Bizarre Vintage Insurance Adverts

There are, and have been, thousands of insurance companies in the world, the vast majority of which advertise their services, so it’s no surprise that at least a few of these many, many marketing efforts sit on the more curious side of the fence. Now seems as good a time as any to take a look at some of the more intriguing efforts, beginning with those of the vintage variety.

Above: From 1954, an incredibly amusing advert, used to advertise the incredibly niche services of an insurance company with an equally incredible name: Chet Stickrod. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, a quick Google search of the company’s name yields little in the way of background information, so it looks like this lovely piece of advertising will have to do.

Above: Dating back to 1930, this fantastic insurance advert comes from the offices of Kruse & Tucker, a company dedicated to selling Aetna Insurance until the millennium, the point by which they predicted auto-mobiles would glide safely around the streets, unhindered by human error. Most amusing is the claim that ‘traffic officers will have nothing more to mind than their own knitting!’.

Above: A stunningly depressing, almost harrowing life insurance advertisement printed in National Geographic, all the way back in 1916. The company, Samuels, Cornwall & Stevens, clearly wanted to pull no punches and aimed for the jugular by simply displaying a picture of a sinking boat. You cannot argue with such a message, particularly as it was published just four years after the sinking of RMS Titanic.

Above: North American Insurance Group chose the creepiest picture possible when advertising their product in Life Magazine in 1941. In fact, with a picture so unnerving it’s almost impossible to read the text underneath.

Above: Maybe it’s just me, but America Fore’s 1953 advert, seen above and featuring swarms of thousands of insurance agents approaching the reader from the distance, is more than a little creepy and far less reassuring than presumably intended. ‘Safety in Numbers’ just doesn’t seem to apply in this instance.