Direct Line has declared war on comparison sites in its latest TV campaign, advising consumers to "cut out the middle man" and go straight to them.
Direct Line seems to miss the point here. How can consumer trust that Direct Line is the cheapest without first comparing them against other providers? That is after all the point in comparison sites. Does Direct Line expect consumers to go through the hassle of calculating the best deal themselves and ignore the work that has already been done for them by comparison sites? It would seem so.
Direct Line, and others, are harping on about the fee that is paid to comparison sites when a customer orders a product or service through them. It seems that Direct Line expects comparison sites to go through the expense of creating a valuable service with no financial remuneration. Direct Line are also ignoring the fact that the fee/commission that is paid to comparison sites is often a lot lower than other sales and marketing costs for product or service providers. I have worked for such a provider in the past, and a cost per sale through a traditional marketing channel was around £100. The commission paid to affiliates was around £20, saving the company £80 per sale.
The real reason why Direct Line is criticising comparison sites is because they do not do well on them due to the fact that they are expensive. If they were competitive, they would love comparison sites because the commission paid to them would be a lot lower then their expensive TV campaigns.
"A good deal better". Pull the other one!
Post new comment