Problems › Our Marketing Spend Is Not Working › Insurance Brokers
Most marketing that produces no lift in commissions for insurance brokers spends on channels that never connect with the renewal accounts driving 71 percent of revenue, judged by numbers that do not trace back to carrier payments. The version of this question that applies to insurance brokers is not the generic one. 71 percent of revenue flows through carrier commissions while shifting an incremental 8 percent to fees would require replacing 142 renewal accounts and cut near-term margin by 1.8 to 2.3 points — so an answer that ignores 19.0 will be confidently wrong. The analysis has to start from 91.2 and 664 rather than from revenue.
Most marketing that produces no lift in commissions for insurance brokers spends on channels that never connect with the renewal accounts driving 71 percent of revenue, judged by numbers that do not trace back to carrier payments. The version of this question that applies to insurance brokers is not the generic one. 71 percent of revenue flows through carrier commissions while shifting an incremental 8 percent to fees would require replacing 142 renewal accounts and cut near-term margin by 1.8 to 2.3 points — so an answer that ignores 19.0 will be confidently wrong. The analysis has to start from 91.2 and 664 rather than from revenue.
The same outcome appears when the channel misses the accounts that generate standard commissions and when the tracking system cannot link a lead to the eventual contingent commission received months later.
Until the CFO can allocate each dollar of the 47.8 million against the channel that produced it, decisions rest on whoever presents the largest 664 or 31.
A channel that acquires at 19.0 but pays back inside the current renewal cycle is fundable; one that acquires at 91.2 and pays back only after three cycles is not, whatever the 664 figure shows.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ Renewal retention cannot be broken out by the source that produced the original commission.
✓ Spend is defended by contingent commission projections rather than by closed renewal accounts.
✓ The best-performing channel changes depending on whether the report uses 19.0 or 91.2 as the cutoff.
The move that usually makes it worse. Optimising creative and targeting before fixing how the 142 accounts are counted, which produces a year of confident decisions on unreliable numbers.
It is for you if you run or finance an insurance broker and cost per acquisition cannot be stated by channel. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on an insurance broker. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Kesterline Risk Partners, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — 47.8 million dollars in total revenue from commissions and fees.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Quick Market Scan · sample company profile
The move. Convert 460 commission accounts to fee retainers, funding a $3-5M digital workbench from productivity gains while staying inside the $4.8m investment ceiling.
| Investment required | $3.0-5.0M total (base $3.0M, upside $5.0M for accelerated digital workbench) |
| Expected return | 3.2-4.8× over 36 months on $3-5M investment, based on +$4.2-8.5M incremental fee revenue at 35-45% gross margin versus current 19% operating margin. |
| Revenue, year 1 | $50.1-51.8M total revenue (+$2.3-4.0M incremental fee) |
| Revenue, year 2 | $54.4-57.9M total revenue (+$6.6-10.1M incremental fee) |
| Revenue, year 3 | $58.2-64.8M total revenue (+$10.4-17.0M incremental fee) |
| Exit criteria | Strategy should be reversed if, within 12 months, pilot conversion rate falls below 15% OR incremental churn exceeds 5% OR producer productivity drops below $600k average; OR if, within 24 months, cumulative fee revenue does not reach $6.6M incremental run-rate. |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Go-to-Market & Commercial Strategy, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For insurance brokers it works through 19.0, 91.2, 664 and 31, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
The only meaningful test is against lifetime value and payback period, both of which are business-specific. A cost that is excellent in one model is ruinous in another with the same revenue.
Long enough to cover your sales cycle plus one payback period, and no longer. Judging early kills channels that work slowly; judging late funds channels that never will.
Cut the channels you cannot measure first — that is where the risk is concentrated. Cutting uniformly removes the channel that was working alongside the ones that were not.
Materially, yes. 71 percent of revenue flows through carrier commissions while shifting an incremental 8 percent to fees would require replacing 142 renewal accounts and cut near-term margin by 1.8 to 2.3 points — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are 19.0, 91.2, 664, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on 19.0 and 91.2. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.
English · Español · Deutsch · Português · Français · Italiano · Nederlands · 日本語 · 한국어 · 中文 · Polski · Svenska · Türkçe · العربية · Tiếng Việt · ไทย · हिन्दी · עברית