CONCLUSION

The following main research question has been formulated:

How can property & casualty insurance companies in the business-to-business market become distinctive in terms of their future customer value proposition?

It was argued that P&C-insurers can become distinctive by offering a value proposition that covers the needs of clients which are currently not fulfilled. Regarding the current value propositions, the analysis of intended and communicated value propositions has indicated that insurers currently offer different value propositions to different segments. According to Treacy and Wiersema (1997), P&C- insurers could improve their focus by making a more profound choice to excel in one kind of value. Still, P&C-insurers can deliver multiple kinds of value if these are created in different business units. This research has not focused on the operating models of insurers and how insurers are organized in different business units. Therefore, an answer to the main question will be dependent on the extent to which insurers are currently creating value for the client, and which needs are not fulfilled yet. However, it should be noted that B2B-clients are very heterogeneous in their needs. Therefore, statements about the needs for all B2B-clients should be made with caution. Nevertheless, the gaps have indicated a general trend what P&C-insurers should do to ensure that their intended value proposition is also perceived by clients, but also how the intended and perceived value propositions can be aligned with clients’ needs. The conclusions can be summarized as follows:

• Clients are less willing to pay higher prices for an insurer who tailors its products to clients’ needs

• Clients indicate a need for a more tailor-made ‘core insurance product’

• The added value of tailor-made advice and risk management does not resonate with the

client

Clients are less willing to pay higher prices for an insurer who tailors its products to clients’ needs According to B2B-clients, two of the most important elements in a value proposition are ‘products and services’ and ‘pricing’. Regarding ‘products and services’, clients need a P&C-insurer who offers more relevant products that are tailor-made to the clients’ needs (compared to what clients perceive now). Customizing products may come at a price though. However, on the element ‘pricing’, clients indicate they are less willing to pay for an insurer who adapts his products to the clients’ needs. Instead, clients prefer lower prices for the best price-quality ratio.

Apart from ‘products and services’, the question is which elements also need to be more tailor-made, and how feasible it is to realize this against competitive prices. Our results suggest that B2B-clients want the content of their ‘core insurance product’ to be more tailor-made and aligned with their specific needs (in line with customer intimacy). According to the clients’ needs, advice and risk management can become more quick and simple compared to what P&C-insurers currently intend. This can reduce the total costs for B2B-clients (in line with operational excellence).

Clients indicate a need for a more tailor-made ‘core insurance product’

The need for a more tailor-made ‘core insurance product’ might be reflected by the element ‘products and services’, but also on ‘relationship’ and ‘conditions’. First, a relationship with more personal contact is preferred as this may contribute to a better knowledge of P&C-insurers about B2B-clients’ needs, so that products can be adapted to those needs. This can be observed from the increase of customer intimacy (more personal contact) on the element ‘relationship’. Regarding the conditions that come with these products, B2B-clients want to be kept up-to-date about (changes in) these conditions, and they should include the relevant inclusions and exclusions for that client. This personal and tailor-made approach regarding the element ‘conditions’ is aligned with P&C-insurers’ intention, because we did not observe any significant differences on customer intimacy for the element ‘conditions’. For ‘communication’, P&C-insurers and clients also seem to indicate a preference for personal contact (customer intimacy). No significant gaps were found on this element. The added value of tailor-made advice and risk management does not resonate with the client The importance of tailor-made advice and risk management – with a prominent role for the advisor (customer intimacy) – is less prevalent in clients’ needs when this is compared to what P&C-insurers intend (gap 2), and compared to what the individual client currently perceives (gap 4). Instead, the individual B2B-client indicates a higher need for quick, simple, and/or low costs on the elements ‘advice’ and ‘risk management’ (i.e. more operational excellence). For advice, the challenge for P&C- insurers would be to spend the time on advice as useful as possible. This can be done by reducing the time which is spent on retrieving client information, for example by using (publicly available) data to obtain client information.

For the element ‘risk management’, it should be noted that this element was ranked as least important by the sample of 171 B2B-clients, while P&C-insurers ranked it on average as second most important (see Table 10). This could mean that risk management is not considered to be important

by B2B-clients, or that clients do not understand the added value yet. Both options can be supported though. Starting with the latter explanation, clients do not perceive that their specific risks are being discussed with their own advisor (in line with customer intimacy), even though this is what P&C- insurers intend (gap 3). This might support the notion that clients do not understand the added value that P&C-insurers intend to deliver. The implication would be that P&C-insurers and their intermediaries need to be more pro-active in explaining the added value of a tailor-made risk advice. B2B-clients are not aware that investing time in risk management on the short term can be beneficial on the long term. The investments on the short term can be outweighed by future cost savings, because risk management can reduce the occurrence and/or the impact of a potential future loss. However, it is also possible that clients just think that risk management is not important. While clients already perceive that a tailor-made risk advice is not very prominent, the individual client’s needs for such tailor-made risk advice is also significantly lower compared to his current perception (gap 4). In the case that risk management is not considered to be important, this might explain that clients can also be satisfied with a simple, self-executed risk scan to reduce only the most obvious risks and to keep the additional costs of risk advice low.