Recently Allstate Corp. made a bit of an error in an attempt to take a light-hearted look at driving habits.

The insurer mixed up two things people get a bit crazy about sometimes: auto insurance and Zodiac signs.

In a Jan. 27 press release titled “What Does Your Zodiac Sign Say About Your Driving?” Allstate took a look at what astrological signs correlate with the most accidents, and posed the question, “Can an astrological sign really influence driving habits?”

It contemplated that maybe because Virgos are said to be shy, perfectionist worry-warts, they got into the most accidents in 2010. Scorpios were least accident prone, perhaps because they are passionate and resourceful.

After looking over the realease, I did not write anything about it for two reasons: it wasn't news and I don't even understand the new Zodiac calendar, which added a sign. I barely understood the last calendar, but I have to admit I own some Sagittarian traits (I'm on the cusp, Nov. 22.). This new calendar puts me on the cusp of Libra and Scorpio and I just can't handle that. But I digress.

Two days later, Allstate issued another press release, “Allstate Corrects Misperceptions Zodiac Press Release May Have Created.” Now I'm interested.

(You can no longer find the Zodiac release on Allstate's site, but last I checked you could on the prnewswire.com site. You can find the follow-up release at www.allstatenewsroom.com.)

Allstate said its release on Zodiac signs and accidents rates “led to some confusion around whether astrological signs are part of the underwriting process.” The insurer felt the need to clearly state that was not the case—that such a practice would not be actuarially sound.

Really? Allstate had to say that?

Someone somewhere thought that its Zodiac-accident-rate fun was a hint that the company actually uses the stars to come up with what you pay for car insurance? It's true! I found the articles. Some implied that, indeed, Allstate was up to some trick.

I am not sure why Allstate spent time looking at the new Zodiac calendar. If everything about astrology is scientific fact, Allstate's study would still be off because some signs have more days than others. Scorpio may indeed be in fewer accidents because they are resourceful, but it may also have to do with the fact that now the Scorpio sign only contains six days. Virgo has 44 days.

Allstate was probably looking for a not-so-serious way to draw attention to itself and auto insurance (although other than Allstate Insurance, the word “insurance” is never used in the press release). The original release invites readers to comment on Allstate's Facebook page.

It simply backfired. A little research in the name of playfulness resulted in Allstate concluding that it needed to say: “We realize that our hard working customers view their insurance expense very seriously. So do we.”

Oh, so stern and somber. Lighten up, everyone.

Is this a lesson on the dark side of the Internet's viral capabilities? Much of the “misunderstanding” surrounding the Zodiac-accident fiasco was not generated by the mainstream press, but bloggers and comments to stories and news sources I never heard of.

One thing is for sure, it created buzz. Just not the kind Allstate was hoping for. Did Allstate need to issue a second release and try and make the first one disappear? Would a misperception about Allstate using astrology in underwriting affect stock prices? Maybe.

What do you think?

Special Reports /

What&rsquo;s Your Claims Sign?

Related Stories

Recommended For You

What’s Your Claims Sign?