I read the news just like everybody else, and the topic dominating everyone’s mind these days seems to be whether the day will soon come when consumers will shop for auto insurance on a Google-operated comparison site. “Google insurance” just got a whole new meaning. So what?

Not to dismiss the mighty power of Google and its ability to reach a crowd, but as the old saying goes, “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.”

Depending on which side of the debate you’re on, you might consider auto insurance to be a commodity or you might not. Either way, you’re right—the truth is, commodity exists where creativity doesn’t, and there really isn’t anything creative about an auto insurance comparison site in the form that it exists today.

Online multi-carrier raters operating nowadays can be divided into two workflows, one slightly more traditional than the other. The first requires the consumer to enter all the relevant information prior to viewing auto insurance pricing options (see CoverHound), while the other offers an almost-instant view of premium estimates, based only on zip code and car model entry (see TheZebra). Considering the way Google Compare currently operates in the United Kingdom, it is more than likely the company will follow the former and more traditional route of insurance aggregators. Talks of Google’s potential plans to acquire CoverHound also support the latter notion.

Now that we have established the potential existence of another insurance aggregator and the type of user experience it will offer, the real question is: If Google builds it, will they come?

Let’s say they do and that between “tell us about yourself,” “tell us about your vehicle” and “let’s see what discounts you qualify for” the site delivers on its core value proposition: presenting auto insurance premiums sorted from low to high and transferring to the consumer the burden of choosing a product he or she has learned no more or less about in the process.

The customer’s next rational next step would be to speak with an expert, assuming the intent to buy actually exists. Of course, no one shops for auto insurance for fun, but according to Google ZMOT, the path from shopping to purchasing takes an average of one month. Regardless, the message “You can compare, but it’s best you double check” doesn’t leave anyone asking for more. The irrational next step would be to choose a product based on price, leaving the consumer second-guessing his or her decision, but not for long; after all, this is insurance we are talking about and there are only two kinds of customers: in need and indifferent.

Google’s DNA is a search engine and software company to all, and everything from a social media company to a delivery service to some. Yet even the company that seems to have all the answers enjoys different levels of engagement surrounding its numerous offerings. For instance, YouTube enjoys a billion users; Google+, less than a third of that. Does anyone remember Google Wave, Google Labs or Google Buzz? There’s no guarantee Google will drive customer engagement simply because it is Google.

Still, Google is the king of data and the queen of user interface. That combination can potentially lead to the kingdom of branded experiences, currently lacking for auto insurance shoppers. But for this to happen, Google must play a bigger role than that expected of a typical aggregator and assumed by the players in the space today. Think of Amazon Prime—a success and a failure in the same breath. On one hand, the membership service contributes to the growth of Amazon’s subscriber base; on the other, it hurts the company’s bottom line due to its increased shipping costs. But the service still offers a branded experience that generates engagement in an area filled with competition.

By the same token, Google too will need to find its prime as the extension of a brand people trust. Right now, customers simply don’t trust themselves when it comes to knowing what and how much coverage to buy. Since trust is high on Google’s list of core competencies, such a strategy would require creating an uncontested market, where more than the current 5% of U.S. auto insurance shoppers actually use comparison sites.

And that won’t be easy. Google would be forced to ditch the traditional data collection model and twist some stakeholders’ arms to collect less, explain more and differentiate often. Perhaps auto insurance shopping in the U.S. will resemble the e-book industry, where most people who read e-books also read print books, and just 4% are “e-book only” readers.

Perhaps before we aim to reinvent, we ought to deconstruct and face the real pain points that drive companies like Google, Walmart and overstock.com to enter the space. As of now, another aggregator that’s long on acquisition and short on experience just won’t cut it.

Shefi Ben Hutta is founder of Insurance Entertainment, a blog and daily newsletter for the insurance professional about strategy, innovation and "fun insurance stuff."