Key Takeaways
- Baymard has new qualitative UX research on Insurance UX
- The research uncovered UX issues and identified UX solutions specific to Insurance users and sites
- At a high level, Insurance users struggle with unfamiliar concepts, friction-filled quote flows, and brand trust
Key Stats
- 4,700+ hours usability testing, analyzing, and researching the UX of Insurance sites
- 220 qualitative participant/site usability test sessions following the “Think Aloud” protocol
- 1,700+ medium-to-severe usability issues in testing
Today at Baymard, we’re announcing the launch of our new Insurance UX research.
8 US and 12 UK Insurance sites were tested, including providers (some of whom are also banks) and aggregators (where test participants could compare Insurance quotes across many providers).
The 9 UK Insurance sites tested were Halifax, Aviva, Direct Line, LV/Liverpool Victoria, TSB, Insure and Go, Allianz, Avanti, and Santander, while the 3 aggregators were Compare the Market, MoneySuperMarket, and Go Compare.
The 8 US Insurance sites tested were Liberty Mutual, Travelers, Progressive, GEICO, Amica Mutual, Lemonade, Root Insurance, and Allstate.
This primary research is supplemented by our ecommerce UX benchmark, which includes AXA UK, Generali, “Progressive”, “Liberty Mutual”, “Travellers”, “Allstate”, and State Farm.
During testing, the participants encountered 1,700+ medium-to-severe usability issues as they attempted to use Insurance sites to explore options and eventually add coverage.
Our analysis of these issues has resulted in 190+ guidelines on Insurance industry UX, available in our research findings.
In this article, we’ll provide 3 high-level observations on where users on Insurance sites struggle:
- Understanding unfamiliar Insurance concepts and descriptions
- Progressing through the Insurance quote flow
- Establishing trust with Insurance brands
Users Struggle with Insurance Concepts
Shopping for insurance, while having some similarities to traditional ecommerce shopping, poses unique challenges to users.
A key differentiator of Insurance sites is that users seeking coverage are often asked for information that is more complex and less familiar than the address and payment details requested in general ecommerce.
One reason for this is that getting insurance cover (or coverage) is an occasional task that happens only very infrequently for auto or home insurance.
“’What is the current market value of your home.’ Oh blimey! Crikey!…Err…Ohh..I think it was somewhere around £575,000.” This participant at Money Supermarket (iOS) reacted with surprise and then hesitated at the home value question. She made her best guess and moved on, though she wasn’t confident of the estimate.
“Now, I wouldn’t know what the rebuild cost is. I’ve got no idea…I’d be a bit worried about putting my own figure in because I’ve got to be way out!” This participant at Go Compare struggled to enter an accurate estimate of the “Property’s Rebuild Cost”, and proceeded to skip the question. His response reflects the risk of asking users questions they do not know: poor answers, skipped answers, and even site abandonments. As the participant said, “I think what I’d probably do at this stage is just try and continue without filling it in, see if it insists on me entering something in there. In which case, I might have to think again about using somewhere else for a quote.”
”There’s so many different [roof options] here!… Like ‘Shingle’, I have no idea what that is.” This participant at Money Supermarket slowly scrolled through the list of options for the “What is your roof made of?” question, eventually answered “Tile” as the material of her roof, and moved on.
As a result, there is a heightened risk of users being unfamiliar with concepts or physical items that are a key part of the quote process, such as “5-level mortice deadlock” in a home insurance quote.
Furthermore, when faced with unknown values, participants would frequently hesitate for extended periods, bypass fields, or resort to unguided guesswork.
“’Do you need more…?’ I’ll put in the amount that they suggest I need.” After seeing the site’s recommendation, this participant at Direct Line confidently adopted the exact suggested figure. This default almost certainly gave her an answer more accurate than those she had provided on other sites, where she announced that she was guessing wildly, since she did not know what cover level to choose. On one such site, she estimated her contents at less than 15% of this value.
“Roof is 50% flat? I’ll just adjust it.” Here at Compare the Market (iOS), this participant said that images made the process “quick and easy”, and answered the flatness percentage of her roof, the material of her external walls, and the material of her roof in under 8 seconds. Further, the visuals created a measurable time savings for the participants who struggled to answer these questions on other sites.
Thus, when users are asked to describe a component or attribute of a house or a car, a clear explanation should be provided, along with visuals if they are needed to fully understand the option.
It’s also important to help users to estimate values (such as the value of their home or its contents) by providing tools that allow them to reach an accurate estimation and default values that reflect; for example, the average of similar homes in that area.
Similarly, helping users with estimating their car mileage by being flexible about the relevant time period (e.g., daily, annually) will make the process that bit less troublesome.
Often suggesting default values that reflect the typical value of a home, car, or insurable component is a good idea.
Default values are typically fine for most users, and they prevent users from making what are often widely inaccurate guesses about the value of some insurable component (e.g., a roof).
Additionally, visual aids in Insurance were observed to benefit users — for example, showing types of roofs rather than only listing them in text (e.g., “tile”, “slate”, “concrete”, etc.).
Providing users with the information they need to make informed inputs during the quote flow will help achieve a more accurate estimate, benefiting both the site and the user.
The Interaction UX of the Insurance Quote Flow Can Bring Users to a Halt
The insurance quote flow is the centerpiece of most users’ journeys on Insurance sites.
The quote flow is typically a form that includes a series of questions users must respond to to determine the coverage they should purchase (or even if they’re eligible at all for purchasing coverage).
“It just keeps taking me back to this.” This participant on Allstate saw that her name had incorrectly populated as “Hannah Hannah [Last Name]”, so she clicked on the browser’s “Back” button to correct it (first image). The quote page did not respond to her “Back” button click, and so she clicked the “Allstate” logo, which took her back to the homepage and restarted the quote process (second image).
During testing, participants were observed to stumble often during the flow, with some disruptions so severe they led directly to a participant abandoning the site.
For example, if a user has invested 20 minutes in filling out an insurance form — only to get stuck entering data into a particular field, experience trouble going back in the flow, or run into an error that clears some previously entered data — the user is likely to simply give up in frustration.
In short, unlike in general ecommerce, where users may be more forgiving of interaction UX issues or glitches in relatively short checkouts, issues experienced by users during the quote flow process quickly compound to the degree that users will abandon the process entirely.
Moreover, users rely heavily on navigation and being guided through the quote flow in such a way that they can understand each step of the process and feel oriented while progressing through it.
Thus, it’s important to support users within this flow.
“Oh, too late now…I guess I can go back. Can I go back? I can go back.” This participant at Liberty Mutual was able to move to the previous step using the site’s on-page “Back” button, and the button shows several of the qualities that allow for findability. It appears in parallel with the site’s “Save & Continue” button, it contrasts effectively with the content around it in size and color, and it was consistently placed at the bottom of Liberty Mutual’s quote flow pages.
Likewise, Liberty Mutual’s “Add” and “Edit” links were easy for participants to find at the right margin of each coverage type (first image). Note the large, prominent button and the inclusion of “Edit” or “Add”, which immediately signifies to users that this is where they click to change their coverage. Activating the links opened a modal (second image).
This would include, for example, ensuring the “Back” button works as they would expect, that they are allowed to edit any details they provide at the point that they supply that information, and that there is an updated cost summary visible at each stage.
Furthermore, to save users wasting time and effort if they are not eligible for the cover they need, they should be informed of this blocker at the earliest opportunity, so they don’t even bother entering a quote flow for an insurance product they ultimately can’t purchase.
Users Struggle to Trust Insurance Brands
“Wow! None of these companies I’ve ever heard of…I’ll tell you, I wouldn’t call any of these people…Here’s your bottom of the barrel…’National General’. The ugly stepchild [of Allstate], so to speak…It’s the same with this ‘Bristol [West]’ company, ‘Dairyland’…I don’t know who they are…” This participant on Travelers’ Insuramatch aggregator system (iOS) equated unfamiliarity of insurance companies with low quality.
“’227’ seems a bit high for a site that’s not in the forefront of my mind. I’m not too familiar with it. I don’t know how popular it is with others, but for me, it’s a step below the others, just because I don’t have an experience or a history with them. I want something that’s been established.” As this participant showed on Lemonade (iOS), users are often unlikely to pay premium prices for an unfamiliar company’s insurance plan. As the participant noted, unfamiliar insurers are automatically seen as “a step below the others”.
Finally, trust and transparency are especially important for insurance customers.
Insurance can be costly, and the repercussions of buying a policy that doesn’t provide the expected coverage could be severe in the event of having to make a claim.
“So, for me that would stand out quite quickly…If a company or a brand have a good Defaqto score, then that would give me more confidence to want to shop with them. Knowing they’re 5-star rated, and just being reviewed by Defacto. I think that means it’s quite a reputable company.” This participant read about Aviva’s 5-star rating from Defaqto, which was featured front and center on the homepage. This gave him confidence in the company as he went on to shop Aviva’s home insurance.
Thus, external validation for both the company and its products is crucial, especially since users are likely to consider several providers before settling on one and could be swayed by another provider that seems to be more trustworthy.
This participant’s Insure and Go quote journey was 20 minutes, and four of those were spent learning the cost of one add-on and returning to her place. The participant saw the “Hazardous Activities” add-on and was interested that, according to her, “They actually say it’s covered for free”. She selected the add-on (first image) and in the next step saw her updated cost (second image) and recognized, “It’s actually £115 now, whereas it was like £56, £58? Something like that”. She decided to remove it from her quote. Getting from the add-on to the updated cost took 54 seconds, and the participant then spent another three minutes backtracking through loading screens and review steps to the page where she could remove the add-on.
Trust must also be earned in the process of getting a quote.
Across general ecommerce sites, 40% of users abandoned checkout because of extra costs that surfaced late in the journey.
Unexpected price changes have the same effect on users seeking insurance cover, so every cost should be disclosed upfront before users actually choose it so that they aren’t forced to recalculate premiums, or even worse, don’t know why the price suddenly jumped as they proceed through the quote process (see guidelines #3108 and #3105).
Provide Insurance Users with a Solid UX Foundation
“I don’t want to create an account…I’m gonna get constantly hounded…Also having another account out there that can potentially get hacked. This one has my driver’s license number, it has more proprietary information.” Some participants who abandoned Root referenced their concerns about data security as a reason for leaving the site when they were forced to “Create an account to save your progress”.
Insurance sites, perhaps uniquely in ecommerce, may have one shot to get it right with users.
Users are less likely to return to an Insurance site where they’ve struggled to achieve their goals.
And once users leave, if they find a competing insurance product, they’re more likely to stick with that product for longer, compared to general ecommerce, given the “buy it and forget it” mentality some users will adopt when shopping for insurance.
Therefore, it’s key that the Insurance site has high-performing UX that supports users navigating unfamiliar concepts, challenging quote flows, and brand-trust issues.
Our Insurance UX research topic contains the critical UX research that helps ensure your Insurance site is meeting users’ needs.
Users with access to the Insurance industry can start with the 41 “Essential” UX guidelines, before moving on to consider the other 150+ guidelines on improving Insurance UX.
Additionally, consider viewing our Insurance benchmark, which contains case studies on 7 top Insurance sites.
Getting access: all 190+ Insurance UX guidelines are available today within Baymard. (If you already have access through your account, open the Insurance study.)
If you want to know how your Insurance desktop and mobile site performs and compares, then learn more about getting Baymard to conduct an Insurance UX Audit of your site.
