To find out, we’ve asked our clients what matters to them most when buying insurance, and in return our panel used those criteria to evaluate the differences between buying insurance via Global Protection and buying direct or online.
Primarily, customers perceive any middle man as an unnecessary third party, and conventional wisdom dictates that this means additional cost and possibly mistakes. Advertising by insurers, looks like inviting people to ‘go direct’ and encourage this feeling.
In order of importance, these are the things that our clients said they matter to them:
So let’s now analyze these items and let our panel judge how each performs when insurance is bought directly or when via Global Protection.
Contrary to popular consumer belief, Global Protection pricing is actually lower than direct insurance pricing and thus for several reasons:
We are capable to negotiate technically better prices with insurers
‘Cutting out the middle man’ it seems, does not save money this time. On the contrary!
Some of the consumers had the impression that buying policies directly would be the easiest option for them. After trying both, almost all had changed their mind.
Global Protection are more pro-active after they receive the initial quote request from the consumer, often answering queries by personal emails or calls or visits and helping to reassure customers with a human service are more appreciated. Being far better equipped to deal with specific insurance questions and used to human discussions, we give people a stronger feeling that they are in safe hands.
Furthermore, most direct services completely fell down when queries or changes required are less common, particularly later in the policy life cycle. Global Protection really shone through here.
In this case, the time taken to generate initial quotation figures using direct services could be quick, while Global Protection are not only quick but answered quote requests are personally followed up.
The difference is clear in speed when it comes to midterm changes, documentation requests and other follow up services. Direct insurers often fell back to large call centers or customer services divisions whose staff had little or no real insurance knowledge. In this areas, Global Protection are more efficient, making suggestions that our consumers found highly useful, saving them lots of time.
On balance, the speed at which quotes were produced by the direct services was not significant to our consumers when compared to the speed and efficiency with which we generally manage their policies throughout the policy life cycle.
“As long as Global Protection doesn’t take too long to come back to me, I don’t care. It’s his problem while the clock is ticking, not mine.”
Global Protection are largely far more efficient at cross checking policies than consumers, and also very good at educating their customers, explaining what types of cover were available and answering queries.
Direct insurers put too much focus on the consumer to do this work himself and cannot compete with the level of service provided by us.
We strive to choose the most solvable, secure and financial solid companies and no doubt our clients are not capable to do this exercise by themselves due to the lack of information available in the market on the insurers. The only ranking available by market share is not sufficient to evaluate the rating of the company.
So who won? Global Protection or Direct?
Our recommendation to all of you would be to trust us, let us shop for you, and you will likely reap dividend, whilst living an easy life!