View more on these topics

Ian McKenna: How to fix the broken protection industry

Ian-McKenna-in-2013-700.jpg

At last month’s Protection Review conference, chief executive Kevin Carr identified just 3 per cent of mortgage advisers think the protection industry is working well for them. This is a damning indictment of the current state of the life assurance industry.

A small number of highly professional specialist protection advisers, who understand their products inside out, do a great job of delivering advice on them. These firms are not shy about saying how the market should evolve and because of the volume of business they are highly influential in defining the direction of change.

Yet the volume of protection cover sold continues to fall year on year. This is politely called the protection gap, although I think the protection crisis would be more accurate.

The Protection Review research finds insurers are failing to listen to a much larger group of distributors, mortgage advisers and wealth managers who sell protection as an addition to their core services. This community is turning away from the life assurance market in droves. Protection adviser Pete Chadborn eloquently articulated the reasons for this during the recent Money Marketing Wired broadcast on protection (this can be found at: http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/mm-wired/ ).

Chadborn made it clear life assurance has become too complex and too time-consuming for most mainstream advisers. These advisers need to be able to compare products and product information far more easily. They also need clearer, more efficient new business and underwriting services.

If an adviser takes the time to persuade the client to take life cover, they need to know the contract will proceed quickly at the premium quoted. Pension freedoms mean there is an unparalleled demand for advice. If protection cover is just too hard to set up, advisers will focus on the business areas they can conduct quickly and efficiently. Post-RDR, advisers have a far clearer understanding of where they make profit and the protection market just has not kept pace with this change.

So what do we need to do to fix the broken protection industry? First, a fundamental change in attitude. A good start would be banning the defeatist mantra that life assurance has to be sold not bought. This is essentially saying the products are such rubbish that no sane consumer would buy them without someone twisting their arm to do so. Not only is this incredibly negative thinking, it is also not true. Almost everyone needs life assurance of some kind.

As an industry we must build products that are more attractive and easier to understand as well as processes that are far more customer friendly. We also need to provide existing life assurance customers with more information on their products on a regular basis. This is something major protection advisers have been calling for for many years, yet the message falls on deaf ears, with insurers inevitably citing legacy systems and costs as a reason for not investing in the 21st-century services customers have every right to expect.

If we do not tell customers regularly about the benefits of their life cover, how can we expect people to value it? The protection industry must engage with the Treasury to ensure the forthcoming pension dashboard can also deliver consumers with an equal level of information on their life assurance. If we do not, protection will fall further down consumers’ list of priorities.

At the same time, we must make it far easier for consumers and advisers to be able to understand and compare the features and benefits of different life products. Insurers say they want to sell on quality yet their investment in tools to compare anything other than price is almost non-existent.

Companies like UnderwriteMe and iPipeline are taking major steps forward in delivering a better new business process to consumers and making “buy now” pricing readily available. That said, a small number of the largest insurers are fiercely resisting this major consumer benefit for selfish reasons and this must change.

The discussion around addressing the protection gap invariably brings a sense of déjà vu. Einstein’s definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting the results to change. Sadly, that is life assurance marketing today. Implementing the changes outlined above would be a great start in doing things differently.

Ian McKenna is director of the Finance & Technology Research Centre

Recommended

Ian-McKenna-in-2013-700.jpg
1

Ian McKenna: Time to ditch the term robo-advice

The recent report from SCM Direct “Fintech Folly – The Sense and Sensibility of UK Robo Advice” makes interesting reading for many reasons. It puts forward valid arguments for closer regulatory scrutiny of the commercial models of start-up businesses, as well as the need for greater clarity around what is broadly called robo-advice. This is […]

Ian-McKenna-in-2013-700.jpg
2

Ian McKenna: Does US hold key to low-cost advice?

When planning how to evolve a business, wouldn’t it be great if you could jump in a time machine and look just a couple of years into the future? Once you get to understand the differences in terminology, there are far more similarities between the US and UK advice markets than there are differences. And […]

Ian-McKenna-in-2013-700.jpg

Ian McKenna: The alternative to Frankenstein distribution

Earlier this month Money Marketing considered a Frankenstein scenario that might play out if life insurers and platforms pursue aggressive vertical integration. I believe there is an alternative scenario, where realignment of the value chain could deliver significant benefits to the most important party of all: consumers. What if, rather than manufacturers extending into distribution, […]

Testing the Foundation

The global economy isn’t headed into recession, at least not yet. This month, David Lafferty, Chief Market Strategist at Natixis Global Asset Management, examines current capital market and portfolio risks for signs of recession. Click Here for Capital Market Notes

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. “If an adviser takes the time to persuade the client ”

    That is exactly it. The adviser community by and large has moved on from being floggers of products – foot in the door, hard sell, back up the hearse and let them smell the flowers type of selling. To providing ADVICE. The transactional model is declining – and perhaps not fast enough. Sensible people (the sort that advisers are best advised to work with) know that they should have life cover. The stupid are not ideal adviser clients. See the piece about insistent clients – same kind of thing.

  2. Ian is only partially right – protection still is mostly sold and not bought.

    Regardless of the online functionality and ease of processing the reality is that many consumers need a shove, a push to do the sensible thing.

    Sometimes it is merely a conversation, other times it is a harder probing discussion. Sometimes the consumer will do nothing regardless of affordability or the logic involved.

  3. It’s interesting how many people (me included) trot out the Einstein quote. I think I heard it in three presentations at the Protection Review conference.

    So we all know that doing the same thing and expecting different results is madness – but we continue to do the same things anyway and then quote Einstein when we don’t get different results.

    We’re all good at saying we need to be different – just not very good at actually seeing it through.

Leave a comment