Charlotte BBB Warning About a FE Mailer

[John Galt]

You are the one who said you use the type of mailers this thread is talking about...

If you use them then yes, it could be considered an "attack" against you. But I never said anything about "JD being unethical" until you admitted to using that type of mailer.

The very fact that you "dont care what the NAIC thinks"... the major regulatory body that almost every state bases regulations on.... pretty much says it all.

----------



No. Unethical misleading scumbags are the reason the public hates insurance agents. Mailers like the one the BBB (and many others as I mentioned earlier) are the reason agents get a bad rap.

----------



The only claim of my own ethics I made was in comparison to agents who use misleading marketing tactics like the one this thread is about.

I can say 100% that none of my marketing material is misleading in any way.

And when it comes to comparing yourself with unethical or misleading practices then I would hope that all agents would say they are ethical compared to that...

----------



Facts can mislead when presented a certain way.


On the mailer that is in the article it says "new state regulated life insurance program".
There is nothing "new" about final expense policies. Sure new final expense products are approved... but that type of insurance is a century old...

Just referring to a life insurance policy as a "program" is misleading in many ways. Especially at the bottom of the card where it uses the term program without pairing it with the term "life insurance". And even more so when the intent is to make the mailer look like it came from a government entity.

Sure some of the mailers we are talking about do have a tiny print disclaimer that says "not affiliated with any government entity". But that is like the disclaimer at the end of Dave Ramsey or Suze Ormans show that says "for entertainment purposes only, not financial advice".


And they are using the name "National Processing Center". Which is the exact name of a division of the Census Bureau... if you google that name the first thing that comes up is the Census Bureau website and the heading is:



They are clearly attempting to make it look like they are an official government agency... they even use a Pennsylvania Ave address... I dont know how you could say that is not an attempt to mislead... hell, I have spoken to the various outfits that produce these types of postcards and they have said point blank to me over the phone "people think its from the government so you get a higher response". I considered using the annuity mailers in the past but never pulled the trigger because it just felt shady to me sending those out. Even the annuity mailers talk about "new legislation"... there is nothing new about decades old tax law... that is a fact.


Are they factually correct? Yes. Is it misleading, especially to seniors?? Most definitely.
Obviously the misleading part is a "matter of opinion". But do you think you could convince a regulator or a judge or a jury that postcard is not misleading??? I highly doubt it. Google the companies and look at all of the complaints they have had from consumers. The linked article has no comments, but there are many other articles out there about these postcards and almost all of the commenters consider it misleading and unethical.

But as this thread as shown certain agents (not talking about you M&M) could care less if the general public or even state regulators think their marketing is unethical.... of course it is the agents who call the bad agents out that get trashed and called names by the unethical ones...

Would not getting this card for the first time be a "new" thing for the prospect. or if they have never had insurance before would it not be a "new" program of coverage for them Nice try but you are arguing semantics.

----------

Thats a chore I lay off on the kids

----------



That is a lousy justification for calling a 100 year old product "new".

If I own a used care dealership and change the price of a used car, or change the financing requirements, is that 1973 corolla suddenly a "new" car?



And the word "new" is only part of what I pointed out.

Anyone with a bit of common sense realizes the postcards are deceiving. Can an person with common sense and half an education read the whole thing and realize it is a life insurance pitch? Sure. But 70% of the people in this country have no common sense. Which is why this type of marketing material is considered by most people to be an attempt to mislead.

Father of the year eh?

 

[Rearden]

The DOIs in Wisconsin and South Dakota recently sued an agent and a marketing organization for dropping "state-regulated life insurance" leads that we all drop for each mailing piece that went out.

Really, though. These suspects get these lead cards weekly, and have been for years, even decades. They read into the card however they want.

Scam is pushing it; there are enough disclaimers on the card to explain it away.

Deceptive? Maybe only to those who lack reading comprehension (99% of FE recipients).

Leading? Probably - what else would a group of free loaders think when they see "BENEFIT," "SUPPLEMENT," "FREE," "$35,000," "TAX-FREE," "NEW."

Standing along, these are all hot-button words that encourage response rates; in context (again, context requires critical thinking skills, which most FE suspects lack), they can still excite, but could mean something else entirely, and still remain within the confines of ethics.

 

[rousemark]

On the mailer that is in the article it says "new state regulated life insurance program".
There is nothing "new" about final expense policies. Sure new final expense products are approved... but that type of insurance is a century old...

.

"New" is a relative term.. At my age, the automobile is a new fangled contraption!

 

[WinoBlues]

The DOIs in Wisconsin and South Dakota recently sued an agent and a marketing organization for dropping "state-regulated life insurance" leads that we all drop for each mailing piece that went out.

Really, though. These suspects get these lead cards weekly, and have been for years, even decades. They read into the card however they want.

Scam is pushing it; there are enough disclaimers on the card to explain it away.

Deceptive? Maybe only to those who lack reading comprehension (99% of FE recipients).

Leading? Probably - what else would a group of free loaders think when they see "BENEFIT," "SUPPLEMENT," "FREE," "$35,000," "TAX-FREE," "NEW."

Standing along, these are all hot-button words that encourage response rates; in context (again, context requires critical thinking skills, which most FE suspects lack), they can still excite, but could mean something else entirely, and still remain within the confines of ethics.

Seems like that was Tyler's point and the reason that lead card is used with that market.

 

[xrac]

The BBB is a racket, always has been always will be, remind me of a mafia.

The BBB is useless! n outfit has to be really, really, really bad before BBB has the balls to go public. It is usually always after the fact.

 

[scagnt83]

Tyler,

Talking about deceiving the public and then saying 70% of them are too 'whatever' you said...AND then laying the onus on JD for giving Insurance Agents a bad name?? Really?

I did not call JD out. I simply said that those type of lead cards are misleading and are an attempt to deceive the consumer. I did not say anything about JD or any other agent initially.

JD decided to say that he uses that type of lead card, and took offense that in my opinion they are a deceptive sales practice. Then he went on to throw personal insults towards me.

JD put himself in that position. Not me.


And study after study has shown that around 70% of the american public has a very "weak grasp" on basic financial concepts. That % increases with minorities, women, the elderly, and low income.

It is that very reason FE mailers that target low income and elderly demographics, and use misleading marketing practices, are in the cross hairs of regulators. They are preying on the people who are most likely to not know any better.

----------

As for the back and forth about the lead card...I could care less. There are much more deceptive practices being perpetrated daily on the American consumer. If getting someone insurance is a bad thing...then put the cuffs on me.

So they are doing the consumer a favor by misleading them? The end justifies the deceptiveness of the means?

----------

I'm personally not a fan of the terms "State Approved", "State Regulated", "New", "Program", "Field Underwriter" and many, many more. I believe they can be misleading but I would never question the ethics of JD or any other agent utilizing these lead cards that help place families in a better financial position by taking care of their final expenses.

Again, a noble end justifies unethical means?

Where do you draw the line? 80% of the american public should save more for retirement... should they be deceived just to get them to contribute to an IRA?

 

[Gooner]

I did not call JD out. I simply said that those type of lead cards are misleading and are an attempt to deceive the consumer. I did not say anything about JD or any other agent initially. JD decided to say that he uses that type of lead card, and took offense that in my opinion they are a deceptive sales practice. Then he went on to throw personal insults towards me. JD put himself in that position. Not me. And study after study has shown that around 70% of the american public has a very "weak grasp" on basic financial concepts. That % increases with minorities, women, the elderly, and low income. It is that very reason FE mailers that target low income and elderly demographics, and use misleading marketing practices, are in the cross hairs of regulators. They are preying on the people who are most likely to not know any better. ---------- So they are doing the consumer a favor by misleading them? The end justifies the deceptiveness of the means?

Sheer ignorance.

I'd invite you into any of my customers houses and I'd pay you $20 a home to say that to their face.

99% of the people who mail the cards in know exactly what it is for. The ones who don't are usually taking Aricept and would've responded to any mailer.

 

[scagnt83]

Would not getting this card for the first time be a "new" thing for the prospect. or if they have never had insurance before would it not be a "new" program of coverage for them Nice try but you are arguing semantics.

Calling a 100 year old product "new" is not semantics. It is misleading.

Calling decades old insurance law "new" is not semantics. It is misleading.

 

[Gooner]

80% of the american public should save more for retirement... should they be deceived just to get them to contribute to an IRA?

Wait just a minute...aren't you one of the guys on here that believes life insurance is a good investment. How would you make money from an IRA?

Not going to get into a debate about the 'investment' potential of life insurance with you guys again...just saying. You preach from your vantage point...I just make sales

 

[scagnt83]

Sheer ignorance.

I'd invite you into any of my customers houses and I'd pay you $20 a home to say that to their face.

99% of the people who mail the cards in know exactly what it is for. The ones who don't are usually taking Aricept and would've responded to any mailer.

Anyone who works with clients on a daily basis knows good and well that the general public is not financially literate. Even "educated" people with college degrees or even master degrees know very little as a whole.


If 99% of your prospects know what it is for then that is great to hear.

But the very fact that new FE agents are making posts about the consumer not realizing they are visiting to talk about life insurance shows that your experience is not the same as others.


And most anyone who does not have a financial stake in sending out that type of lead card would look at them and say they are misleading. FE agents who use them can try to justify it all they want to make themselves feel better. Not one single excuse listed in this thread justifies using misleading marketing practices... the only one that even comes close is PCB's comment about putting them in a better financial position... but again, the end does not justify the means.