Compare the Market UK Customer Experience Study

Compare the Market UK Customer Experience Study: Synthesis and Direction

Objective and context. We set out to understand what UK consumers think about insurance comparison websites, where friction erodes trust, and what would make them switch or stay loyal. Across questions, the signal is clear: price honesty, transparent rankings, privacy‑respecting UX, and reliable handoffs matter far more than gimmicks or shorter forms.

What we heard across questions. The dominant frustration is perceived bait‑and‑switch: users see a headline quote that rises on insurer handoff, driven by pre‑ticked extras, shifted excesses, and hidden admin/finance fees. As Nadia Rahman put it, “You see a decent quote, then on the insurer’s page it’s higher... Felt like a trap.” Respondents will tolerate longer journeys if numbers stay stable and honest; they abandon when prices move, contact fields are forced, or monthly/APR framing obscures true cost (“Defaulting to monthly with a fat APR,” per Leah Morgan‑Grant). Broken redirects and re‑entry (“Retyping the same details,” Tom Whitfield) amplify frustration, especially on mobile. Privacy and consent are pivotal-“Forced phone fields that just turn into spam” and ill‑timed calls (Nadia: a call “at tea time” while cooking) create emotional backlash. Finally, unclear caveats (excesses, exclusions) undermine value; Mateusz Nowak detailed bike and tools‑of‑trade exclusions that invalidate the headline price.

Trust drivers and the role of rewards. Trust accrues to sites that show total annual cost up front (fees, extras, exit fees), explain who pays and how listings are ranked, and provide evidence and auditability (timestamped methodology, exports, dated reviews/complaints). “Default by cheapest total, not ‘featured’. Let me hide sponsored results,” said Daniel Whitaker. Users also want privacy‑first behaviour (one‑click reject‑all cookies, no forced phone capture) and plain‑English small print. Rewards are secondary: cinema/restaurant perks are seen as gimmicks unless the core deal is already strong, low‑friction, and relevant. When they work, they are simple and monetary (cash or bill credit). Tom Whitfield: “Mostly gimmicky... I value it at near zero.” Nadia noted a positive outlier when a restaurant voucher was instant and easy.

Persona correlations and nuances.

• High‑technical professionals (Tom, Mateusz): demand exportable quotes, timestamped methodology, explicit affiliate/ranking disclosures; prefer sober, “boring accountant” UI.
• Trades/equipment‑dependent (Mateusz, Leah): prioritise explicit coverage lines (tools‑of‑trade, bike lock ratings, overnight storage) and filters surfacing these.
• Time‑poor younger households (Nadia, Daniel): will pay a small premium for speed and perceived honesty; react well to instant, low‑friction rewards.
• Shift‑workers/hospitality (Siobhan, Nadia): require fast, stable mobile flows and respectful contact timing.
• Mid‑income, cash‑flow sensitive (Leah, Siobhan): want clarity on monthly vs annual totals and dislike hidden APR/arrangement fees.
• Regional (Northern England) (Nadia, Leah, Daniel): frequent reports of bait‑and‑switch, occupation volatility, and pre‑ticked extras signal a reputational opportunity for transparent practice.

Recommendations grounded in evidence.

• Show total annual cost by default, including APR and fees; remove pre‑ticked add‑ons and reset excess defaults (addresses the top “trap” complaint).
• Ranking transparency: default sort by cheapest total, label and allow hiding of sponsored results; publish “How we make money” and a timestamped methodology; add quote permalinks/CSV export (meets auditability and honesty expectations).
• Consent and privacy overhaul: one‑click reject‑all, no forced phone capture, quiet hours for outreach (reduces spam/consent backlash).
• Coverage clarity and vertical filters: plain‑English summaries of excesses/exclusions; filters for tools‑of‑trade, bike lock rating, courtesy car, legal cover (serves trades and clarity seekers).
• Handoff reliability: server‑to‑server tokens, strict field mapping, and mobile session resilience (prevents re‑entry/timeouts).
• Reframe rewards as tiebreakers: monetary, instant, low‑hoop fulfilment; clear eligibility and expiry to avoid perceived gimmickry.

Risks and measurement guardrails. Partner resistance to price parity and transparent rankings could limit inventory; mitigate via a visible Price Integrity badge and sharing conversion uplifts. De‑emphasising sponsored placements may dent revenue; A/B test “hide sponsored” and explore premium verified‑integrity placements. Technical handoff stability is complex; phase by top partners with automated mapping tests. Tightened consent may reduce remarketing; offset with on‑site conversion gains from trust.

Next steps and KPIs.

1. 0–2 weeks: Ship total‑cost default, remove pre‑ticks, sponsored labels, reject‑all cookies, session persistence; publish “How we make money.”
2. 2–6 weeks: Default sort by cheapest total; launch methodology page; begin permalink/CSV; start monitoring price stability.
3. 6–12 weeks: Roll out coverage clarity/filters; negotiate parity pilots; harden consent (quiet hours, no forced phone).
4. 8–12 weeks: Implement server‑to‑server handoffs with top insurers; add automated field‑mapping tests.

Measure success via: Price Stability Index ≥ 90% (insurer price within £1, cover/excess match); Handoff Success Rate ≥ 95%; Consent/Spam Complaints ≤ 1 per 1,000 quotes; Transparency Engagement ≥ 15% of sessions; Export/Share Utilisation ≥ 5%. These metrics directly map to user‑cited trust drivers and will evidence progress from fixing the “trap” perception to building durable loyalty.