Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Consumer Service Finrep en
Consumer Service Finrep en
FINAL REPORT
May 2007
BY
IPSOS INRA
for
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Health & Consumer Protection
Directorate - General
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................. 8
2. Gas supply.................................................................................40
Table of graphs
EL. 1 Electricity supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ........ 30
EL. 2 Electricity supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country -
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. 31
EL. 3 Electricity supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category –
percentage (2006) .................................................................................................. 33
EL. 4 Two-dimensional analysis - Electricity .......................................................................... 37
GAS. 1 Gas supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ................. 40
GAS. 2 Gas supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006) .. 41
GAS. 3 Gas supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category –
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. 43
GAS. 4 Two-dimensional analysis - Gas .................................................................................. 47
WAT. 1 Water distribution: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ..... 50
WAT. 2 Water distribution: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country -
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. 51
WAT. 3 Water supply: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category -
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. 53
WAT. 4 Two-dimensional analysis – Water ............................................................................... 56
FT. 1 Fixed telephony: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ......... 59
FT. 2 Fixed telephone: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country -
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. 60
FT. 3 Fixed telephony: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic
category - percentages (2006).................................................................................... 62
FT. 4 Two-Dimensional analysis – Fixed telephone .................................................................. 65
MP. 1 Mobile phone: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)............. 68
MP. 2 Mobile phone: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country -
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. 69
MP. 3 Mobile phone: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic
category - percentages (2006)................................................................................... 70
MP. 4 Two-dimensional analysis – Mobile phone ...................................................................... 74
UT. 1 Urban transport: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ......... 77
UT. 2 Urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country -
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. 78
UT. 3 Urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic
category - percentages (2006).................................................................................... 80
UT. 4 Two-dimensional analysis – Urban transport................................................................... 84
EUT. 1 Extra-urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006). 87
EUT. 2 Extra-urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country -
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. 88
EUT. 3 Extra-urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic
category - percentages (2006).................................................................................... 90
EUT. 4 Two-dimensional analysis – Extra-urban transport ........................................................... 94
AT. 1 Air transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ............ 97
AT. 2 Air transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country -
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. 98
AT. 3 Air transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category -
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................ 100
AT. 4 Two-dimensional analysis – Air transport...................................................................... 103
PS. 1 Postal services: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)......... 106
PS. 2 Postal services: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages
(2006)................................................................................................................. 107
PS. 3 Postal services: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic
category - percentages (2006)................................................................................... 108
PS. 4 Two-dimensional analysis – Postal services ................................................................... 111
RB. 1 Retail banking: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ......... 114
RB. 2 Retail banking: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country -
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................ 115
RB. 3 Retail banking: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category -
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................ 116
RB. 4 Two-dimensional analysis – Retail banking.................................................................... 119
INS. 1 Insurance: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ............... 122
INS. 2 Insurance: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006). 123
INS. 3 Insurance: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category -
percentages (2006) ................................................................................................ 125
INS. 4 Two-dimensional analysis - Insurance.......................................................................... 128
Executive Summary
1. CONTEXT
In 2003 and 2004 a pilot study on consumer satisfaction was carried out by INRA and
Deloitte for the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General of the European
Commission. This aim of the study was to develop a methodology for producing consumer
satisfaction indicators in the European Union and to carry out a pilot survey. In 2005, the
European Commission’s Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General launched a
call for tender to prepare, implement and analyse an EU-wide consumer satisfaction survey
using the methodology developed during the pilot study. INRA, which has become part of
the Ipsos Group, was given this assignment together with Deloitte and some independent
experts.
The consumer satisfaction survey was held in all of the 25 countries that were members of
the European Union at that time and covered 11 ‘services of general interest’:
- Electricity Supply
- Gas Supply
- Water Distribution
- Fixed Telephony
- Mobile Telephony
- Urban Transport
- Extra-Urban Transport
- Air Transport
- Postal Services
- Retail Banking
- Insurance Services.
2. A ROBUST METHODOLOGY
The questionnaire used for the pilot survey was slightly changed in line with the
recommendations of the pilot study itself and the Commission’s requirement for the survey
to be based on face-to-face rather than telephone interviews. With the assistance of a
Scientific Committee, the survey was designed so that it would guarantee a sufficiently
large sample size per service to run the satisfaction model whilst at the same time staying
within the agreed budget.
For the purposes of the survey, ‘consumers’ were defined as “people (18+) having used the
service in the past 12 months”. ‘Satisfaction’ was defined as “the consumer’s assessment
of a product or service in terms of the extent to which that product or service has met
his/her needs or expectations”. Consumer satisfaction was measured both directly
(‘observed satisfaction’) and after the responses to specific questions were statistically
processed (‘calculated satisfaction’). The model developed during the pilot study allowed
us to gain an understanding of the factors that contributed most to consumer
(dis)satisfaction for each of the services.
A robust and homogeneous methodology was used across countries and services, including
over 29,000 interviews in the 25 EU member states. There were on average 500 interviews
per service and country. The interviews were face-to-face, took place at the respondents’
homes, lasted 45 to 60 minutes each and covered 4 to 5 different services per respondent.
8 | FINAL REPORT – CONSUMER SATISFACTION – DG SANCO
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Average score
Air Transport 7.96
Mobile Telephony 7.91
Insurance services 7.92
Retail Banking 7.82
Water Distribution 7.73
Gas supply 7.64
Electricity supply 7.61
Postal Services 7.42
Fixed Telephony 7.30
Extra Urban Transport 7.05
Urban Transport 7.04
If consumers give a service a score of 8, it usually means that they are very satisfied with
it. Therefore, looking at the average scores obtained for each service, it is fair to say that:
- European consumers are particularly satisfied with air transport, mobile telephony,
insurance services and retail banking
- European consumers are less satisfied (or are more ‘neutral’ in their opinion) with
utility services (gas, electricity, water)
- They are least satisfied with extra-urban and urban transport.
66.1 65.9
64.4
63.1
60.2
57.9 57.6
52.9 52
45.6
44.5
Air transport Mobile Insurances Banking Water Gas Electricity Postal Fixed phone Extra-urban Urban
phone retail services transport transport
The majority of EU consumers said they were satisfied with most of the services surveyed,
especially with air transport, mobile telephony, insurance services and retail banking. The
only exceptions are urban and extra-urban transport: less than 5 consumers out of 10 said
that they were satisfied with them.
10.3
9.4
8.4
6.9
5.4 5.3
4.6 4.4
4.1
3.5
3
Extra-urban Urban Fixed phone Postal Water Electricity Banking Gas Mobile Air transport Insurances
transport transport services retail phone
While EU consumers are least satisfied with urban and extra-urban transport, only 10% of
them said that they were dissatisfied with both services.
The following table shows the average satisfaction scores for each criterion and each
service.
Overall, EU consumers tend to be more satisfied with the quality of service offered than
the image of the service provider and the prices offered by their provider.
However, advanced statistical analyses show that pricing tends to be the main element
that determines the extent to which consumers are satisfied with a service. This is the
case in 6 out of 11 services surveyed i.e. insurance, electricity supply, retail banking, fixed
telephony, mobile telephony and water distribution. In other words, for these services,
reducing prices would have the greatest impact on overall consumer satisfaction. Trying to
improve consumer satisfaction with a better quality service would have less of an impact
on overall satisfaction.
On the other hand, image is the key factor that determines consumer satisfaction for
service providers for postal services, urban transport and extra-urban transport. In other
words, consumers who believe their supplier has a negative image will tend to be less
satisfied than those who believe their supplier has a positive image.
A majority of EU25 consumers (more than 50%) are satisfied with 9 out of the 11 SGIs
evaluated, especially air transport, mobile phone, insurance, retail banking and water
distribution services. Consumers are least satisfied with extra-urban (45.6%) and urban
transport (44.5%) services.
Austria
Austrians tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all 11 services evaluated.
They tend also to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with all these services.
Belgium
Consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with retail banking, mobile
phone, insurance, electricity, gas, water, fixed phone and urban and extra-urban transport
and less satisfied with air transport and postal services. They tend to be less dissatisfied
than the EU average with all the 11 services.
Cyprus
Consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all the services, except
urban transport (23% of satisfied against 44.5% at the EU level). They tend to be more
dissatisfied than the EU average with urban transport (53.8% of dissatisfied against 9.4% at
the EU level).
Czech Republic
Consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with air transport, mobile phone,
retail banking and gas distribution and less satisfied with fixed phone. They tend to be
more dissatisfied than the EU average with all the services except mobile phone.
Denmark
Danes tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with the three utilities (water,
electricity and gas), insurance, retail banking, mobile phone and fixed phone and less
satisfied with extra-urban services. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average
with postal services, urban and extra-urban transport.
Estonia
Consumers in Estonia tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with retail banking,
mobile phone, electricity, postal services, fixed phone, insurance, gas distribution, urban
and extra-urban transport and less satisfied with water distribution. They tend to be more
dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution and less dissatisfied with extra-
urban transport.
Germany
German consumers are most satisfied than the EU average with all the services except
extra-urban transport. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average extra-urban
transport and less dissatisfied with fixed phone.
Greece
In Greece, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with gas distribution,
air transport, mobile phone, postal services, insurance and extra-urban transport and less
satisfied with electricity and fixed phone. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU
average with water and electricity distribution and less dissatisfied with postal services
and extra-urban transport.
Finland
Finns tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all SGIs. In addition, they tend to
be less dissatisfied than the EU average with urban and extra-urban transport and fixed
phone.
France
French consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with extra-urban
transport and less satisfied air transport, retail banking, mobile phone, water distribution
and postal services. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with extra-urban
transport.
Hungary
Hungarians tend to be more satisfied than the EU25 average with almost all SGIs except
with urban transport (37.7% against a EU25 average of 44.5%). However, they tend to be
more dissatisfied than the EU average with electricity, insurance, gas, urban and extra-
urban transport.
Ireland
Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with
Air transport (where the proportion of satisfied is equal to the EU average). They tend to
be less dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services, fixed phone, urban and extra-
urban transport.
Italy
Italians tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs. They tend to be
more dissatisfied than the EU average with urban and extra-urban transport, postal
services and fixed phone.
Latvia
Latvians tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs, except with
water distribution (50.5% are satisfied against 60.2% at the EU level). They tend to be more
dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution and less dissatisfied with urban
and extra-urban transport and fixed phone.
Lithuania
Lithuanians are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with
water distribution (where the proportion of satisfied is equal to the EU average). They
tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with gas and electricity distribution, retail
banking, postal services, air transport, insurance, fixed phone and extra-urban transport
but are more dissatisfied with water distribution.
Luxembourg
Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with
mobile phone and air transport (where the proportions of satisfied are in line with the EU
average). They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water, electricity and
gas distribution, fixed phone, postal services and extra-urban transport.
Malta
Consumers in Malta tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with mobile phone,
retail banking, fixed phone, insurance and postal services and tend to be less satisfied with
water and electricity distribution and urban transport. They tend to be less dissatisfied
than the EU average with fixed phone and more dissatisfied with insurance, water and
electricity distribution and urban transport.
Netherlands
Just as with Italy, Dutch consumers tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with all
the SGIs. However, they also tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water
distribution, air transport, postal services, insurance, fixed phone, urban and extra-urban
transport.
Poland
In Poland, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with postal services
and insurance and tend to be less satisfied with fixed phone and urban transport. They
tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with air transport and tend to be more
dissatisfied with fixed phone.
Portugal
Portuguese consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with postal services
and extra-urban transport and tend to be less satisfied with water, gas and electricity
distribution, insurance and fixed phone. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU
average with postal services, retail banking, air transport and urban/extra-urban transport
and they tend to be more dissatisfied with water and electricity distribution and fixed
phone.
Slovakia
Slovaks tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with mobile phone and postal
services and tend to be less satisfied with insurance, water, electricity and gas
distribution, urban and extra-urban transport. In addition, they tend to be more
dissatisfied than the EU average with air transport, insurance, water, electricity and gas
distribution and urban and extra-urban transport.
Slovenia
Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with
urban transport (where the proportion of satisfied is in line with the EU average). In
addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with electricity and gas
distribution and postal services.
Spain
Spaniards tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with insurance, retail banking,
postal, gas, water and electricity distribution, air transport, mobile phone, fixed phone
and urban transport. In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with
postal services and extra-urban transport but tend to be more dissatisfied with air
transport and mobile phone.
Sweden
Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with water distribution, retail banking,
gas, mobile phone, fixed phone and extra-urban transport and tend to be less satisfied
with air transport and postal services. They also tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU
average with water and gas distribution and retail banking but tend to be more dissatisfied
electricity, postal services and urban transport.
United Kingdom
Consumers in the UK tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with fixed phone,
retail banking and extra-urban transport services. In addition, they tend to be less
dissatisfied than the EU average with fixed phone and extra-urban transport.
Even in markets where there is more than one provider, changing from one supplier to
another is often difficult. The only exceptions are in fixed telephony, mobile telephony,
retail banking, insurance and especially air transport services. In these cases, at least 2 EU
consumers out of 3 who can choose between at least 2 providers state that is easy to
change.
Buying services from another country is only considered possible and even of potential
interest in the case of air transport (4 consumers out 5), and, to a lesser extent, retail
banking and mobile telephone services (48% and 41% respectively).
A very large majority of users prefer to deal with a national supplier (more than 90% of
consumers). This is less the case for air transport services (60%).
Pricing
As mentioned earlier, pricing issues are major factors determining consumer satisfaction
for most of the services surveyed.
Among these components, price levels are identified as the main issue in all the services.
Consumers tend to think they pay too much for services of general interest.
In addition, EU25 consumers tend to think that suppliers do not offer enough by way of
special tariffs for specific target groups or specific usage.
Image
Consumer satisfaction with urban transport, extra-urban transport and postal services is
mostly influenced by the image their supplier has on the market. More specifically, in
these sectors, elements such as the reputation of the supplier, its willingness to put the
client first and its flexibility are of great importance for consumers.
Quality
Quality of service is the element that has the least influence on overall consumer
satisfaction and yet people are most satisfied with this element when evaluating SGIs. This
statement tends to prove that consumers take quality of service for granted.
Consequently, long-term actions are appropriate in this area. Making the consumers
aware of the quality of the services they are using could improve satisfaction with these
services in the long term.
Urban and extra-urban transport are clearly the services with which consumers are least
satisfied. Moreover, this observation applies to almost all the countries.
Actions to improve satisfaction could target the maintenance of transport networks and
vehicles, reliability of the services (frequency of service, punctuality, etc.) and the way
the problems and questions raised by consumers are handled.
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall, the questionnaire and design of this survey appears to be robust. The
questionnaire survey and the underlying model and methodology could be used without
major changes for future surveys.
One hypothesis that emerges from the results of this survey is that consumer satisfaction in
certain services – e.g. air transport, retail banking - is affected by the extent to which
people are familiar with the internet (since those who are may benefit more from certain
services). In order to test this hypothesis, a question on this topic might be included in
future surveys.
With the current survey approach, an analysis of complaints is difficult to carry out
because of the low number of complaints made by the respondents. Since the option of
much larger sample sizes is likely to be rejected due to cost implications, this issue may
have to be dealt with in another way, e.g. by asking other types of related questions for
which the response rates are likely to be higher.
Further investigation would need to be done to see whether there is a link between
consumer satisfaction and the extent to which a sector has been liberalised.
A final thought is that the way the survey and model has been constructed allows for its
extension into other services and also the retailing of consumer goods. If the Commission
were to consider the inclusion of new service categories in the future, a small preliminary
study and small pilot survey could be undertaken in order to design and test the survey
questions that should be included in the questionnaire.
A. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Indeed, DG SANCO has been building up an 'evidence base' regarding services of general
interest in order to improve policymaking and integrate consumer concerns into other EU
policies. In addition, data facilitates the monitoring and evaluation of EU and national
policies. For this purpose, DG SANCO has been carrying out regular quantitative surveys
(e.g. Eurobarometers) and qualitative studies (e.g. focus groups) to measure consumer
satisfaction with services of general interest. Qualitative studies are organised in
connection with issues raised in Eurobarometers in order to have a better understanding of
consumers’ views and cross-check Eurobarometer results. Data related to services of
general interest are also made available in the publication entitled ‘Consumers in Europe -
Facts and Figures’. A special edition of ‘Consumers in Europe - Facts and Figures’, devoted
to Services of General Interest, is to be published in 2007.
In 2003, DG SANCO launched an open call for tender on the ‘Development of consumer
satisfaction indicators; pilot survey on consumer satisfaction’. Together with Deloitte,
INRA won this call. The assignment had three objectives:
Another open call for tender was launched in 2004 to prepare, implement and analyse the
consumer satisfaction survey using the methodology developed during the first assignment.
INRA (now Ipsos Belgium), which had become part of the Ipsos Group, won the contract. In
order to gather the most effective resources for this contract, Ipsos decided to continue its
partnership with Deloitte, which acted as policy analysts and advisers and selected two
independent experts to work on the pilot survey: Dominique Vanmarsenille and Professor
Vanhoof (Hasselt University).
The survey outcomes should serve as a tool to support EU consumer policy-making in SGIs.
The satisfaction indicators that were developed are sector-based and should enable DG
SANCO to:
o understand how consumers perceive certain SGIs, what their main requirements are
and how key service areas meet their expectations;
o benchmark performance amongst EU member states within particular SGIs;
o benchmark the performance of SGIs within a specific country or at the EU level;
o identify priorities for improvement - in other words the areas where improvements
will produce the greatest gain in consumer satisfaction;
o set goals for improvement and monitor progress.
The indicators resulting from the survey ought to become a reference tool for EU
policymakers in SGIs, which would allow them to gauge both overall consumer satisfaction
levels and to measure the specific elements that determine satisfaction levels in individual
areas. The consumer satisfaction indicators proposed should be able to help EU
policymakers define and review EU policy in these areas. The indicators provide signals of
whether SGIs are functioning properly and whether corrective regulatory or enforcement
measures should be considered.
The scope of the project focuses on 11 services of general interest across all 25 EU
members: gas, water, electricity, postal services, mobile telephone, fixed telephone,
urban transport (within towns/cities: tram, bus, underground, rail/RER), extra urban
transport (between towns/cities: rail, bus), air transport, retail banking and insurance.
2. Methodology
Ipsos INRA applied a robust and homogeneous methodology across all the countries in order
to guarantee a complete benchmark in terms of results:
• 500 interviews per sector and per country (250 for sectors of low levels of usage);
• Face to face data collection, at home, with interviews lasting an average of 55
minutes;
• Representative random sample of users for each sector in the past 12 months, via
sampling procedures based on a stratification of each country according to region
and urbanisation degree, gender, age and occupation.
The questionnaire collects ‘observed’ dimensions (i.e. easily observable criteria for
consumers) among users and drivers of consumer satisfaction, including common and
specific items adapted for each sector:
• Overall satisfaction with the service: overall satisfaction with the service – extent
to which the requirements of consumers are met;
• Price: price level – transparency (i.e. tariffs and invoices are clear and easy to
understand) – payment process (i.e. it is easy to pay one’s supplier invoices) –
affordability (i.e. the services cost more than one can afford to pay) – accuracy
(i.e. the supplier’s invoices are correct) – commercial offer (i.e. suppliers have
attractive special tariffs for specific target groups) – profitability (i.e. the supplier
shares their profit with consumers) – overall price;
• Quality: reliability of the service provided – service safety – offer relevance (i.e.
the service meets consumers’ needs) – information (i.e. suppliers regularly inform
their customers about their services and special tariffs) – technical support (i.e. the
supplier offers high quality technical assistance) – handling questions and problems
(i.e. suppliers react promptly and appropriately) – availability of the supplier –
professional, helpful and friendly staff – confidentiality (i.e. the supplier respects
customers’ privacy/discretion when dealing with delicate problems) – investment
and maintenance of infrastructures – points of sales – order ease (how easy it is to
make an order or a booking) – transport comfort – transport network – overall
quality;
• Commitment to the service (i.e. the consumer will still use his/her service
supplier/change supplier/stop using the service);
The individual rating of each consumer satisfaction item is based on a 1 to 10 scale which
allows consumers to carry out a nuanced evaluation.
Regarded by the community of satisfaction research experts as the most academic and
commonly accepted scale, it is also the most consistent scale able to measure satisfaction
across borders, across sectors and over time.
3. Satisfaction indicators
3.1. DEFINING CONSUMER SATISFACTION INDICATORS
In order to take into consideration the complexity and multifaceted nature of consumer
satisfaction, the analysis presented in this report provides the reader with two groups of
indicators measuring consumers’ satisfaction towards SGI sectors:
A) PRIMARY INDICATORS
The first level of analysis aims to describe consumers’ feelings about services of general
interest and about elements that constitute suppliers’ services as well as the problems
encountered when using these services.
This analysis is built in such a way as to allow meaningful comparisons (and aggregations)
of how consumers feel: across sectors in one member state; in one sector across member
states (EU25, EU15, NMS10); and (at a later stage) over time.
For each sector and all elements measured in the questionnaire (see Section 2), we
calculate two basic and complementary indicators that are commonly used in satisfaction
research area:
o Average levels of satisfaction: for each sector, people were asked to evaluate, on
a scale from 1 (not satisfied at all) to 10 (fully satisfied), the extent to which they
are satisfied with their supplier. On the basis of individual scores, average scores
are calculated for each sector.
Example: the average satisfaction score with sector x is 7.8 out of 10
Based on this grouping rule, we can more easily measure the percentage of satisfied
and dissatisfied consumers for each sector and each criterion.
The graph below shows the two complementary indicators of satisfaction (average /
satisfied-dissatisfied) from a typical distribution of individual scores.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Average Satisfaction
= 7,7
While the main objective of the first level of analysis was to measure key satisfaction
indicators and give an overall picture of a given service sector/country, the second level
intends to make use of more advanced statistical methods in order determine the
interaction of these key indicators so as to explain consumers’ overall satisfaction.
The results of this advanced analysis will provide useful information for the Commission
and DG SANCO in particular, which could be used to determine the areas of priority and
the appropriate actions to be taken in order to improve satisfaction in a given
sector/country. It will also be a useful tool for monitoring consumer satisfaction by
country/sector over time and for evaluating the impact of a policy on consumer
satisfaction.
In the rest of the section we set out details of the two statistical tools that were used: the
satisfaction model and the two-dimensional analysis.
A statistical model has been specifically built for DG SANCO and was previously validated
during the pilot stage.
This model offers a range of possible added-value analysis and allows especially to explain
the contribution of observed variables to overall satisfaction, allowing us to determine the
levels of consumers’ expectations.
The model helps explain the level of overall satisfaction observed for a given sector with
the help of the above-mentioned variables. In other words, the model indicates the level
of contribution made by each variable to overall satisfaction. This contribution is
calculated through a regression analysis, which determines the weight of each variable.
These weightings can take a value ranging from 0 to 1. The more a weighting is close to 1,
the more the variable is contributing to overall satisfaction, or, in other words, the higher
consumers’ expectations are.
For example, if the regression coefficients are the following: 0.4 (price), 0.35 (image) and
0.25 (quality). This means that price is the variable that contributes to satisfaction most,
i.e. where consumers’ expectations are the highest.
The model also indicates the variables that are a consequence of satisfaction and the
contribution of overall satisfaction to these variables for a given sector. Here again,
weightings are calculated in order to quantify the contribution of the overall satisfaction
to the commitment and complaints level.
The relationship between overall satisfaction and the above-mentioned variables provides
useful information for policy-making.
For example, let’s suppose that, for a given sector, the level of satisfaction is low and
that price is the variable that contributes most to this level of satisfaction. In addition,
let’s suppose that complaints are the main consequence of this low level of satisfaction.
Policy-makers should then focus their attention on price as it contributes to
dissatisfaction and consequently to complaints.
The model can also be used to set and test further hypotheses and assess the potential
impact of actions, as in the following hypothetical example:
In the fixed phone sector within the EU25, an increase of 10% in consumer satisfaction
regarding prices would improve the overall consumer satisfaction level to 33% Æ Policy-
makers’ efforts could therefore be focused first on price transparency and information.
The two-dimensional analysis is one of the most common approaches to be carried out on
consumer satisfaction data and helps in the presentation of the final results. The aim of
this analysis is to summarise the opportunities for action (i.e. areas where the SGI does
not perform so well and where actions to change the situation are needed in order to
improve consumer satisfaction) and areas where no action is needed (i.e. areas where
the SGI performs well and where no action is required), on a simple mapping system that
takes into account:
Example: let’s suppose that we find regression coefficients of 0.40 for price, 0.25 for
quality and 0.35 for image. This means that price accounts for 40% of the observed
satisfaction; quality accounts for 25% of it and image 35%. In other words, price
contributes most to overall satisfaction; this is the most important factor. This said, if
price reaches a low satisfaction score, it therefore becomes a priority area of action
for policy-makers to increase the overall satisfaction of the sector.
- the upper left quadrant corresponds to a priority action i.e. situation where the
item’s satisfaction scores are below average whereas consumers expectations for
these variables are quite high (i.e. these variables contribute a large amount to
overall satisfaction). Consumers are not very satisfied with the items falling into
this quadrant whereas these are important items for them. This quadrant defines
the policy areas where action will have the greatest effect on overall consumer
satisfaction.
- the upper right quadrant corresponds to an ideal situation, i.e. an area where no
action is needed. This is a situation where the item’s satisfaction scores are above
average and consumer expectations are quite high for these variables. Consumers
are very satisfied with the items falling into this quadrant. In addition, these
contribute most to consumer satisfaction. This quadrant defines the policy areas
where action will have the least effect on overall consumer satisfaction.
- the lower left quadrant corresponds to a low importance area i.e. a situation
where the item’s satisfaction scores are below average and expectations are quite
low for these variables. Attention should not be focused on these variables as they
are secondary factors. This is not a priority for the moment. This quadrant defines
the policy areas where action will have a small effect on overall consumer
satisfaction.
- The lower right quadrant corresponds to a long-term action i.e. a situation where
the item’s satisfaction scores are above average whereas expectations are quite
low for these variables. Consumers are quite satisfied with the items falling into
this quadrant but these items do not contribute much to the overall satisfaction.
Although these are not priority areas, there may be an opportunity for raising
consumer’s awareness about the importance of these items. This quadrant defines
the policy areas where action could have a longer term effect on overall
consumer satisfaction.
Example:
• Satisfaction scores: 5.5 for price level (PRICE) and 7.9 for payment process (PRICE);
6.0 for points of sale (QUALITY) and 7.5 for staff professionalism (QUALITY); 7.25
for reputation (IMAGE) and 6.8 for customer mindedness (IMAGE)
• Regression coefficient: 0.4 for PRICE, 0.35 for IMAGE and 0.25 for QUALITY
• Average score: 6.83
Expectations +
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Expectations -
Price level and customer mindedness are two priority areas for the sector given as an
example. These two items are of high importance to consumers (they make a considerable
contribution to overall satisfaction) whereas they obtain low satisfaction scores (compared
to the average). An action in these two areas would have the greatest effect on
consumer satisfaction.
On the other hand, consumers are quite satisfied with payment process and reputation as
these items obtained satisfaction scores above the average. These two items correspond to
an ideal situation as they play an important role in consumer satisfaction. No action is
required in these areas.
Staff professionalism performs very well as the satisfaction score is above the average. For
the moment, this item is of less importance (it does not contribute much to overall
satisfaction). Communication in this area should raise consumer awareness of the
importance of this item.
Action taken in the area of point of sales would have little effect on consumer satisfaction
as people’s expectations in this area are low.
In the second part we use graphs to show the percentage of consumers who are satisfied or
dissatisfied with the eleven SGIs (services of general interest) by country and for the EU25
as a whole.
The last part of this report will highlight the main findings of the survey. We will also
conclude with recommendations for future improvements and research.
1. Electricity supply
1.1. OVERALL RESULTS
EU consumers are fairly satisfied with electricity supply: the average score at EU25 level is
7.6 (on a scale of 1 to 10).
Compared to the EU15, there are relatively more satisfied consumers (those giving a score
from 8 to 10) in the new member states (62%) but also relatively more dissatisfied
consumers (7% of respondents gave a score from 1 to 4). This result suggests that
consumers from the new member states pay more attention to this service than EU15
consumers but it could also point to higher differences in quality and/or perception levels
within these countries.
The percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers are displayed in the following
graph:
EL. 1 Electricity supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your electricity supplier?
% Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
EU15 56.5 4.9
0 20 40 60 80 100
EL. 2 Electricity supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your electricity supplier?
Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
LT 81.6 1.6
AT 79.5 2
DK 78.9 2.2
SI 73.5 2.5
IE 73.2 3.5
LV 73.1 3.2
DE 72.7 2.4
HU 72.6 8.6
EE 71.8 4.4
LU 71.5 2.1
CY 70.1 6.4
BE 65.2 2.1
FI 63.2 6.1
FR 60.4 3.1
UK 58.2 6.6
SE 53.2 11.5
SK 52.8 8.5
EL 48.1 9.5
MT 47 17.4
ES 42.7 4
NL 41.1 6.4
PT 36.4 12.8
IT 34.8 8.3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Based on the proportion of satisfied consumers, EU countries can be divided into two
groups:
1. The first group includes countries where consumers are more satisfied than the
EU25 on average. In descending order, these are: Lithuania, Austria, Denmark,
Slovenia, Ireland, Latvia, Germany, Hungary, Estonia, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Belgium
and Finland. Most of the new member states (6 out of the 10) are in this first group.
2. The second group contains countries where consumers are less satisfied than the
EU25 on average: Slovakia, Greece, Malta, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and
Italy. In Portugal and Italy less than 40% of consumers say they are satisfied with
their electricity supply.
The survey results also show that the proportion of dissatisfied consumers in Malta,
Portugal and Sweden is higher than 10% (it is even 17 % in Malta). At the other extreme
fewer than 3% of consumers say they are dissatisfied in Lithuania, Austria, Belgium,
Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany and Slovenia.
EL. 3 Electricity supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category –
percentage (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your electricity supplier?
% by socio-demographics
Men 57.6 5
Gender
35-54 56 6.4
20 years + 59 4.6
Managers 62 3.7
Satisfied
Other white collars 56.7 5.2
Dissatisfied
Occupation
1. Managers (62%), retired consumers (61%) and blue collar workers (60%) tend to be
more satisfied than those belonging to other professional categories while the self-
employed and house-persons are the least satisfied;
2. The unemployed tend to be more dissatisfied than the others with respect to
electricity supply.
In terms of age, people over 55 years old are more satisfied (60%) than the other
categories and than the EU25 on average.
Lastly, consumers who completed their secondary school studies tend to be more satisfied
than those who dropped out of school early.
In Austria, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Ireland, more than 7 consumers out of 10 consider
their electricity provider to have a positive image overall (as against an EU25 average of
51%). Only 28% of consumers in the Netherlands, 31% in Portugal and Malta, 33% in Italy
and 35% in Spain and Sweden consider their electricity provider to have a positive image
overall.
B) OVERALL QUALITY
For the majority of EU25 consumers (57%), their electricity provider offers a quality
service. Austrians are the most satisfied consumers as far as the overall quality of
electricity distribution is concerned (80% of consumers say they are satisfied).
C) OVERALL PRICE
Only 35% of consumers say that their provider’s prices are fair given the services provided.
Luxembourg, Slovenia, Finland and Germany are the only countries where an absolute
majority (from 50% to 52%) agrees with this statement.
D) COMMITMENT
In countries where consumers have the choice between electricity providers, i.e. in
Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Finland, the Netherlands,
Sweden and the UK, the vast majority of consumers have no intention of changing supplier
in the short run (within a year). The only exception is Belgium, where only 46% say they
are committed to their supplier.
More than 8 consumers out of 10 prefer to deal with a national electricity provider. The
same proportion think that the services of these providers are available for everybody and
available everywhere.
In liberalised markets, almost two thirds of consumers think that there is enough
competition. In the UK and the Netherlands, this idea is shared by 84% and 77% of users
respectively, whereas only 28% of Czech consumers think so.
However, when asked about changing their provider, consumers are less convinced that
this would be easy to do: only 54% believe that there are no barriers. The Czechs, Danes,
Austrians and Belgians are the least convinced. 18% of Czechs, 22% of Danes, 35% of
Austrians and 36% of Belgians believe that it is easy to change from one supplier to
another.
Finally, only 23% of EU consumers think that it is possible to buy electricity from an
electricity supplier outside their country. A majority (41%) of them could not give an
answer.
As mentioned at the beginning of this report, before taking any action to improve
consumers’ overall satisfaction, it is important to determine the criteria or elements that
influence and explain consumers’ overall satisfaction. These criteria are quality, pricing
and image. This contribution to consumers’ overall satisfaction is calculated through a
regression analysis which determines the relative weighting of quality, pricing and image in
overall satisfaction.
The weighting of each of these criteria (regression coefficient1) calculated for the
electricity supply service is shown in the following table:
Regression coefficients
Quality 0.302
Image 0.314
Pricing 0.493
1
These weightings can take a value ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 meaning that the criteria has no influence on overall
satisfaction and 1 meaning that it contributes fully to overall satisfaction.
FINAL REPORT – CONSUMER SATISFACTION – DG SANCO | 35
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The regression coefficients show that all three factors are important. However, pricing has
the biggest impact on satisfaction (i.e. consumers’ expectations as to price are higher than
for quality and image). This result can be partially explained by the fact that in the
electricity market the price elasticity of demand is low (an increase in the electricity price
level causes a less than proportional decrease in domestic demand). Another part of the
explanation is probably that, in a mature market with few differentiated products, the
main (or remaining) factor that influences consumer satisfaction and choice of supplier is
price – all other factors are considered to be good enough.
In other words, efforts to improve consumers’ overall satisfaction with the electricity
supply service need to be focused on pricing issues to a large extent and then on image
and quality.
In order to define precise and concrete actions to improve consumers’ satisfaction with the
electricity supply service, another advanced analysis needs to be performed: the two-
dimensional analysis.
• the areas where the SGI does not perform well and where actions to change the
situation is needed in order to improve consumers’ satisfaction;
• the areas where the SGI performs well and where no action is needed.
This is done by mean of a diagram taking into account the following information:
The diagram on the following page shows the areas where priority actions are needed in
order to improve consumers’ satisfaction with the electricity supply service.
Importance +
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
In the previous section, the diagram shows that perceived price is the element that has the
greatest influence on consumer satisfaction with their electricity supply service. In
addition, consumers are not fully satisfied with price issues.
Therefore, it can be assumed that most of the opportunities for improvement are related
to improving consumers’ perception of price and that these improvements would
consequently influence overall consumers’ satisfaction with this service.
Given the weighting of the pricing criteria (near to 0.5), any action that would lead to an
increase of 10% of consumers who are satisfied with the price of their electricity supply
service would lead to an increase of 5% in overall consumers’ satisfaction with this service.
PRICING
The elements of pricing that consumers are particularly dissatisfied with and that need
special attention are:
On the other hand, consumers are satisfied with the different options they are given to pay
their invoices (‘payment process’) and the accuracy of the invoices received from their
supplier. No particular action needs to be taken in these areas.
IMAGE
Overall consumers’ satisfaction can also be improved by taking measures that would:
These observations might be explained by the fact that member states’ domestic markets
are not yet fully liberalised and that, even in liberalised markets, the competition is still
limited (former state-owned suppliers continue to have most of the market share). In this
context of newly competitive markets, it is only now that major electricity providers are
beginning to feel the need to advertise and invest in their image or in added value
information services (e.g. related to price calculation or energy-savings tools).
To a lesser extent, consumers expect to deal with their supplier in a flexible way, to
receive more information about their supplier’s services and expect their supplier to take
environmental concerns into account.
QUALITY
As mentioned earlier, consumers tend to be satisfied with the quality of service provided
by their electricity provider. Nevertheless, quality does not have a major influence on
consumers’ overall satisfaction with this service.
This does not mean that consumers show little interest in the quality of electricity or
related services they receive. But it could be explained by the fact that, since they are
used to receiving electricity on a reliable and constant basis, their needs are sufficiently
met and there are not many opportunities for improvement in this area.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering these statements, priority actions that need to be taken in electricity supply in
order to increase consumer satisfaction are as follows:
o increase the number of special tariffs and the transparency of tariffs on the one
hand and decrease the price level on the other hand;
o strengthen the supplier image by developing a unique image and improving
customer service mentalities.
o the popularity and the reputation of suppliers, the type of relationship between
consumers and suppliers and the fact that suppliers deliver their products and
services via state of the art technologies;
o the accuracy of invoices and the ease of the payment process.
2. Gas supply
2.1. OVERALL RESULTS
EU consumers are fairly satisfied with their gas suppliers: the average score at EU25 level
is 7.6 on a scale from 1 to 10.
The following graph shows the percentage of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers at EU
level:
GAS. 1 Gas supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your gas supplier?
% Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
EU15 57.2 4
0 20 40 60 80 100
The above graph shows that both the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers
are higher in the ten new member states (considered as group). In most of these countries
fewer consumers take a ‘neutral’ position (i.e. rating their satisfaction between 5 and 7
out of 10). This finding is similar to the results for electricity supply.
GAS. 2 Gas supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your gas supplier?
Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
EL 87.4 1.5
LT 84.5 0.7
IE 81.8 1.9
DK 77.9 2.6
SI 77.2 1.2
FI 76.6 1.4
AT 75.9 2.7
SE 74.1 1.9
DE 69.7 3.6
LU 69.3 1.7
EE 68.1 2.1
LV 67.5 4.8
BE 65.2 2.6
HU 64.9 9.2
PL 58.9 4.8
UK 58.3 4.9
FR 58.2 4.5
EU15 57.2 4
PT 49.5 4.1
ES 47.7 3.8
NL 47.6 3.7
SK 43.3 15
IT 36.4 4.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
2
There is no gas distribution infrastructure in Malta or Cyprus. These countries have therefore been left out of the
comparisons.
FINAL REPORT – CONSUMER SATISFACTION – DG SANCO | 41
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
At country level, the percentage of consumers who are satisfied with their gas supply
service ranges from 36.4 % (Italy) to 87.4 % (Greece).
Based on the percentage of satisfied consumers, EU countries can be organised into two
groups:
3. The first group is made up of countries in which consumers are more satisfied than
EU25 consumers are on average: Greece, Lithuania, Ireland - with very high
percentages of satisfied consumers (from 82 to 87%). These countries are followed
by Denmark, Slovenia, Finland, Austria and Sweden (from 74 to 78%) and finally
Germany, Luxembourg, Estonia, Latvia, Belgium, Hungary and the Czech Republic
(from 64 to 70%). As already noted, six of the ten new member states are in this
group.
4. The second group is made up of countries in which consumers are less satisfied than
the EU25 average: Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands and Slovakia (from 43% to 49% of
satisfied consumers) and Italy, which has the lowest percentage of satisfied
consumers (36%).
The highest percentages of dissatisfied consumers are to be found in three new member
states: Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary, with, respectively, 15%, 10% and 9% of
dissatisfied consumers. Remarkably, the Czech Republic and Hungary have also relatively
high percentages of satisfied consumers.
GAS. 3 Gas supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category –
percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your gas supplier?
% by socio-demographics
55+ 60 4.2
Dissatisfied
20 years + 58.8 4.6
Self-employed 51 5.4
Students 51 6.6
When the figures are broken down by socio-economic group, managers (62%) and house
persons (61%) appear to be those who are most satisfied with their gas supplies.
Respondents who have been at school up until the age of 15 (or less) are somewhat less
satisfied (55% are satisfied) than those who have finished secondary school.
In terms of age groups, respondents over 55 years old are clearly the most satisfied
consumers – 60% of them rated their satisfaction equal to or greater then 8 out of 10.
There is no significant difference between men and women in terms of how far they are
satisfied with their gas supply services.
In Greece, Ireland, Slovenia, Luxembourg and Finland, more than 7 consumers out of 10
see their gas provider as having a positive image overall (against an EU25 average of 49%).
Only 25% in Sweden, 30% in Italy, 32% in the Netherlands and 39% in Portugal and Spain
think that their gas provider has a positive image overall.
B) OVERALL QUALITY
For the majority of EU25 consumers (59%), their gas provider offers a quality service. The
Greeks are the most satisfied consumers as far as the overall quality of gas distribution is
concerned (88% of ‘satisfied’ consumers).
C) OVERALL PRICE
For a small percentage of EU citizens, whether in the EU15 or in NMS10, their provider’s
prices are considered fair given the services provided. This percentage is the lowest (16%)
in Slovakia. Luxembourg, Finland, Lithuania, Ireland, Slovenia and Greece, on the other
hand, are the only countries where an absolute majority (from 51% to 63%) agrees with this
statement.
D) COMMITMENT
More than 8 consumers out of 10 who have the choice between several gas suppliers (i.e.
Austria, Belgium, Spain, Greece, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK) will keep their supplier in the next 12 months.
Their services are available for everybody and everywhere, according to 68% of EU gas
users and especially in the new member states (75% against 67% in the EU15). In addition,
when asked whether they think it is possible to buy gas distribution services from a
supplier outside their country, a majority could not give an answer (40%) and 38% said they
did not think it is possible.
While 87% of British people, 79% of Portuguese people and 67% of Dutch people agree with
the fact that there is enough competition in their country, 78% of French people and 74%
of Slovaks do not think that there is enough competition in their country.
With regard to changing provider, EU consumers have different views: 42% believe that
there are no barriers, especially in the EU15 (43% as against 22% in the NMS10). The UK
(80%) and Portugal (79%) are the countries where the greatest percentage of people agree
with this statement. A similar percentage disagrees with this statement, especially in
France (76%) and in Slovakia (71%).
The relative weight or importance of quality, pricing and image in consumers’ overall
satisfaction (regression coefficient3) calculated for the gas supply service is shown in the
following table:
Regression coefficients
Quality 0.488
Image 0.276
Pricing 0.204
As can be seen, quality is the criterion that is regarded by consumers as the most
important when they evaluate their gas supply service. In other words, consumers’ overall
satisfaction will be mostly influenced by how far they are satisfied with the quality of their
gas supply service. In particular, consumers expect to receive a safe and reliable (e.g. no
disruptions in the gas supply) service.
3
These co-efficients can have a value ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 meaning that the criteria has no influence on overall
satisfaction and 1 meaning that it has a major influence on overall satisfaction.
FINAL REPORT – CONSUMER SATISFACTION – DG SANCO | 45
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
As mentioned earlier, another advanced analysis needs to be carried out in order to define
precise and concrete actions that can be taken to improve consumers’ satisfaction with gas
supply service. This is called a two-dimensional analysis:
• the areas where the SGI does not perform well and where actions to change the
situation are needed to improve consumer satisfaction;
• the areas where the SGI performs well and where no action is needed.
This is done by mapping out the results of the surveys by taking into account the following
information:
• the average satisfaction score given by consumers for each criterion related to
quality, pricing and image (marked as ‘Satisfaction’ on the diagram, the X-axis);
• The weight or contribution of each criterion (quality, pricing and image) to
consumer satisfaction. This weight represents how far each criterion is regarded as
important by consumers (marked as ‘Importance’ on the diagram, the Y-axis).
The diagram on the following page shows the areas in which priority actions are needed to
improve consumer satisfaction with their gas supply service
Importance +
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
The average satisfaction rating for all the variables is 7.2. Variables that have the greatest
impact on consumers’ overall satisfaction, i.e. quality and image, gain good scores (7.8
and 7.3 respectively) while price is substantially below average levels of satisfaction (with
a score of 6.4).
FINAL REPORT – CONSUMER SATISFACTION – DG SANCO | 47
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
QUALITY
The elements of quality that consumers are particularly dissatisfied with and that need
special attention are:
This is an encouraging observation in a sector where safety and continuity of service are of
paramount importance from a consumer’s point of view.
IMAGE
Similarly to the electricity supply sector, the areas where action needs to be taken to
improve consumers levels of satisfaction are:
PRICE
• price level: their provider does not offer reasonable or competitive prices;
• commercial offer: their supplier does not have attractive special tariffs for specific
target groups or for specific usage;
• transparency: tariffs and invoices are not clear or easy to understand.
Although these elements are a source of dissatisfaction for consumers, they are not
considered of great importance. They do not have much of an impact on consumers’
overall satisfaction. Therefore, no specific action is needed to change this situation.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the above, the main areas that the gas supply can be improved so as to increase
consumer satisfaction are as follows:
o increase the quality of services and products by informing consumers better and
being more ‘consumer-focused’;
o boost the supplier’s image by developing a unique image, improving customer
service mentality, increasing environmental care, boosting the consumer’s
familiarity with and the flexibility of the supplier.
On the other hand, it is important to maintain the strengths (high satisfaction combined
with high importance) of gas supply:
3. Water distribution
3.1. OVERALL RESULTS
On average, EU25 consumers give their water distribution service a satisfaction rating of
7.7 on a scale from 1 to 10.
The following graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied respondents in the
water distribution sector, broken down into the EU of 25 member states, the EU of 15
member states prior to the 2004 accession of ten new member states and the ten new
member states that joined in 2004:
WAT. 1 Water distribution: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your water supplier?
% Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
EU15 60.5 4.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
More than 60% of EU25 consumers are satisfied with their water distribution service. There
is no significant difference between the percentage of satisfied consumers in the EU15 and
the percentage of satisfied consumers in the NMS10. However, there are more dissatisfied
consumers in the new member states than in the EU15 (7.9% of them being dissatisfied in
the NMS10 against 4.8% in the EU15).
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your water supplier?
Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
AT 86.8 1.5
DK 84.8 1
DE 83.9 2.2
CY 83 2.3
SE 80.7 1.6
FI 79.6 2.9
LU 73.5 3.2
SI 72 4.8
IE 71.5 8
HU 70.6 7.4
BE 64.3 0.4
UK 59.7 5.5
LT 59.6 8.5
CZ 59.2 9 Satisfied
EL 59 9.8
PL 56.8 7.6
NL 53.4 1
MT 53.1 14.3
SK 52.8 8.9
PT 52.2 8.6
FR 52 4.4
EE 51.5 12.3
LV 50.5 11.7
ES 46.9 6.1
IT 40.4 8.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Compared to the EU average, consumers in the two following groups tend to be more
satisfied with their water distribution service:
The countries where consumers are least satisfied with their water distribution service are
the Netherlands, Malta, Slovakia, Portugal, France, Estonia, Latvia (with the percentage of
satisfied consumers ranging from 50% to 53%), and Spain and Italy, where only 40% to 47%
of respondents say they are satisfied with their water distribution service.
Most of the northern European countries are in the first group of countries with high
percentages of satisfied consumers (Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Finland), while most of
the southern European countries are in the second group (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Malta).
Compared to other utility services, there are a number of countries where the percentages
of dissatisfied consumers are relatively high: Malta (14%), Estonia (12%) and Latvia (12%),
as well as Greece, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Portugal, Italy and Lithuania with a
percentage of dissatisfied consumers between 8% and 10%.
In several countries with average or lower numbers of satisfied consumers, the percentage
of dissatisfied consumers is also very low: the figures range from 0.5% in Belgium to 1.5% in
Sweden. In the Netherlands, consumers tend to be relatively neutral as there are both low
percentages of satisfied consumers and low percentages of dissatisfied consumers in these
countries.
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your water supplier?
% by socio-demographics
Gender
Women 61 5
55+ 61 5.2
Managers 60 4.8
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Other white collars 60.2 4.6
Occupation
Retired 63.4 5
The extent to which consumers are satisfied with their water distribution service cannot be
explained by their professional occupation or age. The only professional category where
the number of satisfied consumers is significantly lower than the average is the self-
employed category (53%).
In terms of education levels, as for the two other utility sectors, only the respondents who
stopped studying at the age of 15 or before are less satisfied (55%) than the average
population.
Finally, men are slightly more satisfied with their water distribution than woman (61%
versus 59%).
In Austria, Cyprus, Finland and Luxembourg, 7 consumers out of 10 see their water
provider as having a positive image overall (against an EU25 average of 49%). Consumers
saw their water provider as having the least positive image in France and in most of the
southern European countries (Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain), where fewer than 4
consumers out of 10 said they felt that their water provider had a positive image.
B) OVERALL QUALITY
The majority of EU25 consumers (58%) said that their water provider offers a quality
service overall.
Austrians are the most satisfied consumers as far as the overall quality of water
distribution is concerned (83% are ‘satisfied consumers’) whereas Italians are again at the
opposite end of the spectrum (38% are ‘satisfied consumers’).
C) OVERALL PRICE
With regard to consumers’ attitudes to price, there are considerable differences across the
EU. In six countries, fewer than 30% of consumers think that their water provider prices
are fair in terms of the service provided (against an EU25 average of 38%). This is the case
in Slovakia (22%), Malta (23%), Italy and France (26% each), Portugal and Spain (29% each).
On the other hand, more than 50% of consumers in Finland, Austria, Slovenia, Denmark,
Germany, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Hungary and Ireland think that their water provider prices
are fair in terms of the service provided.
D) COMMITMENT
In the 3 countries where the market for water distribution is liberalised, i.e. Finland,
France and Latvia, 9 consumers out of 10 said they will still use their supplier in the next
12 months.
Overall, a large percentage of EU25 consumers (72%) think that their water provider
services are available for everybody. In the new member states, this percentage comes to
82% (as against 70% in the EU15). In Finland, on the other hand, only 44% of respondents
agreed with the statement.
Although consumers in Finland, France and Latvia have a choice between several suppliers,
only a small percentage of them believe that there is enough competition (13% on average
and only 4% in Latvia). Moreover, even fewer consumers find it easy to change from one
supplier to another (8% on average).
As can be seen from the table below, pricing has the greatest impact on consumers’
overall satisfaction, followed by image and quality.
Regression coefficients
Quality 0.342
Image 0.370
Pricing 0.434
Therefore, efforts to improve consumers’ overall satisfaction with their water distribution
service need to be focused on pricing issues to a large extent, followed by image and
quality issues.
Another advanced analysis, the two-dimensional analysis, needs to be carried out in order
to define precise and concrete actions to improve consumers’ satisfaction with their water
distribution supply.
• the areas where the SGI is not performing well and where action to change the
situation is needed in order to improve consumers’ satisfaction;
• the areas where the SGI is performing well and where no action is needed.
This is done via a diagram, which takes into account the following information:
Importance +
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
In the previous section, the diagram shows that the element that has the greatest
influence on consumer satisfaction with water distribution service is their perception of
price levels. In addition, consumers are not fully satisfied with pricing issues.
Therefore, it can be assumed that most of the opportunities for improvement are related
to improving consumers’ perception of price and that these improvements would in turn
have an impact on overall consumers’ satisfaction with this service.
PRICE
Consumers are less satisfied with the price of their water distribution service and the
special tariffs offered by their supplier than with other elements of pricing.
Taking into account that this pricing is the criterion that has the biggest impact on
consumers’ overall satisfaction, it is clear that this is again the area in which priority
actions might be undertaken.
On the other hand, consumers are satisfied with ‘payment process’ (i.e. is it easy to pay
invoices), ‘accuracy’ (i.e. are invoices correct) and ‘transparency’ (i.e. are tariffs and
invoices clear and easy to understand). No particular action is needed in these areas.
IMAGE
The average satisfaction score that respondents give to ‘uniqueness’ and ‘customer service
mentality’ is quite low compared to other elements related to the supplier’s image. This
might be explained by the fact that the water distribution service is not liberalised in most
of the countries. Generally there is only one supplier, which does not need to differentiate
itself from another competitor.
In addition, the position of the ‘state of the art’ item on the diagram suggests that
consumers expect water distributors to take new technologies more into account and to
improve their ability to innovate. This request could be linked to their wish for ICT
(information and communications technology) to be used when they order services and for
meter reading procedures.
QUALITY
The elements of quality that consumers are least satisfied with and that need special
attention are:
• ‘information’: they do not think that their supplier provides them with regular
information about their services and offers;
• ‘points of sale’: there is no agency near to their home;
• ‘availability’: consumers cannot reach their supplier when they need to;
• ‘technical support’: their supplier does not offer a high quality technical service
when it comes to new installation, repairs, etc.
This suggests that consumers would be interested in receiving more information about, for
instance, the characteristics of the water they use and drink (e.g. how much limestone or
nitrate it contains).
On the other hand, consumers are relatively satisfied with their supplier in terms of the
reliability and safety of the service provided, which might reflect the confidence
consumers have in the quality of the water distribution services that are being delivered.
CONCLUSIONS
Given these statements, the areas in which priority actions might be taken are as follows:
o Pricing: bringing the price down whilst developing better and/or more commercial
offers for specific target groups (or providing better information on the existing
special tariffs);
o Image: increasing the focus on consumers and improving the image of the
uniqueness of the supplier, strengthening consumers’ sense of ‘familiarity’ with
their water distributors and better use of new technologies (state of the art) to
help consumers when they order a service and with meter readings.
FT. 1 Fixed telephony: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your fixed phone supplier?
% Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
EU25 52 8.4
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
EU15 52.1 7.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your fixed phone supplier?
Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
IE 78.3 1.7
MT 73 2.6
LT 72.4 4.7
DE 71.4 5.9
EE 71 3.6
AT 70.1 2.6
LU 68.7 3.6
SI 68.5 6.2
CY 68.5 6.5
HU 65.2 10.4
LV 65.1 4.3
SE 63.4 6.5
BE 62 3.2
DK 61.3 7.7
FI 60.9 5.1
EU25 52 8.4
FR 49.3 7.6
PL 45.2 13.3
EL 45.1 9.4
CZ 40.7 23.3
NL 39.7 3.3
ES 36 7.5
PT 29.7 20.1
IT 27.4 14.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
The percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers vary considerably from one
member state to another. The difference between the highest (Ireland) and the lowest
(Italy) percentages of satisfied consumers is greater than 50 percentage points.
The countries with very high percentages of satisfied consumers by comparison with the
EU25 average are Ireland, Malta, Lithuania, Germany, Estonia, Austria, Luxembourg,
Slovenia, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Finland and the UK. Ireland
has the highest percentage of satisfied consumers (78%).
On the other hand, countries with the lowest percentages of satisfied consumers are found
in:
Overall, southern European countries (except Malta and Cyprus) appear to have the lowest
percentages of satisfied consumers.
In addition, consumers in the Czech Republic (23%) and Portugal (20%) are most dissatisfied
with fixed telephone services by comparison with other SGIs. The percentage of
dissatisfied consumers in Italy, Poland and Hungary is between 10% and 15%. The member
states with the lowest percentage of dissatisfied consumers are Ireland, Austria and Malta
(less than 3%).
FT. 3 Fixed telephony: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category -
percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your fixed phone supplier?
% by socio-demographics
Gender
55+ 56 6.9
Up to 15 years 50 7.9
Education
Dissatisfied
Still studying 42.1 10.8
Students 41.4 11
Once again, retired people are relatively more satisfied (58%), as are white collar workers
(55.5%). Both groups are significantly more satisfied than the EU25 average. They are
followed by unemployed people (55%), blue collar workers (52%), managers (51%) and
house-persons (50%).
Finally, students (41%) and self-employed people (40.5%) are significantly less satisfied
than the average. These two groups also include the highest percentage of dissatisfied
consumers (over 10%).
Education does not seem to explain how far consumers are or are not satisfied with their
fixed telephone service.
The graph also shows that, the older the consumer, the more satisfied he/she is with
his/her fixed telephone service.
Whereas fixed telephone operators enjoy a positive image in most EU countries, with
results above 50%, consumers from 6 countries take the opposite view: Portugal (25%),
Italy (31%), Spain (35%), Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden (39% each).
B) OVERALL QUALITY
More than 70% of users in Slovenia, Lithuania, Ireland, Cyprus, Latvia, Belgium, Estonia,
Germany and Hungary think that their fixed telephone provider offers a quality service
overall whereas this is the case for only 33% of Italians and Portuguese and 47% of Dutch
citizens.
C) OVERALL PRICE
Germany and Ireland are the countries where fixed telephone users are the most satisfied
with the overall prices charged by their operator (61% of them are ‘satisfied’ in both
countries). At the other end of the spectrum, the lowest percentages (less than 40%) of
consumers satisfied with the prices they pay are to be found in most of the southern
European countries (Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece and Malta).
D) COMMITMENT
The level of commitment towards their current fixed telephone operators is relatively high
in the European Union. Indeed, 77% of consumers said they will still use their fixed
telephone supplier in the next 12 months. In Luxembourg and Greece, this is the case for
more than 9 users out of 10. People in the Czech Republic and in Estonia, on the other
hand, show the lowest level of commitment (61%).
Most of the EU25 consumers (84%), especially in the EU15 (85% against 79% in the NMS10),
think that fixed telephone services are available for everybody in their country. In Greece,
Ireland, Portugal and the Netherlands this is true for more than 90% of users. The lowest
percentage of people agreeing with this statement can be found in Latvia (64%).
In terms of competition, 75% of EU25 users (77% in the EU15 and 64% in the NMS10) believe
that it is possible to get what they want from any fixed telephone supplier without a
reduction in quality. Irish, Dutch and German consumers agree with this statement most
(more than 80% in each country) whereas people in Latvia (32%), Malta (35%), Lithuania
(43%) and the Czech Republic (46%) agree with it least. However, a lower percentage of
EU25 users think (67% of EU25 consumers against 69% in the EU15 and 57% in the NMS10)
that it would be easy to change from one operator to another, especially in Ireland (81%).
The lowest percentages of people agreeing with this statement are to be found in Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta and Czech Republic (30%, 35%, 37% and 48% respectively).
A small percentage of EU25 consumers (28%) believe that it is possible to buy fixed
telephone services from another country. However, in Ireland, almost half of the users
believe that it is possible.
Finally, a large majority of EU25 citizens (80%) who use fixed telephone services prefer to
deal with a national operator.
As shown in the table below, pricing issues have the biggest impact on consumers’ overall
satisfaction, followed by image and quality.
Regression coefficients
Quality 0.241
Image 0.428
Pricing 0.464
Given the low impact that this criterion has on consumer satisfaction, people do not
appear to have particular expectations regarding quality. This may be due to the fact that
the quality of their fixed telephone service is taken for granted by consumers.
The diagram below shows the areas where priority actions are needed to improve
consumers’ satisfaction with the electricity supply service.
The diagram is put together by taking into account the following information:
Importance +
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
The average satisfaction score that consumers give to all the items is 7.24 out of 10. For
fixed telephony, consumers give a satisfaction score of 7.2 to the elements related to
image and 6.7 to those related to pricing, which is below the average.
At the same time, pricing and image are of high importance for consumers i.e. they have
the biggest impact on consumers’ overall satisfaction.
Therefore, efforts should be focused in these two areas in order to increase consumers’
overall satisfaction with their fixed telephone service.
PRICE
The level of price (‘price level’ in the diagram) for fixed telephone services is one of the
main sources of dissatisfaction for EU25 consumers.
Historically, the price of telecommunications has been high in Europe compared to other
countries such as the United States, Canada or even Hong Kong, where local calls were
free. Recently, several factors have raised the price consciousness of EU consumers
(liberalisation of the telecoms industry has put the spotlight on the different tariffs
charged by different operators in different countries, competition between information
technologies (e.g. Voice over Internet Protocol). All these factors make fixed telephony a
basic service that consumers are not ready to pay much for any more. Consequently, in a
number of countries, the penetration of mobile telephony has recently become higher than
that of fixed telephony. All of this could explain why, in spite of considerable price
reductions since 2000, the pricing of fixed phone services is still a point of dissatisfaction
for EU consumers.
Commercial offers from fixed telephone operators (the lack of special prices for specific
target groups or specific usage) are also a source of dissatisfaction for consumers.
Both price level and commercial offers are two areas that need special attention and on
which action for improvement should focus.
IMAGE
However, on the evidence of the low satisfaction scores given by consumers, their
expectations are not being met in these areas.
It may well be that, although operators are offering more and more tailor-made solutions
in terms of tariffs and services (e.g. second call signal, voice mail, forwarding, caller ID),
the great diversity of tariffs makes the assessment of the best offer and the most
interesting supplier difficult for consumers. Consequently, there is no consensus in the
overall opinion about a particular operator.
Nevertheless, according to the second quadrant of the diagram, consumers think that their
operator is popular, they are familiar with their operator (they understand what they do)
and they are satisfied with the relationship they have with them. In addition, their
operator is technologically advanced and has the ability to innovate.
QUALITY
As mentioned before, quality of service does not have a big impact on consumer
satisfaction. This does not mean that quality is not important for consumers. It may just
mean that quality is generally guaranteed and therefore consumers tend to take it for
granted. They do not have particular expectations in this respect.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering these observations and the fact that the criteria of image and pricing are the
elements that have the most influence on consumers’ overall satisfaction, the following
are potential ways in which fixed telephony services could be improved:
o decreasing the price level combined with increasing the quality and visibility of
commercial tariffs;
o improving the overall image of the service providers in terms of reputation and
customer service mentality.
On the other hand, the positive elements of the fixed phone services that must be
maintained are:
This difference is clear from the much higher percentage of satisfied consumers in the
NMS10, as shown in the graph below.
MP. 1 Mobile phone: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your mobile phone supplier?
% Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
EU15 64.4 4.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
MP. 2 Mobile phone: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your mobile phone supplier?
Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
CY 83.9 0.7
DE 83.5 2.9
HU 82.9 2.1
LV 79.9 2.5
MT 79.6 2.3
LT 79.1 3.6
EE 78.3 1.7
SI 76.8 2.8
AT 76.4 2.4
BE 74.4 1.3
CZ 73.8 5.8
IE 73 2.6
SK 73 4.1
FI 72.7 3.4
DK 71.4 6 Dissatisfied
EL 70.9 2.7
LU 69.2 3.4
PT 68.8 2.6
UK 67.5 3.4
PL 67.2 4.1
FR 55.3 6.4
NL 51 2.5
IT 49.7 2.6
ES 41.7 8.7
0 20 40 60 80 100
Most countries have higher percentages of satisfied consumers than the EU25 does on
average. This is especially the case for Cyprus, Belgium and Hungary.
The lowest percentages of satisfied consumers are to be found in France (55%), the
Netherlands and Italy (about 50%) and finally Spain (42%).
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your mobile phone supplier?
% by socio-demographics
Gender
Men 65.5 4
55+ 67 3.1
Self-employed 60 4.5
Dissatisfied
House-persons 65.7 3
Unemployed 65.6 5
Operators in the new member states enjoy a more positive image than those in the EU15
do. Indeed, for 80% of those in the NMS10, their mobile provider has a good overall
reputation in the market (against 66% in the EU15). This is especially the case for the
Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia.
In the EU15, Germans are the first to think that their mobile phone operator enjoys a good
overall reputation (82%). At the other extreme, less than 50% of Spaniards and Dutch
people say that their mobile phone operator has a good reputation (44% and 48%
respectively).
B) OVERALL QUALITY
In terms of quality, users in the new member states are also more satisfied with the
services provided by their operator than users in the EU15 are (80% for the former against
69% for the latter). The results by country are similar to the overall picture across the EU.
Dutch people are more satisfied with their supplier’s quality of service (56%) than with its
overall image in the market (48%). Italy and Spain are the two countries where the lowest
percentage of people satisfied with the overall quality of their mobile phone provider are
to be found (47% and 43% respectively).
C) OVERALL PRICE
Mobile phone users are relatively satisfied with their operator’s prices (55% of consumers
in the EU25 are satisfied). This is especially the case in the new member states (65%
against 53% in the EU15).
At the individual country level, in countries such as Ireland, Cyprus, Poland, Denmark,
Austria, Slovenia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and
Germany, the percentage of people who are satisfied with their operator’s prices ranges
from 60% to 77%. In 6 countries, this percentage falls below 50%: Spain (26%), Italy (39%),
the Netherlands (42%), France and Portugal (44% each) as well as Sweden (46%).
D) COMMITMENT
The level of commitment towards mobile telephone operators is relatively high in the
European Union. Indeed, 84% of consumers say they will still use their mobile telephone
supplier in the next 12 months. In the new member states, 88% say they will still use their
mobile telephone supplier in the next 12 months. In Portugal, Greece, Latvia, Czech
Republic and Hungary, the level of commitment is higher than 90%. In Denmark, 76% say
they will keep their provider but 15% will not, which is the highest score compared to the
EU average (7%). In Cyprus, almost a quarter could not make up their minds (24% of ‘don’t
knows’ against an EU average of 9%).
Most of the EU25 consumers (88%) think that mobile telephone services are available for
everybody in their country. In Greece and Ireland this is true for 98% and 96% of users
respectively. The lowest percentage of people agreeing with this statement is to be found
in Cyprus (60%).
89% of EU25 users (90% in the EU15 and 86% in the NMS10) believe that there is enough
competition on the mobile phone market. This is especially the case for Greeks (98%),
Estonians (97%), Latvians and British people (95% each), Dutch people (94%), Germans and
Portuguese (93%), Spaniards (91%) and Polish (90%) whereas in Malta it is only the case for
52% of consumers.
A lower percentage of EU25 users (78% of the EU25 as against 77% in EU15 and 82% in the
NMS10) think that it would be easy to change from one operator to another. In France and
Denmark it appears to be more difficult than in other countries, as only 54% and 60%
respectively say that there are no barriers.
A larger percentage of EU25 consumers (41%) believe that there is a possibility of buying
mobile telephone services from another country than it is the case for fixed telephony
(28%). However, only 23% of Danes, 27% of Maltese and 28% of Lithuanians and Slovenians
think that buying mobile telephone services from another country is possible.
Finally, a large majority of EU25 citizens (79%) who use mobile telephone services prefer
to deal with an operator in their country.
As shown in the table below, pricing is the criterion that has the biggest impact on
consumers’ overall satisfaction, i.e. consumers’ biggest expectations regard pricing first.
The second most important criterion is image, followed by quality in third place.
Regression coefficients
Quality 0.278
Image 0.335
Pricing 0.435
The areas where priority actions are needed to improve consumers’ satisfaction with their
mobile phone services are set out in this diagram.
Importance +
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
Consumers are very satisfied with all the elements regarding quality of service and image
of their mobile phone operator. The average score given by respondents for the quality
criterion is 8.1 and for image (8.0) while price, which is the main element of importance
for consumers overall, obtained a lower satisfaction score (7.5).
PRICE
The elements of pricing which do not meet consumers’ expectations are the following:
Given the fact that pricing is the criterion of highest importance for consumers, priority
actions should be taken in this area.
IMAGE
Another source of discontent for consumers is the fact that their provider has no unique
image. Consumers expect more differentiation between providers. This might be explained
by the fact that, given the many providers, products, services and tariff plans on the
market, consumers find it difficult to distinguish between the specificities of the providers
and to make the best choice.
In addition, consumers are concerned about the environment and the effect mobile
services have on the environment. In this respect, mobile phone operators do not meet
consumers’ expectations.
These elements are two areas of interest where immediate action is needed to improve
consumers’ overall satisfaction with mobile phone services.
On the other hand, consumers believe that operators are technologically innovative, which
is of high importance to them. This observation suggests that efforts should be made to
maintain this situation.
QUALITY
There is no particular need for improvement in the short term. Although consumers are not
happy with the way operators deal with their problems and questions, these elements are
of less importance for them given the distance between points of sale and their home and
the safety of mobile phone services. These elements have a low impact on consumers’
overall satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the above, the following are the main opportunities for action that could increase
consumer satisfaction:
o bringing down prices whilst increasing the range of attractive special tariffs for
specific target groups or specific usage;
o strengthening the image of the operators, bringing more differentiation onto the
market so that operators get a unique image for consumers as well as a good
reputation;
o improving the customer service mentality;
o raising operators’ awareness of environmental issues which translate into
appropriate measures in this field.
On the other hand, items with which consumers are most satisfied and that must be
preserved are:
6. Urban transport
6.1 OVERALL RESULTS
Urban transport is the SGI with which consumers in the EU are least satisfied. The EU25
average is 7.0 on a scale from 1 to 10.
As shown in the graph below, consumers in the new member states are less satisfied with
this SGI than EU15 consumers are. Indeed, 40.3% of NMS10 consumers are satisfied while
45.2% of EU15 consumers are satisfied. There are also more dissatisfied consumers in the
NMS10 compared to EU15. In addition, the proportion of dissatisfied consumers is the
highest compared to other SGIs.
UT. 1 Urban transport: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your urban transport supplier?
% Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
EU15 45.2 8.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your urban transport supplier?
Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
IE 65.6 5
FI 63.9 5
LV 62 4.2
AT 61 7.2
LU 57.5 9.4
LT 57.4 6.8
BE 57.1 3.9
EL 53.6 8
DE 52.3 7.8
EE 49.7 10.9
FR 49.2 7.2
SI 46.4 12.4
UK 43.3 6.7
PT 40.4 5.1
SE 39.5 17.3
PL 39.2 10.8
HU 37.7 22.2
ES 35.4 10.7
IT 33.7 13.7
MT 29.4 15.9
NL 25 3.7
CY 23 53.8
SK 21.9 31.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Satisfaction with urban transport varies from country to country in the EU25.
The most satisfied consumers are to be found in Ireland, Finland, Latvia, Austria,
Luxembourg, Lithuania, Belgium, Greece, Germany, Estonia, France and Slovenia. The
percentages of satisfied consumers in these countries are higher than the EU25 average
and range from 65.6% in Ireland to 46.4% in Slovenia.
On the other hand, in Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Spain, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands,
Cyprus and Slovakia, fewer than 4 consumers out of 10 are satisfied with urban transport.
In Slovakia, only 22% are satisfied with this SGI.
The highest percentages of dissatisfied consumers are in Malta (54%) and Slovakia (31.5%).
UT. 3 Urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic category -
percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your urban transport supplier?
% by socio-demographics
Gender
Women 45.3 9
Dissatisfied
20 years + 42.6 10.6
Self-employed 40.2 14
Retired consumers are once again the most satisfied consumers (55%) compared to other
socio-economic groups. They are followed by the unemployed and blue collar workers. The
highest percentage of dissatisfied consumers is among the self-employed (14%).
In terms of education levels, consumers who left secondary school early and those who
stopped studying between 16 and 19 years appear to be the most satisfied (around 47%)
compared to those who kept on studying after they were 20 years old (43%).
Consumers’ ages tends to be an element that might explain satisfaction with urban
transport. The older the respondents, the more satisfied they are with this SGI.
There is no significant difference between men and women in terms of how far they are
satisfied with urban transport.
Operators in Ireland, Finland, Austria, Latvia, Greece, Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg
have a good reputation, according to more than 50% of users. In Cyprus, Malta, Slovakia
and Denmark less than 20% of consumers see them as having a good reputation.
B) OVERALL QUALITY
In terms of quality of service, users in the EU15 are more satisfied with their urban
transport services than users in the NMS10 (44% for the former against 37% for the latter).
Overall, the results by country show similar profiles of responses to what has been
observed in the EU as a whole.
C) OVERALL PRICE
Users in Ireland and Latvia are the most satisfied with the prices they pay for urban
transport services. Indeed, 56% of users in both countries said prices were fair (against an
EU25 average of 35%). The least satisfied are users in the Netherlands (17%), Slovakia
(18%), Portugal (19%) and Denmark (20%).
The percentage of dissatisfied people is relatively high in the European Union (14%),
especially in Denmark (41%), Slovakia (36%) and Hungary (25%). In the first two countries
mentioned, the percentage of dissatisfied users is even greater than the percentage of
satisfied users.
D) COMMITMENT
In countries where people can have a choice between urban transport companies (i.e.
Belgium, Greece, Finland, France, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal,
Slovakia, Sweden and the UK) a large majority of users (89%) have no intention of changing
service provider in the short run (within a year).
Most of the EU25 users (69%), especially in the NMS10 (77% against 67% in the EU15) think
that urban transport services are available for everybody in their country. However, this is
the case for only 24% of users in Cyprus and 47% in Sweden.
In terms of competition, the majority of EU users of urban transport services do not think
that there is enough competition (62%), especially in Sweden (84%), France (83%), the
Netherlands (72%) and Slovakia (71%) whereas in Portugal and Ireland, users tend to have
the opposite feeling (58% and 53% respectively saying that there is not enough
competition). In addition, more than 5 users out of 10 feel that it would not be easy to
change from one urban transport company to another.
A small percentage of EU25 users (15%) think that it is possible to buy urban transport
services in another EU country.
Finally, roughly in line with what has been observed for other services, a large majority of
EU25 citizens (77%) prefer to deal with a national operator when it comes to urban
transport.
As can be seen in the following table, the image of a given urban transport company is the
most important criterion determining consumers’ overall satisfaction.
Regression coefficients
Quality 0.347
Image 0.516
Pricing 0.394
The regression coefficient for image, which indicates the importance or weight of image in
the overall satisfaction of consumers, is greater than 0.5.
This means that actions that would improve the image of urban transport companies would
result in a bigger increase in the percentage of consumers satisfied with this SGI than if
these actions were focused on pricing or quality.
In order to design actions that would improve consumers’ overall satisfaction with urban
transport, it is important to determine the priority areas that need special attention.
This is done by means of a diagram taking into account the following information:
The diagram on the following page shows the areas where priority actions are needed to
improve consumers’ overall satisfaction with urban transport.
Importance +
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
Consumers seem to be more satisfied with the quality of urban transport services and the
image of urban transport companies than with pricing issues. The satisfaction scores given
by respondents are 7.0, 6.9 and 6.6 respectively.
However, the regression coefficient mentioned in the previous section showed that image
and not pricing is the criterion consumers consider to be the most important.
It is therefore important to look into the elements of image and, to a lesser extent, pricing
that need to be improved in order to increase consumers’ overall satisfaction with urban
transport.
The areas that need to be improved will be determined by looking at how far people are
satisfied with the elements of image and pricing and how important they are for them.
These are illustrated in the diagram on the previous page.
IMAGE
Although urban transport companies seem to enjoy a positive image overall, 4 elements
are sources of dissatisfaction among consumers:
• urban transport companies do not seem to have a unique image – consumers expect
more differentiation between theses companies;
• they also would like to have easier contact with these companies and request more
flexibility;
• transport companies need to have a good reputation;
• these companies need have more of a ‘customer service mentality’.
PRICING
Although consumers feel that urban transport companies offer attractive special tariffs for
specific targets and usage, that invoices and tariffs are easy to understand and that
payment of tickets is fairly easy, using this service is still expensive.
QUALITY
CONCLUSIONS
Priority actions should be taken in the following areas in order to increase consumer
satisfaction:
On the other hand, items that give the most satisfaction level to consumers must be
maintained, such as:
o the payment process, the transparency of invoices and tariffs and commercial
offers plus their ability to innovate (‘state of the art’).
Finally, in the long run it would be appropriate to take the following measures to boost
consumers’ overall satisfaction with urban transport:
7. Extra-urban transport
7.1. OVERALL RESULTS
Extra-urban transport is also one of the SGIs with which consumers are the least satisfied
(average satisfaction score of 7.0).
Looking at the percentage of satisfied consumers in the EU25 (45.6%) as shown in the graph
below, it appears that consumers in the NMS10 are more satisfied with extra-urban
transport services than consumers in the EU15 are. The percentage of dissatisfied
consumers is also higher in these countries than in the EU15 (12% of them being dissatisfied
as against 9.9% of them being dissatisfied in the EU15).
EUT. 1 Extra-urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your extra-urban transport supplier?
% Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
EU15 45.3 9.9
NMS10 47.1 12
0 20 40 60 80 100
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your extra-urban transport
supplier?
Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
IE 72.4 3.3
FI 67.4 3.3
LT 66.5 5.2
LV 66.2 3.5
EL 63.4 4.4
EE 58 6.3
PT 55.5 4.5
UK 55.4 6.3
LU 54.2 6.8
SE 54.1 7.9
FR 52.6 7.2
BE 52.2 4.6
SI 51.5 8.3
HU 50 17.6
AT 49 12.7 Satisfied
PL 46.2 7.4
CZ 43.7 17
ES 43.6 5.1
DE 42.4 16.2
DK 37.5 17.1
SK 28.6 23.4
IT 24.2 18
NL 24 6
0 20 40 60 80 100
The most satisfied consumers are to be found in Ireland (72%), Finland, Lithuania, Latvia
and Greece, with the percentage of satisfied consumers ranging from 63% to 67%, followed
by consumers in Estonia, Portugal, the UK, Luxembourg and Sweden, with figures from 54%
to 58%, and finally France and Belgium, which are slightly above the average (52%).
In Denmark the percentage of satisfied consumers is well below the average (37.5%). In
Slovakia, Italy and the Netherlands the percentage of satisfied consumers is below 30%.
23% of Slovakians are dissatisfied consumers. In six other countries – Italy, Hungary,
Denmark, the Czech Republic, Germany and Austria – the percentage of dissatisfied
consumers is between 13% and 18%.
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your extra-urban transport
supplier?
% by socio-demographics
Satisfied
Other white collars 42.1 12.5
Dissatisfied
Occupation
The graph on the previous page shows that about half of retired people, blue collar
workers and house-persons are satisfied – which is significantly higher than the EU25
average for this sector. Around 40% of white collar workers and 30% of students are
satisfied with this SGI.
The earlier consumers left school, the more satisfied they are. Age is also related to
satisfaction: older consumers are more satisfied and there are more dissatisfied consumers
among younger people. Men and women do not differ in this respect.
Operators in Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Greece, the UK, Slovenia, Estonia,
Portugal and Poland have a good reputation according to more than 50% of the users. In
Denmark and the Netherlands, less than 20% think that the operators have a good
reputation.
B) OVERALL QUALITY
Overall, the results by country show similar patterns of responses to what has been
observed for the EU as a whole.
C) OVERALL PRICE
Users in Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary and the UK are the most satisfied with the
prices they pay for extra-urban transport services (more than 50% of users are satisfied).
The least satisfied are users in the Netherlands (14%), Italy (18%), Slovakia (22%) and
Denmark (28%).
The percentage of dissatisfied people is relatively high in the European Union (15%), in
particular in Denmark (34%) and Slovakia (33%). In both countries mentioned, the
percentage of dissatisfied users is even greater than that of satisfied users.
D) COMMITMENT
In countries where people can choose between extra-urban transport companies (all
except Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, France, Hungary, Luxembourg and Malta) a large
majority of users (88%) have no intention of changing service provider in the short run
(within a year).
Most of the EU25 users (70%) think that extra-urban transport services are available for
everybody in their country, especially in Greece (91%). However, this is the case for only
48% of users in Sweden.
In terms of competition, EU users of extra-urban transport services are split when asked to
say whether there is enough competition in their country or not. Indeed, 46% answer that
there is enough competition and the same percentage takes the opposite view. However,
users in the new member states have a more positive assessment than users in the EU15: in
the former group, 51% think that there is enough competition while only 44% of the latter
group think that there is enough competition.
The majority of users in Austria, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Sweden do
not think that there is enough competition while the majority of users in Estonia, Spain,
Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and the UK think that there is enough
competition.
A small percentage of EU users (30%) think that it is possible to buy extra-urban transport
services across borders. However, the percentage is higher than it was for urban transport
(15%).
Finally, roughly in line with what has been observed for other services, a majority of EU25
citizens (75%) prefer to deal with a national operator when it comes to urban transport.
The regression coefficients (i.e. the importance or weight in the overall consumers’
satisfaction) of the criteria of pricing, quality and image in extra-urban transport services
are shown in the table below:
Regression coefficients
Quality 0.326
Image 0.532
Pricing 0.384
As with urban transport, consumers have the highest expectations when it comes to the
image of extra-urban transport companies. Their overall satisfaction with this SGI is
influenced to a great extent by this criterion.
Pricing is the second most important criterion for consumers.
As noted before, extra-urban transport is the SGI that satisfies consumers least. We also
know that image, followed by pricing, are important criteria for consumers.
It is important to determine the areas that need special priority attention in order to
design actions that would improve consumers’ overall satisfaction with extra-urban
transport.
This is done via a diagram, which takes into account the following information:
The diagram on the following page shows the areas where priority actions are needed to
improve consumers’ overall satisfaction with extra-urban transport.
Importance +
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
Pricing is the main source of dissatisfaction among consumers. Indeed, they gave an
average score of 6.5, which is below the average satisfaction score. And yet, this criterion
is the second most important for consumers after image.
IMAGE
Roughly in line with what was observed for urban transport, the elements with which
consumers are the least satisfied but which are very important for them are:
• ‘environmental-friendliness’;
• ‘uniqueness’: companies do not have a unique image;
• ‘reputation’;
• ‘ease’: it is not easy to deal with extra-urban transport companies;
• ‘customer service mentality’.
This result from the survey might be explained by the fact that extra-urban transport
suffers from a bad image due to delays, low flexibility, limited comfort, etc.
Consequently, the use of extra-urban transport (especially train transport) fell in favour of
other alternatives (e.g. car, plane). Thanks to improvements in quality, the constant rise
of mobility problems and the increase in petrol prices, there has been a renewed interest
in extra-urban transport. But the survey results show that much effort is still required to
improve the image of the sector and to increase consumer satisfaction.
PRICE
Pricing is one of the areas where action is most needed and where there are most
opportunities for action. More specifically, these actions might be taken with regard to
transparency of tariffs and price levels.
QUALITY
Results related to quality of service are similar to what was observed for urban transport.
Once again, people do not seem to have enough information about extra-urban transport.
It can be assumed that this result is linked to the insufficient visibility or availability of
timetables and/or to the information provided to passengers in the event of delays or
other problems. Consumers seem satisfied with most of the important quality-related
elements, such as comfort, network, infrastructure, safety. However, their expectations
for improvement in these areas are also low. As in other services, the consumer seems to
take quality for granted.
CONCLUSIONS
o the elements related to image are also the main drivers of overall satisfaction for
extra-urban transport; strengthening the supplier image by developing a unique
image, improving customer service mentality, improving the flexibility of suppliers
in terms of consumer contact and increasing attention to environmental
considerations to improve the supplier’s reputation;
o bringing down the prices of extra-urban transport services and improving the
transparency of tariffs.
On the other hand, elements with which consumers are satisfied and that need to be
maintained are:
8. Air transport
8.1. OVERALL RESULTS
Air transport is the service with which EU consumers are most satisfied (8.0 out of 10). The
average level of satisfaction is even higher in the new member states (8.3).
The graph below shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers:
AT. 1 Air transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your air transport supplier?
% Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
EU15 65.5 3.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
The percentage of satisfied consumers is relatively high, mainly in the new member states
(nearly 3 out of 4 consumers gave a score of 8 or higher).
AT. 2 Air transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your air transport supplier?
Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
DE 83.2 1.7
CY 83 3.5
HU 82.5 2.5
AT 82.2 1.1
LT 78.6 0.7
FI 77.5 3.2
EL 76.2 3.8
CZ 75.7 6.9
SI 73.8 4.5
LV 68 3.6
PL 67.7 1.3
UK 67.6 4.4
IE 67 3.6
LU 66.5 2.6
DK 65 5.1
PT 64.1 0.9
EE 64.1 3.9
MT 63.6 2.9
SE 62.4 4.5
SK 62 8.2
BE 59.7 2.4
FR 56.1 5.7
NL 52.9 1.2
IT 51.1 3.4
ES 45 6.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
The satisfaction rates in countries with a score higher than the EU25 average range from
83% (Germany) to 74% (Slovenia). Cyprus, Hungary, Austria, Lithuania, Finland, Greece and
the Czech Republic can also be found in this group.
Only five countries drag the EU average down: Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Italy,
with satisfaction levels from 60% to 51% and, substantially below this, Spain with 45%.
The highest percentages of dissatisfied consumers are in the Czech Republic (8%) and
Slovakia (7%), which is somewhat paradoxical since these two countries are not in the
group with the lowest satisfaction rates. More ‘logically’, Spain has a relatively high
dissatisfaction rate of 6%.
AT. 3 Air transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category -
percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your air transport supplier?
% by socio-demographics
Gender
Men 65.7 4
Women 66.6 3
18-34 64.7 4
Age
Self-employed 64.7 5
Dissatisfied
Other white collars 64.9 3.8
Occupation
The professional categories that are most satisfied with air transport are blue collar
workers (71%) and retired people (70%). On the other hand, managers are relatively less
satisfied, with only 63% of respondents satisfied. This result may be related to frequency
of use of air transport but this question was not asked in the survey. However, if the
percentage of respondents who answered the questions related to air transport is used as a
proxy for frequency of use, it appears that occasional users are relatively more satisfied.
This could be due to the fact that they associate air transport with pleasurable events
(e.g. holiday, travel).
Education levels have very little impact on satisfaction. However, respondents who did not
complete secondary school and the ones who are still studying are once again significantly
less satisfied than the others.
Respondents aged 55 years and over are most satisfied (70%) - the other age groups are
equally satisfied (65%). Gender does not explain satisfaction levels.
In Germany, Finland and Czech Republic more than 8 users out of 10 see their air transport
company as having a positive overall image (against an EU25 average of 65%). Although in
Spain and Italy less than 50% of users are satisfied with their air transport company, the
percentage of dissatisfied consumers is very low (7% and 6% respectively), in line with the
EU25 average (4%).
B) OVERALL QUALITY
The majority of users are satisfied with the overall quality of services, especially in the
new member states (76% against 67% in the EU15). Again, the Czech Republic (87%),
Germany (86%) and Finland (84%) are at the top of the list together with Hungary, where
users are a little more convinced of the quality of services provided by their air transport
company (83% against an NMS10 average of 76%) than its overall reputation on the market
(79% against an NMS10 average of 77%).
C) OVERALL PRICE
For a large percentage of users in Germany (77%), Hungary (73%), Czech Republic (72%),
Ireland (71%), UK (68%), Latvia (67%), Austria (66%), Slovakia (64%) and Finland (61%), the
air transport company they use most has fair prices. This is less the case in Spain (34%),
Italy and Portugal (both 36%), the Netherlands (37%), Sweden (43%), France (44%) and
Malta (46%).
Almost a fifth of Dutch users are dissatisfied with the prices charged by their air transport
company (against an EU25 average of 12%).
D) COMMITMENT
Although the level of commitment to air transport companies is relatively high (76%), it
seems to be lower in the new member states (67%) than in the EU15 (77%).
More than 80% of respondents in Finland, Greece, Portugal, Luxembourg and Germany said
they will still use their air transport company in the next 12 months whereas in 56% in
Slovakia and 59% in Hungary say they will still use their air transport company in the next
12 months.
Consumers’ preference for a national operator is less marked for air transport than for
other services, especially in the new member states (54% as against 61% in the EU15). The
least attached to national operators are the Danes, the Swedes and the Slovenians as a
majority (more than 50%) said they do not prefer to deal with a national air transport
company. The Greeks and Cypriots have the opposite opinion (more than 80% say they do
prefer to deal with a national air transport company). In addition, when asked whether
they think it is possible to buy air transport services from a supplier outside their country,
81% say that they think it is.
There seems to be enough competition and it seems to be easy to change from one air
transport company to another, according to more than 80% of EU consumers.
Finally, services provided by air transport companies are available for everybody and
everywhere, according to a majority of respondents in the EU25 and especially in the EU15
(83% as against 72% in the NMS10).
The importance of pricing, image and quality in the air transport service is shown by the
following regression coefficients:
Regression coefficients
Quality 0.369
Image 0.352
Pricing 0.364
In the air transport service, quality, image and pricing impact on consumer satisfaction to
almost the same extent. In the eyes of consumers, these factors are balanced: a reduction
in one factor can be compensated by an increase in another (e.g. a consumer is prepared
to take an airline with a somewhat lower image provided that the price is lower).
For the elements of pricing, image and quality, the following diagram shows the
relationship between observed satisfaction (X-axis) and the impact that these elements
have on overall consumer satisfaction (‘Importance’, Y-axis).
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATION
As mentioned previously, the three criteria (quality, price and image) are almost as
important as each other for consumers. They will therefore have almost the same
influence on consumers’ overall satisfaction.
However, consumers seem to be more satisfied with the overall quality of service (average
satisfaction score of 8) and image of air transporters (7.9) than with pricing issues (7.6).
PRICE
Two items related to pricing are found in the upper-left quadrant, which corresponds to
opportunities for priority actions: ‘commercial offers’ and ‘price level’. This may seem
surprising given the numerous possibilities to find cheap solutions and not to pay high
prices. The reason might be that these possibilities are only available to some specific
consumers, i.e. those who know where to find them, and, as is often the case, those who
are familiar with the use of the internet. Only the better informed and the more
knowledgeable consumers find the best promotional offers. The survey results may
therefore suggest that the digital divide continues to be a challenge if we are to deliver
equal services to EU consumers via online commercial offer and booking facilities. Other
price-related items are in the upper-right quadrant, which indicates an ideal situation that
needs to be maintained: easy means of payment (‘payment process’), ‘accuracy’ of
invoices and ‘transparency’ of tariffs.
QUALITY
In terms of quality, the lack of information about services and the presence of nearby
agencies are the main sources of dissatisfaction. The concerns about information may be
related to information provided in the event of late departures or cancellations. This
situation ought to improve in the future because of the recent legislation on EU passenger
rights. Other components of the quality and below average satisfaction are ‘availability’
and, to a lesser extent, questions/problem handling. All these items are more or less
related to service or to contact with the consumer. On the other hand, items relating to
technical matters produce very high scores, including ‘safety’ and ‘reliability’ of service,
which are important factors in air transport.
IMAGE
Working towards building a unique airline companies’ image and working on airline
companies’ impact on the environment are their main areas for improvement. The reason
that consumers are concerned about uniqueness is that there are no big differences
between airlines in terms of the product they deliver. Consumers therefore usually choose
the company that allows them to fly at the lowest price.
CONCUSIONS
o to work on all the client relationship related items: handling questions and
problems, availability, presence of nearby points of sale, information and a
customer service mentality;
o to make commercial offers and special conditions easily available to everyone,
which should lead to lower perceived price levels;
o to work on parameters that could reduce the environmental impact of air transport
and/or communicate on existing action in this domain.
9. Postal services
9.1. OVERALL RESULTS
Postal services is one of the SGIs with which consumers are the least satisfied. Indeed,
they gave a score of 7.2 on a 10-point scale, which is similar to the rating they give to
urban and extra-urban transport.
The next graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers among the
respondents:
PS. 1 Postal services: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your postal services supplier?
% Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
EU15 50.5 6.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
In the new member states, consumers tend to be more satisfied than in the EU15. The
percentage of dissatisfied consumers is also larger in the NMS10 than in the EU15. This
observation implies that consumers in the NMS10 are less neutral or less indifferent
towards postal services.
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your postal services supplier?
Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
IE 81.7 2
LT 80.2 1.2
CY 77 5.8
SI 74.2 3.6
EE 71.5 2.8
HU 70.7 7.6
EL 69.7 4
LV 67.8 4.1
LU 67.5 2.6
FI 66.4 5.3
PT 64.9 3.9
MT 61.7 8.2
PL 61.3 7.8
SK 59.4 5.9
DE 58.5 5 Satisfied
UK 55.8 9.2
DK 52.8 11.6
CZ 51.8 10.7
ES 47.7 3.8
NL 47.5 2.5
FR 46.1 7.3
SE 44.8 21.7
BE 43.8 6.4
IT 28.7 10.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
In most of the EU25 countries (in 17 countries), consumers tend to be more satisfied than
the EU25 average. This is especially the case for Ireland and Lithuania, with more than 80%
of satisfied consumers. The countries where less than 50% of consumers are satisfied are to
be found in Spain (47.7%), the Netherlands (47.5%), France (46.1%), Sweden (44.8%),
Belgium (43.8%) and Italy (28.7%).
The highest percentages of dissatisfied consumers are in Sweden (21.7%), Denmark
(11.6%), the Czech Republic (10.7%) and Italy (10.2%).
PS. 3 Postal services: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category -
percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your postal services supplier?
% by socio-demographics
Gender
Up to 15 years 55.6 7
Education
Managers 48.8 8
Satisfied
Retired people (56.6%), blue collar workers (54.9%), the unemployed (53.8%) and house-
persons are more satisfied than other consumers.
Consumers who did not complete secondary school education are somewhat more satisfied
(56%) with postal services than the other education groups. Consumers aged over 55 are
once again the most satisfied group (55.5%) and the people aged between 35 and 54 are
significantly less satisfied with postal services. There is no statistically significant
difference between women and men in this respect.
The highest percentage of consumers in the NMS10 agreeing with the statement that postal
services providers have a good reputation in the market are to be found in Slovenia (75%
against an NMS average of 61%), Estonia and Lithuania (both 68%). In the EU15, Ireland
(76% against an EU15 average of 46%), Greece (71%), Luxembourg (67%) and Finland (63%)
have the highest percentage of consumers agreeing with the statement that postal services
providers have a good reputation in the market. Only 21% of Swedes and 29% of Italians
think so. In Sweden, 38% of consumers do not agree at all with this statement (against an
EU25 average of 9%).
B) OVERALL QUALITY
61% of consumers in the NMS10, as against 48% in the EU15, agree with the statement that
their postal services provider offers good quality services. Results at country level are in
line with what was observed across the EU as a whole. However, it is interesting to note
that, in Sweden, 45% of consumers agree with this statement and 15% do not (against an
EU25 average of 7%). This last result contrasts with what was observed for the EU as a
whole.
C) OVERALL PRICE
Although only 39% of EU consumers think that their postal services provider’s prices are
fair, the level of dissatisfaction with these prices is quite low (11%).
Ireland (69%) and Greece (61%) are the countries where the highest percentages of
satisfied consumers are to be found. In Italy (25%) and Sweden (26%), on the other hand,
the lowest percentages of satisfied consumers are to be found. Again, in Sweden, 37% of
people are dissatisfied with the prices charged for postal services. To a lesser extent, this
is the case for 27% of Danes and 23% of Slovaks. It is also interesting to note that, in Italy,
the level of dissatisfied consumers is lower than the average (8% against 11% in the EU25).
D) COMMITMENT
Given that consumers can choose between several suppliers in only two countries, survey
results concerning this area are not meaningful.
For almost 9 consumers out of 10 in the European Union, postal services are available for
everybody and everywhere. In Sweden, this is the case for only 57% of the people. In this
country, 37% disagree with this statement (against an EU average of 10%).
A large percentage of people do not seem to think that it is possible to buy postal services
in another EU country. Only 29% of EU citizens believe that it is possible (31% in the EU15
and 21% in the NMS10).
Finally, 83% of EU consumers prefer to deal with a national postal services company.
Image is the criterion that seems to contribute most to consumers’ overall satisfaction, as
shown in the table below. This result seems quite logical for a proximity service such as
the postal service. One might also assume that, given the level of confidence that
consumers needs to have in a mail service provider, consumers pay particular attention to
the reputation of their provider.
It is important to determine the areas where the SGI is not performing well and which are
very important for consumers in order to define precise and concrete actions that need to
be taken to improve consumers’ satisfaction with postal services.
This is done via a diagram, which takes into account the following information:
The diagram on the following page shows the areas where priority actions are needed to
improve consumers’ satisfaction with postal services.
Importance +
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
IMAGE
The elements related to the image of postal services that provide the most satisfaction to
consumers are the following:
These positive results are probably due to the fact that postal mail is an old, well
identified and well-known institution in all the countries. However, results tend to indicate
that improvement is needed in the following important areas for consumers:
QUALITY
Interestingly, consumers are quite satisfied with the points of sale, hence confirming the
good proximity service of the postal services.
However, consumers expect to receive more regular information about products and
services. They also expect their problems or questions to be dealt with quickly and
adequately. Lastly, they would like to have access to postal services when needed, at
more convenient times.
PRICE
Two very important elements of price are a source of dissatisfaction among consumers:
o ‘commercial offers’
o ‘price level’
CONCLUSIONS
Given the above, the actions to take to improve consumers’ overall satisfaction can be
summarised as follows:
The following graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers:
RB. 1 Retail banking: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your banking retail supplier?
% Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
EU15 62.1 4.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Overall, consumers in the new member states tend to be more satisfied with this SGI than
in the EU15.
RB. 2 Retail banking: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your banking retail supplier?
Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
FI 87.4 0.8
CY 86.2 2.9
EE 84.2 1.2
LV 80.6 0.7
LT 80.3 1.9
SE 80.3 2
DE 78.6 2.6
AT 77.3 3.1
MT 77.2 2.9
BE 75.9 0.9
LU 75.2 2.3
SI 75.2 3.6
HU 74.4 5.8
DK 71.7 4.7
IE 67.8 4 Satisfied
UK 67.2 4.1
EL 65.3 2.2
PT 64.7 2.5
SK 64.7 5.1
PL 62 4.2
FR 55.5 7.5
ES 50.9 5.1
NL 50.5 2.1
IT 36.7 7.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
In all the member states except in Italy a majority of consumers are satisfied with their
banking services. This is especially the case for Finland, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
and Sweden, where more than 80% of consumers say they are satisfied.
Only 36.7% of Italians are satisfied with their banking services.
RB. 3 Retail banking: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category -
percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your retail banking supplier?
% by socio-demographics
Gender
Satisfied
20 years + 63.9 4
Dissatisfied
House-persons 64 4.5
Except for students, who are less satisfied than the average, the extent to which
consumers are satisfied with retail banking services cannot be explained by the
occupations of consumers.
Consumers who stopped studying at 15 (or earlier) are significantly less satisfied with retail
banking than those who left education when they were older. Consumers who are still
studying are also significantly less satisfied.
Consumers who are aged 55 or older are significantly more satisfied than the younger ones.
Respondents aged between 18 and 34 are significantly less satisfied with the retail banking
services than the EU25 average.
Retail banking is the only SGI surveyed where women are significantly more satisfied than
men (65% vs. 61%).
The consumers who are most satisfied with their retail bank’s reputation are the Latvians
(87%), the Estonians (86%), the Maltese (84%), the Finns (83%), the Cypriots and the Czechs
(80% each). In Italy, France and Spain, this is the case for only 40%, 45% and 48% of
consumers respectively.
B) OVERALL QUALITY
Overall, the results by country show similar patterns of responses to what has been
observed for the EU as a whole.
C) OVERALL PRICE
More than 60% of consumers in Latvia, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Hungary and Belgium are satisfied with the prices of retail banking services. The least
satisfied are consumers in Italy (28%), the Netherlands (38%), Portugal (38%) and France
(39%). The percentages of dissatisfied consumers in the Czech Republic (15% against 7% of
EU25 consumers), Sweden (14%) and France (13%) are relatively high.
D) COMMITMENT
The level of commitment to a given current retail bank is very high in all EU countries
(90%). People are not ready to change banks in the short term.
Most of the EU25 users (86%) think that retail banking services are available for everybody
in their country.
In terms of competition, EU users of retail banking services believe that there is enough
competition (87%) and that it is easy to change from one bank to another (80%).
In addition, almost half of EU25 consumers think that it is possible to purchase services
from a bank outside their country. However, they do not seem ready to do so as a great
majority prefer national banks (83%).
As shown in the table below, the most important criterion for consumers is pricing
followed by image. Consumers’ overall satisfaction is mostly explained by these two
criteria.
This result seems quite logical given that ‘pricing’ includes elements such as the
profitability of the products and services (e.g. the interest rate paid for a mortgage loan),
fixed costs of payments, services charges and financial gains on investments. The impact of
‘quality’ is much more modest, indicating that consumers take quality (reliability, safety,
etc.) for granted and do not consider it as an important differentiating factor.
Regression coefficients
Quality 0.217
Image 0.381
Pricing 0.466
The diagram on the following page shows the areas where priority actions are needed to
improve consumers’ satisfaction with retail banking services.
All the elements of pricing, image and quality have been plotted into the diagram using
two axes:
• the areas where the SGI is not performing well and where action to change the
situation is needed to improve consumers’ satisfaction;
• the areas where the SGI is performing well and where no action is needed.
Importance +
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
As mentioned before, the average satisfaction score of all the elements assessed by
consumers is 7.75, which puts retail among the SGIs with which consumers are most
satisfied.
In addition, the criteria that impact most on overall satisfaction are pricing and image,
while quality seems to be less important in the eyes of consumers.
The diagram shows that image and quality are the criteria with which consumers are most
satisfied. Most of our suggested improvement opportunities will therefore concern pricing
issues.
PRICE
In terms of pricing issues, consumers are most satisfied with everything that is related to
the payment process (making payments for instance) and accuracy (of bank statements),
which can be considered as important strengths in this sector.
This may be explained by the fact that the consumer does not have access to the same
information about the financial markets as a bank has. He does not know exactly how the
bank invests his money and what return it obtains. Therefore, due to a lack of
transparency, the consumer may have the feeling that commercial offers are not what
they could be, price levels are too high (rates of loans) and the profitability of his
investments is limited. This feeling is may be due to insufficient or inadequate information
(often too complicated for the average consumer).
IMAGE
Banks appear to suffer from not having a unique image (‘uniqueness’ in the diagram). This
may be due to the relative complexity of some banking products or to the high number of
competitors in this sector.
In addition, consumers do not think that banks have enough of a ‘customer service
mentality’ and that they are not ‘environmentally-friendly’. Popularity, relationship with
the client and familiarity appear to be very important to consumers and to meet with
consumer satisfaction.
QUALITY
Overall, banks are seen as providing quality services. Consumers are very satisfied with
most of the elements relating to this criterion.
No particular action is needed to improve the quality of service as this criterion has the
least impact on consumers’ overall satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS
The most urgent actions to be taken to raise consumers’ overall levels of satisfaction in the
retail banking service are related to:
o the accuracy and ease of the payment process must continue to be safeguarded;
o the familiarity and popularity of the suppliers and the good relationship between
their staff and their clients are strengths that can be used to carry out the actions
that are needed.
The following graph displays the proportion of satisfied and dissatisfied respondents:
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your insurance supplier?
% Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
EU25 64.4 3
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
EU15 64.6 2.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Although there is no difference between the EU15 and the NMS10 in terms of their
percentages of satisfied respondents, there are significantly more dissatisfied consumers in
the NMS10 than in the EU15 (although the percentages are low).
INS. 2 Insurance: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your insurance supplier?
Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
DE 81.4 1.9
IE 81.3 0.9
CY 79.1 4.4
AT 76.1 1.8
LT 75.7 1.7
FI 75.2 2.1
LU 74.7 3.8
BE 74.3 1.4
SI 73.9 2.5
DK 73.6 3.2
HU 71.3 7
EE 70.7 3.3
LV 70.6 2.8
EL 68.4 1.5
UK 67.6 2.5
FR 65.3 2.3
CZ 65.1 9.1
EU25 64.4 3
SK 58.1 9
PL 55.7 3.5
ES 54.7 3
PT 50.3 4.2
NL 46.6 1.4
IT 42.3 4.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
The countries where there are higher percentages of satisfied consumers than the EU
average include the Czech Republic (65%) and Germany (81%). In this group, Germany,
Ireland, Cyprus, Austria, Lithuania, Finland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Slovenia, Denmark,
Hungary, Estonia and Latvia have 71% or more consumers that are satisfied with insurances
services.
The figures for Greece, the UK, Malta, Sweden, France and the Czech Republic are close to
the EU average of 64%.
Then come four countries - Slovakia, Poland, Spain and Portugal - with rates between 50%
and 58%. The Netherlands and Italy are once again at the bottom of the list with 47% and
42% of satisfied consumers respectively.
There is no country for which over 10% of consumers are dissatisfied. The three countries
with the most dissatisfied consumers are the Czech Republic (9%), Slovakia (9%) and
Hungary (7%).
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your insurance supplier?
% by socio-demographics
Gender
Dissatisfied
House-persons 62.3 2.7
Retired 70 2.9
Retired people are the only socio-economic category that is significantly more satisfied
than the EU25 average (70%). Once again, self-employed people and students, with
percentages of satisfied consumers of 59% and 56% respectively, are below the EU average.
Levels of education have some influence on how satisfied consumers are: early school
leavers and people who are still studying score significantly below the average (with 61%
and 58% respectively). Older people are once again the most satisfied group. Gender does
not significantly impact on satisfaction.
The consumers who are most satisfied with their insurance companies’ reputation are
located in Ireland (77%), Austria, Czech Republic and Slovenia (76% each), Lithuania (74%),
Finland (73%) and Slovakia (71%). On the other hand, the least satisfied consumers are to
be found in Portugal (41%), Italy (44%), Spain (46%), the Netherlands and Sweden (48%
each). However, the percentage of people who disagree with the statement that their
insurance company has a good reputation is very low in all countries (3% in the EU25).
B) OVERALL QUALITY
Overall, the results by country show similar patterns of responses to what has been
observed in the EU as a whole. However, it is interesting to note that Swedes have a much
better assessment of the quality of services provided by their insurance company (67%)
than of the insurance company’s reputation (48%).
C) OVERALL PRICE
More than 60% of consumers in Germany, Austria, Ireland, Hungary, Belgium, Czech
Republic, Denmark and Slovenia are satisfied with the prices of insurance services. The
least satisfied consumers are from Italy (33%), Spain (38%) the Netherlands (40%), Poland
(42%), Sweden (43%), Slovakia (45%) and France (47%). There are relatively high
percentages of dissatisfied consumers in Sweden and Portugal (16% each against an EU25
average of 6%).
D) COMMITMENT
The level of commitment to insurance companies is very high in all the EU countries (87%).
People tend to stay with their current insurance company and have no intention of
changing in the short term.
Most of the EU25 users (88%) think that insurance services are available for everybody in
their country.
EU users of insurance services believe that there is enough competition (88%) and that it is
easy to change from one insurance company to another (77%).
A relatively small percentage of EU25 users think it is possible to purchase services from an
insurance company outside their country (37%). They do not seem ready to do so as a large
majority prefer national insurance companies (83%).
As shown in the table below, consumers see pricing as the most important criterion,
followed by image. Consumers’ overall satisfaction is mostly explained by these two
criteria.
Regression coefficients
Quality 0.239
Image 0.317
Pricing 0.524
The diagram on the following page shows the areas where priority actions are needed to
improve consumers’ satisfaction with insurance services.
All the elements of pricing, image and quality have been plotted into the diagram using
two axes:
• the areas where the SGI is not performing well and where action to change the
situation is needed to improve consumers’ satisfaction;
• the areas where the SGI is performing well and where no action is needed.
Importance +
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
As mentioned previously, the average satisfaction score of all the elements surveyed is
7.65.
Consumers are particularly satisfied with image and quality: the average satisfaction
scores are quite high compared to other sectors (8.0 for quality and 7.8 for image).
On the other hand, consumers are least satisfied with pricing (a satisfaction score of 7.4
against an average satisfaction of 7.65) whereas it is the main criterion determining
consumers’ overall satisfaction.
PRICE
The elements of pricing which are very important to consumers but with which they are
dissatisfied are:
• ‘profitability’: consumers do not think that insurance companies share their profits
with their customers;
• commercial offers: there are not enough attractive special tariffs for specific target
groups or usage;
• price levels: prices for insurance policies are considered too expensive.
On the other hand, consumers tend to be satisfied with such items as tariff transparency,
the payment process or the possibilities offered by companies to pay their insurance
policy. In addition, insurance statements or invoices are considered as being accurate.
These results tend to indicate that consumers understand and are in control of the
insurance process. The position of these variables in the table suggests that consumers are
ready to pay for the risk cover but consider that the prices of insurance policies are too
high and that the cost of the insurance cover does not give them a return in the long term.
More particularly, the position of the items ‘commercial offer’ and ‘profitability’ could
refer to the feeling of some consumers that they are not being rewarded for their loyalty.
Indeed, they would, for instance, expect a considerable reduction in their insurance policy
in cases where they have never had an accident during a given period of time.
IMAGE
Our main observation is the position in the upper-left quadrant of the item ‘uniqueness’,
which means that, as with retail banking services, consumers do not see much
differentiation between insurance companies.
The variable ‘environment friendly’ can also be found in the same quadrant.
Finally, ‘customer service mentality’ and ‘state of the art’ (i.e. the fact that the suppliers
are technologically advanced companies and have the ability to innovate) also seem to be
issues. This observation may mean that, from the consumers’ point of view, insurance
services do not take sufficient advantage of the new information technology in order to
provide an easier service to the client.
On the other hand, all the other image-related elements (popularity, familiarity, ease and
reputation) are in the upper-right quadrant. These are the areas where no action is needed
but where the current situation needs to be maintained.
QUALITY
Consumers give elements related to quality relatively high scores. The lower average score
(compared to the average score for ‘information’) might be related to the fact that
consumers often do not fully understand what they perceive as complex insurance
products.
However, these two areas, which are a source of discontent for consumers, are not
opportunities for priority actions but only actions that could be taken in the long run.
CONCLUSIONS
Given that pricing issues are important to consumers, the main opportunities for
improvement lie in this area. They are linked to price level, commercial offers and to the
fact that insurance companies share their profits with customers. Nevertheless,
improvements in the information provided on products and services could help consumers
have a better understanding of prices/tariffs and could thereby improve consumers’
overall satisfaction with insurance services.
In terms of image, the main priorities are to work on the uniqueness of insurance
companies, respect for the environment and customer service mentality (through better
use of ICT.
Finally, insurance services could take advantage of the quality and accuracy of payment
processes, transparency, good relationships between staff and clients, popularity,
familiarity, reputation and flexibility of suppliers by communicating these elements to the
public and consequently contributing, in the long run, to maintaining consumers’
satisfaction in these areas.
- either the proportion is greater than the EU average. In this case, we will say that
consumers are more satisfied/dissatisfied than the EU average.
- or the proportion is smaller than the EU average. In this case, we will say that
consumers are less satisfied/dissatisfied than the EU average
However, in some cases, the differences observed on the graphs are not statistically
significant. In other words, the proportions of satisfied/dissatisfied consumers of a given
country can be considered equal to the EU average.
Statistical significance depends on a variety of factors such as sample size and observed
percentages.
The explanatory text below the graph will only highlight significant differences compared
to the EU average. This is the reason why the reader may perceive some discrepancies
between what is shown on the graph and the text. For example: in the Czech Republic,
5.8% of consumers are dissatisfied with mobile phone whereas the EU average is 4.1%. In
this case, we cannot conclude that consumers in the Czech Republic are more dissatisfied
with mobile phone than the EU average as the difference between these two proportions is
not statistically significant. For the other services, the differences between the
proportions of satisfied consumers and the EU average are statistically significant. In
addition, these are greater than the EU average. Therefore, we will say that consumers in
this country tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with all the services except
mobile phone.
1. EU25
EU25
Insurance 64.4 3
As can be seen in the graph above, urban and extra-urban transport are the services with
which EU25 consumers are, in general, the least satisfied.
2. Austria
AUSTRIA
Electricity 79.5 2
EU25 Electricity 57.6 5.3
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Austrians tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all 11 services evaluated.
They tend also to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with all these services.
3. Belgium
BELGIUM
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Belgian consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with retail banking,
mobile phone, insurance, electricity, gas, water, fixed phone and urban and extra-urban
transport and less satisfied with air transport and postal services. They tend to be less
dissatisfied than the EU average with all the 11 services.
4. Cyprus
CYPRUS
Water 83 2.3
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Consumers in Cyprus tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all the services,
except urban transport (23% of satisfied against 44.5% at the EU level). They tend to be
more dissatisfied than the EU average with urban transport (53.8% of dissatisfied against
9.4% at the EU level).
5. Czech Republic
CZECH REPUBLIC
Water 59.2 9
EU25 Water 60.2 5.4
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Consumers in Czech Republic tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with air
transport, mobile phone, retail banking and gas distribution and less satisfied with fixed
phone. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with all the services except
mobile phone.
6. Denmark
DENMARK
Water 84.8 1
EU25 Water 60.2 5.4
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Danes tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with the three utilities (water,
electricity and gas), insurance, retail banking, mobile phone and fixed phone and less
satisfied with extra-urban services. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average
with postal services, urban and extra-urban transport.
7. Estonia
ESTONIA
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Consumers in Estonia tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with retail banking,
mobile phone, electricity, postal services, fixed phone, insurance, gas distribution, urban
and extra-urban transport and less satisfied with water distribution. They tend to be more
dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution and less dissatisfied with extra-
urban transport.
8. Germany
GERMANY
Satisfied Dissatisfied
German consumers are most satisfied than the EU average with all the services except
extra-urban transport. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with extra-
urban transport and less dissatisfied with fixed phone.
9. Greece
GREECE
Water 59 9.8
EU25 Water 60.2 5.4
Satisfied Dissatisfied
In Greece, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with gas distribution,
air transport, mobile phone, postal services, insurance and extra-urban transport and less
satisfied with electricity and fixed phone. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU
average with water and electricity distribution and less dissatisfied with postal services
and extra-urban transport.
10. Finland
FINLAND
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Finns tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all SGIs. In addition, they tend to
be less dissatisfied than the EU average with urban and extra-urban transport and fixed
phone.
11. France
FRANCE
Water 52 4.4
EU25 Water 60.2 5.4
Satisfied Dissatisfied
French consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with extra-urban
transport and less satisfied with air transport, retail banking, mobile phone, water
distribution and postal services. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with
extra-urban transport.
12. Hungary
HUNGARY
Insurance 71.3 7
EU25 Insurance 64.4 3
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Hungarians tend to be more satisfied than the EU25 average with almost all SGIs except
with urban transport (37.7% against a EU25 average of 44.5%). However, they tend to be
more dissatisfied than the EU average with electricity, insurance, gas, urban and extra-
urban transport.
13. Ireland
IRELAND
Water 71.5 8
EU25 Water 60.2 5.4
Satisfied Dissatisfied
In Ireland, people are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed,
except with air transport (where the proportion of satisfied is equal to the EU average).
They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services, fixed phone,
urban and extra-urban transport.
14. Italy
ITALY
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Italians tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs. They tend to be
more dissatisfied than the EU average with urban and extra-urban transport, postal
services and fixed phone.
15. Latvia
LATVIA
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Latvians tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs, except with
water distribution (50.5% are satisfied against 60.2% at the EU level). They tend to be more
dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution and less dissatisfied with urban
and extra-urban transport and fixed phone.
16. Lithuania
LITHUANIA
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Lithuanians are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with
water distribution (where the proportion of satisfied is equal to the EU average). They
tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with gas and electricity distribution, retail
banking, postal services, air transport, insurance, fixed phone and extra-urban transport
but are more dissatisfied with water distribution.
17. Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Consumers in Luxembourg are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs
surveyed, except with mobile phone and air transport (where the proportions of satisfied
are in line with the EU average). They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with
water, electricity and gas distribution, fixed phone, postal services and extra-urban
transport.
18. Malta
MALTA
Electricity 47 17.4
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Maltese consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with mobile phone,
retail banking, fixed phone, insurance and postal services and tend to be less satisfied with
water and electricity distribution and urban transport. They tend to be less dissatisfied
than the EU average with fixed phone and more dissatisfied with insurance, water and
electricity distribution and urban transport.
19. Netherlands
NETHERLANDS
Water 53.4 1
EU25 Water 60.2 5.4
Extra-urban transport 24 6
EU25 Extra-urban transport 45.6 10.3
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Just as with Italy, Dutch consumers tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with all
the SGIs. However, they also tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water
distribution, air transport, postal services, insurance, fixed phone, urban and extra-urban
transport.
20. Poland
POLAND
Satisfied Dissatisfied
In Poland, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with postal services
and insurance and tend to be less satisfied with fixed phone and urban transport. They
tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with air transport and tend to be more
dissatisfied with fixed phone.
21. Portugal
PORTUGAL
Satisfied Dissatisfied
In Portugal, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with postal services
and extra-urban transport and tend to be less satisfied with water, gas and electricity
distribution, insurance and fixed phone. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU
average with postal services, retail banking, air transport and urban/extra-urban transport
and they tend to be more dissatisfied with water and electricity distribution and fixed
phone.
22. Slovakia
SLOVAKIA
Insurance 58.1 9
EU25 Insurance 64.4 3
Gas 43.3 15
EU25 Gas 57.9 4.4
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Slovaks tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with mobile phone and postal
services and tend to be less satisfied with insurance, water, electricity and gas
distribution, urban and extra-urban transport. In addition, they tend to be more
dissatisfied than the EU average with air transport, insurance, water, electricity and gas
distribution and urban and extra-urban transport.
23. Slovenia
SLOVENIA
Water 72 4.8
EU25 Water 60.2 5.4
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with
urban transport (where the proportion of satisfied is in line with the EU average). In
addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with electricity and gas
distribution and postal services.
24. Spain
SPAIN
Insurance 54.7 3
EU25 Insurance 64.4 3
Electricity 42.7 4
EU25 Electricity 57.6 5.3
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Spaniards tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with insurance, retail banking,
postal, gas, water and electricity distribution, air transport, mobile phone, fixed phone
and urban transport. In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with
postal services and extra-urban transport but tend to be more dissatisfied with air
transport and mobile phone.
25. Sweden
SWEDEN
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with water distribution, retail banking,
gas, mobile phone, fixed phone and extra-urban transport and tend to be less satisfied
with air transport and postal services. They also tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU
average with water and gas distribution and retail banking but tend to be more dissatisfied
electricity, postal services and urban transport.
UNITED KINGDOM
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Consumers in the UK tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with fixed phone,
retail banking and extra-urban transport services. In addition, they tend to be less
dissatisfied than the EU average with fixed phone and extra-urban transport.
Average score
Air Transport 7.96
Mobile Telephony 7.91
Insurance services 7.92
Retail Banking 7.82
Water Distribution 7.73
Gas supply 7.64
Electricity supply 7.61
Postal Services 7.42
Fixed Telephony 7.30
Extra Urban Transport 7.05
Urban Transport 7.04
The average satisfaction score ranges from 7.04 for Urban Transport to 7.96 for Air
transport. Given the general observation that a score of 8 (on a scale from 1 to 10) is an
indication of a high level of satisfaction, it is reasonable to say that:
- EU consumers are particularly satisfied with air transport, mobile phone, insurance
and retail banking services;
- EU consumers are less satisfied (or are more ‘neutral’ in their opinion) with utility
services (gas, electricity, water);
- EU consumers are more concerned about sectors such as postal services and fixed
telephony.
- EU consumers are least satisfied with their extra-urban and urban transport
services.
66.1 65.9
64.4
63.1
60.2
57.9 57.6
52.9 52
45.6
44.5
Air transport Mobile Insurances Banking Water Gas Electricity Postal Fixed phone Extra-urban Urban
phone retail services transport transport
This way of presenting the information is somewhat more precise than when average
values are used but the order of the sectors remains the same. For all sectors, except
urban transport and extra-urban Transport, it can be seen that at least one EU citizen in
two claims to be a satisfied consumer. For air transport, mobile phone, insurance and
retail banking services, this figure rises to 2 out of 3.
10.3
9.4
8.4
6.9
5.4 5.3
4.6 4.4
4.1
3.5
3
Extra-urban Urban Fixed phone Postal Water Electricity Banking Gas Mobile Air transport Insurances
transport transport services retail phone
In 5 out of the 11 sectors surveyed, fewer than 5% of EU consumers state that they are
dissatisfied. Not surprisingly, these are the same 5 sectors in which average satisfaction is
highest.
In 4 sectors, the percentage of dissatisfied consumers in the EU25 ranges from 7% to 10%.
For extra-urban transport, 1 EU consumer in 10 claims to be dissatisfied.
Care should be taken in seeking to find the reasons for these differences across sectors,
but the following assumptions can be put forward and are worth further investigation:
- there seems to be a relationship between the extent to which a sector has been
liberalised (or at least there is a market situation where consumers have the choice
between several suppliers) and the satisfaction of consumers. Further work to
correlate the degree of liberalisation with satisfaction is needed, however;
- EU consumers’ ‘neutral positive’ attitude towards utility services (electricity,
water, gas) could be explained by the long-standing quality and reliability of these
services, which consumers take for granted;
- EU consumers’ ‘negative’ attitude towards postal services, urban and extra-urban
transport could be explained by their reputation for providing services that are not
consumer-friendly.
Some of them have been summarised in the following three categories: quality, pricing and
image. The table below sets out the average satisfaction score give by consumers for each
of these aspects:
The table shows that consumers tend to be more satisfied with quality than pricing in most
of the SGI surveyed. The consumers’ average satisfaction score with image-type elements
often falls between that for pricing and quality.
The weighting of each of these criteria (regression coefficient4) calculated for all the SGIs
surveyed is shown in the following table:
In 3 sectors, ‘image’ is the criterion that has the greatest impact on consumers’ overall
satisfaction: postal services, urban transport and extra-urban transport – three sectors
where average satisfaction is relatively low. On the other hand, consumers’ expectations
regarding image are higher than the other criteria as far as fixed telephone services are
concerned. Therefore enjoying a good reputation – or, alternatively, suffering from a bad
image – is closely related to consumers’ overall satisfaction.
• air transport: the three criteria (quality, pricing and image) are almost as important
as each other for consumers (0.37 for quality, 0.36 for pricing and 0.35 for image) -
the impact of these criteria balance each other out; i.e. lower quality (= lower
scores on quality) can be compensated by lower prices (= higher scores on pricing);
• gas supply is the only sector where ‘quality’ appears to be the main driver of
satisfaction. This is probably due to reliability and safety concerns with regard to
this service.
4
These weightings can have a value ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 meaning that the criteria has no influence on overall
satisfaction and 1 meaning that it has a major influence on overall satisfaction.
162 | FINAL REPORT – CONSUMER SATISFACTION – DG SANCO
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
When it comes to (overall) differences in consumer satisfaction between EU15 and NMS10
countries, a distinction can be made between three groups of services:
o for air transport and mobile phone services, consumers in the new member states
are more satisfied and less dissatisfied than those in the EU15;
o for insurance services, water distribution, fixed telephone and urban transport, the
NMS10 consumers are less satisfied and more dissatisfied than the EU15 citizens;
o for retail banking, gas supply, electricity supply and extra-urban transport, the
percentages of both satisfied and dissatisfied consumers in the NMS10 countries
overall are higher than in the EU15 countries.
For the third group of services the following possible explanations may be considered: (1)
there are considerable disparities in the delivery of services within these countries (which
would also explain the greater differences in consumer satisfaction levels) and/or (2)
consumers in these countries tend to have a less neutral attitude than those in the EU15.
Austria
Austrians tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all 11 services evaluated.
They tend also to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with all these services.
Belgium
Consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with retail banking, mobile
phone, insurance, electricity, gas, water, fixed phone and urban and extra-urban transport
and less satisfied with air transport and postal services. They tend to be less dissatisfied
than the EU average with all the 11 services.
Cyprus
Consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all the services, except
urban transport (23% of satisfied against 44.5% at the EU level). They tend to be more
dissatisfied than the EU average with urban transport (53.8% of dissatisfied against 9.4% at
the EU level).
Czech Republic
Consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with air transport, mobile phone,
retail banking and gas distribution and less satisfied with fixed phone. They tend to be
more dissatisfied than the EU average with all the services except mobile phone.
Denmark
Danes tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with the three utilities (water,
electricity and gas), insurance, retail banking, mobile phone and fixed phone and less
satisfied with extra-urban services. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average
with postal services, urban and extra-urban transport.
Estonia
Consumers in Estonia tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with retail banking,
mobile phone, electricity, postal services, fixed phone, insurance, gas distribution, urban
and extra-urban transport and less satisfied with water distribution. They tend to be more
dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution and less dissatisfied with extra-
urban transport.
Germany
German consumers are most satisfied than the EU average with all the services except
extra-urban transport. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average extra-urban
transport and less dissatisfied with fixed phone.
Greece
In Greece, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with gas distribution,
air transport, mobile phone, postal services, insurance and extra-urban transport and less
satisfied with electricity and fixed phone. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU
average with water and electricity distribution and less dissatisfied with postal services
and extra-urban transport.
Finland
Finns tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all SGIs. In addition, they tend to
be less dissatisfied than the EU average with urban and extra-urban transport and fixed
phone.
France
French consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with extra-urban
transport and less satisfied air transport, retail banking, mobile phone, water distribution
and postal services. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with extra-urban
transport.
Hungary
Hungarians tend to be more satisfied than the EU25 average with almost all SGIs except
with urban transport (37.7% against a EU25 average of 44.5%). However, they tend to be
more dissatisfied than the EU average with electricity, insurance, gas, urban and extra-
urban transport.
Ireland
Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with
Air transport (where the proportion of satisfied is equal to the EU average). They tend to
be less dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services, fixed phone, urban and extra-
urban transport.
Italy
Italians tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs. They tend to be
more dissatisfied than the EU average with urban and extra-urban transport, postal
services and fixed phone.
Latvia
Latvians tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs, except with
water distribution (50.5% are satisfied against 60.2% at the EU level). They tend to be more
dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution and less dissatisfied with urban
and extra-urban transport and fixed phone.
Lithuania
Lithuanians are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with
water distribution (where the proportion of satisfied is equal to the EU average). They
tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with gas and electricity distribution, retail
banking, postal services, air transport, insurance, fixed phone and extra-urban transport
but are more dissatisfied with water distribution.
Luxembourg
Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with
mobile phone and air transport (where the proportions of satisfied are in line with the EU
average). They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water, electricity and
gas distribution, fixed phone, postal services and extra-urban transport.
Malta
Consumers in Malta tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with mobile phone,
retail banking, fixed phone, insurance and postal services and tend to be less satisfied with
water and electricity distribution and urban transport. They tend to be less dissatisfied
than the EU average with fixed phone and more dissatisfied with insurance, water and
electricity distribution and urban transport.
Netherlands
Just as with Italy, Dutch consumers tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with all
the SGIs. However, they also tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water
distribution, air transport, postal services, insurance, fixed phone, urban and extra-urban
transport.
Poland
In Poland, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with postal services
and insurance and tend to be less satisfied with fixed phone and urban transport. They
tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with air transport and tend to be more
dissatisfied with fixed phone.
Portugal
Portuguese consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with postal services
and extra-urban transport and tend to be less satisfied with water, gas and electricity
distribution, insurance and fixed phone. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU
average with postal services, retail banking, air transport and urban/extra-urban transport
and they tend to be more dissatisfied with water and electricity distribution and fixed
phone.
Slovakia
Slovaks tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with mobile phone and postal
services and tend to be less satisfied with insurance, water, electricity and gas
distribution, urban and extra-urban transport. In addition, they tend to be more
dissatisfied than the EU average with air transport, insurance, water, electricity and gas
distribution and urban and extra-urban transport.
Slovenia
Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with
urban transport (where the proportion of satisfied is in line with the EU average). In
addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with electricity and gas
distribution and postal services.
Spain
Spaniards tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with insurance, retail banking,
postal, gas, water and electricity distribution, air transport, mobile phone, fixed phone
and urban transport. In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with
postal services and extra-urban transport but tend to be more dissatisfied with air
transport and mobile phone.
Sweden
Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with water distribution, retail banking,
gas, mobile phone, fixed phone and extra-urban transport and tend to be less satisfied
with air transport and postal services. They also tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU
average with water and gas distribution and retail banking but tend to be more dissatisfied
electricity, postal services and urban transport.
United Kingdom
Consumers in the UK tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with fixed phone,
retail banking and extra-urban transport services. In addition, they tend to be less
dissatisfied than the EU average with fixed phone and extra-urban transport.
1. The lowest percentages of satisfied consumers are to be found in the 18-34 age
group. They are the most critical consumers. The older people become, the more
easily they are satisfied.
2. In terms of education levels, those who have completed secondary school are the
most satisfied consumers. Those who left before completing secondary school and
those who are still studying are often less satisfied.
4. In all services except one (retail banking) there are almost exactly the same
percentages of women and men who are satisfied consumers. Women seem to be
more satisfied than men with retail banking.
Buying in
This year I It is easy to I prefer to deal
another country
Service will still use change with a national
is possible and
this supplier supplier supplier
interesting
Electricity Supply 85 % 54 % 23 % 81 %
Gas Supply 87 % 42 % 21 % 78 %
Water distribution 91 % 8% 14 % 84 %
Fixed Telephony 77 % 67 % 28 % 80 %
Mobile Telephony 84 % 78 % 41 % 79 %
Urban Transport 89 % 32 % 15 % 77 %
Extra-Urban Transport 88 % 48 % 30 % 75 %
Air Transport 76 % 87 % 81 % 61 %
Postal Services 94 % 51 % 29 % 83 %
Retail Banking 90 % 80 % 48 % 83 %
Insurance 87% 77 % 37 % 83 %
Please note that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th questions were only asked in countries where
consumers had the choice between several suppliers.
- a very large number of consumers (more than 5 out 6 in all but two sectors) think
that they will stay with their current provider for the next 12 months. This reflects
a high level of ‘commitment’, either because of the existing monopolistic situation,
because consumers think that the barriers to changing suppliers are too high (see
next point) or because consumers are satisfied with their current provider. Even for
air transport and fixed telephony, 3 out 4 consumers intend to stay with their
current provider;
- even in markets where there is more than one provider, changing from one supplier
to another is very difficult in the water distribution and urban transport sectors.
Only about half of those who have a choice say that this is easy for electricity
supply, gas supply, extra urban transport and postal services. Only in the case of
fixed telephony, mobile telephony, retail banking, insurance services and especially
air transport, at least 2 EU consumers out of 3 who have a choice say that it is easy
to change;
5
The headers in the table are shortcuts for the questions which the interviewer asked and which were:
(1) 12 months from now, how likely are you to still be using a (SERVICE) service?
(2) You would find it easy to change from one (SERVICE) (SUPPLIER) to another; there are no barriers.
(3) Buying (SERVICE) services from an (SUPPLIER), outside of (YOUR COUNTRY) is perfectly possible and can even be
interesting.
(4) I prefer dealing with a (YOUR NATIONALITY) (SERVICE) (SUPPLIER).
FINAL REPORT – CONSUMER SATISFACTION – DG SANCO | 169
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- buying services from another country is only considered possible and of interest in
the case of air transport (4 consumers out 5), and, to a lesser extent, retail banking
and mobile telephone services (48% and 41% respectively). In the other sectors, this
possibility is only taken seriously by between 14% and 29% of consumers;
- a very large majority of users prefer to deal with a national supplier. The lowest
figure – but still higher than 60% - is for air transport.
• the areas where the SGI does not perform well and where actions to change the
situation are needed to improve consumers’ satisfaction;
• the areas where the SGI performs well and where no action is needed.
This is done via a diagram that takes into account the following information:
From the analysis of each diagram for each sector, the following main opportunities for
action can be highlighted:
Pricing
As noted earlier, pricing issues are major factors determining consumer satisfaction for
most of the services surveyed.
Among these components, price levels are identified as the main issue in all the services.
Consumers tend to think that they pay too much for services of general interest.
In addition, EU25 consumers tend to think that suppliers do not offer enough by way of
special tariffs for specific target groups or specific usage.
Image
Consumer satisfaction with urban transport, extra-urban transport and postal services is
mostly influenced by the image that their supplier has on the market. More specifically, in
these sectors, elements such as the reputation of the supplier, its willingness to put the
client first and its flexibility are of great importance for consumers.
Quality
Quality of service is the element that has the least influence on overall consumer
satisfaction and yet people are most satisfied with this element when assessing SGIs. This
statement tends to prove that consumers take quality of service for granted.
Consequently, long-term actions are appropriate in this area. Making the consumers
aware of the quality of the services that they are using could improve satisfaction with
these services in the long term.
Urban and extra-urban transport are clearly the services with which consumers are least
satisfied. Moreover, this observation applies to almost all the countries. Actions therefore
need to be prioritised for these two services.
Actions to improve satisfaction could target the maintenance of transport networks and
vehicles, reliability of the services (frequency of service, punctuality, etc.) and the way in
which problems and questions raised by consumers are handled.
5. Recommendations
5.1. QUESTIONNAIRE AND SURVEY DESIGN
Overall, the questionnaire and survey design used for this survey appear to be robust. The
questionnaire survey and the underlying model and methodology could be used for future
surveys without major changes.
- some questions might benefit from being rephrased, in particular to avoid negative
formulations;
- during the interview it is important to establish whether respondents are actually
aware of the degree of liberalisation of the sector in their country. This would
allow for a more accurate interpretation of their answers to certain questions.
A possible conclusion that emerges from the results of this survey is that consumer
satisfaction in certain services – e.g. air transport and retail banking - is affected by how
far people are familiar with the internet (since those who are may take more advantage of
certain services). In order to test this hypothesis, a question on this topic might be
included in future surveys.
With the current survey approach, it is extremely difficult to carry out an analysis of
complaints because of the low number of complaints made by the respondents. Since the
option of much larger sample sizes is likely to be rejected due to cost implications, this
issue may have to be dealt with in another way, e.g. by asking other types of related
questions for which the response rates are likely to be higher.
We also recommend that, for future surveys, the timeframe in which the survey
processing, quality control, data analysis and advanced statistical processing is to take
place, should be sufficiently long. At least 3 months should be available for analysis and
reporting – allowing more interaction with the Commission about the more advanced
analyses that should be pursued in the light of the actual findings.
- further investigation would need to be done to see whether there is a link between
consumer satisfaction and the extent to which a sector has been liberalised.
- in many services, there are several countries where there are relatively high
percentages of both satisfied and dissatisfied consumers (compared to the EU
average). This phenomenon often holds true for the NMS10 when considered as a
group. It would be useful to investigate whether this finding results from cultural
factors (e.g. certain cultures being more ‘critical’ and others more ‘neutral’ and
still others more ‘extreme’ in their opinions) or whether it reflects considerable
disparities across the countries in terms of the quality of the service delivery or
whether it merely has to do with the maturity of the market.
- there appears to be a link between a low degree of consumer satisfaction and the
strong weighting of the ‘image’ driver, limited competition in the sector and
frequent use of the service. It would be useful to examine this relationship and to
ascertain whether it is just a coincidence or rather the result of a more deep-
seated relationship.
- although the differences across socio-economic groups are not always very large,
they nevertheless exist and are statistically significant in many cases. Several
assumptions could be formulated about certain general trends (e.g. why older
people tend to be more satisfied or why students and self-employed people are
systematically more critical), but it would be interesting to have a fuller
understanding of the factors underlying these differences in behaviour.
A final thought is that the way the survey and model has been constructed allows for its
extension into other services and also the retailing of consumer goods. If the Commission
were to consider the inclusion of new service categories in the future, a small preliminary
study and small pilot survey could be undertaken in order to design and test the survey
questions that should be included in the questionnaire.