Here, direct insurers scored higher on average (47 per cent) than the intermediary (36 per cent) and business-to-business insurers (35 per cent). It was remarkable how many times the minimum score of 0 per cent appeared for the various customer management activities.

Many insurers only welcomed their customers by sending out with policies a brochure giving the customer additional information. However, one direct insurer welcomed every new customer and asked him or her for additional information, varying from family composition to holdings of other policies. A customer sending back this information was rewarded with a pen. Subsequently the company called the customer to discuss neglected risks, on the basis of the information submitted. Though this approach seems aggressive, the company seemed to have found the right tone of voice, so customers appreciated this welcoming. For the insurer this programme was very profitable, especially in selling legal cover.

Most insurers did nothing or almost nothing to get to know their customers better. Most customer data was simply copied from policy documentation: name and address, policies and premiums. Even this information was not always easily accessible.

Almost every insurer managed customer dissatisfaction through a process and/or a system for complaint handling. However, almost everywhere a complaint was only a complaint when stated to be as such by the customer.

Almost no winback activities existed. With one exception, no companies registered the reason for lapse on the customer database.

Intermediary insurers, for whom customers (mostly only intermediaries) represent much more premium than for just one policy, scored higher (47 per cent) than the direct insurers (25 per cent). Surprisingly, business-to-business insurers scored only the same as direct insurers.