Author: Mintel Group Ltd.
Last saved by: HTTP server

Web Aggregators in Financial Services - UK - June 2013

INTRODUCTION
Abbreviations and definitions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The market
Around 70% of internet users have used a price comparison website
Figure 1: Products researched/purchased through aggregator sites, April 2013
Market factors
Online activity
Companies, brands and innovations
Comparethemarket.com is the most widely used aggregator in the last year
Figure 2: Aggregator sites used in the last 12 months, April 2013
Small levels of brand differentiation between the traditional aggregators
Figure 3: Attitudes towards and usage of brands in the web aggregators sector, March 2013
The consumer
Price comparison website usage by product
Price comparison selection process
Figure 4: Aggregator site selection process, April 2013
Process completion
Figure 5: Price comparison usage and dropout rates, April 2013
Reasons for dropping out of the quotation process
Figure 6: Reasons for not completing a quote, April 2013
Reasons for dropping out of the purchasing process
Figure 7: Reasons for not completing a purchase, April 2013
Price comparison website concerns
Figure 8: Price comparison website concerns, April 2013
Attitudes towards price comparison websites
What we think
ISSUES IN THE MARKET
Why do customers drop out from the price comparison process?
What can price comparison websites do to stop people dropping out?
Do consumers use different price comparison sites for different financial products?
Can Google capitalise on its brand and search engine dominance?
TREND APPLICATION
Price matching to compete with direct channels
Reassuring customers regarding data usage
Mintel futures: Human
ONLINE TRENDS
Key points
Three quarters of over-16s now have access to the internet
Figure 9: Internet users, Q1 2011-Q1 2013
Smartphone usage continues to grow
Figure 10: Personal ownership of mobile phones, January 2012-April 2013
A fifth of adults manage their finances on smartphones
Figure 11: Information-finding activities performed online in the past three months, by device, April 2013
The majority of adults have shopped online
Figure 12: Online shopping activities performed in the past three months, by device, April 2013
COMPANIES AND PRODUCTS
Comparethemarket.com
Figure 13: Key financial data for BISL Ltd*, 2011-12
Confused.com
Figure 14: Key financial data for Confused.com, 2011-12
Figure 15: Key financial data for Admiral’s price comparison websites*, 2010-12
Gocompare.com
Figure 16: Key financial data for Gocompare.com Limited, 2010-11
Moneysupermarket.com
Figure 17: Key financial data for Moneysupermarket.com, 2011-12
Tesco Compare
Figure 18: Key financial data for Tesco Compare, 2011-12
uSwitch
Figure 19: Key financial data for uSwitch, 2010-11
 OTHERS
lovemoney.com
money.co.uk
MoneyExpert.com
Figure 20: key financial data for MoneyExpert.com, 2010-11
TotallyMoney.com
BRAND RESEARCH
Brand map
Figure 21: Attitudes towards and usage of brands in the web aggregators sector, March 2013
Correspondence analysis
Brand attitudes
Figure 22: Attitudes by web aggregators brand, March 2013
Brand personality
Figure 23: Web aggregators brand personality – macro image, March 2013
Figure 24: Web aggregators brand personality – micro image, March 2013
Brand experience
Figure 25: Web aggregators brand usage, March 2013
Figure 26: Satisfaction with various web aggregators brands, March 2013
Figure 27: Consideration of web aggregators brands, March 2013
Figure 28: Consumer perceptions of current web aggregators brand performance, March 2013
Figure 29: Web aggregators brand recommendation – Net Promoter Score, March 2013
Brand index
Figure 30: Web aggregators brand index, March 2013
Figure 31: Web aggregators brand index vs. recommendation, March 2013
Target group analysis
Figure 32: Target groups, March 2013
Figure 33: Web aggregators brand usage, by target groups, March 2013
Group One – Conformists
Group Two – Simply the Best
Group Three – Shelf Stalkers
Group Four – Habitual Shoppers
Group Five – Individualists
BRAND COMMUNICATION AND PROMOTION
Key points
Aggregators’ adspend increased in 2012/13
Figure 34: Overview of advertising expenditure in the financial aggregator market, 2011-13*
Comparethemarket.com is the number one in terms of adspend
Figure 35: Advertising expenditure by selected financial aggregators, 2011-13
TV advertising is heavily influential in the price comparison market
Figure 36: Financial aggregator adspend, by media type, 2011-13*
Figure 37: Financial aggregator adspend among selected sites, by media type, 2013*
A note about adspend
RESEARCHING AND PURCHASING ACTIVITY BY PRODUCT
Key points
One in two adults compares car insurance through aggregators
Figure 38: Products researched/purchased through aggregator sites, April 2013
The majority of young drivers research car insurance on PCWs
Figure 39: Car insurance research through price comparison websites, by age, April 2013
Telematics a challenge and opportunity for aggregator websites
Almost 50% research up to 4 products, while a third research none
Figure 40: Repertoire of products researched through aggregator sites, April 2013
Figure 41: Repertoire of products researched through aggregator sites, by gross annual household income, April 2013
Purchasing levels are even lower, with one in two not buying through PCWs
Figure 42: Repertoire of products purchased through aggregator sites, April 2013
Figure 43: Products purchased through aggregator sites, by repertoire of products purchased through aggregator sites, by demographics, April 2013
PRICE COMPARISON WEBSITE USAGE BY PROVIDER
Key points
Top five websites used widely in the last 12 months
Figure 44: Aggregator sites used, April 2013
Around 50% of price comparison website visitors have used 3-6 websites
Figure 45: Repertoire of aggregator sites used, April 2013
Users of 1-2 price comparison websites turn to the main players
Figure 46: Aggregator sites used, by repertoire of aggregator sites used, April 2013
Loyalty in a market that is designed for switching
Google can benefit from its search engine dominance
Figure 47: Aggregator sites used, by aggregator site selection process, April 2013
PRICE COMPARISON WEBSITE USAGE BY PRODUCT
Key points
Website usage is influenced by products being researched
Figure 48: Price comparison website usage – by product, April 2013
Two sites have carved out a more savings and investment-focused image
PRICE COMPARISON SELECTION PROCESS
Key points
Consumers have different ways of choosing price comparison websites
Figure 49: Aggregator site selection process, April 2013
Advertising initiatives are important in winning mindshare
Young adults more likely to search for a price comparison website
Figure 50: Aggregator site selection process, by demographics, April 2013
The selection process is influenced by the products being researched
Figure 51: Aggregator site selection process, by products researched/purchased through aggregator sites, April 2013
Website usage has little influence on the selection process
Figure 52: Aggregator site selection process, by the top five most used aggregator websites, April 2013
PROCESS COMPLETION
Key points
Two thirds of adults drop out before purchasing from a PCW
Figure 53: Price comparison usage and dropout rates, April 2013
Dropout rates increase among those doing numerous product searches
Figure 54: Price comparison usage and dropout rates, by repertoire of products researched through aggregator sites, April 2013
Dropout rates are not better even among those that have a favourite website…
Figure 55: Price comparison usage and dropout rates, by aggregator site selection process, April 2013
…although single site users have better conversion rates
Figure 56: Price comparison usage and dropout rates, by repertoire of aggregators sites used, April 2013
Dropout rates are fairly equal among most providers
REASONS FOR DROPPING OUT OF THE QUOTATION PROCESS
Key points
Length of process and personal questions are major gripes
Figure 57: Reasons for not completing a quote, April 2013
Even adults with a favourite website find the process too long
Figure 58: Reasons for not completing a quote, by aggregator site selection process, April 2013
Adults who cite personal questions are more likely to worry about marketing calls
Figure 59: Price comparison website concerns, by reasons for not completing a quote, April 2013
REASONS FOR DROPPING OUT OF THE PURCHASING PROCESS
Key points
Direct competition means that many adults do not purchase at the end of a quotation process
Figure 60: Reasons for not completing a purchase, April 2013
Price comparison websites need to reassure customers on price
Adults purchasing banking products more likely to drop out to check policy details
Figure 61: Reasons for not completing a purchase, by products researched through aggregator sites, April 2013
CONSUMER CONCERNS ABOUT PRICE COMPARISON WEBSITES
Key points
Consumers have a range of concerns when using PCWs, but a third have none
Figure 62: Price comparison website concerns, April 2013
Older customers more worried about whole of market limitations, and marketing calls
Figure 63: Price comparison website concerns, by age, April 2013
Aggregator sites are mainly viewed the same when it comes to concerns
Figure 64: Price comparison website concerns, by aggregators sites used, April 2013
Adults who have dropped out of the process more likely to have concerns
Figure 65: Price comparison website concerns, by price comparison usage and dropout rates, April 2013
ATTITUDES TOWARDS PRICE COMPARISON WEBSITES
Key points
Convenience and saving money are the two main benefits
Figure 66: Attitudes towards price comparison websites, April 2013
Having a favourite website makes customers see website differentiation
Figure 67: Attitudes towards price comparison websites, by aggregator site selection process, April 2013
Dropouts more likely to view PCWs as a research tool
Figure 68: Attitudes towards price comparison websites, by price comparison usage and dropout rates, April 2013
Cashback offers can be used to replicate rewards for loyalty
Figure 69: Attitudes towards price comparison websites, by agreement with ‘price comparison websites do not reward loyalty’, April 2013
Those who go to check other websites do so for a number of reasons
Figure 70: Attitudes towards price comparison websites, by reasons for not completing a purchase, April 2013
APPENDIX – BRAND RESEARCH
Figure 71: Brand usage, March 2013
Figure 72: Brand commitment, March 2013
Figure 73: Brand momentum, March 2013
Figure 74: Brand diversity, March 2013
Figure 75: Brand satisfaction, March 2013
Figure 76: Brand recommendation, March 2013
Figure 77: Brand attitude, March 2013
Figure 78: Brand image – macro image, March 2013
Figure 79: Brand image – micro image, March 2013
Figure 80: Profile of target groups, by demographics, March 2013
Figure 81: Psychographic segmentation by target groups, March 2013
Figure 82: Brand usage, by target groups, March 2013
Brand index
Figure 83: Brand index, March 2013
APPENDIX – RESEARCHING AND PURCHASING ACTIVITY BY PRODUCT
Figure 84: Most commonly researched products on a price comparison website, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 85: Less commonly researched products on a price comparison website, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 86: Infrequently researched products on a price comparison website, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 87: Most commonly purchased products via a price comparison website, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 88: Less commonly purchased products via a price comparison website, by demographics, April 2013
APPENDIX – PRICE COMPARISON WEBSITE USAGE BY PROVIDER
Figure 89: Usage of Comparethemarket.com, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 90: Usage of Confused.com, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 91: Usage of MoneySavingExpert.com, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 92: Usage of Moneysupermarket.com, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 93: Usage of Gocompare.com, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 94: Usage of uSwitch.com, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 95: Usage of MoneyExpert.com, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 96: Usage of Tescocompare.com, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 97: Usage of Google’s comparison service, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 98: Usage of Moneyfacts.com, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 99: Usage of Lovemoney.com, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 100: Usage of Money Advice Service, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 101: Usage of Money.co.uk, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 102: Usage of TotallyMoney.com, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 103: Usage of other aggregator sites, by demographics, April 2013
APPENDIX – PRICE COMPARISON SELECTION PROCESS
Figure 104: Aggregator site selection process, by demographics, April 2013
APPENDIX – PROCESS COMPLETION
Figure 105: Price comparison usage and dropout rates, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 106: Price comparison usage and dropout rates, by top five aggregator sites used, April 2013
APPENDIX – REASONS FOR DROPPING OUT OF THE QUOTATION PROCESS
Figure 107: Reasons for not completing a quote, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 108: Reasons for not completing a quote, by most widely used aggregator sites, April 2013
Figure 109: Reasons for not completing a quote, by less frequently used aggregator sites, April 2013
APPENDIX – REASONS FOR DROPPING OUT OF THE PURCHASING PROCESS
Figure 110: Reasons for not completing a purchase, by demographics, April 2013
APPENDIX – CONSUMER CONCERNS ABOUT PRICE COMPARISON WEBSITE
Figure 111: Main price comparison website concerns, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 112: Less important price comparison website concerns, by demographics, April 2013
APPENDIX – ATTITUDES TOWARDS PRICE COMPARISON WEBSITES
Figure 113: Attitudes towards price comparison websites, by demographics, April 2013
Figure 114: Attitudes towards price comparison websites continued, by demographics, April 2013

This report is supplied in accordance with Mintel's terms and conditions.  
© Mintel Group Ltd.