With a 325-year heritage, Lloyd’s of London is the world’s leading specialist insurance market but, after a period of unprecedented natural disasters, was keen to reposition itself as the pre-eminent expert on risk. Lloyd’s also wanted to highlight its credentials and the value of insurance to both traditional and emerging markets, particularly emphasising its financial strength in key growth territories.
Working with the Centre for Economics and Business Research, Lloyd’s of London developed a unique model to benefit the minimum insurance levels of 42 countries. The research allowed Lloyd’s to identify 17 countries that are dangerously underinsured and calculate that, on an annualised basis, the global underinsurance deficit topped $168 billion.
In five of the 17 countries identified as dangerously underinsured, the average uninsured loss for major catastrophes is at least 80 per cent. China, for example, insured just 1.4 per cent of losses arising from natural catastrophes between 2004 and 2011, with $208 billion of uninsured losses.
With supporting materials, including fact sheets, infographics and web content tailored for local markets, Lloyd’s of London published its report simultaneously with a series of recommendations to address this deficit that placed the insurance market at the centre of the solution.
New York agency Prosek promoted the report in the US, Canada, Brazil and Mexico while Blue Rubicon targeted nine priority markets, including China, Japan and Singapore. ‘This was a good use of a white paper that clearly generated interest,’ said the judges.
The report prompted 57 newspaper articles and coverage across 11 countries, including The Economic Times of India, Malaysia Insider, Fox News, Reuters, Bloomberg and BBC News.
An ongoing programme of meetings and events has also been created at which Lloyd’s has presented its findings, including the World Economic Forum at Davos and the OECD Insurance Committee meeting.
‘This was a really strong campaign, which was insights-led from end to end,’ said the judges. ‘This was detailed and effective.’