Protection advice too focused on bread winners, campaigners say

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
Protection advice too focused on bread winners, campaigners say
It can be hard for women to get the right cover if they are not the main earners, according to WIP

Protection advisers should ensure they do not focus solely on the main earner in a family when drawing up cover, the Women in Protection executive committee has said. 

Emma Thomson, Shelli Bentley, Catherine Trimble and Georgia d’Esterre said it can be hard for women to get the right cover in place because they are often not considered the bread winner and as such are somewhat left behind when it comes to protection planning.

They said: “Whilst there are challenges for most consumers when it comes to understanding and accessing protection cover, it can be often harder for women to get the right cover in place. 

“In heterosexual relationships for example, women are still typically less likely to be the main earner and consumers and indeed some advisers don’t always appreciate the risk to them and indeed their partner if they don’t have enough cover in place, instead prioritising the needs of ‘the breadwinner’.”

Research has shown that while women tend to take out a similar number of protection policies as men there can be significant differences in the level of cover they tend to take out.

D’Esterre said women were underserved in the protection market mainly due to accessibility and affordability issues. Though she added this was true for the wider population too.

She said the chances of women coming across protection in their daily lives were slim. 

“I have never seen an advert for critical illness cover in [any] female orientated magazine title. You don’t go to the cinema and see adverts for income protection, or see some digital display ads featuring family income benefit in your local gym or John Lewis. 

“At best you may see some abstract Insta or Tik Tok post on your socials, but this won’t really give a female customer much information and it also may not be accurate.”

We need messages that appeal to all those who would benefit from protection insurance.Women in Protection

A savvier female consumer may search for protection-based products on the internet, but she said that in itself was a “humungous can of worms which you’ll quickly want to put the lid back on once you get your search results back.” 

D’Esterre said when she googled ‘Protection Products Insurance’ one day she got back “about 4.510bn results”.

“Can you imagine as an average consumer who has no knowledge of financial services trying to make head or tail of that?”

She said the industry was then relying on women to look for financial advice, which again could seem too onerous for some.

“The industry doesn’t make it straightforward, and for women who are the primary carers, as well as the primary earner or working, who have the mental load of running a household, and all the associated tasks and planning that comes with these things, they simply do not have the bandwidth to be able to spend the time they need and want to research how to get advice on protection products, let alone start the actual process of getting cover in place.”

Tailored insurance

The Women in Protection committee also believes products need to be better tailored better to women’s circumstances, which change over time.

“Women are more likely than men to go in and out of the workplace for example, adapting working patterns to fit around family commitments. 

“Cover therefore needs to flex as their circumstances change to ensure they can retain cover,” they said.

D’Esterre explained: “We have lots of different products which do similar things, or have similar features but you can’t have a ‘bit of this’ and a ‘bit of that’ as and when you want it and need it. 

“The protection I needed, and could afford, when I was 20, is very different to what I needed in my 30s, and the same now I am in my 40s and am married with a child.”

She said when being made redundant a short while ago she had I lost her death in service benefit and private medical care. 

Read FTAdviser's Q&A with Georgia d'Esterre: 'Protection can seem to be shrouded in mystery'

She had income protection and life insurance in place, but could not change these easily to reflect her new unemployed status and loss of cover, and therefore was effectively “over insured”. 

Now she has a new job she said she needs to review her protection again to ensure she has the right features and benefit amounts in place, “which means I may have to look at new providers, resulting in more time, and potentially having to go through the various application processes, including underwriting, again, which is the last thing you want to think about when you’ve just started a new job. 

“Again, how is this making it easy for our female customers?”

Targeted adverts

Protection providers have meanwhile been accused of running adverts which were deemed “sexist”, sparking calls for change from within the industry.

Kevin Carr, chief executive of Protection Review and former co-chairman of the Income Protection Task Force, told FTAdviser in September he had spoken “to a number of people” about protection advertising in the past, and had encountered a lot of frustration.

You don’t go to the cinema and see adverts for income protection, or see some digital display ads featuring family income benefit in your local gym or John Lewis.Georgia d'Esterre

The Women in Protection network too has called for better targeted advertisements, saying “we certainly want to encourage firms to use inclusive language and imagery to appeal to different sections of society; women, single people, gay couples, blended families etc should all feel represented. 

“We need messages that appeal to all those who would benefit from protection insurance.”

D’Esterre said any dodgy or sexist marketing practices, regardless of industry, needed a rethink because “all it is doing is setting back women’s progress in striving for equality. 

“As a female consumer I find it a real turn off and I simply wouldn’t buy a product or interact with a company which has sexist overtones, or any other discriminatory overtones for that matter.”

carmen.reichman@ft.com