Q for Prez Candidates: Marketing Campaign

[Double High C]

Presidential Candidates:

Do you think that the Marketing Campaign should be more of a
a. top-down effort (e.g. spreading the gospel of Actuary to CEOs, leaders of other professions, etc.) or
b. bottom-up effort (requiring some - if not all - SOA members to become foot-soldiers in demonstrating / spreading the word)?

(Of course, the parenthetical comments are oversimplifications.)

And to the extent that it is b, what plans do you have to motivate and/or enable us rank-and-file in that respect?

Thanks in advance for your answers / insights.

DHC, FSA

[Cecil Bykerk]

At the risk of saying the obvious, it will take both. It will take both because we need to move the meter peg quite a bit higher. We are a great profession that is so relatively small that we really need to enlist everyone that we can. Of course different marketing efforts will need to be used relative to group a and group b. More personalized efforts need to be taken with the CEO types. High profile actuaries going in to meet with these individuals to help them understand the benefits of employing actuaries.

With respect to b, we all need to become members of the militia. The SOA could coordinate workshops and other self-taught materials that would allow us to go out to the local business clubs such as Rotary International and offer to make presentations. We need to plant seeds that will sprout and grow here and there. This is one way to broaden our exposure.

[Maine-iac]

The SOA could coordinate workshops and other self-taught materials that would allow us to go out to the local business clubs such as Rotary International and offer to make presentations. We need to plant seeds that will sprout and grow here and there. This is one way to broaden our exposure.


That would be neat. Then when it's my week to book the speaker for Rotary this year, I could book myself and get off easy. ;)

[Stuart Klugman]

As Cecil points out, we need both. Here is more on the why. Our surveys indicate that corporate leaders do not appreciate what actuaries can do. This is the top-down marketing part. We are much better than the stereotypes and need to get the word out. At the other end, we must then be the actuaries our marketing efforts say we are. This where all of us come in. We need to be constantly developing the skills (both specifically actuarial as well as general business and communication skills) that will demonstrate the truth in our marketing.

The latter effort is coordinated on the web at http://www.imageoftheactuary.org/ where there is a lot of useful information.

As a Presidential officer my goal would be to continue promoting this effort through (e)-mailings, speeches, and an a commitment to continue supporting the effort with the Board and staff. Finally, I am making a pledge (whether or not I win) to never tell an actuarial joke that perpetuates our stereotypes.

[bdschobel]

I agree with both Cecil and Stuart and can't really add much to their rather complete responses. We are a small profession and can only do so much ourselves. We really need to get support from the news media, etc. Actually, we have been moderately successful at that but can do more. Actuaries have a good reputation already, but in limited fields, unfortunately.

And I agree with Stuart about the actuary jokes. We regard them as kind of cute, but they do perpetuate bad stereotypes.

Bruce

[JMO]

The thread linked below asks about recognition of various Risk Management certifications and about why the actuarial profession was left out. Although the issue (in my view) is more for the Academy than for the SOA, I'd still be interested to hear the opinion of our candidates on this.

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=87208

[Double High C]

IMHO, the issue of why the SOA / AAA / the actuarial profession is not consulted / recognized in such areas in which it so clearly should belong is much more of a serious issue warranting immediate attention than whether the image of actuaries is more like that of a nerd than somebody more "cool".

And it (the former) needs to be presented mainly as a high value-added proposition for the public (as opposed to us something primarily to advance our self-interest as actuaries; this will follow from serving the public need - and getting credit for it).

And to some extent, (again, IMHO), from film / speaker(s) at the SOA Annual Meeting in 2005 in NY, it came across as the latter (trying to make us look "cool", and whining that we don't want to look like nerds).
IMO, improvement of the image of actuaries (e.g. having strong writing / personal skills, and hence, being balanced people who also have strong technical skills, as opposed to just nerds who can do math) will follow by example only. Spending too much time and effort telling people "we're not like that" will make people think - rightly or wrongly - that we are like that.

[Stuart Klugman]

My understanding of the image campaign is that it is much more than changing our image from nerd to cool. It is about convincing those who need the skills actuaries have that we do indeed have those skills and in fact have them with a level of understanding that is deeper than most others. We are creative problem solvers with a large toolkit. This also explains some of the disconnect between us and other risk management organizations. We work with them when we can, but also want to emphasize the significantly higher skill level, the degree of professionalism we possess, and the rigor of our qualification system.

[bdschobel]

Yes, that's correct. Actuaries probably will never be "cool," but that's not the point of the marketing campaign. Most companies in broader financial services (i.e., non-traditional actuarial areas) and many general corporations are doing "actuarial" work right now. It's just not necessarily being done by actuaries! The goal of the marketing campaign is to change that, so that companies needing actuarial expertise will turn to the real thing.

Bruce

[Malik Shabazz]

Actuaries probably will never be "cool,"Now you tell me. Jeez, I just wasted 20 years.

I wonder if it's too late to become an astronaut or a fireman.

[bdschobel]

I don't know any actuaries who became astronauts (and I'm confident that there are none), but Jerry Fickes, Jr., went from being an actuary to being a fireman. For real! And he was one heck of a fine actuary, too.

Bruce

[Double High C]

Thanks for good answers.

I guess, maybe I was getting a little hung up on the use of the term "image campaign", as opposed to "marketing campaign".

If we start with the assumption that actuaries do in fact have the necessary skills, the professional competencies should be marketed to CEOs and prospective customers of actuarial services.

As I said (tried to say?) before, IMO, bolstering the "image" that "actuaries can in fact present a decent image in the boardroom" (e.g. defined in terms of communication skills) is not what the focus of a campaign to "sell actuaries" should be primarily (if at all) about. That is the job of the individual actuary.

OTOH, selling the actuaries' skills and persuading the prospective consumers of the potential value added is what the marketing campaign should be focused on.

[exactuary]

I don't know any actuaries who became astronauts (and I'm confident that there are none), but Jerry Fickes, Jr., went from being an actuary to being a fireman. For real! And he was one heck of a fine actuary, too.BruceBut check this out for a cool post-actuary occupation:

http://www.joebuff.com/

Click on "bio" after the website moves (auto) to its second page.

Joe was an FSA into the early 1990's working at Tillinghast and Merrill Lynch but has, sadly, dropped the designation as he found his new self.

[Double High C]

Be adaptable. Don't overadapt

.

[Double High C]

If Joe were to decide to become an actuary again:

1. Would he have to take exams to regain his SOA credential (FSA)?

2. Would he have to pay past dues?

(If the answer to either of these is "yes", then I have a problem with it.)

[Stuart Klugman]

If Joe were to decide to become an actuary again:

1. Would he have to take exams to regain his SOA credential (FSA)?

2. Would he have to pay past dues?

(If the answer to either of these is "yes", then I have a problem with it.)

I am going to assume that Joe was an ASA or FSA at one time and decided to drop his membership. Here is the relevant text from the SOA By-Laws:

If the dues remain unpaid three months following the time of mailing such notice, the Vice-President and Treasurer shall strike the name of such member from the rolls, and such member shall cease to be a Fellow or Associate of the Society of Actuaries; provided that the member's name shall not be so stricken until all pending disciplinary action has been finally resolved. It is inappropriate to use these designations if membership status in the SOA is not current, no matter what year earned. Membership designations connote continuing adherence to the Code of Professional Conduct and the Standards of Practice with any deviations being subject to the discipline process. Such person may, however, be reinstated by vote of the Board of Governors and upon payment of such arrears of dues as the Board shall direct.

So the answer to question 1 is no. The answer to question 2 is yes, but not for the full number of years missed. Here is material from the Dues section of the SOA website:

Reinstatement of Members
A Fellow or Associate who has resigned or who has been dropped for nonpayment of dues may be reinstated on recommendation of the Admissions Committee and subject to Board approval upon completion of an application for reinstatement, compliance with whatever requirements are then in effect, and payment of back dues (currently limited to two years’ dues) and current dues. Article VII of the Constitution of the Society imposes requirements on persons whose membership was terminated as a disciplinary matter.

[bdschobel]

We reinstate a significant number of previous members at every Board meeting (through the consent agenda -- nobody actually reads a list of names at the meeting). This is not unusual at all. Many people drop their memberships for a variety of reasons such as childcare, etc., but one day they decide to return to active duty, so to speak. :)

Bruce

[Stuart Klugman]

In certain circumstances, a member may request that dues not be paid, yet membership be retained. In these circumstances no back dues are collected when the individual returns to dues paying status and may continue to use the designation ASA or FSA. Here is the wording:

Waiver of dues has been provided for by Article IX of the By-Laws or by action of the Board of Governors under the following conditions:
**Permanent total disability.
**Attainment of age 55 and retirement to the point of no longer actively earning income exceeding $26,000 per annum from all sources (excluding retirement pay, Social Security or equivalent benefits and investment income). Retirement dues are $50.00; the waiver is the difference between the base dues and the required payment of $50.00.
**Attainment of age 70.
**Active duty in the uniformed forces of the United States or Canada.
**Full-time student at a recognized institution of higher learning.
**Active service in the Peace Corps or CUSO.
**Leave from the workforce to raise children. Full waiver granted a maximum of five years while earning zero or minimal income. Waiver granted with restricted membership services after five years to a member with a child with special needs or with a child five years old or less and zero earned income.
**Special circumstances which, in the judgment of the Board of Governors, warrant waiver of dues, or in the judgment of the Admissions Committee, warrants deferral of dues.

[bdschobel]

Actually, those rules were amended at the last Board meeting, effective with 2007 dues. For instance, we no longer require "total permanent disability," just entitlement to SSDI or equivalent benefits. But Stuart has the essence correct.

Bruce

[Stuart Klugman]

If Joe were to decide to become an actuary again:

1. Would he have to take exams to regain his SOA credential (FSA)?

2. Would he have to pay past dues?

(If the answer to either of these is "yes", then I have a problem with it.)
Now that you have the answers (no and and it depends on why "Joe" dropped out) perhaps you could explain why you have a problem. I view this as a two-part issue.

Part 1 - Should only dues paying members (and those with special waivers) be allowed to use their designation? I think this is the more interesting question. The historical answer has been yes. The justification (that I agree with) is that all actuaries benefit from the work of the SOA and thus anyone who claims to be one (within our set of practice areas) should share in the funding of its activities.

Part 2 - As long as the requirements of Part 1 are in effect, it makes sense (to me) to charge "Joe" back dues upon reinstatement. Otherwise, "Joe" can decide to move in and out of the SOA depending on how important his designation is to him at any particular time

[Double High C]

Incomplete answer:

Part 1 - I do have somewhat of a problem with requiring one to pay dues to use their designation. (I do realize the fairness of having all actuaries share in the cost of the work of the SOA, but to the extent that MAAA is analogous to the Bar Association, I think that arguably, membership in that org - and payment of dues - should be required for one to practice as an actuary. Perhaps if it worked that way, then the SOA would get some funding from that org. But SOA membership implies that one has the core skills to practice as an actuary; it is analogous to a university degree.)

Part 2 - I don't see much of a real problem with not charging back dues (but I did not realize that the charging of the back dues was limited to 2 years, so I have less of a problem than I did before). First of all, I don't think that there will be that many people coming in and out. Also, to the extent that people really are truly not practicing for chunks of time, they should not be required to fund the SOA over those times. (I do realize that people benefit from prior research, but the same could be said about all members' benefiting from such activities before they ever joined the SOA.) Furthermore, when someone starts to work after being unemployed, you are effectively sticking their new employer with the bill. And if their new employer won't pay (or if self employed, especially if for modest level of income), then you are (IMO unduly) financially burdening the returning actuary.

And given that it seems that dues are largely price-inelastic, as companies are stuck with the bill (and these people do not exert sufficient marketplace influence to exert downward pressure on prices, and they are paying for things for which they may not making significant use), I don't think that charging back dues (for time not practicing) is appropriate.

I could go on further, but I'll stop here. (This does not apply to me, as I work for a large company, but I do care somewhat about the principle nonetheless.)

[bdschobel]

This is a very large and complex topic, and I'm not going to address every aspect in a brief posting here, but I will say that any similarity between an FSA and a university degree is more apparent than real -- and treating them as similar leads to erroneous conclusions. Universities grant degrees, then wash their hands of you -- except to solicit charitable contributions periodically. I don't have to pay my university anything currently, yet I get to keep my degree.

An FSA is different -- or, at least, most people act as if it is. Most actuaries don't just walk away from the SOA after earning their FSA. Rather, they continue to be involved and support the profession in many ways. Continuing education, which the SOA provides, is part of the equation -- and it seems to be on the road to becoming mandatory. The SOA and the members of the actuarial profession all have an interest in actuaries keeping their knowledge up-to-date. It's fundamental to being "professional" in my opinion.

Anyway, to cut this short, that's why I support some level of dues for all members. All actuaries have an interest in keeping the profession strong, and that requires support of our professional organizations. We may well have too many of them, but we must continue to support them, anyway.

Bruce

[Double High C]

Bruce,

Those are good points. And I agree that the topic is complex. (This is why I did not give a quick answer.) Thanks for your (and Stuart's) thoughtful reply.

(And I am happy to agree to disagree in part, but still think that it is worth stating reasons that the analogy has a good deal more merit than suggested above, if for no other reason than to elevate the thought process regarding the profession to a higher level.)

I could have made my point more clearly if I had used a law school and its degree as a basis for comparison.

The work that is done by legal scholars - and yes, the particular law school if a particularly prestigous one - benefits all practicing lawyers (and perhaps moreso their clients!).

(The same applies to medicine, and I imagine many other professions / disciplines.)

The point is that (IMO) the credential - or degree - is what signifies the achievement / demonstration of the accomplishment / ability to do "actuarial work", just as the JD demonstrates such phenomena w.r.t. the practice of law. (In a sense, I guess one could say that SOA and CAS are the 2 main US universities, and all are bound to our bar association, the AAA.)

Passing the state bar shows that one is knowledgeable enough to practice in a given state, and the membership in that org - and payment of whatever dues are required - demonstrates a commitment to and responsibility for adhering to the code of ethics.

(I realize that there are a few differences, as the standards for accreditation for SOA members are pretty much uniform - as are those of CAS - unlike between as well as within the multitude of law schools. Also, the bar associations really do administer exams that require some demonstration of mastery of legal knowledge, unlike the AAA, with the exception of the L&H Qual Seminar, but having gone to that and passing the exam, I do not disagree that this is somewhat of a stretch.)

I realize that practicing actuaries really should support the work of the SOA, and since no other viable model for supporting its work other than having actuaries pay dues is apparent, I am not against it. Still, I draw the line at requiring formerly nonpracticing actuaries to pay for the time that they did not practice.

In closing, perhaps one important point is along the lines that Joe (his real name), who by all accounts really was an accomplished / well-respected actuary, should be welcomed back in as an actuary without being forced to pay dues for all the years that he did not practice. True, perhaps he might be a bit rusty w.r.t. current actuarial practice; perhaps somewhat of an extra hurdle should have to be met to make up for time away from the profession before regaining his full use of credentials. But having to pay for time away is (IMO) inappropriate.

[bdschobel]

You make good points. The answers to these questions are nonobvious.

The new dues policy that will take effect in 2007 should cure some of these ills. Moreover, if the actuarial organizations ever merge (details to follow!), then paying a single dues (due?) to support the whole menagerie would be less troublesome, it seems to me.

Bruce

[sayhey]

Moreover, if the actuarial organizations ever merge (details to follow!) Bruce


What?!?