Roy Morgan industry communications director Norman Morris says there was no distinction in the survey between satisfaction with the insurance company and satisfaction with the adviser.
Mr Morris also noted that none of the questions in the survey asked respondents about satisfaction with their adviser.
“We [couldn’t] split into two – how happy you are with the adviser and would you separate that from the product?” he told Risk Adviser.
Mr Morris said the sample size of its Single Source survey was not large enough for meaningful research into claims experiences.
“It’s not a big enough sample. [Customers] with claims come at a lot lower frequency, so we can’t really say anything about that at the moment,” he said.
Readers responded to the survey on the Risk Adviser website, criticising Roy Morgan’s finding of low customer satisfaction with insurance purchased through an adviser, and for ignoring the customer claims experience in its research.
One reader said the only customer satisfaction that matters is during claim time.
“In my opinion, the only level of satisfaction of insurance companies that matters is the experience that the policyholder (or their family) has at claim time,” the reader wrote.
“I wonder if the same satisfaction levels were asked of claimants how the results would vary.”
Another reader wrote, “I would also suggest that those same people be checked for their satisfaction levels after they have been through the claim process on their own with those policies that are riddled with non-standard exclusions. Not to mention they also pay more when going direct.”
If Roy Morgan didn’t distinguish between advised and non-advised then they shouldn’t have PUBLICALLY singled-out advisers as being a poor form of advice. The overwhelming data including that of FOS and APRA shows that clients a better off when advised. What a half-arsed organisation Roy Morgan must be. I think full retraction and an apology is in order.