…the total number of average claims that could have been paid if they hadn’t spent money on the prime time TV commercial featuring actors and pro athletes, etc
…the total number of average claims that could have been paid if they hadn’t spent money on the prime time TV commercial featuring actors and pro athletes, etc
The money companies spend on advertising isn’t just thrown away. They wouldn’t be spending the money if it didn’t net them a return.
Same with charity advertisement.
That argument works for like, Pringles, not something you generally are legally required to have. If they’re required to spend money on advertising just to remain competitive, that sounds like you could severely restrict all insurance company’s ability to spend on advertising and save everyone money.
It works with things you are required to have as well.
Insurance is a varied field from legal minimum insurance to something that will actually protect your family. Since it is so varied, advertising helps being people in. I know there are a couple of car insurance companies that don’t advertise, but they are also very picky on who can get their insurance.
Exactly. They want to bring in exponentially more premiums than what they spend on advertising, and the new premiums are what provides the cash to pay other policy claims. It’s really kind of an accepted form of Ponzi scheme. They are gambling that they will find enough people who will never need to make a claim in order to afford the few that do.
You can advertise without paying millions to people who already have millions. And forcing them to reveal the cost to consumers isn’t preventing them from advertising.