Provision of quality of service information

Statement published 30|01|09

Executive Summary

Introduction

Qualitative research conducted amongst consumers and SMEs confirmed that several factors combine to determine overall perceptions of a provider in the communications services sectors, a number of which fall under the high level category of “Quality of Service”.

When asked to define what constitutes “Quality of Service” in the communications services sector, both consumers and SMEs raised several aspects of the service they receive from their telecoms providers. These fall into two high level categories: technical service (i.e. the performance of the service networks themselves) and customer service (including technical support, loyalty rewards and/or deals and product / package).

Further quantitative research conducted amongst consumers showed that it is actually the technical service that tends to be the more important aspect of “Quality of Service”. However consumers nonetheless display some interest in using information that covers aspects of customer service as well as network performance issues.

The detailed findings with regard to levels of interest for information on the constituent elements of “Quality of Service” are provided on a sector by sector basis in this Executive Summary.

Fixed Line Summary

When shown a list of all the possible elements of “Quality of Service” in this sector, two thirds of fixed line decision-makers (66%) were able to identify at least one of these factors as being important when choosing a fixed line supplier.

Of all the factors tested, line reliability and call quality were the most important aspects when choosing a supplier in this sector – both relating to the network performance dimension of “Quality of Service”. The third most important factor was speed of repairing faults, a customer service dimension. When it comes to the information that consumers most want to compare suppliers on, the ‘time taken to resolve faults’ was more likely to be used than the ‘number of faults per thousand customers’.

The other two types of “Quality of Service” information that consumers said they would be most likely to use to compare providers on were ‘whether you have to pay for technical help/support’ and ‘average time taken in minutes to speak to someone when you call’.

At a total level, the stated intention to use quality of service information to compare suppliers ranges from 43% to 61% depending on the information being offered. However, this falls to between 16% and 28% based on a more conservative measurement that takes into account the fact that consumers do not always follow through on their intentions. The calculation, which is a market research industry standard, assumes that 70% of those saying “very likely to use” and 20% of those saying they would be “fairly likely to use” would go on to do so.

It is also important to take into account the fact that some consumers are not actively participating in this sector currently. Based on the more realistic scenario, likelihood to use information among the participation segments:

• Rises to between 18% and 34% among Switchers (those who have switched supplier or negotiated with their current supplier in the past, as well as those who are actively looking to switch to a new supplier)
• Rises to between 24% and 35% among Considerers (those who are open to the idea of a new supplier but have not yet switched or negotiated or starting looking around)
• Falls to between 13% and 24% among Non-switchers (those who have not switched in the past and are not interested in a new supplier)

Around a third said they would make a considerable or reasonable effort to find information on network performance (38%) or customer service (35%) and usage estimates assume that the data is easily accessible and in a format that is user friendly and easy to interpret.

Most were seeking a balance of subjective information (from a reliable customer satisfaction survey) and objective information (in the form of factually based data on complaints resolved).

In the fixed line sector, consumers were almost as likely to make an effort to find information on customer service as they were to find information on network performance.

Mobile Phone Summary

When shown a list of all the possible elements of “Quality of Service” in this sector, two thirds of mobile decision-makers (66%) were able to identify at least one of these factors as being important when choosing a mobile supplier.

Of all the factors tested, network coverage was the most important by some margin, particularly among those with 3G mobiles. Despite this, when it comes to the information that consumers most want to compare suppliers on, the ‘time taken to resolve faults’ was more likely to be used than the ‘number of faults per thousand customers’. This implies that when network performance information is presented in this way (as a statistic per thousand customers) may not be particularly helpful in the decision-making process.

The other two types of “Quality of Service” information that consumers said they would be most likely to use to compare providers on were ‘whether you have to pay for technical help/support’ and ‘average time taken in minutes to speak to someone when you call’.

At a total level, the stated intention to use quality of service information to compare suppliers ranges from 27% to 67% depending on the information being offered. However, this falls to between 10% and 32% based on the more conservative measurement described above.

It is also important to take into account the fact that some consumers are not actively participating in this sector currently. Based on the more realistic scenario, likelihood to use information among the participation segments:

• Rises to between 18% and 29% among Switchers
• Rises to between 20% and 36% among Considerers
• Falls to between 14% and 26% among Non-switchers

Around a third said they would make a considerable or reasonable effort to find information on network performance (41%) or customer service (36%) and usage estimates assume that the data is easily accessible and in a format that is user friendly and easy to interpret.
Most were seeking a balance of subjective information (from a reliable customer satisfaction survey) and objective information (in the form of factually based data on complaints resolved).

In the mobile phone sector, consumers were more likely to make an effort to find information on “Quality of Service” information related to network performance than customer service.

Broadband Internet Summary

When shown a list of all the possible elements of “Quality of Service” in this sector, almost four fifths of broadband decision-makers (79%) were able to identify at least one of these factors as being important when choosing a broadband supplier. This indicates the highest importance of quality of service across all four communications sectors.

Of all the factors tested, connection speed was the most important aspect by some margin, followed by connection reliability and consistent speed – all aspects relating to the network performance dimension of “Quality of Service”. Speed was also the type of information that consumers were most likely to want to compare providers on. However, as regards reliability of connection, the comparative information that consumers were most likely to use in this regard was again ‘time taken to resolve faults’ as opposed to the ‘number of faults per thousand customers’. This implies that when network performance information is presented in this way (as a statistic per thousand customers) it may not be particularly helpful in the decision-making process. It is possible that an expression of connection reliability that is easier to understand might be more likely to be used.

The other two types of “Quality of Service” information that consumers said they would be most likely to use to compare providers on were ‘whether you have to pay for technical help/support’ and ‘average time taken in minutes to speak to someone when you call’.

At a total level, the stated intention to use quality of service information to compare suppliers ranges from 51% to 75% depending on the information being offered. However, this falls to between 18% and 35% based on the more conservative measurement.

It is also important to take into account the fact that some consumers are not actively participating in this sector currently. Based on the more realistic scenario, likelihood to use information among the participation segments is not as differentiated as seen in other communications services sectors (in other words, likely usage of information is more consistent across all consumer segments):

• Between 20% and 37% among Switchers
• Between 24% and 38% among Considerers
• Between 18% and 30% among Non-switchers

More consumers in this sector said they would make a considerable or reasonable effort to find information on network performance (55%) or customer service (48%) although usage estimates nonetheless assume that the data is easily accessible and in a format that is user friendly and easy to interpret.

Most were seeking a balance of subjective information (from a reliable customer satisfaction survey) and objective information (in the form of factually based data on complaints resolved).

In the broadband sector, consumers were more likely to make an effort to find information on “Quality of Service”, with a slightly greater willingness to invest time looking for network performance information than customer service.

Pay TV Summary

When shown a list of all the possible elements of “Quality of Service” in this sector, three quarters of Pay TV decision-makers (75%) were able to identify at least one of these factors as being important when choosing a Pay TV supplier.

Of all the factors tested, after choice of channels, picture/signal quality was the most important by a considerable margin. Despite this, the aspect of network performance information that consumers were most likely to want to compare providers on was again ‘time taken to resolve faults’ as opposed to the ‘number of faults per thousand customers’. (Consumers were not directly asked about likely uptake of comparative information on channel choice or picture quality in this survey). This again implies that when network performance information is presented in this way (as a statistic per thousand customers) it may not be particularly helpful in the decision-making process. It is possible that an expression of picture/signal quality that is easier to understand might be more likely to be used.

The other two types of “Quality of Service” information that consumers said they would be most likely to use to compare providers on were ‘whether you have to pay for technical help/support’ and ‘average time taken in minutes to speak to someone when you call’.

At a total level, the stated intention to use comparable quality of service information ranges from 49% to 66% depending on the information being offered. However, this falls to between 17% and 32% based on the more conservative measurement.

It is also important to take into account the fact that some consumers are not actively participating in this sector currently. Based on the more realistic scenario, likelihood to use information among the participation segments is not as differentiated as seen in other communications services sectors (in other words, likely usage of information is more consistent across all consumer segments):

• Rises to between 22% and 36% among Switchers
• Rises to between 19% and 37% among Considerers
• Falls to between 18% and 30% among Non-switchers

Around a third said they would make a considerable or reasonable effort to find information on network performance (46%) or customer service (36%) and uptake estimates assume that the data is easily accessible and in a format that is user friendly and easy to interpret.

As with the other sectors, measures of customer satisfaction ranked higher (in terms of propensity to use this data) than operational data measures, however most consumers could see the benefit in having both sources of information.

The full document is available below