Surely it's a bit much for two very large and well known insurance companies - I'm sure you know the ones I mean - to be advertising their products on TV on the basis that "We are not on comparison websites" is a virtue. The message seems to be that although you can't so easily then compare their offerings to their rivals', they are honest and will always give you their best price straight away and it will be the best anyway." Really?
I know this means that they don't pay commission to the site (though that is not made clear in the ads) but there is no guarantee that the consequent (small) saving will be passed to the customer.
Am I wrong to be cynical?
|
You are correct. My insurance company were claiming to be the best value or some such.
Using a comparison site I could easily get like for like cover for about £200 less.
|
Except that half the time when you actually get a quote it is strangely much higher than the figure quoted on the comparison website, in my experience.
I find comparison websites of all sorts an utter waste of time.
|
I find comparison websites of all sorts an utter waste of time.
Me too. Last time I renewed I tried one of those sites. My existing insurer was offering a renewal at £340. The comparison website refused to quote from many insurers (including ones that were happy to quote me when contacted directly) and those that did quote came up with silly figures like £2,000 and more. One even offered me a policy at a mere £4700...
The reason? My car had lots of optional extras which I dutifully listed, as per the sites instructions. However, the stupid comparison website made it appear to the insurers that they were modifications instead... Net result, it made me look nearly uninsurable...
Plus, (once I'd removed the "modifications" so I could get some real quotes) I found it difficult to get the full details of the policies on their site in order to see what exactly I was getting, i.e. cover for driving other cars, windscreen excess costs, maximum time with courtesy car etc etc. In other words, it was OK if you're not fussy and just want the cheapest policy around, but I found it frustratingly lacking in detail.
Perhaps they will improve once they've been going a couple more years.
|
|
|
Except that half the time when you actually get a quote it is strangely much higher than the figure quoted on the comparison website in my experience. I find comparison websites of all sorts an utter waste of time.
Takes too long and is information gathering. Inside leg measurement anyone!
|
I find comparison websites of all sorts an utter waste of time.>>
Saved me hundreds of pounds over the years...:-)
Mind you I don't usually follow the comparison websites' links to insurers - I go directly to an insurance company's website afterwards and find that the quote is normally the same.
Edited by Stuartli on 24/09/2009 at 13:03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Am I wrong to be cynical?
I think so. Surely everyone who bothers to check, checks multiple sources anyway?
To me, they're just saying "don't forget to check us too".
|
At least one of the main "We can't be found on comparison websites" insurance companies owns a similar business that is one of the biggest advertisers on the box around and is readily found on comparison websites.
It's also usually a lot cheaper premiums wise than the non-comparison company...:-)
|
This is true:
RBS Insurance -> Direct Line, Churchill, Privilege
Direct Line is not on compare sites, but the other two are. Direct Line has always been more expensive via a quote than the other two. I don't understand it myself.
|
>>This is true:>>
Well I didn't actually name names, but you did..:-)
Ironically, I switched the house and contents insurance to Churchill about three years ago from the Pru. Churchill was the underwriter and came up with a quote half that of the Pru on-line at the time.
Earlier this year, Churchill's premium had jumped to about double the original cost, so I did the usual on-line comparison.
Cheapest of the lot, along with an unexpected added bonus, worked out at half my renewal price.
The insurance company?
Churchill.
So I rang and the call centre operative and her supervisor agreed to match the on-line price, backing it up as requested with an e-mail confirmation.
Ah, the wonders of the Sir Tim Berners-Lee creation...:-)
|
|
|
|
>> Am I wrong to be cynical? >> I think so. Surely everyone who bothers to check checks multiple sources anyway? To me they're just saying "don't forget to check us too".
Um... perhaps.
|
Read Money Saving Expert Guide and follow their recommended route.
It works for car and house insurance..
www.moneysavingexpert.com/insurance/compare-cheap-...e
I have saved £1000s over the past 10 years on insurance by competitive bidding.
|
|
|
For me all the company's that are not on the comparison sites have turned out to be expensive, at best £100 more than just letting the old policy renew, some came up at over £2000, three times what I paid when I was a newly qualified driver in a high risk area.
The comparison sites give some high quotes too, but at least I don't have to enter all my details each time.
|
I've always found comparison sites useful, and it's interesting to see some of the ridiculously high quotes further down the list. In my case an average low quote was coming in at £200/£220 so its fascinating to see some companies asking for £400+ for the same service. What are they doing for their money?
And one thing definitely to avoid is accepting an automatic renewal quote from your existing insurer. I guess they work on the assumption that you will just tick the "yes" box and pay whatever they ask. Almost always there will be something cheaper if you look around a bit.
|
I think the "we are not on comparison websites" adverts serve two purposes.
I suspect that some (gullible) people will believe from the adverts that these companies are "better" by not being on those nasty comparison sites, which there must be a catch with, etc.
On the other hand I think it more likely it is a last gasp attempt of a failing business model to postpone the inevitable of everyone just using the comparison sites. When both my elderly mother and MIL use comparison sites, then you really have lost your customer base.
Although ironically for the last 5 years or so I have reverted to using a local insurance broker, who always manages to beat whatever the lowest quote on the comparison sites is. And this is just for a normal car, not anything specialist or exotic.
|
"I find comparison websites of all sorts an utter waste of time."
I had a renewel figure from my insurance company last year. I went on a comparison site and was quoted a cheaper figure by almost £100. I phoned the insurance and they adjusted to meet it. So comparing can work.
|
|
Directline works out by far the cheapest for me. I can get cheaper base rates but when I opt for the extras such as low excess they suddenly jump massively.
|
The companies who aren't on the comparison websites may well be targeting older, less computer-savvy motorists who either get frustrated at repeatedly entering their details into websites, or who simply don't have or want a computer.
This demographic is probably a lower-than-average insurance risk too.
|
|
|
>>Directline works out by far the cheapest for me>>
Ironically it's the opposite for me virtually every time I contact the company.
For the past two-and-a-half years Zurich has proved the best known, lowest cost car insurer in my case.
|
|
|
>>but when I opt for the extras such as low excess they suddenly jump massively.
Well Rtl, they would wouldn't they. These are investment companies and the best of them still make money at 115% loss ratio against premium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alan, be cynical. I had my home insurance renewal recently, from one of the two companies you mention. It had gone up by 26% over last year!! By doing nothing more than ringing and coughing gently, I got it better than halved, with no explanation as to how this might be possible. BUT I pointed out that I'd checked on the web and their on-line quote was £100 cheaper still (well, I'm from Yorkshire originally). I was advised to buy from the web, that they couldn't match that and that I was not to worry as the two products were identical.... !
After checking that I was still in what passes for reality and hadn't dreamt it, I'm slightly ashamed to say that I renewed, on the web of course. My first instinct was to walk regardless, as I reckon they were trying to take me for a mug. Valued customer? Phah! I had done a check though and I was getting a good price and cover.
JH
|
Direct Line is saying their products are not on comparison websites.
It follows that if you want a Direct Line quote, you will need to approach them directly.
If you don't want a Direct Line quote, then go somewhere else, use a comparison website, or if you don't like the idea of insurance at all, sell the car and travel by bus.
It's just about making fairly simple consumer choices - cynicism has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
I put this to the test a couple of months ago, getting multiple quotes from confused.com* and then ringing up Direct Line, who (unsurprisingly) were more expensive. They seemed hurt by my refusal to sign up there and then, so I told them why and explained that I had only called because they invited me to. They flannelled a bit, but couldn't bring themselves to match the other quote, so no deal I'm afraid.
*Other comparison sites are available. I just prefer not to deal with meerkats.
Edited by J Bonington Jagworth on 23/09/2009 at 18:00
|
I've found that GoCompare is normally the best comparison website (after, of course, a comparison with other comparison websites!)
|
Second vote for Go Compare, although I think none of them are so good if you have a non-standard or exotic car.
The only option on the CC3 is metallic paint - the comparison sites can cope with that.
|
My car had lots of optional extras which I dutifully listed, as per the sites instructions. >>
Oilburner: Odd, because I have never had to list any extras/options which were factory-fitted by the manufacturer.
|
Oilburner: Odd because I have never had to list any extras/options which were factory-fitted by the manufacturer.
When I phone them I try to disclose as much as possible to reduce the risks of a non-payout. So I always ask them if they want to know about the extras fitted and they all say yes so far. The comparison website I used also specifically said to declare modifications and factory fitted extras too.
In the event of having to negotiate the value in a write off situation, it could make quite a bit of difference between getting a low valuation and a reasonable, fair valuation, IMO.
I think some extras (even from the factory) can result in increased premiums too, e.g. larger alloys, so I can see why they want to know.
In this particular case, I had a Volvo with over £7000 of optional extras when it was new (thankfully I didn't pay for it!) and so it made a material difference to the value of the car. The sat-nav and comms system alone was a £2000 extra! Given that, I wanted it properly covered...and that's why I guess I got such wild premiums quoted on the comparison website.
In any case, I've never paid any extra premium by declaring all the fitted options, so why not let them know?
|
|
|
|
I always use one particular comparison site.
On my last car renewal I saved £180 ish moving to a more reputable provider.
On my last house insurance quote my renewal was up 40% on the previous year and I reduced it by 55% of their new figure while getting a better level of cover.
Companies are trying to fight the Internet because it is not in their interest (ie reduces margin, drives up standards). They will either cave in or collapse. Remember when Marks and Spencer didn't accept debit cards...?
|
Companies are trying to fight the Internet because it is not in their interest (ie reduces margin drives up standards). They will either cave in or collapse.
I disagree, it will reduce margins, certainly. But it encourages this mania to produce the lowest priced insurance, which isn't always the best insurance, i.e. it drives down standards.
Trouble is, people often don't find this out until they come to claim...
I'm not against the comparison websites, I just think they need to work harder to make sure that car insurance isn't completely price driven, otherwise we'll all end up with a race to the bottom as companies cut features and cover left, right and centre to advertise the cheapest premiums - just to get to that coveted #1 spot on the comparison results, which isn't in our interests at all.
|
|
|
If a company can persuade you to go direct they have a MUCH bigger chance to convert you into a sale.
On comparison sites you are competing head to head with up to 50 other companies for the attention of the customer which is often price driven.
Most of what you see in price comparison is price data. If said companies appear outside the top 10 even by just £15 it might be because their deal is a whole load better. In terms of what they cover you on, how they protect your NCD or how much excess you pay etc.
Because they don't get the opportunity to outline the extra info in the results people aren't being sold the full benefits of going with a slightly more expensive provider.
Also such adverts can act as a USP to many people.
However, this doesn't stop these companies from setting up an affiliate and syndication department. They will happily provide their car insurance quote data to de-branded or "white label" partners. So you may end up getting insurance with a branded broker that is selling the same insurance package as the people who said they would never go on comparison sites.
Personally, it would be insane not to get on comparison sites in one way or another whether it is with your main brand or not. Comparison sites pull hundreds of thousands of visitors that the brand could or probably might not get increasing their reach massively online. Any affiliate manager would be sacked if they didn't investigate such channels.
|
|
|
|
