Grant Samuel says in its independent appraisal report, prepared as part of GPG's partial takeover offer for Tower, that "strong and trusted brands are instrumental in influencing a customer's decision as to who to insure with."

It says this is a market dynamic which favours large companies with reputable payout performances.

"Tower falls into that category," the report says.

Meanwhile, Graeme Lindsay of Strategy Finanical, believes that Tower's premium changes "bring them back into the ballpark.

"Welcome back!"

He warns advisers that price isn't the only thing to consider when recommending policies.

"Advisers must ensure that they really understand the strengths and weaknesses of products that they recommend, based on a thorough knowledge of the products on offer. It would be extremely foolish for advisers to slavishly chase the cheapest premium when recommending a product, ignoring the quality issues.

He describes the new premiums as "very interesting" and doesn't fully agree with Tower's slide showing its competitiveness.

"They are correct in nine of the 16 comparisons they did," he says, "but they chose an artificial set of data to measure."

"How many single life, death only policies are issued? Generally, I'd have thought that the policy would have some TPD, Trauma, Income Protection, or at the very least, Waiver of Premium attached. Further, it might be a multi-life policy, attracting discounts with some insurers. Tower chose to illustrate single life, death cover only - a situation that suits its 'no policy fee' rate system.

"If you just took the basic premiums, i.e. the component cost, then Tower would be correct in three of the 16 comparisons offered."

"It is important to clearly state the basis of the comparison, as Tower did, but, I suggest, it is also important to make any comparison as close to real world situations as possible," Lindsay says.