Flex Luthor is a graduate turned entrepreneur known for his involvement in the widely opposed attempt to launch the first price checker for comparison sites, comparechecker.com

Regulations, innovations and the pursuit of the best car insurance search experience
Mintel Aggregators report 2009 identified the groups of users interested in searching for personal finance products on comparison sites.

Comparison site user market segments

The segments targeted by marketers:

Aggregator enthusiasts 22% of internet users, Concerns: Negative media headlines, security of information, inaccurate quotes

Looking for: Time saving, easy application, and easy comparisons, real money savings

Price driven aggregator supporters: 35% of internet users, not interested in further research (e.g. having to fill out lots of forms) Looking for: appreciates time saving, price conscious, least concerned with data security and inaccurate quotes etc.

Anxious about aggregators: 16% of internet users Concerns: Inaccurate quotes and uses made of their personal information. Looking for: Well known brands, research tool, more likely to then go direct. 

Addressing their concerns:

1) New site design guidelines “Ensuring positive customer experiences of buying insurance online -A good practice guide” FSA/ABI

The review conducted by Financial Services Authority (FSA) in May 2008 concluded that many insurance comparison websites failed to give customers the information they needed to make informed decisions. Six months later although standards had improved the FSA still had concerns about aggregators’ use of assumptions during the quotation process.

The review found that such assumptions were not always obvious to the user or easy to find or correct.

The regulator showed concern over the transparency surrounding the quoted excess with respect to what was compulsory and how much voluntary.

The ABI’s good practice guide is the result of discussions with the British Insurance Brokers Association, leading comparison websites, the consumer group Which? and other stakeholders.

The guidelines should ensure the accuracy of the quotes returned in response to the data entered by the user, but in reality will do nothing to save the user time, money or safeguard their information (conflict of interest where the sites profit from making it harder to opt out of third party marketing etc.).

The rejection of a voluntary code of conduct in the form of the Comparison Consortium accreditation by all of the main players in the Comparison industry leaves consumers without any easy way of discerning the quality of these sites. Will it fall to a  third party to bring transparency to this sometimes murky but necessary sector?