“I expect that by the end of the year things will be much more clear”

I sincerely hope you’re right but recent history has shown that such efforts tend to make little difference. With a focus on ‘cheapest’ claims – although warranted – what about the others? Do you think we can expect a more wide spread tightening up.

Obviously the copy you’ve suggested isn’t motivational to say the least. And you can completely understand why a company is going to push things as far as possible. There’s a lot of money on the line and little bits here and there can make a huge difference.

There are also plenty of examples of copy out there which are leading the customer to a particular conclusion which may not be relevant in a different context e.g. saying you’re the cheapest – when in actual fact everyone has a different ‘cheapest’ insurer. Those have got to be the hardest things to stay on top of – if it’s worth it at all.

The only way in which I can see that sort of thing being tightened up is if customer actually take an active interest in the product they’re buying …and that day is not even on the horizon for the majority of people who buy insurance in this country. Especially when a company such as Which (which is supposed to give clarity to the customer) is still working from best buy tables.

We’ve got a long way to go and from what I can see, very little motivation to go anywhere.

With rule 2, it’s really complicated, recent press releases have said that some Female insurance specialists are actually more expensive than some of the generalists. so should the female insurance specialists be banned and the generalists forced to sell themselves as female insurance specialists.

Would the copy line go something like “If you are female, aged between 27 and 32, live in guildford and drive a red escort, we could save you money, as long as you haven’t had an accident in the last 4 years.” Not really going to motivate people to respond who are not in that catchment.

I see so many pieces of copy out their claiming that people are “the cheapest” or can save an unbelievable amount of money, which aren’t substantiated. But the process of bringing all this into line seems to have begun and I expect that by the end of the year things will be much more clear (fair and not misleading)

Spoken like a true insurance bod!!

To address your points, of course you wouldn’t have one rate for all, no brand variants, no advertising messages and no differentiation. What’s the word you used …”constructive”?

Rule one: are you lying to the customer about the service you offer? Result: not allowed.

Rule two: are you actually telling the customer something about the sort of risk profile you are set up for and serve better in comparison to the rest of the market and thus making your lead quality better from the very first point of contact? Result: allowed.

Surely you cannot endorse any company, in any sector, misleading any customers?

As for who polices that? Well, last year we heard rumblings of the FSA clamping down on the insurers about the accuracy of their messages (I believe Churchill and a few others had to make a few tweaks).

They (or an equivalent authority) needs to be on top of this and keep up with market changes (not that you cannot help to have noticed the growth of the various aggregator sites). The advertising authorities are probably not even aware of the difference between an aggregator and a broker.

I’ve heard rumblings of the aggregators across the personal finance sector forming their own conglomerate (I mean, forum) for setting guidelines and so on. But this obviously wouldn’t cover the brokers. Perhaps Biba should re-examine their recent PR campaign attacking the aggregators and take a look at their broker members?

The logical conclusion of your post is that everyone should strip away all of the branding and messaging. The result would be advertising that says “Insurance company number 2639: We sell car insurance, but you might be better off buying from one of our competitors.”

The key points of this ad are that the Brand is gone (we wouldn’t want to have gimmicks like friendly red telephones or mice with American accents or elephants in a jungle). It tells the truth, they do sell car insurance, but you just might be better off buying from someone else.

While we are at it, shouldn’t all insurance prices be the same? That way consumers won’t accidentally buy from a company that rates against their risk profile.

In fact, let’s just get the FSA to sell insurance and do away with everything else. Nationalise the lot and be done with it.

I understand that you believe that competitive advantage is being gained by “conning consumers”. That someone needs to stand up for consumers.

But you haven’t actually made a constructive suggestion as to what “standing up for the consumer means”?

Perhaps someone should start an insurance comparison engine?

So insiders, what is a fair set of rules for consumer advertising and how would you police it?