Can I be sucessful in sales and still be ethical?

Strix said:

Hi guys

I've been selling insurance for 2 years, and I used to be pretty good at it, always hitting or beating targets, never taking no for an answer and I was thought of as one of the up and comers in the business.

Fast forward a year and my results are tanking. I'm finding it very difficult to reconcile the needs of the business against the needs of my customers and I'm taking the stance that treating the customers fairly has to come first. This has not been popular at work, and they constantly tell me "your in sales, our results matter, the customers don't"

So what do I do? Should I try and mislead the customers so they buy products they don't need when financial situations are so bad, or should I stick to my guns and let the customers make up their own mind without forcing them?

Click to expand...

I answered a different thread concerning car sales. I'm about to give you very bleak advice, go read the other thread if you need something more uplifting.

You should quit your industry and find something that fulfills your inner desire to help people. I had your EXACT same feelings. I was an up and coming commercial real estate broker. Did that a few years till I got burned out, same way you are feeling. I couldn't take it. I honestly could not align my interests with also helping my clients. It seemed mutually exclusive.

I started my own business earlier this year. I'm struggling and broke, that's another story for another time-- but my life is happier and I'm much more fulfilled knowing I'm on a better path.

I generally detest insurance in all forms. It's been branded into society as a form of security, whereas I see it as large-scale gambling with the companies acting as gigantic casinos (you thought vegas was filled with vices?), and the insurance companies win out in the end because they've placed a value on your life and have bet against you.

However-- if you have a passion for what you do (I'm very cynical so take what I say with a grain of salt please!)-- you will be able to carve out your niche with sheer hard work, passion, and a little bit of luck never hurts.

GenericTaoMaster said:

I generally detest insurance in all forms. It's been branded into society as a form of security, whereas I see it as large-scale gambling with the companies acting as gigantic casinos (you thought vegas was filled with vices?), and the insurance companies win out in the end because they've placed a value on your life and have bet against you.

Click to expand...

So you think it is good for you (and society) when someone runs into your car and doesn't have insurance, leaving you to pay the full amount of damages?

And in said accident, you would rather pay full medical costs of all surgeries to repair any damages?

And if the accident caused you to become injured so that you were unable to work, you would rather eat away at your savings rather than have disability insurance to cover the gap until you got better?

And if you happened to die in the accident, you would prefer to leave a wife and children with no source of financial security?

Or if an electrical fire started in your house and it burned down, you would prefer to lose everything, and still owe the bank the full amount of mortgage you took out?


These exact situations do not devastate people's finances because of car insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, and homeowner's insurance, respectively.

If you've ever heard of someone getting cancer, they had medical bills, likely couldn't work for a few weeks (maybe months), and could have died from cancer. Health, disability, and life insurance would protect them from financial loss.


There are many good legitimate reasons that insurance can benefit someone else. And in order to do well in selling insurance, you would need to be able to show potential clients the value of that protection. And you don't have to be unethical to show someone that value.

Insurance proves to be an excellent product to protect you and your family against the financial consequences of terrible situations.

sbbqb7n16 said:

So you think it is good for you (and society) when someone runs into your car and doesn't have insurance, leaving you to pay the full amount of damages?
[...]
Insurance proves to be an excellent product to protect you and your family against the financial consequences of terrible situations.

Click to expand...

sbbqb... you miss the point.

I'm merely suggesting that you are promoting an "evil" because it has "good" consequences.

Was Hitler right for murdering a bunch of Jews because he's doing the world a favor?

Just because you get the safety net of security when someone smashes into you or you get cancer doesn't mean the underlying "institution" isn't evil.

It's also not a great way to argue to put words into peoples' mouths.

"you think it's good if this...???"

"you think it's good it that?...???"

not once have I mentioned that I think any of the positive benefits of insurance aren't good.

I'm merely making the analogy that it's just gambling. If you don't feel comfortable considering yourself to be a gambler, gambling with your life, because gambling is a sin, you're in denial.

The insurance company has a statistical odds of you dying, or you getting in a car crash, or you getting cancer, then places a premium on your life and adds some profit margin, that's how your monthly insurance payment is calculated.

They also have insurance for you in Vegas when you think that dealer has blackjack. That insurance also is not in your favor to take in the long run.

Open your mind young one and don't be so quick to judge.

GenericTaoMaster said:

sbbqb... you miss the point.

I'm merely suggesting that you are promoting an "evil" because it has "good" consequences.

Was Hitler right for murdering a bunch of Jews because he's doing the world a favor?

Click to expand...

Please describe how helping save someone from financial disaster is comparable to human genocide.

And I disagree with your assumption that killing Jews was doing the world a favor.

Do you disagree with my statement that it is to your benefit to not bear the full burden of costly medical bills?

not once have I mentioned that I think any of the positive benefits of insurance aren't good.

Click to expand...

Oh - cause you just said that you "generally detest insurance in all forms."

So, you would like to benefit from the insurance, just not pay for it. Got it.

And I would just like to point out that you just said the benefits of insurance are good. Which means you acknowledge that insurance provides valuable benefits - and therefore a valuable service.

I'm merely making the analogy that it's just gambling. If you don't feel comfortable considering yourself to be a gambler, gambling with your life, because gambling is a sin, you're in denial.

Click to expand...

Gambling and insurance are NOT the same.

Gambling deals with speculative risk. With speculative risk there are 2 possibilities: gain or loss.

On each bet at the blackjack table, I can either win money or lose money. And I can go to the blackjack table at my own discretion. I can choose to go or not to go, so it's voluntary.

Insurance deals with pure risk. With pure risk there is only 1 possibility: loss.

Either the house burned down, or it didn't. Houses don't magically go up in value by burning to the ground.

So an insurance company provides a valuable service: financial risk transferrence. You pay the company a premium to transfer the financial risk of various scenarios over to the insurance company. They cannot prevent your house from burning down - or prevent you from getting cancer, but they can protect you against the major financial consequences of your house burning down, or from the bulk of the medical bills from cancer.

But you do not gain by insurance. In order to get the check for $200,000 you have to lose a house worth $200,000. In order to pay out a life insurance policy, you have to die.

These types of risk are not voluntary, and do not allow you to gain.


Just becuase pizza and pasta are both Italian food, that does not mean that pizza is pasta. Likewise, just because gambling and insurance both deal with risk and probabilities, that does not mean that insurance is gambling.

From: Investopedia: Speculative Risk Definition

...Speculative risk is the opposite of pure risk...

Click to expand...

The insurance company has a statistical odds of you dying, or you getting in a car crash, or you getting cancer, then places a premium on your life and adds some profit margin, that's how your monthly insurance payment is calculated.

Click to expand...

Best Buy's 'Geek Squad' will come over and fix your computer. They provide a service and calculate the value of any parts, labor - and then add some profit margin; and that's how your bill is calculated.

Every company that provides a valuable service is paid a profit for that service.

So are you against insurance itself? Or are you against the insurance company profiting by selling it? Are you against any company earning a profit? Why just insurance? Didn't you admit in your last post that there are positive benefits to insurance? If a company like Best Buy can charge a profit for a valuable service, why not Geico?

If Best Buy does not charge a profit for fixing your computer, how will they be able to stay in business to continue to provide valuable services to their customers? And if the insurance company does not charge a profit, how will they be able to stay in business to continue to provide the valuable service of risk transferrence for their customers?

Remember, if you haven't transferred the risk by insurance, you are still on the hook and absorb all the risk. If your $200k house burns down without insurance, you still lose everything - and you still owe the bank maybe $160k for a house that doesn't exist anymore. (Your house burning down doesn't let you off the hook on your mortgage) If you have several millions in the bank, maybe you're okay with that, but if not; you should have bought insurance and transferred that risk to an insurance company.

I'd gladly pay a reasonable profit to be protected against such a catastrophic loss.

They also have insurance for you in Vegas when you think that dealer has blackjack. That insurance also is not in your favor to take in the long run.

Click to expand...

So because the insurance at blackjack is favorable to the house, that means all insurance everywhere is evil? I'm not sure I follow you there.

Open your mind young one and don't be so quick to judge.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice old ancient one.

I don't like it when people attempt to insult my ideas because of my age. My age has nothing to do with whether what I'm saying is true or not.

Sbbq -- I appreciate your well thought out and mature response.

my reference to Jewish people was a joke. I merely try to make a point that just because an action causes some good consequences does not justify the initial action.

Let's get back to the institution of "insurance" and insurance companies. You are obviously emotionally disturbed by my insistence that insurance is inherently evil. You then try to illustrate your point by showing me hypothetical instances where insurance comes through and saves the day.

Every month you pay insurance and your house does not burn down, you technically "lose" your monthly premium.

If your house burns down, you "gain" because you do not have to shell out the money to buy a new house.

We're debating semantics here whether or not you want to compare this to vegas blackjack-- but you're still in denial about he essence of what I am trying to get you to understand.

That there is risk and profit involved. Just because I am providing security to you does not mean I am not evil. Imagine an insurance company, their shareholders, and their goal.

Their goal is to take your money and find ways to not pay you when your disaster occurs.

I know it's a sweeping generalization that's not fair, but that's why some things, like health insurance, would probably fare better if it were not privatized and not motivated by profits.

Health insurance should not exist my friend. Universal healthcare for all should maybe be a guaranteed right-- like freedom of speech.

If my house burned down-- you are not understanding my argument. Of course I would prefer to have my items replaced. This does not mean I think the institution of insurance is good.

Imagine if you owned the insurance company. You would be laying odds on peoples' lives. You would be laying odds on the probability of me crashing my car.

If I wreck, you lose, because you have to pay out. If I don't wreck, you win, because you keep my premium that month. Multiply this a million times over and you get a clearer picture.

Your ideas have nothing to do with your age, I merely make reference to your age because your experience is lacking. I apologize if you thought I was insulting your age.

So if odds are favorable to the house, I will hold off on assuming the underlying institution is evil for purposes of our discussion. Only because I don't think casino's are evil. I believe casino's offer a good service to society. I feel like casinos are straight forward in the service they offer, with the odds very blatantly known for most popular games. It is a form of entertainment, and one knows his odds are stacked against him when playing.

I tend to think people also know the odds are stacked against them when paying for insurance in other forms. I only use vegas blackjack to illustrate my point at it's most primal. However, when you pay your car insurance, if you are a lifetime safe driver, the insurance company makes a killing off you.

If you get into a couple wrecks, you might get dropped by your carrier-- because you become an unprofitable investment to them.

The only reason I make reference to your age is that you might understand my liberal stance as a mirror to your extreme conservative stance-- only to serve as an illustration that blind adherence to any extreme can be dangerous.

Now I'm not really calling for the downfall of insurance as Tylder Durden might have in Fight Club.

What I'd like to see is for society to call it what it is... it's gambling. You can semantically separate it from blackjack with your cunning wikipedia definitions, but you stray farther from understanding when you take that route.

GenericTaoMaster said:

Every month you pay insurance and your house does not burn down, you technically "lose" your monthly premium.

If your house burns down, you "gain" because you do not have to shell out the money to buy a new house.

Click to expand...

Hence the definition of pure risk being only 1 outcome: loss.

So on the whole, you lose a bit each month on the premium. And if the house burns down, you still lose - because your house burnt down. And you get some money back, but your house will never come back.

Their goal is to take your money and find ways to not pay you when your disaster occurs.

I know it's a sweeping generalization that's not fair

Click to expand...

Then why do you willingly base your argument on what you know to be an unfair assessment?

Health insurance should not exist my friend. Universal healthcare for all should maybe be a guaranteed right-- like freedom of speech.

Click to expand...

If it were a guaranteed right of living, then how come people in the middle of the Amazon do not have the same access to 'universal healthcare'? Anyone, anywhere in the world has the ability to speak/communicate. Not everyone has access to the best medical care the world can provide.

Freedom of speech is a right endowed by our Creator. Healthcare is a priviledge of living in an advanced society.

Again you show that you would prefer to benefit from insurance, but not pay for it. You would rather all taxpayers pay for your medical care instead of yourself.

So I think that it's odd that you're in favor of causing everyone in America to 'lose' more in taxes when they are healthy all year - so that you get to 'gain' free health care if you are sick.

Those sound a lot like the exact reasons you are against insurance...

Your ideas have nothing to do with your age, I merely make reference to your age because your experience is lacking. I apologize if you thought I was insulting your age.

Click to expand...

And yet you maintain that I cannot possibly be old enough to have experience. Thank you for the empty apology.

"I'm not saying you're too young, I'm just saying you haven't been alive long enough."

What I'd like to see is for society to call it what it is... it's gambling. You can semantically separate it from blackjack with your cunning wikipedia definitions, but you stray farther from understanding when you take that route.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. Insurance is a product to be used for the transferrence of involuntary financial pure risk. Gambling is a speculative risk, willingly entered into, with the hope of financial gain.

And sorry for using Investopedia (a reputable online source of financial information). Maybe you'd rather use Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law?

Speculative risk | Define Speculative risk at Dictionary.com
Main Entry: speculative risk
Function: noun
: a risk that may result in either a loss or a gain

Pure risk | Define Pure risk at Dictionary.com
Main Entry: pure risk
Function: noun
: a risk that can only result in loss

I'm sorry that those definitions are essentially identical to Investopedia's. Sorry for the confusion.

I do think insurance has it's problems, but you need it in a society like ours. Most people do not have the money to handle situations like their house burning down, getting in an accident, etc. They need a company to help them with that. It's not the best system in the world, but it's better than nothing...

Yeah just don't over do it.

Strix said:

Hi guys

I've been selling insurance for 2 years, and I used to be pretty good at it, always hitting or beating targets, never taking no for an answer and I was thought of as one of the up and comers in the business.

Fast forward a year and my results are tanking. I'm finding it very difficult to reconcile the needs of the business against the needs of my customers and I'm taking the stance that treating the customers fairly has to come first. This has not been popular at work, and they constantly tell me "your in sales, our results matter, the customers don't"

So what do I do? Should I try and mislead the customers so they buy products they don't need when financial situations are so bad, or should I stick to my guns and let the customers make up their own mind without forcing them?

Click to expand...

Always remember, do things that pleases God rather than men.

Therefore also we have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. -2 Corinthians 5:9

Being in business this thread was a blessing to me. Thanks