Insurance SEO
Insurance SEO, and the head terms you are not going to win.
Comparison sites own the generic phrases. They have spent a decade and enormous budgets doing it, and Google now treats them as the expected answer. Any agency promising you page one for car insurance is selling you a fight you lose expensively. The ground worth taking is the ground they handle badly: specialist risk, commercial lines, and the questions where a broker's judgement is the answer.
Straight answer
Competing with aggregators on their own terms is the expensive mistake.
Most insurance SEO budgets are spent chasing the phrases with the biggest numbers next to them, which are exactly the phrases a comparison site is built to own.
Where the budget usually goes
- Generic product terms owned by aggregators
- Thin pages, one per product, all written the same way
- Guides bylined to the company rather than a broker
- Premium figures that are wrong within a month
- Risk and exclusion detail buried in a PDF
- Regulatory status mentioned only in the footer
Where brokers actually win
- Specialist and non standard risks nobody else covers well
- Commercial lines with genuine underwriting nuance
- Named brokers with credentials that resolve
- Price bands and the factors that move them
- What a standard policy excludes, stated plainly
- FCA registration marked up as data, not decoration
The limit of what markup can do
Structured data describes expertise, it does not create it. Marking up credentials a firm does not hold makes a false claim explicit and machine readable, which is worse than saying nothing. Where the expertise exists inside your brokerage, the job is getting it onto the page under the right name. Where it does not, build it rather than annotate around it.
Scope
What insurance SEO covers here.
Weighted towards the ground a comparison site cannot take from you.
Picking the winnable ground
Which risks, trades and commercial lines you can realistically own this year, and which head terms to leave alone. Usually the most valuable hour of the engagement.
Broker authorship
Your people as real entities with qualifications and FCA registration that resolve, connected in schema to the content they stand behind.
Compliance aware templates
Disclosures, risk warnings and comparison caveats designed into the page rather than appended, so a compliant page is also a well structured one.
Exclusions as content
What a policy does not cover is the most searched and least published information in the sector. Answering it properly wins the query and pre-qualifies the enquiry.
Quote funnel privacy
Quote flows leak personal and financial detail into analytics more often than anyone intends. Keeping identifiable data out of URLs and third party scripts is squarely our job.
Freshness on rate driven pages
Anything citing limits, thresholds or regulatory detail decays on a known schedule. A review cycle built in so a stale figure is caught by process, not by a client.
Cost
What it costs.
Billed at £90 to £110 an hour, or the £95 blended rate where it crosses into development. Minimum engagement is 4 hours.
Opportunity and YMYL audit
From £900
Which terms are realistically winnable against the aggregators, plus authorship, credential markup and the technical layer assessed together.
Entity and schema build
Scoped
Brokers, qualifications and regulatory status modelled properly and connected to the content they are responsible for.
Growth, 8 hours a month
£760/month
Specialist and commercial line pages built out against a roadmap, with the technical work running underneath.
FAQ
Questions clients actually ask
Can we realistically outrank the comparison sites?
Not on the head terms, and you should be suspicious of anyone who says otherwise. Comparison sites have spent a decade and enormous budgets owning phrases like car insurance, and Google treats them as the expected answer for that intent.
What is winnable is everything they handle badly: specialist and non standard risks, commercial lines with real underwriting nuance, advice queries where a broker's judgement matters, and your own name. Those are lower volume and considerably higher value, which is the trade worth making.
How do FCA rules affect what we can publish?
Substantially, and it has to be part of writing rather than a review at the end. Financial promotion rules govern how cover can be described, what must be disclosed, and how comparisons and claims are presented. A page that ignores them is a compliance problem before it is a ranking one.
We are not your compliance function and will not pretend to be. What we do is structure pages so required disclosures live in the template rather than being appended, and flag copy that looks like it would fail a review before it publishes.
Is insurance content held to a higher standard by Google?
Yes. It sits in Your Money or Your Life, so expertise and trust are weighted more heavily than in most sectors. An anonymous article about business interruption cover competes badly against the same article signed by a named broker with FCA registration behind them.
In practice that means named authors with verifiable credentials, the firm's regulatory status stated and marked up, and review dates on anything where cover, limits or regulation change.
Should we publish premium prices on the site?
Rarely as a figure, because it dates instantly and is usually meaningless without the risk detail. What works far better is bands, the factors that move a premium, and worked examples with the assumptions stated.
That answers the question people are actually asking, which is not what does it cost but what will it cost for someone like me, and it does so without publishing something that becomes wrong next month.
We are a broker, not an insurer. Does that change the approach?
It sharpens it. A broker's advantage is judgement across a market, and that is precisely what a comparison site cannot express. The pages that work are the ones demonstrating that judgement: why a cheaper policy failed at claim, what a standard policy excludes for your client's trade, which risks need specialist placement.
Trying instead to look like a mini comparison site puts you on the ground where you are weakest.
Keep reading
Related services
Book me
Losing every generic term to comparison sites?
Send the domain and the lines you write. You get a straight answer on which terms are realistically winnable, and which are somebody else's ground.