Skip to main content

Are comparison sites really killer apps?

I first encountered the concept of online price comparison many years ago with a book comparison site called Bookbrain. At the time, I wrote in PC Week magazine that I thought this would be the killer app for the internet. It was such a simple but excellent idea. Something like a book is a commodity. It doesn’t matter where you buy it from, you just want the cheapest price. Here was a way to find that price instantly, click a few buttons and buy the book.

As it turned out, book comparison hasn’t been the success I expected it to be, I suspect because most people stick with a single trusted supplier that they know will give them a good deal. By doing this it’s easy for them to buy again once they’ve set up an account. But the obvious area now where there’s a lot to be gained from comparison is sites where you can compare car insurance.

I recently needed to get car insurance for a 17 year old – a scary proposition when you consider the size of some insurance quotes – and went to a comparison site, while a friend called in at the local broker. I’m sure she got excellent service, but the fact remains she was charged nearly three times as much for a comparable policy.

In the early days, when they were first set up, insurance comparison sites were frankly dubious. When I first tried one a number of years ago I vowed never to use one again, because I was bombarded with a flood of unwanted phone calls and emails. However, with so much cash at stake on a teen policy, I risked going for a comparison site again. Perhaps this time I was more careful about checking a ‘don’t pass on my details’ box, but that flood of calls doesn’t seem to happen any more. I don’t think I’d go so far now as to say that price comparison was the killer app for the internet, but to buy car insurance without at least checking the prices on such a site is… short sighted.


  1. Mrs Crox rarely buys any large household items without using price comparison sites such as kelkoo.

  2. Nice post, I found this on google


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope