Speaking of comparative rating….
I was just reading an Insurance Journal article about Compare.com where the CEO referred to the semi-startup as a “disrupter.” Disrupting what? Independent agents have been doing comparative rating for decades. There is nothing new or disruptive about doing it online. And, in either format, it’s a dangerous thing.
Compare.com’s CEO says that what consumers want is choice:
“If you come back to that as the fundamental premise, do you want to walk into your grocery store and be offered one option for soup? Do you want one option for fruit? No, you want lots of options. Do you want a simple way to shop for it? That’s what compare.com does.”
For the nth time, “insurance” is not a product you buy off a store shelf. Why do these people keep making comparisons to consumer products? I guess the upside is that at least he didn’t throw Amazon into the mix, as I wrote about in the blog post “Insurance and Paper Towels.”
And what “choice” does comparative rating provide to consumers? Would this premise work for buying, say, used cars? Let’s see what choices UsedCarComparison.com would give us:
Need a boat? Just go to BoatComparison.com:
Easy choices. I’ll buy that Ford and use it to tow my new Crest boat. After all, the only thing I need to know is the manufacturer and the price, right? Similarly, in the case of insurance comparative rating, all I need is the name of the “manufacturer” (aka insurance company) and the price (i.e., premium), correct?
Needless to say, NOBODY would buy a car or a boat with only the information provided above. Then why should consumers be expected to buy insurance sold that way? The answer to that question is easy…because we’ve conditioned them to believe that the only thing that matters is price. Any true insurance professional knows that, but apparently few insurance professionals make decisions for insurers when it comes to advertising.
Even in independent agencies, we are all too eager to simply plug some information into a comparative rating system, then tell the consumer which quote is the lowest, without any regard for which carrier, product and service is the best fit for their unique needs. If this practice continues, we might as well concede the industry to the startups (and entrenched carriers) that sell on price and/or convenience, as opposed to providing a real, professional service that helps consumers avoid catastrophic loss.
Photo by George Appiah
Latest posts by Bill Wilson (see all)
- Policy Geography: The 2005 ISO Personal Auto Policy (PAP) - December 12, 2017
- Lessons Learned: The Burst City Water Main “Flooding” Claim Denial - December 12, 2017
- In Memoriam, Jim Harrison, CPCU, CIC, CLU, ChFC - December 12, 2017