Insurtech Insider - Ep. 5 Insurance as a platform
FILE DETAILS
Audio Length: 		00:56:57	
Audio Quality: 		Good	
Number of Interviewers:		2
Number of Interviewees:		3

Start of Audio
DB:	Welcome to Insurtech Insider, coming to you live from the 11FS office in WeWork London. Today, well, unfortunately Nigel was otherwise engaged, so couldn’t make it along today, but I’m joined by two very awesome guests. So, I think as you’ll have probably guessed by now, my name is David Brear, and I’m joined by James York, who is the founder and CEO of Worry+Peace. Hey James, how you doing?
JY:	Hi, yes, great.
DB:	Thanks for joining us.
JY:	Thank you very much for having me.
DB:	You’re-, well, I was just mocking you a minute ago for being cold, and wearing a big coat inside this office, but it’s like Winter Wonderland outside right now, so that kind of makes sense, right?
JY:	It is, and I like to be eccentric.
DB:	Indeed. Well, like, flamboyance is something I love in a man. And next up we have, coming for the debut on Insurtech Insider, but no stranger to coming in to podcasts that we run, it’s Sarah Kocianski. How’s it going, Sarah?
SK:	It’s good, thank you. My second one this week, I’m racking them up.
DB:	I know, well, we need a desk and a plinth and everything in the office right now for you, it’s getting to be somewhat of a habit, right?
SK:	Definitely.
DB:	Indeed. Right, let’s kick things off. Let’s start with you, James. So, tell us a bit more about what you do, what is Worry+Peace and how long have you guys been around?
JY:	Yes, great, I’d be happy to. I mean, I suppose in the most basic level Worry+Peace is an intermediary, authorised by the FCA, a couple of years ago. We spent probably the first 18 months of our existence trying to convince insurers to work with a little, new start-up. We’re independent-,
DB:	That’s always a challenge.
JY:	Oh yes, but that’s a whole other podcast. Yes, we’re independently run, so, we didn’t go out there and sell the vision and raise money. We’ve, kind of, done it the super bootstrap, kind of, way. Really the problem, I guess, we’re looking to solve is to create an inventory of everything insurance. So, not necessarily distinguishing between a specialist line and a small business line, I call it the PDF economy, and I think we’ve got to this point where the moniker for that mindset is stretchy inventory. So, do we need to sell it ourselves? Can we stock something virtually, I suppose, in essence? So, that’s been the initial mindset and the brand was just an URL I, kind of, conjured and came up with. It was available, I bought all the ones I could find and, you know, I’ve, kind of, fallen in love with it, after I designed the logo and did it all myself.
DB:	Well, we’ve talked, in Fintech Insider, a bunch of times, about naming things, haven’t we, Sarah? Actually, you make it mean something, it’s almost like Jason, kind of, shows off quite often, doesn’t he? Saying he named Monzo and Starling and all these different types of things, but, like, you, as a company, give a name meaning, don’t you?
JY:	You do, and our meaning is it’s got tongue-in-cheek, just like our brand, but it also has a serious side to it. Worry+Peace, I’m very militant on the plus, rather than an ampersand, and I know people get really, really upset about it. It’s an equation, right? You can’t ever get full peace of mind, for your worries, and there’s a budgeting thing, there’s a coverage element. So, that equation, it’s really nicely balanced, they’re two really easy words that most people, around the world, who speak English as a first or second language are going to get, and the equals is, kind of, the customer service that’s invisible behind it, that galvanises the whole brand. Obviously, the tongue-in-cheek element of it is that most insurance terms are, like, war and peace, right? So, that’s obviously the thing that we need to eradicate. So, there’s a lot of hidden messages in there and that sounds really after the fact, but when I came up with the URL I was looking for things to do, I collect URLs anyway, I don’t know why, it’s a stupid thing to collect, isn’t it?
DB:	It’s quite an expensive habit.
JY:	Yes, it is, actually, it is. When you sell the odd one, it works out. Yes, it just really worked for me and it took a lot of selling, actually, because this is a family business too and that question of nepotism, obviously, we can leave that for another day. My family are in insurance and they had a really traditional mindset, so, when I was trying to convince us all to look at this new way of doing things, the brand story had to come out then. So, it really did come from the origin.
DB:	In terms of, like you say, bootstrapping to get this moving, that’s not a fashionable way of doing a start-up these days. You know, everybody loves that, kind of, VC story and the VC pitch type thing. For companies who can do that, I think that’s the best way, it’s what we’ve done with 11FS, as well, and it feels like the best way to go to market, because you’re starting a business, you know? Like you have to make it make business sense. So, yes, well done you for making that work.
JY:	Thank you.
DB:	What is the business model behind it? How do you actually make this move into the market and given that you’re bringing about a new wave, how are you monetizing thing?
JY:	Yes, so, it’s fairly straightforward. If you’re going to stock products, if you look at insurance, it’s intangible. Someone like Amazon stocks something tangible, it’s fairly binary, you buy it off them, you either keep it or send it back, there’s no umbilical cord attached to it, really, apart from, obviously, how they create algorithms to sell you more stuff. Again, each time it’s binary. Insurance has got that easy to sell, but then tough to serve kind of mindset. So, from our perspective, we’ve really, kind of, looked at, okay, how can we stock everything and create that one vision, that one dashboard of insurance? It doesn’t have to be your own stock, you can do exactly as Amazon’s done, that’s the-, that’s where the reference comes in, and they’ve been very good at creating platforms, as we’re going to talk about, bringing in third-party sellers and liberating the customer to choose and be quite fungible about who they acquire services from. The difference with insurance, unfortunately, which is where Worry+Peace, kind of, has a different spin is that I see those are two completely different business models, the selling and the after. That’s why we have Pouch, and, in theory, Pouch should be detectable from Worry+Peace, and if I was a founder of another business, in a different vertical of insurance, selling something super specialist, then I should-, the idea is that I should be comfortable putting an icon for Pouch on that site. Because it’s not Worry+Peace, effectively, trojan horsing into my business, because that’s our selling platform and Pouch is our, kind of, platform that we tie to. So, there’s that equality in the consumer’s eyes, the consumer is the centre of it.
DB:	Sounds good. So, what’s the longer-term vision for this? Where do you see you getting in the next three to five years, I guess?
JY:	I think our main goal would be to take Pouch as a lead out thing, a lead out app, into another market, because-, and that’s where I think when we realised, actually, we don’t need to be regulated to be a platform, we can take the Pouch platform into markets and then follow with the Worry+Peace brand afterwards, to create brokerage. So, I think the USA would be the place to go for that, it’s a tough market, I mean, it’s state by state.
DB:	They love some insurance over there.
JY:	They do love their insurance.
SK:	Yes.
JY:	It’s a different mindset, you know, lower churn, you know, very rigid rating structure which I think, in some ways, helps to innovate, because you know what you’re getting and there’s equality between the sellers. That would be our goal, to take it somewhere else, but I think, being realistic, it’s customer numbers at the moment in the UK to fund the business. If we don’t raise any external capital, then we have to wash our own faces. So, our next target is about 25,000 customers, and don’t ask me how many we’ve got now. The press release is coming out shortly. Because we’re not VC funded, I think there’s a validity, a credibility element to releasing when you’ve got a certain milestone, and I think we’ve hit one recently, and to other people it might not look great, but for me and two staff, and a super bootstraps, kind of, business, it’s a real milestone for us.
DB:	Yes, for sure. You’ll have to tell us the number off air anyway, and then we’ll see. I think it’s a sign of a continual trend that we’re probably seeing in insurance and, actually, in banking, as well, in terms of the platformification of everything that we’re doing. So, maybe we should get into that and talk about what it means to be insurance as a platform?
JY:	Yes.
DB:	So, we’re seeing a bit of a rise of what we call-, and this is not going to be very good for audio people, but “as a platform” and there’s lots of, sort of, air quotes going on for everybody who’s listening to this one. So, really, I guess getting into what does that mean in the insurance space? Do you want to start us off with that?
JY:	Yes, I mean, for me, when you say it, and obviously this is from my view of the world, it’s, kind of, a trifle of potential platforms, if that makes sense?
DB:	I like trifle.
JY:	Because, you know, like with every industry, insurance has a supply chain and for me there’s a series of interlocking platform opportunities, and running through that would be the money. So, there’s a money platform opportunity too, in my view, whether it’s lending or the flow.
DB:	Yes, and is that what’s appealing to it? Like how is this-, because generally, like, distribution and production has been, you know, the big boys have had the, sort of, stranglehold on this in terms of the process for insurance. So, how is it coming about that now we’re seeing this different model in terms of distribution?
JY:	I mean, I’m going to be candid and say I don’t think we are seeing it yet. I think we’re seeing the origin of it, maybe the start, the first feet in the journey. Perhaps people are getting a bit ahead of themselves in looking at blockchain before they’ve got the easier wins. 
SK:	There are many easier wins than blockchain, I think even Simon would agree with me there.
JY:	Yes, there’s boring stuff like version control on documents for delegated authorities and how you do your due diligence on binding authority or an agency. Regtech is probably a good area for that.
SK:	Arguably, some of the stuff we’re seeing, particularly in insurance, is actually cutting layers out, as well. So, if you look at somebody like Munich Re and how much money they’ve put into what are actually customer-, whether that’s consumer or business facing channels, which historically they haven’t really had. They’re actually, you know, in terms of becoming a platform, they are a platform in the sense that they are funding and backing all of these different companies, which may look different to your average consumer, but actually they’ve got the same money and power underwriting them at that end, as well. So, I think the idea of “as a platform” in insurance, as you say, has many different connotations. There’s the ones that are obvious to the average consumer, where you go on and you see lots of different types of insurance and you can pick and choose what suits you. Then you’ve got the, kind of-, that middle and back end that’s also starting to shift. I mean I would argue that the re-insurers and the distributors are moving much faster than the guys in the middle right now. You may have a different perspective on that.
JY:	Do you know, I think the Munich Re is a great example because, for me, and again, thump me if I’m off track here, but for me a platform should be somewhat egalitarian, or, you know, if I’ve got enough money to play, or it’s a free to play for everyone, it’s equal, it’s what you use the platform for that, effectively, is your power and your differentiator. Munich Re is not a platform, because it’s a closed environment. They’re enabling, for sure, but that platform is very limited. Take us, for example, we probably wouldn’t be appealing to Munich Re, because we’re a choice player, so, we want you to have, as a consumer, choice, and Munich Re would want you to use their supply chain. So, in that sense, I guess it’s the start of it, but when an insurer realises that, you know, they need to open up and be fully-, what’s the word? Permeable, I guess that’s when it’s going to start really kicking in.
SK:	I mean, arguably they’re the same as Amazon then, because Amazon is controlling your money and how you’re paying and the payment services and distribution. If you’re an Amazon Prime customer, it literally controls your life.
DB:	It does, every day. I bow down to the Amazon gods.
SK:	So, I think there is a parallel there, but I see your point about the-, and I suppose that brings us onto why consumers like the platform element. Is that choice and flexibility, you can build something that actually suits you, and that, kind of, feeds into another trend that we talk about all the time, which is personalisation.
DB:	I guess, though, doesn’t it break the type of communication that people would actually have? So, the traditional players and the communication, and this is actually the-, you know, the argument against things like marketplace banking, in the banking context, is actually doesn’t it break the model of upsell, cross-sell, for traditional insurance companies? Because, you know, there are whole lines of insurance that are not profitable, but actually are, sort of, created to have completeness of, you know, basket or wallet or whatever.
SK:	What would be an example of that? Because it’s not-,
DB:	So, travel, pet, those things are not particularly-, pet insurance, particularly, has never been one of them that has been particularly profitable for people, in terms of that space. I, kind of, remember van insurance as well being a really, really low profit one, but, again, this was back in 2008, when I was working at Aviva. So, I, kind of, feel like does this break this model? If we’re getting to the point where platforms are actually controlling the distribution of these things? I know we’ve seen reasonable, sort of, decimation of the profitability of certain lines of insurance because of things like Money Supermarket. So, does this change the dynamic of it? Are we going to see people being creators of products and distributors of products? Does it fundamentally change the way in which the products are going to be created, to be distributed?
SK:	So, do you guys build any products or are you literally a distributor, or do you have that, kind of, element where it’s if you have 75 people come to you and say, “We want pet insurance for a cocker spaniel that lives in Harrow,” you’ll go out and try and find a way of doing that? I mean, it doesn’t have to be that narrow, obviously, or are you actually purely a distributor of-,
JY:	There’s a lot of good questions in there. Yes, we build, in simple terms, yes, we curate, which I suppose is the best thing. So, we would go to market, that makes it non-advised, because we don’t offer a choice of five and say, “Pick this one, it’s the best.” No, we wouldn’t problem hunt and aggregate that because that’s, kind of, in insurance, would probably be trouble me thrice, I’ve got to find the people who have got the problem, I’ve got to then find the solution, and then I’ve got to sell it back to them. In that intervening period, how do I know where they’ve gone? Their needs may have changed. So, for me that model, kind of, doesn’t work. Ironically, the UK, if we view it as a lens, mainland EU has a great system where you can be onboarded as a customer very quickly, to become broker of record letter. And it’s a system that Knip and Wefox have used very effectively. In the UK, technically we can do that, I could find 100,000 Aviva car insurance customers, having an agency with Aviva, go to them with letters of authority and say, “Hey, these guys want better terms.” In reality, that would be alien to modern customers and Aviva, I’m not even sure their agency team would know what to do if I had that. So, there are issues to those models, but yes, you know, we build, and we make and it’s very slow progress, it typically takes six to eleven months per line.
SK:	What’s the impact of this? So, if you’re both building your own and providing a variety, you know, you’re not a seller of only, say, for example, Aviva policies, what’s the fallout for the legacy players here? If this is where we’re going, and the success and the consumer interface is going to be these platforms, what does that mean for your AXAs, your Avivas, your Standard Lifes, anybody else you want to think of who’s a huge player in this space?
JY:	They need to realise that the third way is underway, if that makes sense? You know, my viewpoint of insurance distribution is, ironically, not either broker/intermediary or direct. It’s the middle, and there should be zero friction between one of my customers and the underwriter. You know, I often pitch the way we operate to clients, say if you’ve got a problem, like there’s been an issue with the claims service. Our scripts always present our brand as a retailer, effectively, and on the customer’s side of something goes wrong, and that the underwriter is, effectively, the maker, the manufacturer. In that situation you require the underwriters to start engaging with that brand opportunity, and even if they want to start having conversations, for example, with an SME, so that they don’t reduce churn, they don’t lose the business. If there’s a relationship in that environment and we can broker that, we’re not a middle man anymore, we’re a deal maker, we’re an engager, and that platform element wraps around it. So, from our perspective everything that we’ve got in our pipeline is looking for those tools to be enabled and it’s obviously the sell is going to be changing the culture to get people to-, to take those tools and use them, and, you know, David, as well as I do, that it’s tough for insurers to change. Ultimately, what works in a start-up community are things like sweat equity, stock warrants. If I went to an insurer with, effectively, you know, a stock in my business, they would not know where to put it. Just the conduits of decision making aren’t in place. So, there’s lots of great things that can be done, but the insurers aren’t ready, and the long and short of it is that they’re missing opportunities, because actually there’s probably a friendlier environment waiting for them than they really realise.
DB:	Mm. Yes, the level of, I guess, data, in a sense, and the understanding of the businesses that you’d be servicing, you know, the individuals that you’ve actually be servicing would be significantly increased if they did move into this space, I guess. There’s almost, like, a paralysis of data in insurance anyway, right? Are they in a position-, because this seems like quite an emotional step to take. Like are they at the point where they really have this level of sophistication to move into this? Particularly on the incumbent side of things, it feels like data has been something that’s been probably more of a problem really than a real help when it comes to a personalisation perspective.
JY:	It’s a glacier, isn’t it? As it melts, what appears in the glacier?
DB:	Indeed.
JY:	Yes, I think if you make it simple, like, most insurers now have a marketing team that can use Twitter or Facebook, right? If your platform is simple enough, it should be suitable for those insurers that are working on it. From our perspective, the reason that we haven’t necessarily talked about the data is because, as you say, there’s a lot of data already there and I think often it’s used as a selling point to raise reputation for a raise itself. From our perspective, we haven’t needed that, so, we’ve steered clear of it, we’ve focussed on new aspects of data. Such as if an insurer was on our platform in the future, technically they should be able to receive signals when an incumbent customer is considering to leave. That data they don’t have at the moment, it’s about the information they don’t have that I’m, kind of, looking for a way to mine.
SK:	Is it about the information-, well, as in-, you just actually covered the (? 17.46) with that sentence. Is it about the data they don’t have or is it they don’t know how to use it? I guess the big technology that I’ve heard all the big insurers talk about is AI, and machine learning, and basically what they mean is we finally realise we have all this data, how do we use it to keep ourselves in the game? How do we use it to make sure we can compete with guys like yourself? Because you’re obviously serving the customers better and giving them what they want more quickly. So, I mean, is that the way forward? Is that something that you, kind of-, you have a personal belief in, or is it this machine crunching AI backed insurance industry? Or is that just a part of it, as far as you’re concerned?
JY:	I think it’s definitely part of the toolkit. It wouldn’t be my lead, in any sense, and that’s not to pour water on anyone that is doing that. From my perspective, ironically-,
DB:	I guess you’re bootstraps though, so, you’re not looking for funding, right? So, if you were, you might be saying AI’s the biggest thing ever, right?
JY:	It’s the same problem.
SK:	In big, bold letters and sending me a press release, normally.
JY:	I don’t think I’d still do that, because I’m belligerent, but I think it’s a chicken and egg scenario, right? You’ve got to build the resource, so it can be mined with AI, and, for me, we’re focussed on building a resource, and a true platform then would allow someone with AI and machine learning skills to use that, or let the insurers use it. So, that’s our focus, I guess going back a few notches, human comes into it. If you look at the big tech firms at the moment, all of them have a high street presence. I just saw, today, you know, a great picture of Amazon’s Black Friday store. If we’re looking at these big companies and going, “Oh wow, look how great they use tech,” and then we ignore the fact that they’re buying Whole Foods and they’re getting retail units, we’re missing a trick. You know, the Apple Store environment is a church, is a cathedral of branding, it’s not about trying to sell, it’s about image and customer service. So, from my perspective we view, very heavily, what we’re doing in the lens of the future of getting on the high street, potentially, or getting in face-to-face environments. When we do engage with customers, even face-to-face, all we hear is insurance isn’t human enough. So, going back to your original question, does AI make the customer feel more engaged in a better relationship? I’d argue perhaps it’s part of an ingredient, but I don’t think it’s the magic bullet.
SK:	So, it’s the story that AI can actually help the humans be better at what they do? 
JY:	Free them up to build relationships.
SK:	Yes, so, what you’re suggesting is the human element of insurance, in that sense, is actually the-, not the customer-, well, it is customer service, it’s you’re ringing up and you’re saying, “How do I file a claim?” Or, “This has happened,” or, “How do you help me with that?” Then that customer service agent has an AI platform, which is I can see who you are, what you’ve done, where your data’s gone, okay, this is what you need to do. When you’re talking about the human element of insurance, is that what you’re looking at? Is that what you mean?
JY:	It is, yes. If you go back to the way I view insurance is that that selling bit and that using bit, the using bit is really a fundamental for branding. You’re going to make or break your brand there, if something goes wrong, you know, we’ve had claim situations where a customer has phoned us up and said, “I don’t like who the claims person is trying to put me in touch with.” Instantly, you know, that’s it, we’re on that like a whippet, because that’s an opportunity to reinforce what we’ve been paid for. If a customer phones in and they’ve been mugged, and they’ve got a crime reference number, again, there’s a moment for kindness, if you shine a light on it.
SK:	There’s a very emotional element to insurance.
JY:	Exactly, that’s the key.
SK:	Because whenever something happens that you need to claim for, it’s never a nice thing, whatever it is, as you say, Worry+Peace.
JY:	If you think about it there’s always a good cop, bad cop, the underwriter and the insurer have to be a bad cop, and not because they’re protecting their profit, but, in my view and the way I always explain to customers, as well, they’re protecting the pool. They’re actually protecting you, so that you don’t have to pay too much in the aggregate, over time, and your premium, if everything worked correctly, your premium should keep coming down over time. It doesn’t work correctly because there are bad people, so, we’re the good cop, we can understand the emotion of it and support that, but the underwriter has to be the bad cop and be a bit more robotic and emotionless. That should work really well, and that’s why middle people, middle men, whatever you want to call them, are actually really relevant still. They shouldn’t be cut out, because insurance needs an arbitrator, because it has a terrible reputation and it can’t be the thing it needs to be, to build a better relationship.
DB:	I don’t think computers are necessarily going to fix that, are they? I think the empathy, as you say, of a-, from a claim perspective, all the understanding through the process of that or even just ensuring that actually you’re getting what you need to feel like you’re fully covered, you know? This is about-, insurance is about peace of mind, to a certain degree, and actually the peace of mind that you’ve got the right thing for you and for your family or for your stuff is a great thing, in a sense. This all sounds too wonderful though, like, what’s the catch? What’s the problem here? Platforms must have some sort of downfall in terms of, like, from a-, particularly from an insurance perspective, there must be something that is different or is this just the future and get with the plan, people?
SK:	I mean, I wonder if there are-, if this is the way everything is going, and everything becomes on a platform and is digitally served or digitally sold, do you instantly cut people out who don’t have access to a computer? That’s always my question with this kind of stuff, because I know everybody-,
JY:	There’ll always be an A plan.
SK:	Well, yes, I guess-,
DB:	It’s going to be a my mum or your mum story.
SK:	It’s your mum’s turn, right?
DB:	Yes, I think so.
SK:	I would guess is the way round that then, okay, we build everything on a platform but then we open a shop and in our shop, we have lots of tiles on the wall and you go in and pick your services using pretty pictures on the wall? I don’t know, I’m thinking, or an iPad, you know?
JY:	I love that idea, I’m writing this down. The thing about insurance intermediaries, I suspect, they’ve always been the innovators, if I’m honest. That’s not to say insurers can’t or don’t, but they’ve had brokers to, kind of, do that mostly for them. They bear the marketing costs, they get paid on delivery. So, it’s a good asset to have, so, insurers should, kind of, relinquish that at their peril. Yes, you’re absolutely right.
SK:	I guess the final question, you know, we’re trying to wrap up is if we’ve-, we’ve, kind of, decided between this is the future of the way insurances work, we’ll believe you’re going to go to a platform, whichever it might be, and you’re either an Amazon person or an eBay person or an Etsy person.
JY:	I’ve got my baby brain back, by the way.
SK:	Then if my platform is Worry+Peace, and as far as I understand it your Pouch product is where I keep all my different insurance from different insurers, right? So, I have an Aviva one, a Standard Life one, there are many other insurers out there, I can’t remember any of them right now. You know, that’s your, kind of-, and you love it and you’ve also-, because you’ve got a technological back end, you can serve people quicker and faster and that means you’ve also got money left to have people and they can be empathetic on the phone. Why isn’t it everywhere yet? What’s the problem there? What’s the downside?
JY:	It’s hard, it’s expensive and there’s a lot of people, kind of, if you were trying to have a conversation at a party and the music was so loud you couldn’t hear the other person, they might be telling you, “I love you,” and you wouldn’t be able to hear, right? It could be the moment of your life, and that is something that all the insurance start-ups are going to have to get through, and you look at-, there was a big insurer that released a big-, an excellent app, and it’s, by all accounts, not delivered as much as they would have hoped, because it’s still expensive. So, I guess the key for us is to-, God, it sounds cheesy, but focus on the product and make sure that gets, you know, perfected as best it can. Make sure we have a groundswell, a healthy, sustainable number of happy customers, and then look for that moment where you realise you’re at the top of the hill and you can roll down a bit quicker and get virility, which is the key element to it. A lot of the VCs I know are looking for people that can eradicate that cost of acquisition issue, or that brand creation issue. That’s a shortcut that just can’t happen, and, you know, I hear a lot about defensibility in insurtech, you know, it’s a very competitive market, almost perfectly competitive. If you think you’ve got a product that you’re selling to a particular segment, that you’ve got absolute defensibility of, there’ll be six more within a year. So, it is going to ultimately be about the platform and relinquishing control to the consumer.
SK:	Loyalty, building loyalty.
JY:	Loyalty, and other services, you know? The Pouch Mail release that we’ve got in beta testing at the moment, with early birds, is designed to be an email address for insurance. Now, will it work? Will it not work? It’s actually fascinating to watch how people are using it. Take something like a car insurance purchase, you go to two comparison sites, two direct insurers, maybe pick one of the comparison sites and insurers, you’ve got five people with your email. Come next May, GDPR is going to have a bit of a hand in what they can and can’t do after that. You might have checked a box, you’ve not realised. So, there’s going to potentially open up customer friend products, you know, where you can actually act as a service provider or almost be a policeman of that industry and that obligation to consumers. So, if that’s used properly, that has a positive effect, that people are going to start spreading word of mouth about. It’s not about selling.
SK:	That actually has an advantage, as well, because there are a number of times I’ve missed emails which is like your insurance needs renewing and by the way we’re going to charge you another £150, and I don’t realise until the money goes out of my account and I’m like, “Wait, what?” Then I have to go back and find the email in my spam box, you know?
JY:	If you were paying premium on Pouch next year, maybe you could have someone policing that and looking for those moments for you. Or have an AI program, if you have the capability to do that.
DB:	So, I think that’s the-, to summarise and move on, I guess we’re seeing this in a couple of other industries, as well, you know, particularly in the banking space. We’re seeing people moving from the creation of a product that you buy once to a service that you get value from every day. I think that’s-, things like the Pouch product that you’re referring to, it sounds like something that I would get a benefit from not just the day that I buy it, but every day where it’s relevant, which I think is the great thing about what we’re seeing in this space, and probably a nice place to wrap up. So, we’ll move on to know what’s happening in the news. So, first up in the news we have a story on BBC News. We went for, like, a big, top one straight away there, Sarah, didn’t we? Like no nonsense, straight in with one of the big boys. This is insurance gap penalises poor households. Kind of feels like it’s a bit of a being kicked while you’re down on this one, what do you think?
SK:	I think, yes, I think there’s a lot of things here, I think that there is a knowledge gap that’s appeared. So, I kind of think that if you look at our parents’ generation and the generation before that, everybody owned a house and when you bought a house you knew you had to buy insurance, and that was in everybody’s minds and that was, kind of, how it was done. We’ve moved into this, kind of-, this article in particular is talking about people on low income and people who rent, as a lot of people-, as most people on low income do. About how they have no contents insurance, but I think, actually, the point is that they don’t know what they need contents insurance to start with, and that’s because primarily people didn’t rent before. Thinking about this and looking at what Lemonade have done in the US, and they have made a business, a huge business out of selling renter’s insurance, which is effectively the equivalent of contents insurance, to people in New York who obviously can’t afford to buy, for as little as $5. The way that they’ve done that is go out and just, you know, word of mouth, but also bringing that price down at the same time. Both of those together have helped to backfill that knowledge gap. The point being that, kind of, it is kicking people whilst they’re down, but I think that they’re down in two ways. One is that they can’t afford the insurance, the other is that they don’t know they need the insurance.
DB:	Yes, and I have-, you know, there’s a bunch of insurances that you have to have, like to drive a car, as an instance type thing, just in case there’s anybody out there that doesn’t, that’s a necessary thing.
SK:	It is a legal requirement.
DB:	It is, but, like you say, contents insurance is, kind of, like a bit of a do you want to take the risk of there being a problem? Do you not want to take the risk of that? I have it because I think my mum-, talking about my mum now, basically told me I should have it and I didn’t question it and I’m still doing it now, as, like, I’m an adult now, I should be able to make my own decisions, right?
SK:	Yes, I mean I think that we-, so, when I went to uni we got contents insurance with our accommodation in the first year, and I think that’s quite a common model. I also think there are an awful lot of people whose parents or whose maintenance loans pay for their accommodation in that first year, and that includes the insurance. I think it is, kind of, the education piece is really fascinating, as well, because people, as you say, like if you don’t have travel insurance, it’s very rare that you’ll actually get sick and if you’re in Europe actually you’re covered. What other things might you ensure? Well, your phone or your laptop, but a lot of people are prepared to take the risk there. With contents I think people don’t actually have it in their head. So, I was talking to a couple of people who I work with, who are both under the age of 25, and I asked them if they had any insurance and they said no, no insurance, at all, on anything, either of them. I said, “Well, what if your flat burnt down and every item of clothing you own, and every item of jewellery and every pair of shoes went with it, what would you do?” They were like-, the look on their little faces, honestly, I felt terrible, but they had no-,
DB:	Wow, shattering some dreams there.
SK:	They actually didn’t understand that that’s what contents insurance was, and once put in that perspective it suddenly became far more important than insuring a mobile phone or travel insurance or, you know, health insurance, which some people have in this country.
DB:	So, tips for insurers, lead on fear, you might be able to educate those young’uns what to do. So, moving on, we have a story on Insurance Business Magazine, and this is insurers warned to assess data exposures ahead of GDPR. Now, it seems like the whole world is, kind of, pretty much freaking out about GDPR now, being able to keep up with what’s actually happening. Having to change the way in which they’re approaching doing elements of data capture and also the marketing off the back of it. It seems like the insurance base seems to be particularly exposed, which is never a good thing, really.
SK:	Yes, I mean there are two ways in which the insurers are exposed, as far as this article points out. One is the one that we all know, you know, you have to better manage data, or we will find you, said the EU, every time.
DB:	They don’t seem to be messing about with that stuff, do they?
SK:	No, the numbers are terrifying, the levels those fines can go up to. The second, I think, possibly more interesting point that this article makes is that actually insurers are doubly exposed because the way that a lot of their policies are written at the moment, if they don’t update them in time to match GDPR, they will suddenly be liable for a load-, to paying out on a load of claims. Basically, down to the terminology they use and the gaps and things that are and aren’t covered, that don’t match up. So, they’re having to backtrack and that’s an awful lot of policies to rewrite and change terminologies in and I don’t even know how you do that.
DB:	So, is this a technical problem again? Because we’ve seen lots of large investments being put forward and there’s always the quote of 70%-90% is based on just adhering to legislation. So, is this archaic technology systems that is making it difficult for these guys to make these changes to the policies, or is it literally the legal process and the people process? Or do we need 1,000 monkeys with 1,000 typewriters to, kind of, keep up with this stuff?
SK:	I think that’s probably the solution, but what this article was insinuating was that the insurers didn’t actually know, they weren’t actually aware of what they were suddenly liable for, if that makes sense? If the insurers are liable, but you know what I mean.
DB:	Ignorance not being bliss then. Last story that we’ve got is on Insurance Times, and this is probably not a surprise to anybody who listens to any of the podcasts that we do, but this is Amazon could pose a huge threat to insurers, like duh.
SK:	Yes, I mean the interesting thing here is that I’ve heard this said twice in the last week, once by somebody very senior at AXA, and a second time by somebody very senior at Santander, who, when asked, “Are the tech giants coming for you?” Both said, “Amazon is, we don’t fear Google right now and we don’t fear Facebook right now, but my God are we terrified of Amazon.”
DB:	Well, I think Amazon’s moving to business accounts and everything there, really hard into that side of things, I think is an interesting view. What they’re-, they’re going to be governed by the same sort of regulation that everybody is, from a data perspective, but actually they seem to be able to do more things with it quicker, and actually infer more information to enact on the customer experience a lot better than any big financial services organisation does, ever, really.
SK:	Well, I mean, and also excluding our Chinese friends, Amazon actually sells stuff, don’t they, David? You know they sell stuff, do they sell stuff to you, by any chance?
DB:	They sell lots of stuff to me. I think the business threat to us is probably me spending all of our money on it, which is probably a good point to wrap up here. So, on the last part of what we’re doing today, we have an interview with Sascha Wischek, who’s the CEO and founder of Fjuul. So, let’s have a listen to the interview.
[Break]
ST:	Welcome to Insurtech Insider interviews, coming to you from WeWork in London, I’m Simon Taylor from 11FS, and today I have the pleasure of speaking with Sascha Wischek, CEO and founder of Fjuul, an application that is able to track its users’ fitness level and provides real time analytics and guidance. Sascha, thanks for being on the show, how are you, Sir?
SW:	Pleasure, very well, very well, a bit of snow around here, but that’s to be expected here in Finland, otherwise all fuelled up or the interview.
ST:	Fuelled up for the interview, and if you-, that, sort of, speaks to an interesting spelling of your name, it’s like f-j-u-u-l, there’s some Nordic background there, there’s some fuel, let me-, tell me the story. Tell me how you came into wanting to build a start-up, what problem did you see and what was bothering you about the world, and you thought, right, you know what we need? A company for this. What’s that background?
SW:	Yes, it was in summer 2013, when I was already working in the healthcare space, for a consulting company, and then I realised that having made all these crazy charts, looking into the future, I thought healthcare’s going to be a hot topic and a major problem for us, as a society, in the future. So, what I realised, pretty much, and I think nothing much has changed today, is there has been a lot of solutions for either-, let’s call it sick people or then very active people, and we wanted to have this, you know, idea to bring, let’s say, fitness to everyday people in everyday life, and making this experience more meaningful and rewarding. I think that’s where Fjuul was born. So, Fjuul, the name, is basically the fuel, the kinetic energy of your body, and that’s actually how this whole thing came about.
ST:	So, when you say bringing fitness to everyday life, what does that actually mean? Are we talking about Fitbit fitness trackers? Is this quantified self stuff? Like what’s actually happening?
SW:	Yes, first of all, I mean if you talk Fitbit and the likes, it means you have to have an external tracker, and let’s say for the normal Jan and Jack Average, it’s a question of why should I get one if I don’t know if I’ll use it? You know? So, we wanted to make-, so, in a certain sense it’s a barrier and some people might feel intimidated, as well, if they’re not yet these sporty people, you know? So, what we had in mind was to bring, you know, this logic of this Fjuul logic to smartphones, so everyone can use it without any obstacle, actually, just download the app and use it. We still feel these 10,000 steps a day is super outdated, it’s pretty meaningless, so we came up with a new metric, which we call Fjuul, but I tell about the scientific stuff in a minute. That’s a thing, you know, and plus, a lot of times this quantified self is backward looking, you know? It’s like a diary, and so on, but it doesn’t give you the dotted line in terms of the future. I think, personally, I mean, if I want to look to the back side of things, I go to the graveyard and I don’t use a fitness tracker. So, we want to have a more forward-looking experience, and give people motivation and hope to be more active.
ST:	You want to show people the future, rather than tell them what they did?
SW:	Potentially, yes.
ST:	Show them what their potential future could be, if they do A, B, C, to try and modify behaviour. So, they’ve downloaded this app, and this app, I guess, has-, you’re using the sensors on the device to figure stuff out about what they’re up to and how active they are. Give me an example.
SW:	Yes, I mean, let’s call it the use case, let’s say how do people use it, actually, in real life? So, of course, you download the app and the key thing is that it tracks everything in the background, without using GPS and so on, so it doesn’t drain your battery. It can actually recognise your movement patterns and then, based on the intensity of your movement, it gives you a value that you should achieve per day, and we call it a healthy dose of daily activity. So, you just go about your day and you see all your movement mapped on an activity stream and the system tells you, hey, just X amount of minutes to go to reach your healthy dose of activity. That’s basically number one use case, so no data, no X amount of steps, it’s just a very personal number to say, hey, how many activities do I still have to do, in terms of minutes, to reach my healthy dose of activity?
ST:	So, it’s like a notification kind of thing? It’s like you’ve got this much further to go, you’ve got to get here, you’ve got to get there?
SW:	Yes.
ST:	It’s also, I guess you’ve got the option for the surprise and delight of, hey, you’re doing well today?
SW:	Sure.
ST:	Oh, it looks like you’ve done a lot of walking, hey, well done.
SW:	Yes, or the other way around, if you’re close to your goal, the system will tell you, “Hey, just five minutes to go and you reach a happy day.” These sort of things, more like positive reinforcement, rather than the stick and saying, “Hey, you haven’t moved for two days,” we don’t have those types of things. So, this push notification it sends are only very mild on that one, we still believe that intrinsically people are motivated by the system and I think they are. Of course, the other thing is that the system basically grows with you, so once you reach a certain level of activity, of course you can beef it up and the system calibrates according to your new fitness level.
ST:	So, there’s an insurance angle here, tell me how you actually make money, what’s your business model?
SW:	Right, so, we go a bit back in history, because we started as a fitness tracker, and we have, like, about 300,000 people using the system, it’s very good data, but, you know, if you’re on the fitness tracking side you might say the pain points are not that high, you know? Plus, it’s pretty much marketing driven, you have the Under Armour or the Runtastic guys who basically absorb all the Facebook inventory, you know, do commercials. So, the small start-up, I don’t think it’s a sustainable business model. So, we said, okay, where are the pain points the biggest and where can we actually reach our mission to bring Fjuul to as many people as possible? Then we figured out, hey, insurance, they have a really big pain point and they have a lot of people out there using their policies, so, in a way it’s a good channel and customer at the same time. So, we morphed, in a way, from a fitness tracker to a full-fledged-, let’s call it a platform, digital platform, that engages customers, of course it creates more touchpoints for the insurance, and, of course, then we capture a lot of real time data that can be used for more personalised services. Of course, eventually preventive care, so we catch people before they become chronically sick.
ST:	So, what’s the goal here? Are you going to acquire a load of customers with your own fitness trackers or, sorry, your own app here, is that app going to be something that you’re looking to scale? Or do you see yourselves, like you say, as a platform that other people can use in different apps and can pop up inside an insurance app and whatever else, and it becomes more ambient?
SW:	No, I mean we’re a pure B to B player, even though, of course, you download the app for testing on the app store. We sell our platform to insurance companies, life and health, I should say, insurance. Then, basically, they acquire their users, I mean the company-, the customers who hold the policies, right? So, it’s more like we build a digital bridge to the end users, the end customer of insurance companies, and, of course, there are two angles, again, to it. It’s more like getting engagement, getting touchpoints, you know? With the end user, at the same time get dynamic data, to see what’s really happening in your portfolio. Because currently, if you think about life insurance, the typical purchasing process is you go to a bank, typically, and you buy a house or flat, and then someone claps on your shoulder and says, “Hey, do you want to buy life insurance?” You say, “Yes, maybe,” you sign that deal and you will never hear from life insurance again, and that’s mutually disappointing for either party, you know? So, we want to make that more lively and move, maybe, life insurance from pure risk cover to more like a lifestyle product. I think that’s our mission, yes.
ST:	So, that lifestyle product, how do you think about helping brands incorporate that into what they offer today? Because the services they’re offered via mobile apps I think have been somewhat thin, somewhat one dimensional maybe, I don’t wish to insult them, but it has been largely servicing the day-to-day, hey, here, you can register a product, oh, you can see your policy. The app hasn’t been a very rich thing, it’s just, kind of, flat data or maybe a bit of back and forth. How do you help them grow that thinking and what’s your approach for that? 
SW:	That’s exactly true, it’s good that you mentioned it, not me, because I don’t want to be nagging all the time. No, I mean, we sell Fjuul in two versions. If an insurance company might have an app called My Policy, it’s pretty-, as you mentioned, pretty static, I wouldn’t say dumb, but it’s basically just a front end, with limited interaction, it’s just showing my-, let’s call it personal data, and my policy data. So, what we do is we have one version where we actually have an SDK, software development kit, think about it as a virtual implant, where we have our algorithm. We actually can put that into the app of the insurance company, that basically, A, enriches the data capture, and at the same time you have our backend, our AI, that can analyse that data. So, we can have two tracks that feed back to the customer, one to the end user we give personal coaching and tell them, you know, what they have to do to improve their healthy lives. Secondly, we have a stream to the insurance, where we can say, hey, your portfolio behaves like this, you can run some predictive analytics and make sure that you can actually hit people with the things they want. So, this is, like, mutual, I think.
ST:	Is it just a case though that the insurer is benefiting from being able to get new data, or are they also having more touchpoints with their customer, as well? Is their brand in front of them more?
SW:	That’s right. Currently they don’t have any data, you know? There’s no way-, the typical underwriting processes, you know, you are getting, on health insurance, a health check, a health assessment. Say if you’re 22, you have a BMI of 15, all nice and shiny, and then you grow, you know, become like me a consultant, you turn 30-35, and then you don’t have time to exercise anymore, you put all your effort into making money. So, you, kind of, sacrifice your health for that, and then, ten years later, you spend all the money you made to get your health back, which doesn’t work, you know? So, we, basically, have the transparency, what actually happened in their portfolio over this course of the lifetime, which is currently not happening at all. So, it’s almost, you know, think about insurance as a big risk portion in the portfolio that no one can quantify and foresee. I think that’s what we’re trying to solve, and, of course, at the same time, as you mentioned, we try to make the customer experience more engaging, more lively, for instance, you know, you might get a discount on your premium so it’s more attractive to use that service. You get these so-called lifestyle rewards, let’s say, gym membership, organic food vouchers and so on. So, we’re building, in a way, like a healthy ecosystem about your life.
ST:	So, if you’re building that ecosystem of data, wouldn’t it make sense for you to go direct to consumers with an insurance product, rather than going B to B, because you’d actually be more in control of that experience? Why the B to B approach?
SW:	Well, of course, let’s put it this way, if you have to acquire users, it’s going to be very expensive, you know? As an example, the user acquisition costs on Facebook has, I think, tripled in one and a half years. So, for us that would require extremely deep pockets and you, kind of, compete, as I mentioned, with other health and fitness apps in the app store like Under Armour and these guys. They don’t make money with the app and so on, they make money with the clothes they promote in the app. So, we would have to compete on the-, it’s more like a marketing game, in a nutshell. We feel we want to actually co-create, with our B to B partners, because then we have a view, as well, on what’s happening in the five years plus time. So, we just feel more comfortable and more solid working with these people, because I think it’s actually a win-win, yes.
ST:	So, the Venn diagram, the crossover point between brands like Under Armour and Adidas and then big insurance companies, your AXA, your Aviva, whomever it may be, is there an opportunity to do B to B to C there and actually be the middle people that are providing this new route to market for insurers, via brands?
SW:	I mean, let’s say in terms of technology, it’s a device, and app-wise we’re agnostic, so, we do, partially, as well, integrated to our platform external devices and actually external applications. Let’s say if you’re a cyclist, obviously you-, most likely if you are serious you have Strava. So, we don’t want to force people to use our system, you know, for tracking, rather they keep Strava but feed, actually, the information to our system and still get these reward points. Of course, by that, you know, still the premiums. So, I think, at the end of the day, you know, it’s such a big market, and I think there’s space for a lot of us, even though I have to say Strava and Runtastic and so on, the audience is different, it’s already very active people, you know, guys who run, guys who cycle seriously. We tried to catch, still, let’s call it the big crowd, the people in the middle. Let’s call it the average, the normal people. Of course, you know, I think there’s a chance to-, I mean, at the end of the day we want to make people more active and we have different interests, you know? I mean in insurance, of course, they take it from a risk perspective, Runtastic want to sell more-, nowadays more Adidas clothes, right? So does Under Armour. So, I don’t think it’s conflicting, rather it’s energetic, you know?
ST:	Yes, and it struck me as an interesting avenue for somebody to be able to take a ready packaged proposition, but it is also a two-sided marketplace, which is always a hard thing to do. So, tell me a little bit about the insurtech, insurance and technology market. Do you think that insurers are opening up to these sorts of proposition and what are you hearing when you talk to the larger insurance groups?
SW:	Yes, I think, well, let’s say two years back in time, you know, people were just slamming the door in front of me, there was still a certain complacency. I think now there’s a bit of an awakening and you can actually see it, you know, I’ve just come back from Switzerland. So, there’s a lot of applications already out there from insurance companies that try to engage people more than just giving policies on the app. So, they are, let’s say, already one step or one foot in the market. I think, for us, it makes it so much easier because the market has already opened up, you know? It’s to whomever I speak, in insurance, there’s always something on the roadmap that is similar to our solution. So, I think timing is always-, it’s an issue, but I think clearly now the market is ready for it, and, as well, actually, the end users are ready for it, you know?
ST:	Do you think there’s a risk of what I like to call not invented here syndrome, which is where an insurer looks at that and goes, well, we have a lab, we could do this ourselves? What would you say to them if they said that?
SW:	Good luck. No, you know, I’ve been-,
ST:	As somebody who worked in a large bank for many years, who used to say that quite a lot, I can tell you that that’s probably a good response [laughter].
SW:	Yes, (? 48.40) might go by, but, to be honest, I mean, we shouldn’t forget we’ve been in this, and we’re coming from the fitness side of things, from the end user, so I think there’s a certain learning involved. We’ve tuned the system, the retention is so high, our users move five times more than average. There’s a certain secret sauce that we have figured and you can only get it by trial and error, you know? It’s not that you have a big organisation and just put something out, and all of a sudden you have that solution in your hands. It’s a path you go, you know? You learn and iterate. Second to that, I guess, I haven’t mentioned what is the real core of Fjuul, but as opposed to these 10,000 steps, we have, actually, an algorithm that can measure real activity and data and rich data that actually can be used for more, let’s say, assimilation purposes. Let’s say, for instance, we measure a unit called MET, metabolic equivalent of task, which is typically what you should do if you follow health and life science journals, you know, and sports science. Plus, we measure, you know, if you have the heart rate data, we measure real to max, which is, in a nutshell, the capacity of your heart to consume oxygen. All that stuff is pretty scientific and pretty complicated, it doesn’t show on the app and that’s the purpose, we don’t throw it to our end users, but in the end of the day there are so many parameters that we’ve, over the years, tuned and fixed to get to this point. So, I am pretty confident that it’s not too easy to replicate, you know?
ST:	So, there are a couple of things there that come out as key, which is you’ve come from the fitness industry and sports science, so you’ve specialised the data around sports science itself, and there’s a richness of that data quality. Both for the user themselves and or the insurer. Secondly, from coming from that, you’re designing around somebody’s fitness needs, not necessarily just their insurance needs, so you then let the insurer insure, but you’re providing the data they need that somebody who cares about their fitness may also want to see and is a bit more cutting edge.
SW:	That’s right, and the third component is it comes back to your previous question, I think the market is now ready, it’s a bit of a domino effect, you know, the big guys coming out. So, I would say in the next one or two years there will be a lot of applications and solutions from insurance in the market, and then this (? 50.59), it has always a time to market component, you know? I mean, if there’s a readymade solution like ours, where we wouldn’t require any integration with legacy systems and so on, technically it can be up and running in a week. So, I think then the question is do you want to explore that in-house, two years and three years, or do you want to take it and try it in the market? I think, at the end of the day, every month you wait is every month you don’t get data, that you can’t, basically, mirror your assumptions you might have in your biometric data.
ST:	I think it’s an interesting question, yes, is why wouldn’t you trial this with 1,000 customers and see if it made them more profitable, more active customers, or you had some other, kind of, business case benefits for it? What’s the risk of trialling this for three months with 1,000 people and what’s the cost of it, versus spending two years trying to build it and spending X million? I think there’s an interesting question to think about, but you’re based in Finland, are you available worldwide?
SW:	Yes, the app is available worldwide, on the Play Store, Google, and on iOS, on the App Store. We have two versions, we have the basic version, which is the casual tracker, and then we have the premium version, where you need external hardware, like the Apple Watch, it’s more like a fitness coach. So, that’s available, but it’s basically then just the app itself, it’s not loaded with rewards and the premium discounts and so on from the insurance. It’s just like, you know, we keep it still live and see how-, I mean, again, we want to learn from the market and from our users, and yes, now, of course, we are going to Switzerland, opening an office there, so, a bit closer to mainland, you know, as well.
ST:	Let’s say a company in the UK or the Netherlands or somewhere across Europe, or even Asia-Pacific wanted to talk to you guys, how would they reach out to you?
SW:	Well, I mean, obviously they would get in touch with me, I’m doing the most of the BD work, and then, of course, we would discuss what they have in mind. Technically maybe we’d have to work through how it works, I mean, virtually, we can actually enable the system, so, we don’t have to physically be where the insurance is, you know? So, the only thing you have to do as an insurance, you have to promote your service, let’s called it smart life or smart health insurance, and then we enable everything else. So, technically, how it works is you, as an end customer of an insurance, you would get an SMS or an email saying this is a new offering, you press that link, you’ll be directed to the app store, you download Fjuul and then immediately the Fjuul application turns into the insurance application, and it starts tracking and it uploads all the rewards and the campaigns and so on. So, that’s it, you know? Then you are up and running, so, it’s a SAAS model, software as a service model. So, that’s actually, you know, how we can actually do it virtually, as well.
ST:	Sascha, thank you. Before I let you go I’m just going to ask you a couple of questions we ask everybody, because there’s obviously a lot of people that are looking from the insurance market to figure out how they can use tech knowledge and how they can get into that side of the insurance market a little bit more. So, tell me a little bit about what’s the best career advice you’ve ever received and what’s your number one productivity tip?
SW:	Yes, career advice, a lot of people have given me the wrong advice, which means, you know, they’ve said, “Hey, if you want to be a start-up entrepreneur you have to basically do it full throttle. You have to leave your job, do it, you know, tomorrow, Monday morning, and then give it all your heart and so on.” It’s a nice theory but, quite frankly, it’s a bit risky, so, my advice would be, as well, and I think that’s what one guy actually encouraged me to do, was to say, hey, why not, if you have a certain idea, why would you leave your job if you can actually check that hypothesis at the same time while working, you know? You can talk to people, you might even launch a bit of a prototype that you work on a weekend on, and then you can at least have a certain confidence, once you jump, you see there’s a demand for it, you know? That would be good advice, I think. In terms of productivity, you mean on a daily basis? For activity for myself or for a company?
ST:	For yourself, really.
SW:	Well, of course, I’m into sports, I have to be, you have to live by the Fjuul rules. So, there’s always, of course, how I go about my day is-, well, let’s say typically they say people, you know, if you get up, before you have breakfast you have a run or whatever sports, an hour, then you boost your day. I think science tells you differently. So, my productivity advice would be, before you do that, you know, you just do your work, two or three days, have a good breakfast, and when you feel your energy’s dropping, then you go for a run or for a good walk. I think what I’ve learned, that boosts productivity much more.
ST:	That’s interesting, yes, I’m a believer in the same thing, get some fuel in.
SW:	Yes, right, you know? You shouldn’t have ten eggs, of course, before you go running, but maybe.
ST:	Sascha, thank you so much for your time today. Where can people reach out to you? On LinkedIn? Twitter? What’s your website?
SW:	Yes, website is Fjuul.com, and LinkedIn, of course I’m on LinkedIn and Sascha@Fjuul.com, S-a-s-c-h-a, Fjuul.com. You can reach me there.
ST:	Fjuul I guess is the interesting spelling. It’s F-j-u-u-l, in case it confuses anybody. Sascha, that’s been really fun, thank you for joining us on Insurtech Insider.
[Break]
DB:	So, that wraps up another Insurtech Insider, thanks to all of our guests, James, Sascha and, as always, Sarah, thanks for coming along.
SK:	Any time.
DB:	Sorry that Nigel couldn’t make it, but Nigel will be back with us next week, I’m sure. As always, if you like what you’ve heard, please leave us a review on iTunes and make sure you subscribe. If you’ve any suggestions for feedback, please reach out to us on Twitter or on Podcasts@11FS.com. Thanks for listening.
End of Audio