Introduction
Abbreviations
Executive Summary
The market
Price-comparison sites now the primary source of financial information
Figure 1: Sources of information used to research financial products, April 2011
A fifth have researched at least seven products through aggregators…
Figure 2: Repertoire of aggregator usage for research, April 2011
…and most internet users have bought at least one product through the sites
Figure 3: Repertoire of aggregator usage for purchase, April 2011
Companies, brands and innovation
Four sites dominate the market
Figure 4: Unique visitor numbers to key aggregator sites, year to April 2011
Little differentiation, but moneysupermarket.com leads on trust
Figure 5: Attitudes towards and usage of price-comparison website brands, February 2011
Key factors when using comparison sites
Price still dominates – but not at the expense of cover
Figure 6: Key factors when using aggregator sites to arrange insurance, April 2011
The consumer
Most internet users think aggregators offer a valuable service
Figure 7: Attitudes towards aggregator sites, April 2011
What we think
Issues in the Market
Can product providers head off the aggregator challenge?
What needs to be done to draw new customers into the market?
Can aggregators build differentiation by appealing to niche markets?
Who are the most committed users of comparison sites?
What can be done to bring around the sceptics?
Future Opportunities
The difference engine
Teaching people how to survive
Online Trends
Key points
Comparison sites are now mainstream
Figure 8: Types of website visited, April 2011
Broadband now reaches seven in ten adults…
Figure 9: Broadband penetration, 2004-10
…and is used by a broad cross-section of society
Figure 10: Broadband penetration, by age and socio-economic group, 2010
The internet becomes the research tool of choice
Figure 11: Agreement with selected lifestyle statements on buying products online, 2005-10
Primary Sources of Financial Information
Key points
Three in five use aggregators as a primary source of financial information
Figure 12: Sources of information used to research financial products, April 2011
Aggregator sites span class and generational barriers
Sites Used to Research Financial Services
Key points
Four aggregators dominate financial information sites
Figure 13: Choice of financial information sites, April 2011
Little loyalty among the aggregator enthusiasts
Figure 14: Choice of financial information sites, by number of products researched through aggregators, April 2011
Figure 15: Choice of financial information sites, by number of products bought through aggregators, April 2011
Aggregator Site Usage
Key points
Moneysupermarket.com leads the way
Figure 16: Unique visitor numbers to key aggregator sites, year to April 2011
Company Profiles
Comparethemarket.com
Figure 17: Financial performance of BISL Ltd, 2009 and 2010
Confused.com
Figure 18: Financial performance of confused.com, 2009 and 2010
Gocompare.com
Figure 19: Financial performance of gocompare.com, 2009 and 2010
Moneysupermarket.com
Figure 20: Financial performance of moneysupermarket.com, 2009 and 2010
Uswitch.com
Figure 21: Financial performance of uSwitch Ltd, 2008 and 2009
Beatthatquote.com
Figure 22: Financial performance of beatthatquote.com Ltd, 2009 and 2010
Brand Research
Brand map
Figure 23: Attitudes towards and usage of price-comparison website brands, February 2011
Brand attitudes
Figure 24: Attitudes, by price-comparison website brand, February 2011
Brand personality
Figure 25: Price-comparison website brand personality – macro image, February 2011
Figure 26: Price-comparison website brand personality – micro image, February 2011
Correspondence analysis
Brand experience
Figure 27: Price-comparison website brand usage, February 2011
Figure 28: Satisfaction with various price-comparison website brands, February 2011
Figure 29: Consideration of price-comparison website brands, February 2011
Figure 30: Consumer perceptions of current price-comparison website brand performance, February 2011
Figure 31: Price-comparison website brand recommendation – Net Promoter Score, February 2011
Brand index
Figure 32: Price-comparison website brand index, February 2011
Figure 33: Price-comparison website brand index vs. recommendation, February 2011
Target group analysis
Figure 34: Target groups, February 2011
Figure 35: Price-comparison website brand usage, by target groups, February 2011
Group One – The Conformists
Group Two – Simply the Best
Group Three – Shelf Stalkers
Group Four – Habitual Shoppers
Group Five – The Individualists
Brand Communication and Promotion
Key points
Adspend tops £90 million
Figure 36: Overview of advertising expenditure in aggregators market, 2008/09-2010/11*
Little scope to step back from the advertising war
The link between adspend and visitor numbers...
Figure 37: Adspend and visitor number trends across the key aggregator sites, April 2010-March 2011
...and the advantage of being the market leader
Figure 38: Monthly advertising expenditure and visitor numbers, by selected aggregators, 2010/11
Gocompare.com tops adspend
Figure 39: Advertising expenditure, by selected aggregators, 2008/09-2010/11*
TV is the channel of choice
Figure 40: Advertising expenditure, by media type, 2008/09-2010/11*
Products Researched and Arranged Through Aggregators
Key points
Three quarters have used comparison sites to research products
Figure 41: Aggregator usage, April 2011
Polarisation in usage patterns…
Figure 42: Repertoire of aggregator usage for research, April 2011
…and in buying behaviour
Figure 43: Repertoire of aggregator usage for purchase, April 2011
The journey from researching car insurance to buying investment products
Figure 44: Aggregator usage, by repertoire of aggregator usage for research, April 2011
Figure 45: Aggregator usage, by repertoire of aggregator usage for purchase, April 2011
Heavy users are more web-savvy – but not much more
Figure 46: Types of website visited, by number of products researched through aggregators, April 2011
Price-comparison sites aren’t yet supplanting traditional channels…
…and for intensive users, it’s ‘as well as’, not ‘instead of’
Figure 47: Primary sources of financial information, by aggregator usage, April 2011
Use extends across all age groups...
...but it’s the more affluent who are making the most of the money-saving opportunities
Attitudes towards Aggregators
Key points
A market full of positives – but still some reservations
Figure 48: Attitudes towards aggregator sites, April 2011
Researchers recognise the shortcomings
Figure 49: Agreement with attitudes towards aggregator sites, by number of products researched through aggregators, April 2011
A chance for product providers to head off the aggregator challenge?
Transparency and education
Figure 50: Attitudes towards aggregator sites, by the number of products purchased through aggregators, April 2011
What People Look for in an Aggregator Site
Key points
It’s really not all about price…
Figure 51: Key factors when using aggregator sites to arrange insurance, April 2011
…but transparency is an issue for the regulators, not consumers
Is accuracy taken for granted? And is a lack of transparency ‘just one of those things’?
Little difference between experienced users and non-users…
…and responses confirm that inaccurate quotations are not a major consumer concern
Figure 52: Key factors when using aggregator sites to arrange insurance, by type of products researched or purchased through aggregators, April 2011
Figure 53: Key factors when using aggregator sites to arrange insurance, by products purchased through aggregators, April 2011
Could reviews help the information gatherers?
Figure 54: Key factors when using aggregator sites, by the number of products researched through aggregators, April 2011
Making life easier for the power users
Figure 55: Key factors when using aggregator sites, by the number of products purchased through aggregators, April 2011
The changing importance of price
Figure 56: Importance of price, cover and accuracy when using aggregators to compare insurance products, by age, April 2011
Aggregator Associations
Key points
Strongly positive associations…
Figure 57: Aggregator word association, 2010 and 2011
…but shortfalls are evident
Positive associations grow with experience
Figure 58: Aggregator word association, by number of products researched through an aggregator, April 2011
Time to address the perception of restricted choice and inconsistency
Inconsistency is an issue for the fans as well as the detractors
Figure 59: Aggregator word association, by number of products purchased through an aggregator, April 2011
User Segmentation
Key points
From appreciative to sceptical
Figure 60: Aggregator target groups, April 2011
The Advocates
The Sceptics
The Middle Ground
The Unengaged
Figure 61: Aggregator word association, by target groups, April 2011
Information-hungry Advocates
Figure 62: Primary sources of information used to research financial products, by target groups, April 2011
Scepticism is no barrier to using comparison sites...
Figure 63: Products researched through an aggregator site, by target groups, April 2011
...while even some Advocates are wary of actually buying
Figure 64: Products purchased through an aggregator site, by target groups, April 2011
A recognition of the sites’ shortfalls...
Figure 65: Attitudes towards aggregator sites, by target groups, April 2011
...from the fans as well as from the cynics
Bringing in the Unengaged
Figure 66: Key factors when using aggregator sites to buy insurance, by target groups, April 2011
More signs that Sceptics are looking for guidance
Appendix – Primary Sources of Financial Information
Figure 67: Most popular sources of information used to research financial products, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 68: Next most popular sources of information used to research financial products, by demographics, April 2011
Appendix – Sites Used to Research Financial Services
Figure 69: Most popular choice of aggregator sites ‘have used, but not within the last year’, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 70: Next most popular choice of aggregator sites ‘have used, but not within the last year’, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 71: Most popular choice of aggregator sites ‘have used within the last year’, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 72: Next most popular choice of aggregator sites ‘have used within the last year’, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 73: Other choice of aggregator sites ‘have used within the last year’, by demographics, April 2011
Appendix – Brand Research
Figure 74: Brand usage, February 2011
Figure 75: Brand commitment, February 2011
Figure 76: Brand momentum, February 2011
Figure 77: Brand diversity, February 2011
Figure 78: Brand satisfaction, February 2011
Figure 79: Brand recommendation, February 2011
Figure 80: Brand attitude, February 2011
Figure 81: Brand image – Macro image, February 2011
Figure 82: Brand image – Micro image, February 2011
Figure 83: Profile of target groups, by demographics, February 2011
Figure 84: Psychographic segmentation, by target groups, February 2011
Figure 85: Brand usage, by target groups, February 2011
Figure 86: Brand index, February 2011
Appendix – Products Researched and Arranged Through Aggregators
Figure 87: Most popular ‘researched’ aggregator usage, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 88: Next most popular ‘researched’ aggregator usage, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 89: Other ‘researched’ aggregator usage, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 90: Most popular ‘purchased’ aggregator usage, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 91: Next most popular ‘purchased’ aggregator usage, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 92: Other ‘purchased’ aggregator usage, by demographics, April 2011
Appendix – Attitudes Towards Aggregator Sites
Figure 93: Most popular attitudes towards aggregator sites, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 94: Next most popular attitudes towards aggregator sites, by demographics, April 2011
Appendix – What People Look for in an Aggregator Site
Figure 95: Most popular key factors when using aggregator sites, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 96: Next most popular key factors when using aggregator sites, by demographics, April 2011
Appendix – Aggregator Associations
Figure 97: Most popular aggregator word association, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 98: Next most popular aggregator word association, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 99: Other aggregator word association, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 100: Least popular aggregator word association, by demographics, April 2011
Appendix – User Segmentation
Figure 101: Target groups, by demographics, April 2011
Figure 102: Choice of aggregator sites, by target groups, April 2011
Figure 103: Attitudes towards aggregator sites, by target groups, April 2011