“SURVEY
SAYS…”
Your intrepid National Committeeman put together a survey
of the NAIFA Delegates and attendees at our 2014 State Convention in Kirkland
and we got some interesting responses.
Here are the actual questions and the results in a capsule:
General
Survey Information. Tell us a little about yourself:
Of survey
respondents:
Age: Under 30
only 1%, 30-40 20%, 41-50 23%, 51-60 27%, 61-65 6%, 66 -70 13%, 71+ 10%
Male 70% Female 30%
Years
experience: <5 15%, 6-10 10%, 11-15 15%,
16-20 10%, 21-25 15%,
26-30 6%, 31-35 10%, 36-40
10%, 41+ 9% (1
person had 50, and a second had 51!)
86% describe
themselves as Producers, 10% as General Agents, and the rest as Service Reps or
Home Office.
So by this I
take it we had a good representation of a broad swath of the producer
community.
30%
originally joined because “manager made me”, 10% joined “to grow my business” 20% saw it as an “opportunity to learn” 27% joined when a friend asked them (which shows how important
it is to ask!) 5% joined to qualify for
MDRT, 1 person joined to get LUTC and a discount on classes, 1 person indicated
they were not a member, and 1 person indicated that he wanted to be seen as a
professional. Many members put multiple
reasons,
Then I asked
the age-old, thorny question: How do you
feel about dues? Is our dues structure fair and reasonable? 60% pay their dues monthly and 40% of us pay
annually. 85% said that dues was fair,
reasonable, and a good value.
Interestingly, of those who complained, the complaint was NOT about
State or Local dues. It was National
Dues that caused alarm.
The negative
comments are always the worth quoting, so here is the flavor: (1)“National has
a poorly prepared website that is not user friendly”; (2)“I want to see a better return on my
investment other than IFAPAC updates.
What does that money do?” (3)”I
want to see less national dues – reduce overhead to make membership more
affordable”. (4) “Mainly too high when
the cost of all three (National, State, and Local) to ‘newer’ agents we want to
become members have shied away from it”. Finally my favorite: “Dues are
reasonable but not fair because too many colleagues choose not to join.” There were others who defended the dues
structure strongly, particularly because of NAIFA Advocacy on our behalf.
I asked in
the survey about Programs. 60% stated
that they had attended all their local meetings, but the number of meetings
varied by local, with an average of 4 to 6.
40% had attended some but had also missed some. Members were satisfied with their local
meetings.
Then I asked:
“Did you attend the State Financial Services Forum at the Woodmark last
September?”
57%
of Respondents said “Yes” while the balance said “No”. 50% of those who said “No” stated the reason
for not going was a conflict, including weddings, children’s events, etc. 1 person joined AFTER the Financial Services
Forum concluded, so he had no opportunity and gets a Hall Pass. 10% said that it was just too far to
travel. That couldn’t include Randy
Kimm, who travels everywhere on behalf of NAIFA Washington (and a Tip of the
Hat to you, Randy!) The balance did not
give a reason.
The
Financial Services Forum did get rave reviews from those who did attend; the
main compliments were that they got “motivation”, “camaraderie”, “great ideas
to make my business more efficient”, “great speakers”, “great business building
ideas”, and “personal development”.
So
your P & D Committee has been considering replacing the Financial Services
Forum with something else, given the recent history of poor attendance; we are
considering changing the format of the Financial Services Forum to a Webinar
series that you can attend at your office on your computer or in small groups. How does this strike you?
80%
said “Good Idea” and 15% said “Bad Idea” and 5% said it was Both! The majority appreciated the more efficient
use of time, less travel with attendant costs, and potentially more
content. The feeling is that the Forum
has run its course. Among the negative
comments were very valid points that there would not be networking
opportunities, less social interaction, some people learn better in class, and
that webinars invite distraction as people might multitask at the webinar.
(Guilty as charged, sir!)
Then
we asked questions about our Advocacy programs and keeping us in business. 75% said that they attended Day on the
Hill. 86% said they knew their State
Senator and State Reps and had talked to them at least once in 2014. 90% said they belonged to IFAPAC and
currently contribute.
Overall
60%belive NAIFA WA is “Very Effective” in representing your best interests and
the public’s with its advocacy in the state legislature Another 14% say we are
“Mostly Effective” A number of people did not check a box on this item, so we
cannot be sure if they meant we were in the first two categories or only
“Sometimes”, or “Not at all Effective”
The
last thing I asked about was Communications.
Are the messages you receive timely, helpful, and do they provide you
the essential information you need? 86%
say the messages are timely and helpful, while 80% say they provide the essential
information needed. But comments provide
a fuller explanation of your delegates’ mindset: (1) “At times too much
communication with little to no new info.” (2) “Too many! Lot is repetitive and useless.”
As
you can see, this survey was limited by the attendees of our state convention,
most of whom are leaders, past and present, and are we suspect more active in
Association business just by virtue of attending. Not everyone completed a survey, but for all
those who did, on behalf of all the NAIFA Washington Officers and Staff: THANK
YOU!!!
One
last comment scribbled in one survey: “Linda (Linda Fox, Association Executive)
is Great!”
Alan Zalewski, CLU, ChFC, LUTCF
No comments:
Post a Comment