Page 87 - E-Bussiness and E-Commerce Management Strategy, Implementation, and Practice

M02_CHAF9601_04_SE_C02.QXD:D01_CHAF7409_04_SE_C01.QXD 16/4/09 11:07 Page 54

54 Part 1 Introduction

Their revenue model remains a fairly basic CPA-based one [cost per action – explained
in Chapter 9], typically charging flat or near-flat fees on conversion only so costs remain
predictable. After Google changed the rules about brand protection, I haven’t actually
seen many aggregators buying branded keywords, at least not the brands of those
insurers in their panel, so they are not having such an impact there either.
Where they do massively impact costs is in generic keywords. Words like ‘car insur-
ance’ have become prohibitive for all but the deepest-pocketed direct insurers. These
words tend to be typically low converting so the impact on actual sales or direct RoI is
not big.
The missed opportunity from not being able to effectively use those keywords as
part of your brand activity is more difficult to ascertain and easy to underestimate.
Aggregators have made the drive to find a better value attribution model to replace
today’s ‘last click takes all’ more urgent. Until such time, and purely from the perspec-
tive of generating sales, comparison sites don’t seem to be significantly increasing our
marketing costs.
Q. Could you see more insurance providers taking the Direct Line approach to
comparison sites?
Roberto Hortal, MORE TH>N: I can certainly see some scenarios where direct
insurers may decide to pursue similar policies. I can even think of some where this may
be a very successful move for a strong direct financial services brand.
However, I would caution anyone thinking about going down that route to stop to
think for a minute about the reasons behind aggregators’ wild success, and the lessons
that need to be learned from it.
Customers have loudly voted with their clicks for a channel that brings convenience to
them and helps them make a choice on the basis of what the vast majority of them
consider to be the key decision points: choice and price. Anyone looking to buck the trend
and go against consumers’ clearly stated expectations would do so at their own peril.
Q. Is the rise of price comparison sites impacting premiums or levels of insur-
ance coverage?

Roberto Hortal, MORE TH>N: Financial services is a very strongly regulated market-
place. Consumers can be sure that, whatever the market pressures, regulation ensures
cover levels and premiums are reasonable and appropriate.
I have seen some companies launching basic cover products to more effectively

compete on the aggregators. I haven’t seen reliable adoption figures for those prod-
ucts so I wouldn’t be able to tell whether these are really being adopted by consumers
or are they just adding noise to an already deafening marketplace. This is not some-
thing MORE TH>N is doing.
In terms of premiums, price comparison is making providers’ pricing a lot more
transparent, and may be driving some to lower their premiums to better compete in the
marketplace. Again, I can’t say this is something particularly impacting on MORE TH>N
premiums, as we are fully aware of the need to grow a sustainable business over the
long term.
Q. How do cashback sites compare to comparison sites in terms of effectiveness?
Roberto Hortal, MORE TH>N: Cashback sites share just two characteristics with
price comparison sites: they are consumers’ favorites and they offer us a predictable
marketing cost model based on CPA which makes it easy to work with them. That’s
really where the similarities end, as far as I’m concerned.
For consumers, cashbacks provide none of the convenience that aggregators do.
For merchants, cashbacks firmly root the market back to nonscalable territory. They