Flow’s $10,000 Account Strategy: Making Money Where Traditional Players Can’t

Flow’s $10,000 Account Strategy: Making Money Where Traditional Players Can’t

In a recent episode of Category Visionaries, Sivan Iram, CEO and Founder of Flow, explained why his AI-powered insurance wholesaler deliberately targets the accounts that traditional players treat as nuisances.

The math is brutal and simple. When you’re making a 10-20% commission on a $10,000 insurance policy, you’re looking at $1,000-$2,000 in revenue. After spending hours structuring the submission, shopping it to carriers, comparing quotes, and handling back-and-forth with the client, you’ve lost money. Maybe significantly.

So traditional wholesalers do what any rational business would do: they ignore these accounts, deprioritize them, or provide such poor service that they become self-fulfilling prophecies of unprofitability.

Flow saw something different in that same math. Not a problem to avoid, but a market segment to own.

The Service Gap Nobody Talks About

“Our specialty is small commercial and mid market accounts. As you know, they don’t get the love and affection of brokers because those deals are just not profitable,” Sivan explains. “If you make 20%, you make 10% commission on those deals, you know, and it’s a $10,000 deal. You can’t really spend a lot of time on it if you’re a traditional player.”

This creates a predictable pattern. Retail insurance brokers send these smaller submissions to traditional wholesalers and wait. And wait. “They send out a request for a $5,000 account and they don’t hear for two weeks,” Sivan notes.

Two weeks of silence for a small account isn’t negligence—it’s economics. The traditional wholesaler has a choice: spend time on a $1,000 commission or focus on a $50,000 account that generates $10,000. The decision makes itself.

But here’s what most people miss: those small accounts still need to get placed. The retail brokers still have clients waiting. The market demand exists—it’s just unmet because the supply side can’t serve it profitably with traditional cost structures.

Rebuilding the Economics

Flow’s entire strategy centers on a deceptively simple insight: the accounts aren’t unprofitable. The traditional approach to servicing them is unprofitable.

“For us it’s very different. We go through, you know, our workflows, we go through policy analysis and comparison. We’re able to place business with our carriers very quickly and allows us to really invest a lot in every size account and to really execute for our clients,” Sivan explains.

The technology stack Flow built uses AI agents throughout the workflow. These agents structure submissions from email attachments, match risks to carrier appetites, place business through APIs or traditional email (depending on what the carrier supports), gather quotes, analyze coverage differences, and package proposals.

“The core technology for Flow is a system of AI agents that help our brokers every step of the way. From structuring the submission, recognizing what carriers have that in their appetite. So to do risk appetite matching place business in the right way,” Sivan shares.

This isn’t full automation—it’s targeted automation of the parts that don’t require human judgment. “We do all that with AI agents, but we always have a broker in the loop, we always have human supervision.”

The result: Flow can spend significant effort on every account, regardless of size, because the cost structure makes it profitable to do so.

The Competitive Moat

When you can profitably serve accounts that competitors must ignore, you don’t just find a niche—you build a moat. The accounts nobody wants become loyal customers because they’re finally getting service that matches their needs.

The results prove the model works. “In the past nine months, we’ve been tripling our top line every single month. We’ve been tripling our submission volume,” Sivan reports.

This growth isn’t coming from stealing large accounts from competitors. It’s coming from serving the market segment that’s been systematically underserved. And because Flow can respond in 15 minutes instead of two weeks, quote in an hour instead of days, and bind within 24 hours instead of dragging the process out, retail brokers keep sending more volume.

“As soon as they send us the first submission immediately they recognize the difference in working with the old traditional, you know, big houses where they send out a request for a $5,000 account and they don’t hear for two weeks versus us, where they get the response in 15 minutes, they get the first quote in an hour. And typically they can bind, you know, within the day.”

The Broader Pattern

Flow’s strategy follows classic disruptive innovation—but with a twist. They’re not creating new markets or making products cheaper. They’re serving an existing market where transaction costs made deals uneconomical.

The pattern applies beyond insurance. In any industry where commissions are small, service is labor-intensive, and incumbents must prioritize larger deals, there’s likely an underserved segment waiting for someone to rebuild the unit economics.

The key: understand which parts require human expertise and which are expensive busy work. Flow automated the busy work while preserving the expertise.

“Retail agents, they have 95% of their book is they just want to place this, I want to renew this book. I just, I don’t want to hear about it, I just want it done. And 5% is on fire,” Sivan explains.

By handling the 95% efficiently, Flow helps agents focus on the 5% that needs human problem-solving.

The Risk Incumbents Can’t Take

Traditional wholesalers can’t suddenly serve small accounts better. Their cost structure won’t allow it. They’d need to rebuild operations, retrain teams, and invest in technology—all to compete for accounts they’ve explicitly avoided.

It’s the innovator’s dilemma in real-time. The accounts that seem too small today become the foundation for a new wholesaler. As Flow scales and expands, they’ll move upmarket from strength.

For founders evaluating opportunities, Flow’s approach offers a framework: look for segments where demand exists but incumbents can’t serve profitably. Then ask whether technology can change the cost structure enough to make those segments attractive.

The accounts nobody wants might be exactly the ones worth building a company ar.