About a year ago, a voluntary insurance company released aresearch report that they claimed was definitive in terms ofemployee preferences regarding enrollment methodologies. Accordingto the company's research, employees absolutely preferred to learnabout their benefit options and enroll for coverages through aweb-based system. The study reported all the advantages theresearch subjects listed when explaining their overwhelmingpreference.

Within a month, another voluntary insurance company released areport that came to very different conclusions. Their research hadproven that employees much prefer to learn about benefits andenroll for coverages through an individual meeting with a benefitscounselor. The findings were touted as absolute and statisticallyvalid.

It won't surprise most brokers to learn that the first companyhad invested heavily in a web-based system and did not offerindividual, face-to-face enrollment support. The second companydid, and actively promoted their individual counselingcapabilities.

Unsolicited emails, online newsletters and vendor solicitationsare crowding all of our in-boxes these days, filled with thesecrets of success, the keys to higher participation, and the magicproduct combinations that will boost income. If only we offeredthis product or used that vendor or this new platform or the rightcarrier, our troubles would be over.

And they often fog the issue by presenting it in the guise ofrigorous research that uncovered the secret. And the secrethappened to be the product or service that they sell ormanufacture. We know to be cautious about get-rich investmentschemes but sometimes lack the ability to analyze claims made aboutour own business.

Sometimes, if the research is done by a third-party, it may seemmore objective, but it isn't necessarily so. Research can havequestion and audience biases built in regardless of who actuallyconducts the study.

A key question for brokers (and all research consumers) is "Whopaid for the research?" Most research is gray in that the data haveambiguous clues and conclusions are tempered by plusses andminuses. A report that promoters tout as absolutely clear anddefinitive rarely is.

Finally, conclusions that support our own biases (right orwrong) often seem very reasonable, while those that contradict ourbeliefs often appear flawed. We, like the promoters, tend to focuson data that support our thesis while de-emphasizing (or notreporting) contrary evidence.

Most brokers won't examine the research methodology to test thereport's veracity, but remember to ask yourself questions that mayalert you to potential problems.