems functionality, digital solutions, data integration, analytics, machine intelligence, 3rd party partnerships, and deciding on infrastructure and data ownership.  

In the quest of making fintech a reality in Latin America

In the quest of making fintech a reality in Latin America
The fintech ecosystem has been evolving and maturing in Latin America for the last three years mainly due to the effort of some participants, including Celent, to connect all key players of the fintech ecosystem. Unlike the USA where there are geographical pockets of Innovation, as Silicon Valley, that brings the actors together based on proximity, nothing like this exists in Latin America Furthermore, the individual (country) market size is significantly smaller when compared to the USA. Fortunately technology allows business to be conceived global or at least regional and therefor provide the scale needed for a fintech start-up to be viable. For these reasons, it is essential to work an ecosystem, a network of participants, regardless of their geographic location in Latin America. I do not foresee a sustained and increasing development of fintech start-ups and initiatives in the region without the existence of this ecosystem. In this last three years we have seen many cases of “me too” fintech start-ups. While this is not bad, it doesn’t show creativity either. Happily we have also seen completely innovative ventures, especially around blockchain, but without this being the sole focus. There are all kinds of fintech start-ups; in payments, leveraging the use of data and focusing on customer experience; in loans, traditional and new models such as crowdfunding and Peer-to-Peer (P2P); in insurance distribution and risk management leveraging the Internet of Things (IoT) just to mention a few. How is this playing for the insurance industry? I believe that the insurance industry is at a tipping point in fintech although I see it more developed out of Latin America. I believe there is a great opportunity gathering and using data for underwriting, claims, and fraud detection; taking advantage of the IoT to develop new personalized products and working on claims prevention; in distribution enabling new channels and becoming more digital and technology reliant, and even using P2P models; engaging with customers in new and improved ways; and discovering how disruption in payments can be leveraged in insurance. In insurance (P&C, life and health) we are seeing that traditional players start moving towards digital environments and interactions, experimenting with technologies such as telematics and with the opportunities arising of the IoT. In Latin America this is incipient, but we see that it improves every year. According to our most recent research 41% of insurers in the region have a formal innovation program which has been running, as minimum, for 2 years and 35% indicated that it doesn’t have a formal program yet. The fact that only 8% of them are focusing on disruptive innovation allows us to think that change will be slow, mostly based on incremental innovation, unless some external factor can accelerate change. The main insurance companies globally are either funding accelerators, have created their Innovation labs, or have established funds to invest in fintechs. However, innovation is often difficult for established players and initiatives of new players appear seeking mainly to innovate in product, distribution, customer experience and looking to benefit from the IoT for both underwriting and claims. Ingenie, one of the pioneers in offering a pay-per-use model based on telematics alongside its strategy of risk prevention, is not really an insurer but a technology company that was forced to go direct as a consequence of the lack of interest from established insurers in adopting a pricing and underwriting model based on the use and individual behavior of the insured. This model is no longer a novelty and has been adopted by many insurers around the world; it is even being replicated in property, life and health insurance. Recently John Hancock announced the launch of an incentive program based on the insured to share data related to its health, but it is not the only one; Discovery was one of the pioneers to launch it many years ago in South Africa. Oscar offers it for health, along with a digital-only user experience. Friendsurance, in Germany, has adopted a model based on social networks and P2P insurance that although it is oriented to auto, it could be applied to other risks (including microinsurance). In parametric insurance (aka index based insurance) using sensors and data, we have seen initiatives as Kilimo Salama aiming to market agriculture insurance massively, in segments that otherwise was not viable to serve. This is indeed an interesting case of extreme digital, with innovation applied in all the insurance life cycle. An area that we still see relegated in Latin America is the widespread use of data, a historic deficit that in many cases can be represented by the difficulty of something as simple as not having a claims database at industry level. Blockhain, for its novelty, is another area where insurers haven’t yet stepped in. Distribution, in the region, is mostly not under the control of the insurer; the direct channel is insignificant in volume when compared to the intermediated business, therefore innovation depends to a large extent of the capabilities of the distribution channels to adopt new technologies and rethink their own models. In this sense banks distributing insurance, where bancassurance is permitted, as well as the largest brokers seem to be in a privileged position to capitalize this opportunity, but suffer the same challenges that other large established players and the final word has not been said yet. Could an external player, someone that understands digital, data and customer experience, change the market dynamics? They are certainly doing so in banking, especially around payments. Google has already entered the insurance industry, on the distribution side, in United Kingdom and the USA. The founders of Alibaba and Tencent Holdings Ltd acquired shares of Ping An Insurance Group Co of China Ltd in a deal valued at $4.7 billion of dollars in December 2014, in what I see as another major threat to the industry from the outside, but taking positions to be able to integrate the business, from distribution to assuming and managing risks.
Three Giants in Internet Finance

Three Giants in Internet Finance

I foresee that in personal lines insurance we will get used to buy from companies that offer the best digital shopping experience, being these insurers and intermediaries that were able to adapt by learning how to compete in a digital world, or new players coming from the digital retail sector. In commercial lines I don’t foresee a threat from the outside in the short or medium term regarding distribution, but a deeper use of technology by insurance companies to become more efficient in the marketing of insurance. The level of advisory and specialization required makes it difficult to envision it can be transformed into a digital experience of purchase and servicing in a short-medium time frame. Nevertheless, in both cases, insurers will continue to be the one assuming risks, just as how banks fund and service credit lines. In this sense insurers must offer flexibility and agility in creating new products, but mainly with the ability to do it based on the use of data, the IoT, and easily integrating with its ecosystem. We will be meeting on February 16th 2016 in Bogotá – Colombia at Finnosummit to discuss the opportunities and challenges for the fintech ecosystem in Latin America. Fintech start-ups can participate of the Finnosummit Challenge, a great opportunity and very interesting prizes for winners. If you want to attend Finnosummit be sure to use Celent discount code: C3L3NT20%. See you there!  

Smartwatch adoption: don’t end up as a laggard

Smartwatch adoption: don’t end up as a laggard
Timex-DataLink_04LLet me present you my first smart watch: Timex Datalink. My mom gave me this as a present when I was 23, back in 1995 (Oh my, I just gave out my age!). For those that haven’t seen one of these, it was the first watch capable of downloading information from a computer. Co-developed by Timex and Microsoft it was capable of data transferring from outlook calendar and tasks, No email, no voice unfortunately. It didn’t look very different than any other digital watches from that time (did I mention they were water resistant?), but they were unique because they could synchronise wirelessly through light (using the monitor screen) with the computer and data was transferred from the computer to the watch quickly and easily. It seemed revolutionary those days. Nevertheless, it was a complete failure (do you see them somewhere today?) While the concept was fine, they were too ahead in time so the functionality was very limited, and there was no integration with mobile devices and apps (they didn’t exist!). So when everyone started talking about smart watches (again) I remembered my old Timex Datalink. I don’t use watches anymore (smart watch or not), but back then I did. So this triggered my curiosity as what are the chances for smart watches to succeed. I decided to run a small poll between my friends and asked:
  1. Would you use a smart watch?
  2. Why?
  3. Under what circumstances would you consider using one?
This is what I discovered:
  • Some people (10%) don’t know what a smart watch is.
  • 10% said no, my smartphone provides me all I need plus if smart watches connect through Bluetooth they make batteries die fast. They would only consider using a smart watch if it is free (as part of a smartphone purchase for example) and technology improves (and battery life becomes a non-issue).
  • 40% said they don’t use watches today so why start using it now? They recognize that it needs to have a compelling advantage over the other devices we use today (mobile, tablet, laptop, etc.). If it is about health monitoring there are a plenty of devices in the format of wristbands that they would use instead. Video streaming would be another good reason to adopt it.
  • 10% answered that a watch is something related to fashion (and in some cases luxury) so unless an established well recognized fashion/luxury watch maker brand enters into the segment and makes them attractive, there is no way they would use it. Clearly this segment of consumers wouldn’t buy it from Apple, even if they come in gold and with diamonds, but they would buy it from Rolex for example. The good news for them is that Rolex is launching one.
  • 10% said they would use it out of curiosity (this reminds me myself back then with the Timex Datalink smart watch). If smart watches provide much more functionality and convenience than they did before, there is a chance that this segment may continue to use them after the “trial” period.
  • 20% said definitely they would use a smart watch. Even more, they believe that it will become an accessory required for many daily tasks and interaction with business as in health for example. If you get a discount in health insurance (or life insurance) associated to a healthy lifestyle, a smart watch seems an ideal device to combine the monitoring capacity with other daily activities as talking and mailing. For those that today carry a watch it will be a seamless experience compared to when we moved from landlines to mobiles. Insurers moving into the use of wearables, including smartphones, to monitor lifestyle and provide benefits associated to it, will encourage adoption by people in this segment.
Some conclusions around this small and targeted survey are that smart watches don’t escape to the same logic of any other product market introduction. There are clearly some early adopters (30%) but with risk of some dropping out if the product does not convince (those that would use it out of curiosity). Pragmatists, that would only use it if provides a clear advantage (40%). Some of these will fall into laggards (or not adopt it) if they don’t see a real benefit. Conservatives, more reluctant to change as they perceive watches to have a different meaning (and use) than smart watches. Finally, laggards that will see how everything evolvers before jumping in (20%). Bell curve We need to see what happens with wearables in general, as there may be other devices and interfaces better than a watch? In my opinion there is still a long way to go before having all the ducks in a row, but no doubt that if linked to real benefits such as savings and convenience the chances of smart watches to succeed increases. Insurers, if not doing it yet, should be considering smart watches and wearables in general as part of its products and its customer experience. Don’t wait to see who the winner is in the wearables segment of the IoT, or you may end on team laggard.

Watch out. Apple with Mayo is heading your way

Watch out. Apple with Mayo is heading your way
Hmmm . . . That combination is pretty tasty in a Waldorf salad, but it’s a bit hard to think of other recipes that do appeal. The Apple Watch is very attractive—one analyst hoped it would be stylish enough to wear to the Oscars. (I’ll let everyone know what I decide to do next year). But from a healthcare and health insurance Internet of Things perspective, questions still remain. Early information is that the Apple Watch’s biomonitoring functions are pretty modest: pulse and movement (and distance?). Did anyone say fitness band? Somehow “killer app” doesn’t sound quite right in this context, but that is the real question in terms of making people with serious medical conditions (or serious medical vulnerabilities) want to buy the Apple Watch. In roughly ascending order of technical and ergonomic challenges—temperature, blood pressure, glucose levels, blood chemistry of all different types, urine analysis, and (why not?) genome-driven personalized medicine—are off in the future, in some cases well beyond the horizon for a wearable (time telling, messaging, location-revealing) device. Meanwhile there is always next year’s Oscars. btw: about the Mayo:  https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/06/02Apple-Releases-iOS-8-SDK-With-Over-4-000-New-APIs.html