Demystifying the UK group risk market

If not, you will have an uphill struggle to explain to them why it is a good idea to have it.

Childcare vouchers, cycle to work schemes, discounted gym memberships – the benefits of these things are self-evident and will stand out to people who can make use of them.

We are not doing ourselves any favours in getting that psychological foot in the door.

Product clarity test

To investigate this, we described two products to HR decision-makers and asked them to pick from a list of names which they thought was the easiest to understand in relation to the descriptions given.

Those two products were group life assurance (GLA) and GIP.

There was bad news for GLA – of the half a dozen or so options given, the current name placed flat last, with only 8 per cent of respondents selecting it.

There was no clear-cut favourite from the alternatives unfortunately, but there was a ray of light.

We have mature propositions in our industry, and many initiatives over the years have sought to bring group risk to the masses with varying degrees of success.

In the Canada Life Product Clarity research from the fourth quarter of 2017, we asked a similar question to an unfiltered cross-section of employees, and of the options presented both groups did choose the same name as the top result.

'Employee life insurance' commanded the votes of 20 per cent of HR professionals and 37 per cent of employees, which gives us a starting point for further research.

The picture for GIP was somewhat more positive; GIP came in second place with 17 per cent, but was a long way behind the favourite, 'long-term sickness salary', with 28 per cent.

Again, we asked this question to a broader base of employees and, again, both groups selected the same top response.

As with GLA, employees were more decisive than their HR colleagues – long-term sickness salary was supported by 43 per cent of employees, with the next favourite languishing on 32 per cent.

The key difference between the two methodologies was that HR professionals were asked to select the name they thought best explained the product that was described to them, while employees were asked which of the presented names they felt described the products better than the existing names, which they were provided with.

Employees were given an option not to change the names, if they felt they already did the job.

These were taken by only 4 per cent for GLA and 11 per cent for GIP – hardly ringing endorsements of the current naming conventions.