We Have Too Many Products
in Insurance Brokers

The short answer

The costs of added lines surface in the renewal accounts whose standard commissions currently cover the spread across carriers and services. Insurance brokers carry a specific bind here — 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. Until that is priced, 19.0 will keep moving for reasons nobody can attribute, and the debate about contribution by SKU will stay a matter of opinion.

Each new placement or service gets added because it brings its own contingent commission or risk-control fee, yet nothing is removed, so the load on carrier coordination, captive feasibility work, and renewal retention efforts grows across the book.

That load is carried by the accounts producing the 47.8 million dollars, since those renewals supply the 71 percent of revenue that keeps the operation whole; removing low-volume lines often lifts total margin once the capacity they fragment is freed.

The ranking that matters compares each line's contribution to the constraint of the 142 renewal accounts that would be needed to move an incremental 8 percent to fees without losing 1.8 to 2.3 margin points, then separates the ones required by a channel or strategic customer from those kept only because no one has examined the 19.0, 91.2, 664, and 31 metrics together.

How to tell this is actually your problem

These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.

✓ 91.2 percent of commission revenue arrives from 31 carriers while the remaining placements add processing steps.
✓ No line has been discontinued even as the count of active placements reached 664.
✓ Time spent on risk-control and captive feasibility reviews rises while renewal retention on the core book slips below the prior 19.0 benchmark.

The move that usually makes it worse. Dropping lines by total commission dollars alone, which keeps the placements that quietly consume the renewal accounts required for any shift toward fees.

Who this is for — and who it is not

It is for you if you run or finance an insurance broker and a minority of lines produces the large majority of revenue. 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.

What this looks like when the analysis is actually run

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.

This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.

What the engine does with this question

This question routes to Matrix 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.

Questions people ask about this

How do I decide what to discontinue?

Contribution per unit of the binding constraint, then a check on strategic dependencies. Revenue rank alone gets this wrong in both directions.

Will customers leave if I discontinue products?

Some will, and the analysis should price that before the decision rather than after. Usually the revenue at risk is smaller than the complexity cost being removed, but it should be a finding rather than an assumption.

How much complexity cost is normal?

It is rarely tracked, which is why it grows. A workable proxy is the trend in operating cost per unit of volume; when that rises while volume rises, complexity is the usual explanation.

Is this different in insurance brokers than in other industries?

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.

What data do I need before this analysis is worth running for an insurance broker?

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.

When is Percision the wrong tool?

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.

Does Percision replace a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, or AI implementation team?

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.