Editor's note: The authors are marketing research specialists with Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.

Know your customer. Keep your fingers on the pulse of the market. Identify new opportunities. Marketing managers often rely on the marketing research group to support these activities. At Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., individual insurance and financial products are sold to the consumer through a distribution channel of approximately 3,500 agents. This field force represents for the company a core deposit of information waiting to be tapped. With this thought in mind, the research group set out to establish an on-going agent panel that could be used throughout the year to solicit opinions and feedback on a number of key issues, such as advertising effectiveness, product concepts, sales ideas, market/buyer characteristics, and other marketing-related issues.

Why use an in-house panel?

Consumer panels have been used successfully to gather and record data on the behavior of consumers. In general, consumer panels have provided marketing researchers with speedy turnaround, above average response rates, the ability to conduct longitudinal studies, and results that can be projected back to a population. Companies using panels herald the efficiency and cost savings. The setup and maintenance costs are spread over several studies.

The same rationale for consumer panels can be applied to a sales group panel. The panel provides the benefits of a committed, representative group of sales agents that are willing to serve on the panel for a period of time. The primary objectives are to have a group assembled and "ready to go" at short notice and willing to complete and return surveys despite disruptions, work schedules, and other required company paper work.

When would an in-house panel be appropriate? The size and location of the field force are governing factors. At Mutual of Omaha, the agent force is spread over 50 states and Puerto Rico. A census of all agents would be costly and time-consuming. The agent panel is an economical research method. Mailing and duplicating costs are the primary hard dollar expenses. However, the panel does require the investment of staff and computer time. One analyst spends nearly one-third of their time coordinating and supporting the agent panel.

The success of an in-house panel is influenced by three factors: rewards offered for panel membership, degree of interest panel members have in participating, and the ease with which members can supply the required data. So far, the agent panel members have not been given any remuneration or gifts for their membership. However, a thank-you letter giving a brief synopsis of the research findings is sent after project completion. Sales agents have demonstrated a willingness to complete the surveys with response rates averaging 70 percent. Agents completing the surveys have written well thought out responses to the questions. Every attempt is made to streamline the process of survey completion-all with the objective of making the panel a worthwhile experience.

Establishing a panel

The idea to establish an in-house panel originated with a desire to incorporate the opinions of our insurance agents with the development and enhancement of programs to support their sales activities. Since no attempt had previously been made to solicit agent participation in an on-going in-house panel, there was no precedent to indicate the interest in being a member on a panel.

The primary concern in the establishment of an in-house panel was that the panel be representative of the agent population. There were three characteristics in the agent population that needed to be reflected in the in-house panel: length of association with the company, mix of business, and sales production level. The sampling techniques considered for selecting the panel members were various types of probability samples. Probability sampling is based in the concept of random selection which assures that each population element is given a known non-zero chance of selection. The probability sampling techniques evaluated for the in-house panel included a simple random sample, a stratified sample, and a systematic sample.

The systematic sampling technique was selected because of ease of administration, simplicity, flexibility, and cost benefits. In this approach, every nth element in the population is selected after a random start. To randomize the starting point for selecting the sample, the agent population was first sorted in agent identification number order. This identification number is unique for each agent. In order to use systematic sampling you determine 1) the total number of elements in the population, 2) the sampling ratio, 3) the random start, and then begin drawing the random sample.

Mutual of Omaha has approximately 3,500 agents. To create a viable panel representative of the entire agent population, an in-house panel of approximately 400 agents was desired. Based on known characteristics of our agent population, such as agent retention and willingness to participate in other agent-related activities, a 50 percent response rate was assumed from solicited agents. Thus, 800 agents were canvassed to yield the 400 agents desired for the in-house agent panel.

Once the 800 member systematic sample was drawn, a short survey was used to determine agent willingness to be a panel member. The survey consisted of 12 closed-ended questions, including one question indicating desire to be on the panel and eleven questions identifying descriptive characteristics about themselves and the markets they work. This information was used to develop profiles of the responding panel members. The agents were provided with computer-readable answer sheets, capable of being scanned when returned to corporate headquarters. A computer data file of the survey responses was automatically generated when the answer sheets were scanned. The data could be analyzed using either time-sharing or a personal computer.

Maintenance needs of an in-house panel

The primary maintenance activity with the agent panel has been keeping the panel member list up-to-date. Because the retention rate of our insurance agents has been less than desired and some agents move from agent status to manager status, housekeeping activities are conducted quarterly. These activities include deleting terminated management level agents from the panel, comparing the panel characteristics (with new deletions) against the entire agent population to gauge if it remains representative of the entire agent population, and soliciting additional panel members if necessary. If new panel members are needed, oversampling or undersampling is conducted to correct differences between the panel and population. If the characteristics of the panel still represent the population after any fall-out of members, but the total is less than the target of 400, then another systematic sample is conducted to add new panel members. The goal of on-going maintenance activities is to ensure the integrity of the panel.

There are currently 600 agents on the in-house agent panel. This is well above the target of 400 and results from the multiple occurrences of housekeeping activities, as well as participation response rates that were different from the 50 percent assumption. We are pleased to have more panel members than the target. These extra panel members provide some cushion against fluctuating panel response rates, which can be difficult to predict.

Application of an in-house panel

During the first year of its inception the objective was to utilize the panel a minimum of five times. Infrequent surveys would cause panel members to become apathetic, while too many surveys would become burdensome to a busy sales force. Staff analysts of the Marketing Research Group promoted the agent panel to each of the accounts they service. Product managers, advertising managers, training managers, and others were all given an introduction to the panel during yearly planning sessions. Surveys have been done on prospecting, incentive travel awards, and the use of point-of-sale material, to name a few.

The panel is promoted and marketed to the customer areas that the Marketing Research Group serves. These customer areas are the "drivers" that have dictated how often the panel is used and the topics that are used. Initially, the panel has been used to address one-time questions and topics, such as: Are agents satisfied with local advertising? Are agents satisfied with the current leads programs? What is the most popular point-of-sale material?

Ideally, down the road, the agent panel will be used to establish a benchmark in behavior or attitude in a number of key areas, with yearly follow-ups conducted.

The agent panel is not meant to replace primary consumer research, but to serve as an adjunct. The agency system is a distribution method using commissioned agents to sell and deliver insurance policies. The agent is the interface between the company and the consumer and therefore marketing research endeavors to understand the wants and needs of both the end-user and the distributor.

The Advertising Division commissioned the development of a prospecting survey for the agent panel. After a needs assessment, the survey is written by an analyst and approved by the customer. The prospecting survey was designed to be completed in 5-10 minutes. A cover letter, survey, answer sheet, and return envelope were mailed to the home address of each agent on the panel. A reminder letter was mailed after the first week to encourage returns. Agents were given 4 weeks to complete. Sixty-eight percent of the panel members responded. All of the questions, except for two open-ended questions, were on answer sheets and scanned by an optical scanner. The open-ended questions were very general in nature and simply asked for overall comments on prospecting programs.

The survey covered the general topic area of prospecting and local advertising, asking agents to give feedback on their satisfaction with various prospecting programs and local advertising, their source of information on prospecting programs offered by the companies, and the prospecting approach they would rate as most effective in generating quality prospects in the companies' target markets.

After the results were summarized, the report was presented to the Advertising Division. The survey yielded some important information. Agents expressed the need for more local advertising and more information on Home Office prospecting programs. Referrals, active policy owners and orphan policy owners were considered to be the highest quality leads. Panel members reported that their primary source of information is the general manager or district sales manager, not published prospecting materials.

Conclusion

In-house panels do not replace communicating one-on-one with the field force or field management. Panels should not supplant direct consumer research. Panels should be an additional tool in the research toolbox-an adjunct to a total research program. Even though the agent panel is still in its infancy at Mutual of Omaha, the value is evident. By using the agent panel, the Marketing Research Group provides our customer groups with hard data on field opinion in a timely and efficient manner.

©Copyright 1990 Mutual of Omaha