Actuarial Image Campaign

[The Matrix]

MD, I couldn’t disagree more.

First, you question the premise that actuaries are systematically undervalued. Where have you been? Look around. Just because actuaries have managed to create a union without using that label and have benefited from mandated utilization doesn’t mean that those services or the people who provide them are valued.

Ever looked in the job ads? Ever wanted to work on something besides premiums and reserves, under funded projected benefit obligations, or government filings? Why do you think some non-“actuarial” jobs with descriptions that clearly line up with actuarial skills require MBA and/or CFA designations as requirements for consideration? Anyway, what would happen to actuaries if all those laws were repealed? What would happen to all those health & group actuaries if the government instituted socialized medicine? Would we be able to easily migrate into other areas? Really, does the larger business community know what we do besides “figure out when people die”?

Second, many professions have marketing campaigns. Are you suggesting that we are so much better than the other professions that we don’t need to introduce ourselves to a wider community than insurance, let alone continually remind people how much they need us? The marketing campaign is NOT about tapping some “reservoir” of employers/clients who need services that can be “uniquely” provided by actuaries but who are oblivious to our existence. This IS about creating demand for actuaries and actuarial credentials among those who could use our services but are currently being served by others. Actuaries don’t even have a seat at the table in some business communities when they go to market for employees/providers with skills that actuaries possess. Is that okay with you, too?

Third, this marketing campaign could be considered undignified for one reason only: it has taken us too long to figure out that we need one. We’re behind the curve. I have seen numerous television commercials and print ads marketing other professions: American Medical Association, American Bar Association, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, National Society of Professional Engineers, etc. I sincerely hope that the real campaign is NOT a public cry for help even though the pitch to the membership may have come off that way, as you suggest. It bothers me that we need to sell something to the membership that was so obvious to other professions – but I guess we have a lot of folks who myopically feel that “the only people who need to know about actuaries, and the value we bring to the table, already know”. By the way, sexing up the profession for the purpose of attracting youngsters is NOT a bad thing. Actuarial science, even with its long tenured workforce, cannot escape the coming shift in workforce demographics that, starting in 2015, threatens to short the US labor pool by approximately 29 Million workers.

Finally, you attempt to answer the question, “Just what is it that makes actuaries valuable?” Aren’t you defining the value in any profession when you state:

…seemingly pointless memorization of interminable lists and making sense of uncountably numerous facts, principles, arbitrary rules, random accidents of history, and potholes… That is where our true value lies…

Honestly, I think you could apply this to medicine, law, accounting, and probably engineering too. Although I admire the attempt and appreciate your perspective, the bottom line is this: perception is reality. Unfortunately, we are only currently perceived as valuable by a very narrow set of business interests. This profession needs a seat at the table with other business solution providers and needs to court attention from wider audiences than insurance, employee benefits, and niche financial services.

I, for one, welcome the change.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

Originally Posted by glenn

A high profile will do nothing for the industry.

Maybe it would do nothing for the industry, but it could help single male actuaries to pick up hot chicks.

[Michael Davlin]

It appears we also use the same litmus test for genius.

Originally Posted by Dave Barry

. . . you must be a freakin' genius.

Hah! You need to speak with my wife and kids.

[Michael Davlin]

Originally Posted by Prawnz Perdinand

Actuaries - we'll look at your shoes for you so you don't have to worry about that.

That's a good one.

[Michael Davlin]

Originally Posted by E. Blackadder

This is the only thing you got wrong, and it's a nitpick at worst. The show would have to be called: Hartford Actuary, or Des Moines Actuary. For something a little more down-beat, try Actuaries in Carmel.

You got me there, EB. Maybe it should be named after the employing company, The Carmel Life?

[Michael Davlin]

Originally Posted by Lucy

Hey, I like that.

Me too. That's why I shared.

[Michael Davlin]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Response to Mr. Davlin's diatribe

Diatribe? Diatribe!! I got your diatribe right here (but you'll have to give a bit more time).

[Salzmann]

Originally Posted by Paul Brand

This reminds me of what I've been reading in my Course 7 study notes regarding a seminar (followed by a 30 minute Q&A session) given by an actor on a topic he knew nothing about. This was given in front of a room of professionals (about 50 or so), and their feedback was extremely positive with no negative feedback (ie. no one caught on that the presentation was a bunch of hooey). Why? He was charismatic, and spoke clearly. Perhaps we should do the same in addition to knowing what we are talking about.

I have to put in a plug here for Toastmasters. Anyone who is really serious about improving his/her communication skills in a fun, low-cost, low-risk environment should find a nearby club NOW! (End of Toastmasters commercial)

I think this image campaign is silly. What's more efffective: a lot of expensive ads saying, "we are not boring and we bring a lot to the table" or just DOING it? Maybe we need more help with the latter, but the ads are just going to make us look llike we're doing Nixon's "I am not a crook" schtick.

Does anyone know how this was/will be funded? If the AAA is funding it I am FURIOUS that the video has no casualty actuaries represented that I recognized. I would be happy if someone could correct me on that.

[Michael Davlin]

Originally Posted by Salzmann

I have to put in a plug here for Toastmasters. Anyone who is really serious about improving his/her communication skills in a fun, low-cost, low-risk environment should find a nearby club NOW! (End of Toastmasters commercial)

I agree with you. Early in my career, I and several other young actuaries took advantage of the fact that my company had its own Toastmasters club. Like most people, I hate public speaking, and doubt I would ever have had the gumption to do any but for Toastmasters' excellent and supportive programs.

[Michael Davlin]

OK, Matrix, I confess. I write diatribes and polemics. It's a calculated move on my part. First, it's fun; I enjoy it. That gives me just the little boost of adrenaline I need to motivate myself to type a bunch of stuff into this forum. Second, I find more people seem to be willing to read their way through my often too lengthy posts if what they read is a bit entertaining or even odd-ball. Third, I find most actuarial discussions to be too solemn and dignified. Ask around; that's not me. Fourth, I deliberately try to be provocative; as in provoking reasoned and civil disagreement. That doesn't always work. With you, just now (more accurately, with you, in the middle of the night for some strange reason), it did. I appreciate that (as well as your writing, which around here is refreshingly good).

Originally Posted by The Matrix

First, you question the premise that actuaries are systematically undervalued. Where have you been? Look around. Just because actuaries have managed to create a union without using that label and have benefited from mandated utilization doesn’t mean that those services or the people who provide them are valued.

Ever looked in the job ads? Ever wanted to work on something besides premiums and reserves, under funded projected benefit obligations, or government filings? Why do you think some non-“actuarial” jobs with descriptions that clearly line up with actuarial skills require MBA and/or CFA designations as requirements for consideration? Anyway, what would happen to actuaries if all those laws were repealed? What would happen to all those health & group actuaries if the government instituted socialized medicine? Would we be able to easily migrate into other areas? Really, does the larger business community know what we do besides “figure out when people die”?

I agree, Matrix, that unionizing and mandating utilization are pointless actions in the absence of underlying demand. However, when there is an underlying demand, those actions can only increase, not decrease, the wages of those included rather than excluded. Thankfully, there is some ongoing demand for actuarial services, so I think it is a reasonable presumption that actuarial salaries, however too low they appear to us, are actually higher than they would be without exclusion and mandated utilization. Of course, as ethical professionals, we only advocate this on behalf of the good of others, not ourselves.

Where have I been? Watching. Observing the actuarial profession devolve into a stunted shadow of its former self. I think there are some identifiable reasons for that trend, but my comments would be too long for an already long post so I'm going to break them out separately in another post, below.

Educational designations, professional or academic, are signalling devices. Employers can assume prospective hirees with these designations have both a basic level of relevant knowledge and the minimum ability to perform the job without incurring large vetting costs themselves in weeding through candidates; especially young and inexperienced candidates. But these designations can be made so difficult and time consuming to obtain that they go so far beyond filling that valuable need that they additionally act as exclusionary devices that bar sufficiently capable people from employment, all to the benefit of those who do manage to secure designations. In my opinion, the MBA and CFA designations are more purely signalling devices, while actuarial designations go beyond that point and to a greater degree act as professional barriers to entry. Since I believe this to be the case, it surprises me not in the least that MBA's and CFA's are viewed by employers as more economical yet sufficient substitutes for actuaries in roles traditionally viewed as being reserved for actuaries.

What would happen to actuaries without these laws or if for some reason the bottom drops out of the demand for actuaries from the insurance industry? The usual. Those who remain employed would do so at reduced wages. New entrants would naturally be discouraged from entering. Those who become newly unemployed would not be able to find work as actuaries. Fortunately, for those still young enough to have the time to adapt, actuaries share a kit of abstract tools with others. Our mathematical, legal, accounting, business, economic, and organizational skills are equally applicable to other interesting domains. Our deep and wide insurance domain expertise, not surprisingly, is not. So those who successfully migrate will have to be willing to be humble enough to doff their actuarial label and dig in to learn the details of another domain just as thoroughly as they once learned that of insurance. They may or may not earn as much as they did as actuaries, but that's life. A campaign urging employers in other domains to hire actuaries with no relevant expertise in those domains, simply because actuaries have been led to believe they are unique or have a very special conceptual toolkit, is folly in my opinion.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Second, many professions have marketing campaigns. Are you suggesting that we are so much better than the other professions that we don’t need to introduce ourselves to a wider community than insurance, let alone continually remind people how much they need us? The marketing campaign is NOT about tapping some “reservoir” of employers/clients who need services that can be “uniquely” provided by actuaries but who are oblivious to our existence. This IS about creating demand for actuaries and actuarial credentials among those who could use our services but are currently being served by others. Actuaries don’t even have a seat at the table in some business communities when they go to market for employees/providers with skills that actuaries possess. Is that okay with you, too?

Sure it is. Different communities are often looking for a different balance between the various aptitudes and skills possessed by a typical actuary (Wall Street, for example). Frankly, Matrix, I find the proposition that other business communities are unaware that they need something only actuaries can offer too silly to take seriously. I can be as arrogant at times as an actuary can be, but even I find that idea to be really arrogant. I cringe with embarrassment whenever I hear it.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Third, this marketing campaign could be considered undignified for one reason only: it has taken us too long to figure out that we need one. We’re behind the curve. I have seen numerous television commercials and print ads marketing other professions: American Medical Association, American Bar Association, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, National Society of Professional Engineers, etc. I sincerely hope that the real campaign is NOT a public cry for help even though the pitch to the membership may have come off that way, as you suggest. It bothers me that we need to sell something to the membership that was so obvious to other professions – but I guess we have a lot of folks who myopically feel that “the only people who need to know about actuaries, and the value we bring to the table, already know”. By the way, sexing up the profession for the purpose of attracting youngsters is NOT a bad thing. Actuarial science, even with its long tenured workforce, cannot escape the coming shift in workforce demographics that, starting in 2015, threatens to short the US labor pool by approximately 29 Million workers.

Your examples are not instances of a would be migratory herd of professionals, as actuaries view themselves to be, trying to convince their neighbors to let them in the door. Sure, certifying bodies advertise themselves and the quality of their product. I have no problem with that. But that's not going to turn a doctor into an engineer, or an actuary into a risk manager in the petroleum industry. Also, I suspect the problem in the future will remain too many actuaries, not too few, so it might be a better idea to dress the profession in a burkah rather than sex it up.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Finally, you attempt to answer the question, “Just what is it that makes actuaries valuable?” Aren’t you defining the value in any profession when you state:

Honestly, I think you could apply this to medicine, law, accounting, and probably engineering too. Although I admire the attempt and appreciate your perspective, the bottom line is this: perception is reality. Unfortunately, we are only currently perceived as valuable by a very narrow set of business interests. This profession needs a seat at the table with other business solution providers and needs to court attention from wider audiences than insurance, employee benefits, and niche financial services.

I didn't think I was defining value so much as describing what really makes an actuary valuable. Yes, my conclusion generalizes. Abstract skills are generally much easier to obtain than domain expertise. Domain expertise, in the long run, is the key driver for value in any industry or profession, and it's not transportable. That's my main point. Actuaries confuse their (growingly mundane and common) abstract skills with their domain expertise, and they assign their perceived value to the wrong one, and therefore they arrive at silly conclusions about how their collective salary problem can and should be addressed.