Before
Quarterly baseline, pre-implementation
Renewal tracking depends on individual producer discipline across inconsistent spreadsheets.
The casebookCase 07 of 07
BGM Insurance Agency
They already paid for a CRM. It just wasn't built to match how the agency actually worked.
- Business
- Commercial lines insurance agency
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Size
- 18 producers plus support staff
- Before
- A licensed CRM platform with inconsistent adoption across producers
As found: Quarterly baseline, pre-implementation
As we found it
BGM already licensed a well-known CRM. Some producers used it faithfully. Others kept their own spreadsheets and Outlook folders, because the CRM's default setup didn't match how a renewal or a coverage gap actually needed to get tracked.
Renewal reminders got missed whenever a producer's data lived outside the CRM. Clients with only property coverage who also needed auto or liability went unnoticed, because nobody had one clean view of a client's full coverage. Management couldn't trust its own pipeline report, because the data underneath it was inconsistent producer to producer.
- Structure
- Commercial property, liability, auto, and workers' comp lines across a mixed client book
- Seasonality
- Renewal volume is steady year-round with policy-specific renewal cycles
Reminders at 90, 60 and 30 days.
The same operation, drawn twice. Switch sheets or slide the overlay to see what changed, and what stayed the same.
- As found
- Renewals tracked by memory
- As built
- Reminders at 90, 60 and 30 days
As found. Some reminders go out early, some inside the last month, and one renewal gets no reminder at all.
As built. Every renewal gets the same three reminders, and an untouched task escalates on its own.
What we installed
Product families involved: Custom Business Systems, Follow-Up and Automation, Platform Foundation and AI Business OS.
| Item | System |
|---|---|
| 01 | CRM Architecture rebuild with custom fields matching the agency's actual policy, renewal, and coverage-gap logic |
| 02 | Automated renewal Workflows triggering reminders at 90, 60, and 30 days before expiry |
| 03 | Cross-sell Notifications flagging clients missing a common coverage pairing |
| 04 | Task Ownership rules that escalate an untouched renewal task automatically |
| 05 | A Reporting layer generated directly from CRM data instead of manually reconciled spreadsheets |
How one change led to the next.
Read it left to right. Each step depends on the one before it, from the system itself to what the business felt. Take one out and the chain breaks.
System change
- Step 1The CRM's data model is rebuilt to match how renewals and coverage gaps actually work at BGM
- Step 2Renewal reminders and cross-sell flags fire automatically instead of depending on a producer's memory
Operational effect
- Step 3Fewer policies lapse from a missed renewal window
- Step 4Cross-sell gaps get flagged and acted on instead of going unnoticed
Behavior change
- Step 5Producer behavior becomes consistent without a repeated compliance mandate
Business effect
- Step 6Management gets a reporting layer it can actually trust for renewal and growth planning
What the numbers did.
Quarterly renewals requiring advance contact, counted at every stage. Each percentage is worked out from the counts beside it.
Before: 49.2%First 90 Days: 93%
Of renewals got a reminder 30 or more days before expiry. Before: Quarterly baseline, pre-implementation. First 90 Days: Quarterly period, post-implementation.
First 90 Days
Quarterly period, post-implementation
Automated renewal workflows are live across all 18 producers.
Other measures in the case.
Policies that lapsed from a missed renewal window
Before: 14 lapsed policies in the quarterAfter: 2 lapsed policies in the quarter
Counted directly from the agency's renewal records.
Cross-sell coverage gaps flagged and converted
Before: Not trackedAfter: 19 of 61
31.1% after, counted in flagged clients.
Coverage gaps used to depend on a producer remembering them. Now every gap is flagged automatically, and at an average annual premium of $2,400 per added policy, the 19 conversions add roughly $45,600 in annualized premium.
Monthly pipeline-report compilation time recovered
As found1,123.2 hrs/year
As built82.16 hrs/year
Annual labor cost: $58,406 as found, $4,272 as built. Recovered: $54,134 a year.
Pipeline reporting now builds itself from CRM data instead of a weekly reconciliation by every producer.
Who felt the change.
For the team
Producers get reminders and flags that fire on their own, instead of a compliance memo asking them to use a system that never matched their day.
For customers
A client's full coverage picture gets reviewed at renewal, not just the one line a producer happens to remember.
Twelve months on
Renewal and cross-sell tracking is systematic now, not dependent on any one producer remembering. For the first time, BGM's growth planning can lean on its own pipeline data instead of guesswork.
How customers see them now
Clients now hear from BGM well before a renewal is due, and they see an agency that is on top of their whole account.
What this case proves.
A CRM adoption problem is usually a data-model problem, not a discipline problem. Fix the fields to match the real workflow, and the mandate stops being necessary.
If your team keeps quietly working around a system you already pay for, the system probably doesn't match how the work actually happens. Rebuilding the data model usually beats writing another policy memo.
The lesson any business can take from BGM Insurance Agency.
You've read the record. Now let's draw yours.
Every case here started the same way: the business as it runs today, drawn honestly. A Systems Review does that for yours, then tells you whether the first move is a website, call coverage, connected follow-up, or something custom.
- Record
- Your business
- Sheet
- As found
- Survey
- Not yet started