Auto-insurance consumers are at once interested in and largely not purchasing usage-based insurance products, posing a dilemma for personal-lines insurers who appear rightfully convinced that a market for these products exists, if only they could find the right way to tap into it.

Glenn M. Renwick, CEO of Progressive, outlined the struggle in his second-quarter-earnings conference call last month. Renwick told analysts, "I will tell you that getting consumers to engage in a product that, for the most part, they were never asked to engage in…it's a bigger burden than, I think, intellectually, many of us might have assumed."

But an inability so far to connect with consumers on the messaging front does not mean that drivers are not interested in UBI products, at least according to a recent survey released by Towers Watson. That survey reveals 79 percent of consumers would be willing to consider a UBI auto-insurance product. The number jumps to 89 percent if there was a guarantee that a switch to such a product would not result in a rate increase.

Furthermore, 60 percent of those interested, and perhaps most importantly 76 percent of younger drivers, said they would be willing to change their driving behavior if a UBI device was installed in their cars.

These are all good things for insurers offering UBI products. But drivers' interest and intentions do not amount to much if they don't translate into actual sales.

In his conference call, Renwick reaffirmed his commitment to UBI, stating, "We're not turning back," and adding, "The real issue is we're just going to keep body punching until we find a combination of messages that really makes sense because we think there is still a latent demand out there that, if they knew more and appreciated the benefits…then we win in a big way."

But what is the right message? Progressive certainly has put thought into its advertising campaign for its UBI product, Snapshot, explaining how it allows good drivers to be judged on their own driving merits without having to pick up extra costs for "rate suckers," and rolling out popular fictional spokesperson Flo to tout potential cost savings.

It hasn't been quite enough, though, and Progressive and others are left wondering how to tap into the "latent demand" Renwick spoke of.

In a telephone interview, Len Llaguno, a consultant for Towers Watson, provided some perspective on the 79 percent of consumers interested in UBI. He notes that of that number, about 50 percent showed very strong interest, while 30 percent, though intrigued by the concept, would need to know more before taking the plunge. Reaching this latter group, he says, is where insurers must concentrate their efforts — tailoring messages to make convincing arguments in favor of UBI.

What exactly does this 30 percent want to hear? Perhaps insurers can learn from the three biggest concerns consumers have when it comes to telematics.

According to the Towers Watson survey, the top concern, mentioned by nearly 50 percent of respondents, is that using a telematics device to monitor driving habits would actually lead to increased rates rather than a discount.

Here, perhaps, insurers can better explain to buyers exactly how driving behavior is monitored. For example, maybe people who spend a lot of time highway driving are wondering if rapid acceleration to merge from an entrance ramp would somehow count against them. Those who do a lot of city driving might be concerned that they would be penalized for the occasional hard brake to avoid one of the many obstacles a road crowded with cars, pedestrians and bicycles can throw at them. Consumers may feel that UBI would be a test they can actually study and prepare for if they had more information on what insurers are really looking at when they analyze data. After all, 60 percent of interested consumers did indicate they'd be willing to alter their driving behavior; they may just not be sure exactly how it should be altered.

The second-biggest concern, mentioned by about 40 percent of respondents, related to privacy: concerns about insurers tracking drivers and maybe selling their data to other providers. This perhaps dovetails with the larger issues today regarding the tracking and monitoring of behavior by both public and private entities.

Full disclosure might be a way to ease concerns in this area. Insurers could relate to drivers exactly what data is and is not captured and analyzed. As we see more and more entities explaining how they collect and use data after some revelation shows up in the media, insurers can perhaps earn consumers' trust by providing all of the information up front.

In the phone interview, Llaguno says insurers could also offer assurances that consumer data will not be sold to other service providers. He adds that though privacy concerns may be valid, they are not an insurmountable challenge for insurers. While 40 percent are concerned about privacy, he points out that 80 percent are still open to UBI.

The third-biggest concern is that a claim may be invalidated based on UBI data. Llaguno says insurers might consider pledging to not use telematics for claims-handling purposes.

Llaguno also mentions consumer interest in value-added services. For example, he says insurers could offer and talk up automatic emergency response, where the telematics device would detect an accident and automatically notify responders. He says interest in services like this is already high, and spikes even higher among parents with kids who drive.

Insurers are committed to UBI and consumers are willing to buy, but insurers have important questions to ask and answer before they can fully take advantage of the demand. Llaguno says companies that are experimenting with UBI now and testing various strategies will be in the best position to take advantage of this potential market down the road.

Special Reports /

Addressing Drivers’ Telematics Concerns Key to Cashing in on ‘Latent Demand’

Related Stories

Recommended For You