Sam Friedman recently generated a lot of controversy in NUP and on his blog (http://nusamsoapbox.com/2009/05/27/time-for-some-tough-love-on-industrys-image/) about the insurance industry’s traditionally lousy image and what can be done about it (even Bob Hunter weighed in — I’m jealous!).

On the same topic, I’d like to comment on the recent State Farm ads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PMwTwY7SUs) now airing on TV. I almost never watch commercials since the advent of TiVo, but the latest one grabbed me and didn’t let go.

To the strains of the Jackson Five classic “I’ll Be There,” the 90-second spot shows real (albeit staged) images of what insurance is all about: hurricane victims crying in front of home wreckage, women on a breast cancer walk, a female soldier returning home to her young son, a Habitat for Humanity group raising a house, old folks caring for one another. It ends with the simple words on the screen, “Nothing’s more important than being there.”

Apparently I’m not alone: read some of the comments under the YouTube clip to see that along with the usual cynicism, many people were actually moved by this piece of advertising.

I know the insurance industry’s image revolves around a lot more than paid advertising — and that direct writers are the the Great Satan — but this ad campaign speaks to what insurance is really about, underplaying the price issue and playing up the importance of a real, live agent who’s on the scene when you need them.

I’ve always maintained that catastrophes are the true proving ground for agents to not only justify their existence, but to establish some bragging rights about the important work they do for their customers.

Hurricane season is coming up. Image enhancement, anyone?

Twitter and the blogosphere were ablaze this week with the buzz surrounding an Accenture study that found three-quarters of U.S. consumers prefer to buy insurance products through agents and other trusted sources rather than online.

The study of more than a thousand Americans at least 18 years old who own one or more insurance products showed that 73 percent preferred to buy auto and home insurance products from an agent, and 75 percent preferred to buy life products from an agent or trusted source, such as an employer or financial advisor. (The exception is “younger and more affluent” customers, who preferred to buy products over the Web: 39 percent of consumers aged 18 to 24 and 28 percent of buyers with incomes above $60,000 said they preferred online purchases, especially for auto and home products.)

This is a bit of welcome news for independent agents, especially the smaller Main Street guys who are struggling right along with their customers in this tough economy. Am I surprised? Not really, considering that some of the biggest players in the business world are the doing the worst right now.

For years, smaller agents have been bludgeoned with predictions that they’re headed the way of the dinosaur. Ironically, these are the types of businesses that are poised to succeed in the worst economy in decades, probably because they’ve always practiced the ”doing more with less” philosophy that big corporations have just recently been forced to adopt.

The National Federation of Independent Business’s index of small business optimism hit 86.6 last month, breaking a 4-month pattern of declines. And the American Express Open small business monitor of firms with fewer than 100 employees shows that 77 percent think that managing their firms over the last several hard months has made them better at managing their businesses in general.

NPR recently aired a segment on how half the current home foreclosures could be avoided through loan modification. Banks take a massive hit on foreclosed property, so it’s in their best interest to work with troubled mortgage holders to keep them in their homes. Yet amazingly, megabanks like Wells Fargo and Citibank are literally ”not set up” to deal with the problem, even though they saw it coming ages ago–and the bigger the bank, the bigger the problem.

It got me to thinking that the bailout mantra of “too big to fail” could have just as well been applied to the dinosaurs.

Small is beautiful!

Everyone is worried about healthcare, whether it’s the cost, the coverage, or how legislastive reform will change the way we’re used to dealing with it. Just yesterday, after meeting with representatives of all factions of the healthcare equation, President Obama reiterated his commitment to moving a healthcare reform bill through Congress before its August recess. Details are sketchy, other than suggestions that the plan could center on expanding Medicare to cover the uninsured (even though the recession has both Medicare and Social Security on the ropes).

Healthcare reform is a huge, complex issue that’s tough to get your arms around. But a recent New York Times article brought it down to a more human scale, and provides a hint of what could be in store if Washington takes a more active role in healthcare issues.

The article dealt with Congress’s plans to “give employers sweeping authority to reward employees for healthy behavior, including better diet, more exercise, weight loss and smoking cessation.”

Federal rules currently limit what employers and insurance companies can do to “incentivize” employees to focus on prevention and wellness. Several proposals are afloat that would rescind these limitations as part of whatever federal healthcare reform program gets passed.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, right? According to the article, employers currently face some confusing tax, labor and insurance laws when it comes to offering wellness programs. It only makes sense to introduce some standardization to these well-meaning programs.

What bothers me about this move is the potential to punish rather than encourage — and the not-so-subtle subtext of lifestyle discrimination.

Everybody knows that prevention programs are far less costly to administer than having to treat an illness directly arising from poor lifestyle choices.  But somewhere in the inevitable gray area in between lies the touchy issue of personal freedom — you know, that pursuit-of-happiness stuff that’s written into the Declaration of Independence.  

When it comes to the workplace, we’re already living in a recessionary, layoff-driven “buyers’ market,” with most states giving employers at-will rights to hire and fire. Employees still left standing in today’s job market are dancing as fast as they can, picking up the slack for their laid-off brethren. It doesn’t seem right that on top of everything else, their employers can levy financial penalties for unhealthy practices, either on or off the job.

And I’m not talking about shooting black-tar heroin or killing a quart of Finlandia before work. Clarian Health, an Indiana hospital chain, made headlines several years ago when it announced plans to deduct as much as $30 per paycheck for workers it deemed obese.

We’re living in a culture where We-TV can get away with “I Want to Save Your Life” — an “Intervention”-type program that puts overeating on the same level as drug or alcohol abuse.  In this sort of environment, it isn’t that far-fetched to think your employer could send a skeletal guy in Spandex charging into your office to make sure your carbs are curbed.

It seems to me that this sort of Big Nannyism would ultimately be bad for employee retention and productivity, not to mention opening the floodgates for some really nasty EPL lawsuits.

If employers want their workforce to focus more on the carrot than the steak, they should use the carrot instead of the stick. And if Congress wants to help them, legislators should be careful not to introduce measures that could make it easier to punish workers instead of helping them.

Last week I had the privilege of seeing independent agents in action at the Big “I” annual legislative conference and convention in Washington, D.C. — an event that, unlike the recent RIMS conference, was well attended in spite of pinched travel budgets and the growing swine flu threat (yes, there were a few travelers in medical masks at O’Hare Airport). 

Despite the pleasant weather, cherry trees in bloom, and the perennial chaperoned groups of middle-schoolers on class field trips, this D.C. meeting is no junket. Agents who take time away from their businesses to come to this event are committed to getting their POVs known and understood by their representatives in Washington.

I was graciously invited to tag along on some of the Hill visits by the boys (mostly) from Illinois, led by IIA of Illinois President-elect Luke Praxmarer of the Corkill Insurance agency in Elk Grove Village (you couldn’t miss his psychedelic tie).

Luke and his group weren’t there to see the cherry blossoms. Their schedule started at 10 a.m. in the offices of Illinois Congressman Timothy Johnson, and ended well after 6 p.m. with Illinois Sen. Roland Burris (Barack Obama’s replacement, who was appointed by erstwhile Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich). I went along for the last two appointments.

At the Hart Building offices of Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois contingent of more than 50 agents was so big that the staff couldn’t accommodate them in a conference room, so they met with Durbin’s legislative assistant in the hallway. (As a member of the press, I wasn’t allowed to eavesdrop.)

Later, at Burris’s offices in the venerable Russell Building, where we were told a young Sen. John Kennedy once had his digs, the dapper senator reverted to his political roots and “worked the crowd,” speaking with individual agents about their hometown alliances (I was allowed to sit in on this one).

Ill. Sen. Roland Burris (seated at center) gets a briefing on insurance issues from members of the Illinois Big I.

Over and over, Luke and Illinois agents Mike Wojcik, Tom Mollenhauer and others pounded home the independent agency position on three key issues: federal regulation, agent licensing and healthcare reform. They were both skillful and diplomatic, stressing their knowledge of the subject and how it affects both independent agents and consumers.

Between meetings, and later at the Big I exhibit hall, agents told me that legislator response to these issues could be uneven; some lawmakers were adamant that a form of federal regulation was imminent, while others denied it. Most agreed that Obama’s campaign promise of healthcare reform was a certain deliverable (the latest permutation would expand the federal Medicare program to include the uninsured), and NARAB II, which easily passed through the House last year, seemed to be a shoo-in.

On the whole, the Illinois agents and others at the convention said the politicians they spoke with are playing their cards pretty close to the vest — and it’s understandable why. Their constituents have been burned hard by the Wall Street debacle and are leery about any proposals that might smack of supporting big business. The Illinois agents at our Capitol Hill meetings made it clear that they’re not AIG asking for a bailout: they and their customers are in fact the Main Street America that legislators otherwise know as voters.

The last time I went lobbying with insurance agents was during the palmy days of the early 1990s, back before banks were even allowed to own insurers. Although a lot has changed since then, the need for an informed agency force to communicate their needs to their elected officials is more important than ever. After all, it’s your democratic right — exercise it!