LinkedIn calculates your Social Selling Index automatically. Apparently it is a measure on how well you do on the sales-related parameters that LinkedIn deems important. A detailed explanation can be found here.
A fellow Singapore Management University alumna (yes, its a “she”, that’s why there is an “a” at the end) alerted me to the index. I quickly headed over to LinkedIn, expecting a rather low score for myself. Why was I pessimistic? I do have a lot of connections in LinkedIn, but I hardly post on LinkedIn and rarely comment on other’s posts. In other words, I consider myself as not very “social” in that aspect.
The SSI is rather well-hidden in the netherings of LinkedIn. However, once there, I was positively shocked when I saw that I am in the top 1% within the re-/insurance industry peer group. The overall score of 66 leaves room for improvement, but the top 1% made me smile!
Once the initial euphoria wore off, I started thinking.
I do a lot of marketing for Megrow Consulting – that goes without saying – but top 1%? This would almost imply that I’m amongst the ultra super successful agents for any insurance company, which clearly I am NOT!
So what is it then? The number of connections counts for 25% of the overall score, so with 1800 links, I almost got full marks in that segment. And needless to say that LinkedIn scores what it can measure, so there is an element of a self-fulfilling prophecy in the index.
Back to the insurance industry: Insurance is not really sold/purchased via LinkedIn or other social media. Hence, what LinkedIn considers strong a strong sales skill doesn’t matter in the risk taking industry. plain simple.
Fintech innovators are exactly looking at the upside of social media for insurance sales. I’m there and I’m ready. And the other point of course is that the LinkedIn can do much more to attract the insurance industry.
GN10 in Hong Kong: the OCI issued guidance note 10 in 2016. Enterprise Risk Management takes a prominent spot in that note. Companies need to appoint a risk officer and set up a dedicated board risk committee, to just name a few points of the guidance note.
Minimum compliance with these GN10-requirements is likely to score short of level 2 on the RIMS ERM-maturity scale. A “2” is better than a “0” or a “1”, but to fully profit from the investment into ERM, companies should aim at level three (“3”). Why a “3”? International benchmarking puts good ERM-practice at level 3 on the said RIMS scale.
ignite THE TURBO
So, if GN10 in Hong Kong lays the groundwork for ERM, why stop at level 2? This feels a like running the first 80 meters of a 100 meter sprint at full speed, then walking the remaining 20 meters.
I would recommend any insurer operating in Hong Kong to make use of this opportunity and execute a plan to aim for level 3 within the coming 12 – 18 month.
Naturally, this comes with cost, so what are the benefits? First, companies with good ERM-practice have a 20% higher valuation compared to peers with relatively poor practice. Second, the regulation in mainland China puts a lot of effort on risk management. If Hong Kong based insurance companies want to benefit from the potential market access under the “Greater Guangzhou-Macao-Hong Kong-Bay-Area”, then better be ready soon! Recent news (*) put an interesting perspective into cross-border regulation as well.
keen to know more?
ERM isn’t rocket science, yet engaging a seasoned professional to support your efforts is a good investment.
Interested in how I can accelerate your company’s ERM-journey? Contact me via any of the means indicated below, or simply write to firstname.lastname@example.org
(*) Equivalence Assessment Framework Agreement on Solvency Regulatory Regime signed by Office of the Commissioner of Insurance and China Insurance Regulatory Commission ; May 2017