2014年-FCA英国金融行为监管局_gi_add_ons_quantitative_consumer_research_report_91页_2mb

Summary of "Study into the Sales of Add-on General Insurance Products"

Core Content

This report presents the findings of a quantitative study commissioned by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to examine consumer behavior and experiences in the sales of add-on general insurance (GI) products compared to standalone purchases. The study focused on five GI add-on products: Home Emergency Cover, Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) Insurance, Gadget Insurance, Travel Insurance, and Personal Accident Insurance. The goal was to understand the effectiveness of competition in these markets and identify factors that may influence consumer outcomes.

The study found that, across nearly all measures, add-on policy holders performed significantly worse than standalone policy holders. These differences were attributed to the purchase mechanism (add-on vs. standalone) rather than other factors like demographics or financial sophistication.

Main Findings

Demographic Profile

• Age: Add-on buyers were more likely to be over 65 years old (11% vs. 7% for standalone).
• Retired: Add-on buyers were more likely to be retired (14% vs. 9% for standalone).
• Education: Add-on buyers were more likely to have no formal qualifications (12% vs. 6% for standalone), with this difference primarily driven by Travel add-on buyers.
• Financial Sophistication: Standalone buyers were more likely to be financially sophisticated (42% vs. 33% for add-on).
• Employment Status: Standalone buyers were more likely to be self-employed or students.
• Household Income: A quarter of add-on buyers had a household income of under £30,000, compared to 17% of standalone. Standalone buyers were more likely to have a household income of £50,000 or more.

Purchase Channel

• Add-on buyers were more likely to purchase face-to-face or over the phone (37% and 39% respectively) compared to standalone buyers (30% and 4% respectively).
• Standalone buyers were more likely to purchase online (65% vs. 23% for add-on).
• For GAP and Travel products, add-on buyers were significantly more likely to purchase face-to-face, while standalone buyers were more likely to purchase online.

Awareness of Product Holding

• Add-on buyers were more likely to be unaware that they held the product (19% vs. 9% for standalone).
• This difference remained significant even after controlling for demographics, financial sophistication, purchase channel, and price.

Familiarity and Intention

• Standalone buyers were more likely to have not purchased the insurance before (51% vs. 42% for add-on).
• Add-on buyers were more likely to have not thought about purchasing the insurance until the day of purchase (38% vs. 15% for standalone).
• Standalone buyers were more likely to have intended to purchase the insurance (77% vs. 54% for add-on).
• The intention to purchase was significantly influenced by the purchase mechanism, not by other factors.

Shopping Around

• Standalone buyers were almost twice as likely to shop around (78% vs. 42% for add-on).
• The difference in shopping behavior was not simply due to financial sophistication, demographics, or price.
• For GAP, add-on buyers were the least likely to shop around (17% vs. 91% for standalone).
• Standalone buyers cited reasons such as satisfaction with the offer, cheapness, and lack of time for not shopping around, while add-on buyers cited special deals, immediate decision-making, and uncertainty about where to look.

Purchase Experience

• Add-on buyers were less likely to consider whether they already had similar insurance (36% vs. 51% for standalone).
• Standalone buyers were more likely to have enquired about the product themselves (82% vs. 28% for add-on).
• Add-on buyers were more likely to feel helped by the salesperson and to trust them (58% vs. 29%).
• Both groups reported high confidence in their understanding of the cover, but this did not translate into actual knowledge.
• Add-on buyers were more likely to feel pressured to buy (5% vs. 2% for standalone).

Product Understanding

• Add-on and standalone policy holders were both likely to have received information at the time of purchase (75% vs. 97%).
• However, add-on buyers were more likely to be wrong or unsure about key policy features.
• Add-on buyers made an average of 54% incorrect answers, while standalone made 52%.
• For GAP and Home Emergency, add-on buyers were significantly more likely to give incorrect answers than standalone.
• Standalone buyers were more likely to be aware of the price they paid (59% vs. 31% for add-on).

Future Intentions

• Both add-on and standalone policy holders expressed a high propensity to purchase the insurance in the future if needed (84% and 87% respectively).
• No significant differences were found in future purchase intentions between the two groups.
• The main reasons cited for future purchase were peace of mind and reassurance in case of unforeseen events.

Key Insights

• The purchase mechanism (add-on vs. standalone) significantly affects consumer behavior, awareness, and understanding.
• Add-on buyers are less informed, less likely to shop around, and more likely to feel pressured or influenced by the salesperson.
• Financial sophistication and online purchasing behavior are more common among standalone buyers.
• The study highlights that the add-on mechanism may lead to less informed purchasing decisions, with the greatest impact observed in GAP and Home Emergency products.
• The findings were verified using regression analysis, which controlled for various factors to isolate the effect of the purchase mechanism.