The Wall Street Journal: letter to the editor
| Update: The Wall Street Journal amended its online guide and offered a correction in late April. It reads, in part: The earlier version also made the incorrect claim that sponsored agents are often better than independent agents because they can be more inclusive about who gets covered. Finally, the earlier version incorrectly said that independent insurance agents' prices will be higher than direct sellers or sponsored agents. |
Submitted April 15, 2011
Dear Editor:
The logic used in The Wall Street Journal's recent "How to Insure Your Home" guide is misleading: "[Independent insurance] agents' prices will be higher…. Unless you have a problem finding insurance …, you should be able to find better deals with the direct sellers or exclusive-agent insurers."
That statement (while inaccurate) puts price on a pedestal and ignores service, product and quality. An analogy would instruct online readers to obtain their news from free websites rather than from those that require a subscription.
Certainly there is editorial value attached to The Wall Street Journal's online subscription, just as there are benefits — customer service, appropriate coverage and quality products — to working with an independent agent.
Beyond this argument, I would be remiss not to address the statement's validity. Independent agents represent multiple carriers, which allows them to find the best product and price for their customers. Direct sellers and sponsored agents are bound to one. I invite you — and your readers — to contact an independent agent and see for yourself.
Respectfully submitted,
David Rosenkilde, CIC
Chairman of the Board
Insurance Agents & Brokers Service Group Inc.
www.iabgroup.com