Insurance 2.0 on Motor Insurance Websites - January 2009

This regularly updated section of the HomeApproved web site will cover the latest trends, research, opinion and developments in the UK car insurance sector.

Insurance 2.0 on Motor Insurance Websites
Basic HTML used to be enough to impress customers. But these days, with aggressive price wars and the growing popularity of comparison sites, successful car insurers know they need to offer much more in order to attract new customers and retain existing ones. So, how do website's from the leading motor insurers stack up?

One way to find out is to consider Global Reviews’ quarterly motor reports for the three months to the end of November 2008. The company, which provides independent analysis and recommendations for websites across more than 40 industries, specialises in insurance sites.

For the reports, Global Reviews asked more than 1,000 insurance customers what they wanted from a car insurance website. A team of analysts then looked at leading websites worldwide – both insurance and non-insurance related – to create benchmarks of best practice. The leading insurance providers were then assessed and graded against 550 criteria, and received a mark each time they met a benchmark. For example, an insurer that scored 450 out of 550 would have received a grade of 81%.

The five main criteria included quote and application, sales support, customer support, overall website utility and content. Global Reviews analysed its own insurance customers and also any five competitors that its clients wanted to have analysed. Below we explore the findings of the quarterly reports and outline what insurers can do to improve their websites.

Car Insurance Benchmarks
Sheilas’ Wheels led the way with 51%, while Tesco (44%), Admiral (43%) and Budget (41%) posted the lowest scores. The average was 47%. Generally, the companies at the top of the benchmark scored highly across all categories. But areas where companies scored particularly well or badly can be pinpointed.

In the quote and apply section More Th>n received the highest score of 57%, followed by Admiral and eSure at 54%. Providers were assessed on categories such as the information available about the policies, quote content and payment options.

Sheilas’ Wheels was top in sales support with a score of 52%, just ahead of More Th>n with 51%. Sales support includes availability of online help, error handling and the ability to save applications.

Swiftcover (61%), Direct Line (58%) and Churchill (52%) were the top three in customer support. This looks at how a website answers customer queries through tools such as frequently asked questions (FAQ's), or how well it connects customers with an adviser through services like web chat. Norwich Union stood apart in overall website utility with 75%. It was found to have a high-quality homepage and easy site navigation.

For content, the Automobile Association (AA) had the highest score of 55%, closely followed by Swiftcover and Churchill with 54%. This includes claims information, tips and advice, and supporting motoring content. The Churchill website was relaunched in October 2008.

Content and customer support are the two areas where websites vary the most. They are also the easiest to improve because there are no web development issues. Meanwhile, sales support and quote and apply are considered the most important categories. But they tend to be the hardest to improve because the quote process is tied to the back-end quote engine.

ENDS

Further January 2009 news
Beat That Quote Car Insurance

Top of Page