Could Commission Review Provide a Much Needed Protection Shake Up?

Apart from the scribbling of journalists’ pens, the room descended into shocked silence.

Speaking at the Protection Review Conference in July, Mike Ward from payingtoomuch.com had just made a controversial statement.

Could commission review provide much-needed protection shake-up?

He said he thought protection providers should pay much more commission on life assurance, critical illness and income protection products.

I do not think anyone was expecting his angle. As part of a panel of speakers talking about ways of growing the market, Ward’s comment stood out among the usual calls for product innovation, simplification and more marketing spend. Needless to say, before the morning session was over, his remarks were all over the online editions of the trade publications.

Just days later Money Marketing ran an article pointing to legislation in Australia calling for capping of protection product commission. It opened a debate as to whether this would be a route worth travelling in UK financial services. Replying to the article, most advisers, product providers and independent commentators were against the idea. Indeed, a few questioned the wisdom of reopening such a contentious subject.

Since then we have learned of the new Conservative Government’s plans for yet another review of financial advice. Like it or not, that discussion is bound to reopen the subject of commission on protection products once again.

Do I agree with Ward?

Yes, because as an industry we have made the propositions so complex and the underwriting process so long and tedious that advisers spend excessive time on protection compared to what they receive in compensation.

Do I think we should follow Australia’s lead and put a cap on commission or, indeed, ban it altogether?

No, because we know from the run up to RDR that consumers will not pay the same level of fees for protection advice as they would for investment and pensions planning. Nothing has changed since the last round of legislation. Banning or capping commission on protection is still likely to cut take up and not stimulate more.

The Australian experience is a red herring. The Trowbridge Initiative points to high commissions creating customer detriment and, therefore, calls for a cap on commissions to 60 per cent of the first year’s premiums (compared to the 150 to 200 per cent in the UK). Trowbridge cites high lapse rates on protection products and argues that advisers are encouraged to re-broke often because of high commission rates.

It is easy to see how that argument could apply in the UK but there is one fundamental difference. Australian protection products are mainly “annually costed”. Premiums go up every year just like car insurance premiums do in the UK.

Faced with such increases healthy lives look to switch to a cheaper “new” product each year. High commissions do not cause the lapses the premium structure does. Arguably, a commission cap might increase re-broking and not cut it.

Tinkering with commission levels or banning it will not increase demand for protection in the UK. Nor will it overcome the consistent poor view that consumers have of the insurance industry.

According to the Association of British Insurers, we pay out 97.7 per cent of all claims, yet consumers still think we decline more than 60 per cent. These are the perceptions we have to change. Commissions are not part of the problem.

Ward’s idea of paying more commission would indeed lead to more protection being recommended if advisers felt suitably compensated for the work they put in. Researching the market (particularly for critical illness products), the time they spend on managing the lengthy application process and having to handle their client’s expectations if they turn out to be rated all adds up.

Would paying higher commission create a revolution in the protection market? Probably not.

Those who shared the same panel as Ward at the Protection Review Conference, and advocated simplification and increased marketing (much less news-worthy approaches), still represent the best chance for long-term growth.

When we make products easy to understand, when we surround them with a mass of positive marketing messages, when we let customers apply almost instantly and design processes that do not force advisers to spend months on even the smallest cases – only then can we even begin to consider changes to commission structures.

Now it’s your turn:

Do you think a commission review would give a much-needed shake up of UK Protection? Please leave a comment or share a link to your own blog. Why not share this article using the social media buttons below?

This is my September column for Money Marketing Magazine originally published in September 2015.

Fiona Murphy on Editing Cover Magazine and Pushing Positive Protection Stories – MPAF60

In this week’s episode I talk to Fiona Murphy who is Editor of Cover Magazine.

It’s an interesting look behind the scenes.

How they collect news stories. Commission articles and analysis. And divide content between the print and online versions, and the soon to be launched mobile app.

Listen to Fiona’s views on how we can push positive protection stories and how you can get involved.

That’s all right here in Episode 60 of the Marketing Protection and Finance Podcast.

Fiona Murphy on Editing Cover Magazine and Pushing Positive Protection Stories

Who is Fiona Murphy

Fiona is a journalist and Editor of Cover Magazine, the specialist protection publication from Incisive Media.

Fiona’s Links:

  • Freakonomics by Steven D Levit and Stephen J Dubner

If you enjoyed this episode – Fiona Murphy on Editing Cover Magazine and Pushing Positive Protection Stories – please share it. You can use the buttons below to share on social media.

Subscribe on iTunes

Subscribe by RSS Feed

Subscribe on Stitcher

If you like the Podcast please click

Tony Horn: Should Distributors Lead Protection Proposition Development? – MPAF59

This week I talk to Tony Horn who has some interesting views on the future of the UK Protection market.

Price cuts, additional illness conditions and underwriting changes seem to be the only tools in the protection providers box.

The result is a stagnant market.

Tony’s view is that distributors should drive future protection growth by building their own propositions. And cutting out the main stream providers where necessary.

Do you agree that the future of the protection market lies with distributors?

That’s all right here in Episode 59 of the Marketing Protection and Finance Podcast.

Tony Horn: Should Distributors Lead Protection Proposition Development? - MPAF59

Who is Tony Horn

Tony has 26 years experience in the Life Insurance Industry, qualifying as an actuary in 1996, specialising in Investment.

Since then he’s worked for Friends Life and Aviva and now runs Positive EV helping companies develop their own propositions.

Tony’s Links:

If you enjoyed this episode – Tony Horn: Should Distributors Lead Protection Proposition Development?- please share it. You can use the buttons below to share on social media.

Subscribe on iTunes

Subscribe by RSS Feed

Subscribe on Stitcher

If you like the Podcast please click