Community Research Into Telecommunications Customer Service Experiences And Associated Behaviours

Community research into telecommunications customer service experiences and associated behaviours

JUNE 2011 Canberra Melbourne Sydney Purple Building Level 44 Level 15 Tower 1 Benjamin Offices Melbourne Central Tower Darling Park Chan Street 360 Elizabeth Street 201 Sussex Street Belconnen ACT Melbourne VIC Sydney NSW

PO Box 78 PO Box 13112 PO Box Q500 Belconnen ACT 2616 Law Courts Queen Victoria Building Melbourne VIC 8010 NSW 1230

T +61 2 6219 5555 T +61 3 9963 6800 T +61 2 9334 7700 F +61 2 6219 5353 F +61 3 9963 6899 1800 226 667 F +61 2 9334 7799

© Commonwealth of Australia 2011 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Editorial Services, Australian Communications and Media Authority, PO Box 13112 Law Courts, Melbourne Vic 8010.

Published by the Australian Communications and Media Authority Contents

Executive summary 1 Research background 1 Objectives and methodology 1 Key findings 1 Customers who contacted a CSP in the last six months 1 Main reasons for choosing CSPs 2 The customer service experience 2 Customer satisfaction and causes of dissatisfaction with CSP customer service2 Drivers of satisfaction with customer service 3 Drivers of customer loyalty to CSPs 3 Contacts with CSP complaints-handling departments and external organisations 3

1. Introduction 5 Overview 5 The need for research 5 Research objectives 5

2. Research methodology 7 Overview and rationale of the qualitative methodology 7 Overview and rationale of the quantitative methodology 7 Statistical reliability of the quantitative results 8 Statistical testing of results 9 Rounding 9

3. Key qualitative findings 10 Introduction 10 Key components of good customer service 10 Ability to contact 10 Repeat contact/follow-up 10 CSP customer service representatives’ attitude and ability 10 Technical help-desk 11 Billing 11 Complaints-handling 11

acma | iii Contents (Continued)

Issue resolution and follow-up 11 Perception of CSP customer service 11 Ability to contact 11 Repeat contact/follow-up 12 CSP customer service representatives’ attitude and ability 12 Technical help-desk 12 Billing 12 Complaints-handling 12 Issue resolution and follow-up 12 Customer behaviour 13

4. Contact with CSPs 14 Introduction 14 General incidence of contact with CSPs 14 Incidence of contact with CSPs by demographics 15 How particular telecommunications products drive consumer contact with CSPs 17 Telecommunications products held by household customers 17 The effect of age on telecommunications products held by household customers 18 Telecommunications products driving contact with CSPs 18 Most recent contact with CSP 20 Telecommunications product causing most recent contact with CSPs 21 The CSP market and contact incidence 21 Incidence of contact with CSPs—internet 22 Incidence of contact with CSPs—mobile phone 23 Incidence of contact with CSPs—home telephone 24

5. Reasons for choosing CSPs 25 Introduction 25 Main reasons for choosing CSPs 25

6. Reasons for CSP contact 27 Introduction 27 Reasons for most recent CSP contact 27 Number of issues raised in contact with CSP 31 Number of occasions CSP contacted 31 By issue 31 By relevant telecommunications product 32 By major CSP 33 Means of first contact with CSP 33 Subsequent CSP contacts 34

iv | acma Contents (Continued)

Experiences during telephone contact with CSP 35 Assistance with issue during telephone contact with CSP 35 Incidence of call drop-outs during telephone contact36 Experiences during in-person contact with CSP 37 Whether issue was resolved during first contact in person 38

7. Satisfaction with CSP customer service39 Introduction 39 Overall satisfaction with CSPs’ customer service 39 Rating of CSP contacted in last six months, by attribute 40 Reasons for choosing CSP and rating of customer service 41 Number of contacts with CSP and rating of customer service 42 Rating of customer service by relevant telecommunications product 42 Customer service contact with CSPs 44 Satisfaction with customer service quality, by mode of contact 44 Satisfaction rating of customer service by contact mode 45 Satisfaction with telephone CSP customer service 45 Satisfaction with in-person CSP customer service 46 Satisfaction with CSP website customer service 47 Satisfaction with post/email/SMS customer service 48

8. Key drivers of satisfaction—statistical modelling 49 Introduction 49 CSP contact by telephone 49 Key drivers of satisfaction 49 Satisfaction leverage analysis 50 Opportunity analysis 50 CSP contact by store/office in-person visit 52 Key drivers of satisfaction 52 Satisfaction leverage analysis 53 Opportunity analysis 54 CSP contact by website 54 Key drivers of satisfaction 54 Satisfaction leverage analysis 55 Opportunity analysis 55 CSP contact by post/SMS/email 56 Key drivers of satisfaction 56 Satisfaction leverage analysis 56 Opportunity analysis 57

9. Advocacy, repeat purchase and overall satisfaction with CSPs 58 Introduction 58 Model of customer loyalty 58 Relative importance of intermediate drivers on advocacy 59

acma | v Contents (Continued)

Relative importance of intermediate drivers on repeat purchase 60 Relative importance of intermediate drivers on overall satisfaction 61 Driving loyalty—an analysis of a composite attribute 62

10. Consequences of overall dissatisfaction with customer service 64 Introduction 64 Behaviour when dissatisfied with CSP customer service 64 Why no action was taken 64 Customer tenure 67

11. CSP complaints-handling 69 Introduction 69 Awareness of provider complaints-handling policy 69 Dealing with internal complaints department during contact with CSP 69 Contact with internal complaints department of CSP contacted in the last six months 71 Reason for referral to CSP’s complaints department71 Satisfaction with stage of referral to CSP internal complaints department 72 Internal complaints department outcome 72

12. Lodgement of complaint with external body 74 Introduction 74 Complaints lodged with other organisations 74 Complaints lodged with the TIO 75 Awareness of the TIO 76

Appendix A—Qualitative research 78

Appendix A1—Qualitative research methodology 79 A1.1 Sample structure 79 Rationale for sample 79 Recruitment of sample 80 A1.2 Discussion guide 80 A1.3 Pre-task 80

Appendix A2—Qualitative research instruments 81 A2.1 Focus group recruitment questionnaire 81 A2.2 Guidelines for focus group moderators 83 Introduction 83 PART A—What are the components of customer service? 83 PART B—CSP customer service perceptions 85 vi | acma Contents (Continued)

PART C—Impact of CSPs’ customer service on respondent behaviour 86 PART D—For regional focus groups (Tamworth/Alice Springs) only 87

Appendix A3—Focus group pre-task 88 A3.1 Introduction 88 A3.2 Key outcomes 88 A3.3 Pre-task results89

Appendix B—Quantitative research 93

Appendix B1—Quantitative research methodology 94 B1.1 Sample structure 94 Sample breakdown of respondents, by demographics and characteristics 95 B1.2 Statistical modelling overview 97 Regression analysis 97 Leverage analysis 97 Opportunity analysis 97

Appendix B2—Quantitative research instruments 99 B2.1 Questionnaire design 99 B2.2 Questionnaire 99

Appendix B3—Supporting quantitative findings of main report 113 B3.1 Profile and incidence of contacting provider in the last six months 113 B3.1.1 By age and household size 113 B3.1.2 By area 114 B3.2 Multiple product holdings 114 B3.2.1 Combination of telecommunications products held 114 B3.2.2 Bundling—CSP contacted about bundling issues 115 B3.2.3 Incidence of contact with CSPs (L6M), by number of telecommunications products held, by age 115 B3.3 Bill-payer of service 117 B3.3.1 Whether respondent is bill-payer of service 117 B3.4 Market share versus share of contacts 117 B3.4.1 Market share versus share of contacts, by CSPs for internet 117 B3.4.2 Market share versus share of contacts, by CSPs for mobile phone 118 B3.4.3 Market share versus share of contacts, by CSPs for home phone 118 B3.5 Main reasons for choosing CSPs contacted 119 B3.5.1 Three most important factors in choosing CSP 119 B3.5.2 Most important factor in choosing CSP 119 B3.6 Using other forms of communication modes after initial contact 120 B3.7 Telephone contact with CSP—call drop-out 121

acma | vii Contents (Continued)

B3.8 Rating of current CSP, by major providers 121 B3.9 Overall satisfaction with customer service of CSP for most recent issue123 B3.10 Tenure with CSP 125

viii | acma Executive summary

Research background This report presents the findings of research conducted by Roy Morgan Research on behalf of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) into the customer service and complaints-handling experiences of customers within the Australian telecommunications industry.

In September 2010, the ACMA commissioned Roy Morgan Research to undertake this national study as part of the Reconnecting the Customer public inquiry1 and to contribute insights from a broad customer perspective.

Objectives and methodology

The main objective of the research was to comprehensively examine customer service and complaints-handling experiences of telecommunications customers in Australia, and how these experiences impact their subsequent behaviour. An additional objective was to better inform the ACMA of best practice standards in customer service and complaints-handling.

There were two phases to the research:  a qualitative stage comprising ten group discussions  a quantitative stage surveying a national representative sample of 2,520 Australian adult telecommunications customers. A total of 1,420 respondents had contacted a Carriage Service Provider (CSP) in the last six months and were asked questions about their experience.

The time period within the report is static as no similar study has been undertaken previously. The study covered customers of telecommunication products for personal use only, excluding business customers.

Key findings Customers who contacted a CSP in the last six months  In the last six months, 57 per cent of respondents had contacted a CSP, with 55 per cent of this number aged 35 to 64 years.  Living in a larger household (3 or more people) or having more telecommunication products increases the likelihood of contacting a CSP.  The most common telecommunication product to contact a CSP about was the internet (50 per cent), followed by mobile phones (41 per cent) and home phones (32 per cent).  Of those people who contacted a CSP about mobile phone issues, the majority were mobile users on a contract; specifically on a contract with a cap plan (69 per cent).  The most common reasons for contacting a CSP were technical problems (36 per cent), billing problems (27 per cent), and new products or services (24 per cent).

1 www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_312222.

acma | 1 Main reasons for choosing CSPs  People select a CSP because of price (46 per cent), network coverage (28 per cent), product range (20 per cent), customer service reputation (17 per cent) or bundling offers (17 per cent).  The importance of each choice factor varies for the different types of telecommunication products.  Price is the most important choice factor overall, especially for internet service (52 per cent).  Network coverage is of greater importance as a choice factor for mobile devices (34 per cent).

The customer service experience  The telephone was by far the most common mode used for making contact with a CSP (87 per cent), followed by in-person/in-store (11 per cent). The substantial majority (79 per cent) of those who contacted a CSP used only one mode of contact.  While only 11 per cent of first contacts occurred in person, this rose to 25 per cent among those whose query was about mobile devices (perhaps reflecting mobile-only households with no other means of telephone contact).  The average number of contacts needed to address the most recently experienced CSP issue was three, while for two-thirds of respondents their issue required one or two contacts.  The two reasons for contact that explicitly involved problems—technical and billing—were less likely than other reasons to be resolved on the first contact (38 per cent for technical and 35 per cent for billing). Technical and billing issues were more likely to see customers making more than five contacts (14 per cent for technical and 17 per cent for billing).

Customer satisfaction and causes of dissatisfaction with CSP customer service  Using a zero to 10 scale (‘very dissatisfied’ to ’very satisfied’), 27 per cent of customers were dissatisfied (gave a rating less than five) with recent customer service from a CSP. Academic sources recommend using a scale value of 7 as neutral rather than 5; this increases the dissatisfaction rate to 45 per cent.2  Satisfaction with a CSP decreases as the number of contacts required on the issue increases.  In terms of reasons for contacts, satisfaction with the CSPs was significantly lower among people making contact to resolve a billing problem.  In terms of the particular telecommunication product, the lowest satisfaction and the most contacts were associated with bundled services.  Among consumers who were not satisfied with the CSP’s customer service (gave a rating of 5 or less):  In 76 percent of occasions, no further action—such as initiating a complaint process or switching CSPs—was taken because consumers viewed taking action as long, difficult and time-consuming. People were ‘too busy’, while the longevity of a relationship with a CSP was another possible impediment.  While half of the respondents considered switching to another CSP, only six per cent actually did so. There was a perceived inability to switch CSPs, either due to a contract (21 per cent) or the CSP having the only reliable coverage in the local area (16 per cent).  CSP satisfaction ratings rarely exceeded 7 on a zero to 10 scale (‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’). Overall satisfaction with customer service by phone, in-person visits or via a website was between 6 and 6.5.

2 See Edwardson, M., ‘Measuring Consumer Emotions in Service Encounters: An Exploratory Analysis’, Australasian Journal of Market Research, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 34-48. The scale mid-point of five was labelled ‘neutral’ on the survey but the article argues for a higher standard.

2 | acma  For telephone contacts—the most commonly used mode—satisfaction was highest for staff friendliness. Lowest ratings were given for staff availability and waiting time on a telephone queue.  Call drop-outs (unanticipated disconnects) were experienced by 14 per cent of those who made contact via telephone. They were reported as more likely when contact was about a billing issue.

Drivers of satisfaction with customer service  Multiple regression analyses3 were conducted to identify attributes that drive satisfaction with the level of customer service experienced by consumers in relation to their most recent issue. Separate analysis was conducted for each primary mode of CSP contact. The key drivers of customer service satisfaction are:  Telephone contact: 1. Being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time (accounts for 21 per cent of satisfaction) 2. The extent to which staff did what they said they would do (21 per cent).  In-person contact: 3. Being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time (31 per cent).  Website contact: 4. The extent staff followed through on further actions to resolve the query (29 per cent) 5. Receiving a detailed reply that answered the issues in my message (24 per cent).  Mail/SMS/email contact: 6. Being able to identify the correct address/number to send message/email (32 per cent) 7. Receiving a quick reply to the message I sent (30 per cent) 8. Receiving a detailed reply that answered the issues in my message (21 per cent).  Across all modes of contact, ‘being able to resolve issues in a reasonable time’, ‘follow- through’ and ‘targeted personalised attention’ were important areas in which CSPs underperform. Analyses indicate that improvements in these areas will result in greater satisfaction with customer service.

Drivers of customer loyalty to CSPs  Customers were also asked to rate their overall impressions of their CSP on four key dimensions, which are seen as the drivers of customer loyalty: 1. customer service quality 2. product range 3. value for money 4. brand image.  Multiple regression analyses were conducted to identify which of these four dimensions are the key drivers of customer behaviour and attitudes to CSPs. Perceived ‘value for money’ (accounting for 40 per cent of loyalty) and ‘customer service quality’ (37 per cent) are the two most important drivers of higher order attitudes and behaviours such as repeat purchase, advocacy and overall satisfaction with CSPs.

Contacts with CSP complaints-handling departments and external organisations  Of those customers who contacted a CSP in the last six months, eight per cent had dealt with the internal complaints department.

3 See page 99 for more about regression analysis.

acma | 3  A majority of respondents (47 per cent) did not know whether or not the CSP had a complaints-handling policy. Of those who were aware of and had read a provider’s complaints-handling policy, contact with an internal complaints area was slightly higher at 12 per cent. The incidence of contact with the complaints department was higher among customers with billing issues (12 per cent) and even more so among those who were very dissatisfied (gave a rating of zero on the satisfaction scale) with the customer service they received during the contact (24 per cent).  Those who contacted an internal complaints department were slightly more likely to have initiated the referral than to have been referred by the provider (52 per cent versus 43 per cent).  Four in 10 people (41 per cent) who had dealings with the complaints department felt that their issue should have been referred to that department sooner.  Generally, respondents reported positive outcomes (e.g., problem solved or received compensation) following contact with the complaints department. However, overall satisfaction with the outcome yielded a mean just below the scale mid-point (4.8).  Of customers who contacted CSPs in the last six months, three per cent lodged a complaint with an external body. This incidence increased to 21 per cent of people who had contact with a CSP’s complaint department.  The majority of complaints lodged externally were with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO).  The TIO facilitated a resolution in about half the cases that were lodged.

4 | acma 1. Introduction

Chapter 1 describes the motivation for the research and its objectives.

Overview The ACMA is responsible for regulating broadcasting, the internet, radiocommunications and telecommunications in Australia.

In April 2010, the ACMA announced that it would undertake a formal public inquiry to examine customer service and complaints-handling practices within the Australian telecommunications industry. The Reconnecting the Customer public inquiry4 was prompted by:

> an upward trend in complaints made to the TIO. In 2008–09, there was a 54 per cent increase in complaints to the TIO, including a 130 per cent increase in the area of complaints-handling and a 72 per cent increase in the area of customer service

> recognition that the converged industry environment is generating a number of pressures for change. Communications products are becoming more complex and customers have new needs and expectations of CSPs; for example, for after-sales technical support or bundled service offering.

The ACMA’s Reconnecting the Customer strategy is intended to improve customer service and complaints-related outcomes for customers.5

The need for research The ACMA adopted an evidence-informed approach to the public inquiry to help it assess:

> systemic causes of dissatisfaction with complaints-handling and customer service practices

> ‘best practice’ standards for complaints-handling and customer service

> the extent to which current regulatory and institutional arrangements support or hinder the adoption of, or adherence to, best practice

> solutions to systemic problems that will last in the rapidly changing communications environment.

In September 2010, the ACMA commissioned Roy Morgan Research to undertake a national study into the service experiences and associated behaviours of telecommunications customers as part of the public inquiry, and to contribute insights from a broad customer perspective.

Research objectives The overall aims of the research were to comprehensively examine consumer experiences of customer service and complaints-handling practices in the telecommunications sector, and to examine the impact of these experiences on the behaviour of customers.

An additional objective of the research was to better inform the ACMA of best practice standards in customer service and complaints-handling.

More specifically, the objectives of the research were to obtain a customer perspective on the key elements that comprise the customer service experience when dealing with a CSP:

4 ACMA Annual Report 2009–10, p. 77. 5 Announced by the Chairman of the ACMA in his CommsDay speech, 20 April 2010.

acma | 5 > Ability to contact—how easy it is to identify and contact the appropriate area for handling a query/complaint and the effort this requires.

> Customer information management—the systems the provider has in place for identifying the customer and maintaining records.

> Level of service—the attitude, helpfulness, knowledge and competence of the customer service representative during the process, including their communication skills.

> Resolution process—whether the customer feels the CSP responded efficiently and competently, and what follow-through action was taken (for example, length of time to resolve the issue, number of different representatives involved, whether a desired resolution was reached, whether undertakings or requests were actioned).

> Integrity of the provider—the level to which the customer feels their issue was dealt with fairly and honestly, whether relevant information was provided and whether the provider was genuinely interested in solving the issue.

The research also aimed to examine key behavioural issues:

> How do customer experiences with CSPs impact on how they try to resolve problems with their providers?

> How do customer experiences with CSPs impact on decisions to switch providers?

6 | acma 2. Research methodology

Chapter 2 describes the two phases of the research conducted, focusing on the methodology. There was a qualitative stage comprising group discussions and a concurrent quantitative stage surveying a national representative sample of Australian telecommunications customers.6

Overview and rationale of the qualitative methodology The prime objective of the qualitative stage was to develop a more insightful interpretation of the outcomes of the quantitative stage.

The qualitative research consisted of 10 focus group discussions with adults in metropolitan and regional areas across four states. The focus groups were conducted between 27 September and 6 October 2010. The groups were broadly structured to ensure a representative cross-section of customer demographics in terms of age, gender, and use of and access to telecommunication products. Additionally, two regional locations—Tamworth, NSW and Alice Springs, NT—were included to ascertain any differences in attitudes, knowledge or behaviour between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan markets.

Of the 10 groups, eight comprised respondents who had initiated a customer service contact within the past six months. This helped to ensure that the recall of CSPs’ customer service performance and delivery were still relatively fresh in customers’ minds. In addition, two groups— one conducted in Sydney and one in Melbourne—consisted of respondents who had initiated a customer service contact within the past six months and had also switched CSP in the last 12 months because of poor customer service.

Refer to Appendix A for further details of the qualitative methodology and instruments used.

Overview and rationale of the quantitative methodology The main objective of the quantitative phase was to:

> obtain robust estimates of consumer experiences of, and satisfaction with, CSPs’ customer service and complaints-handling practices

> quantify the extent to which these experiences impacted on behaviour.

The population of interest was customers of CSPs in the private/residential (non-business) sector who have access to telecommunications for personal use. This included home or mobile phones. All participants were 18 years or older.

Fixed-line households were recruited through random digit dialling (RDD). The sample design also considered the increasing proportion of the population that does not have a fixed-line phone by separately recruiting a sample of mobile phone-only users from the Roy Morgan Single Source database.7

A total of 2,520 computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI surveys) were conducted. This number comprised two sub-samples—those with a fixed-line home phone connected (n=2,071) and those who had only a mobile phone (that is, had a mobile phone and no fixed-line phone connected in the home) (n=449).

6 Commonly, a qualitative research stage precedes a quantitative survey to help develop the wording and content of the survey. However, for this specific project, the ACMA had already identified a range of key telecommunications customer service issues and Roy Morgan Research had extensive experience with this area of research. As a result, a comprehensive and detailed questionnaire was developed concurrently with the qualitative phase. 7 Every year, Roy Morgan Research conducts over 50,000 face-to-face interviews in Australia. This forms the basis of Single Source. Approximately 40 per cent also return additional self-completion diaries, the Product Poll and Media Diary.

acma | 7 All interviews were conducted on weekday evenings (5 pm to 8.30 pm) or on weekends (11 am to 4 pm) from 1 to 21 November 2010, preceded by a pilot of 50 interviews. Quotas were set for both samples to ensure that their demographic profile (age, sex and area) was representative of the Australian population aged 18 years and over with a fixed-line home phone and with a mobile phone only, as determined by the latest Roy Morgan Single Source data.

Proportional weights were applied to the data to reflect the true distribution of these customers. These were an interlocking weight of age, by sex and sample type (have a home phone connected, and have a mobile phone but no home phone), and a rim weight for area (state and region). The weights used were calculated from the latest Roy Morgan Single Source data.

A total of 1,420 respondents had contacted a CSP in the last six months and were asked questions about their experience. The incidence of this contact reported in this study is an approximation of true incidence based on information obtained from the sample.

To ensure satisfactory recall of customer experiences by respondents, the survey focused on customers who had contact with CSPs in the past six months. If respondents had contacted more than one provider in the past six months, the focus was on the CSP most recently contacted.

Final survey results can be generalised to the Australian population, aged 18 and older, with telecommunication access (home or mobile phone). Total survey respondents are referred to as the population throughout this report

Refer to Appendix B for further details of the quantitative methodology and instruments used.

Statistical reliability of the quantitative results The estimates derived for this study are based on information obtained from a sample survey and are therefore subject to sampling variability. They may differ from results that would be obtained if all people in Australia were interviewed (a census) or if the survey was repeated with a different sample of respondents. One measure of the likelihood of any difference is the standard error (SE), which shows the extent to which an estimate might vary by chance because only a sample of people were interviewed. An alternative way of showing this is the relative standard error (RSE), which is the SE as a percentage of the estimate.

Table 1 shows the SE for various sample sizes and response levels, and can be used to assess if there are statistically significant differences between results within the study. For example:

> If the sample size was 1,250, a response set of 50 per cent has a SE of +/-2.8 per cent at a 95 per cent confidence level (that is, there are 95 chances in 100 that a repeat survey would produce a response set of between 52.8 and 47.2 per cent).

> If there were 500 respondents (n=500) to a question and 50 per cent gave a particular response, then the SE for that response is +/–4.4 per cent.

Where the RSE is between 30 and 49 per cent, results should be regarded as moderately reliable. Where the RSE is 50 per cent or higher, results should be regarded as indicative estimates only.

8 | acma Table 1 Standard error for various sample sizes Total sample and sub-sets Survey 2,500 2,250 2,000 1,750 1,500 1,250 1,000 750 500 250 estimate Sample variance (+/–) 95% confidence intervals % % % % % % % % % % 10% 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.6 3.7 20% 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.5 5.0 30% 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.3 4.0 5.7 40% 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.5 4.3 6.1 50% 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.6 4.4 6.2 60% 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.5 4.3 6.1 70% 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.3 4.0 5.7 80% 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.5 5.0 90% 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.6 3.7

For results based on the total study sample of 2,520, this sample size constrains the maximum sampling error to +/–2 per cent. When reporting on the 1,420 who contacted a CSP in the last six months, this sample size constrains the maximum sampling error to +/–2.6 per cent.

Statistical testing of results Significance testing at the 95 per cent confidence level has been applied to quantitative findings from the survey research. Specifically, significance testing throughout this report has been used to compare whether there is a reliable difference unlikely to be due to chance between each individual group or segment and the total group. If a total group was not applicable to a figure or table in the report, significance testing is not shown.

The following colour coding and font style has been used to indicate the presence and direction of a significant difference:

> figures in red and bold are significantly lower than the total group at a 95 per cent confidence level

> figures in green and italic are significantly higher than the total group at a 95 per cent confidence level.

In some cases, the report discusses differences that are not statistically significant where they appear interesting or counter-intuitive, or where there are patterns of small differences worth noting.

Rounding Discrepancies may occur between the sums of the component items and totals due to the effects of rounding.

acma | 9 3. Key qualitative findings

Chapter overview

> People readily name and agree on the characteristics of good customer service. Ability to contact, follow-up, attentiveness, knowledge and politeness are important.

> There was consistent dissatisfaction with telecommunications customer service as currently experienced.

> Switching CSPs was rare. Reasons for not switching CSPs included inertia, resignation, lack of alternatives and an ‘it’s too hard’ attitude.

Introduction Chapter 3 summarises the focus group results before proceeding to the quantitative survey findings.8 Quotes from participants can be found in later chapters to illustrate points of commonality between the quantitative survey and the qualitative sessions.

Key components of good customer service At the beginning of each focus group, respondents were asked to spontaneously compile a list of what they saw as the key components or ‘building-blocks’ of good customer service. There was a remarkable consistency in this respondent-generated list across the 10 focus groups, regardless of location, gender, age or respondent type. The key components that emerged can be classified as follows: Ability to contact

> Easy to contact, no time on hold/no queue.

> Out-of-hours/24–7 access to customer service.

> Being able to speak to a person, not a computer.

> Quick access to someone who can handle their issue.

Repeat contact/follow-up

> Not having to repeat the whole process of explaining the problem.

> Being given a reference number to quote.

CSP customer service representatives’ attitude and ability CSP customer service representatives:

> are friendly and polite

> should know respondent’s personal details/history

> can speak and understand English well

> should be experienced/well-trained/mature

> are knowledgeable on products/services

> are knowledgeable on bundles/plans/caps

8 The preliminary report of the qualitative findings was provided to the ACMA in October 2010.

10 | acma > are willing to listen and take time to understand the respondent’s issue

> show willingness to ‘take ownership’ of the issue

> are honest/give correct and consistent information

> do not take a ‘hard sell’ attitude

> are proactive and offer solutions/guidance.

Technical help-desk

> Staff at technical help-desk (especially for internet service) should explain solutions in easy-to- understand language (no computer jargon).

Billing

> Bills should be accurate.

> Bills should provide detailed usage information.

> Bills should be easy to understand.

Complaints-handling

> Complaints should be handled with respect.

> Complaints should be given priority.

> CSPs should have a specialised complaints department.

Issue resolution and follow-up

> Issue should be resolved on first contact.

> If this is not possible, CSP should give a detailed timeline for resolution and should honour it.

> CSP should independently follow-up to ensure issue has been resolved satisfactorily.

Perception of CSP customer service When asked to judge how well their current CSPs were performing against this list of key customer service components, the immediate and unanimous response from all groups was ‘not at all’. Responses to each of the key factors were as follows:

Ability to contact

> Respondents complained about excessive waiting time on-hold when making contact by telephone.

> Many quoted instances of being on hold for 2–3 hours.

> Several respondents said they had to ‘psych’ themselves up to make the initial contact, knowing it would be a lengthy and tedious process.

> Major complaint was the inability to speak to a person. Being forced to use a computerised menu or a voice recognition system was extremely frustrating and time-consuming.

> Computerised menus often did not give a relevant option.

> Voice recognition systems were often inaccurate and required the respondent to continually repeat their request.

acma | 11 > Being passed from one person to another was very common, with no CSP staff willing to take ownership of the issue.

> Visiting a Telstra shop in person (rather than using the phone) was fairly common in the regional towns (Tamworth and Alice Springs) but equally frustrating. Staff members were more interested in making a sale than resolving a problem.

Repeat contact/follow-up

> Respondents complained that they needed to start from the beginning when making a second contact or when following up their issue.

> Very few received a reference number to quote that would expedite their subsequent contacts.

CSP customer service representatives’ attitude and ability

> The major concern was the inconsistency—some representatives were excellent and met all of the requirements, while others failed to meet any of the criteria.

> Biggest complaints were:

> poor English language skills

> poor product knowledge

> receiving different advice from different CSP customer service representatives

> not being treated as a ‘valued’ customer.

Technical help-desk

> Older respondents and those with limited computer skills were often unable to understand the technical help-desk staff’s language or directions (primarily for internet service issues), leading to frustration.

Billing

> Several respondents complained that bills were often inaccurate and the time taken to resolve billing queries was excessive.

> Many admitted that they did not understand the billing details and complained that itemised billing was no longer provided (only a few were aware that this could be accessed online).

> The amount of plans, caps and bundles was very confusing and made it almost impossible to verify the accuracy of bills.

Complaints-handling

> Respondents who tried to make a formal complaint were often left on hold for an excessive time or passed from person to person, with no-one willing to handle the complaint. It was not uncommon for a line to drop out while on hold; this was seen as a deliberate ploy by CSPs to avoid registering complaints.

> Some respondents were told the CSP did not have a complaints desk to which they could be transferred and to put their complaint in writing instead.

> Most commented that they received almost a ‘second-class citizen’ treatment once it was apparent they wished to lodge a complaint.

Issue resolution and follow-up

> It was rare for an issue to be resolved on first contact.

12 | acma > Two to three contacts was the norm.

> It was left to the customer to initiate these repeat contacts, rather than the CSP adopting a proactive approach.

> When timelines for issue resolution were given (for example, a service technician to visit on a certain day and time), these were often not adhered to by the CSP.

> It was rare for customers to receive a follow-up call from the CSP to check if they were satisfied and that the issue had been resolved.

Customer behaviour Other than in the two focus groups of respondents who switched CSPs in the past 12 months, it was quite rare for respondents to have taken any decisive actions in response to what they saw as poor customer service. The primary reasons given for this lack of action were:

> Poor customer service is now seen as the norm, especially by younger respondents who claimed they had never experienced anything else.

> Poor customer service is common across many sectors—not just telecommunications. Banks and energy suppliers are viewed as equally guilty.

> Respondents were ultimately left with a feeling of ‘impotence’; there was nothing they could do to change the situation.

> The prevalence of contracts, caps and bundles makes it almost impossible for customers to switch providers—they are locked into their current provider whether they like it or not.

> They saw little benefit in lodging a complaint with their CSP. They are ‘small individuals’ unable to take on the power of the ‘corporate giants’.

> Respondents in regional towns have no real alternative to Telstra for network coverage, so their ability to switch CSPs is severely limited.

> While most respondents were aware of the TIO (usually after prompting), they perceived its role and ability to achieve a positive outcome for the individual to be extremely limited. They believe that major CSPs receiving a ‘small fine’ would have no impact on their corporate strategy—they are too powerful.

> The notion of introducing a universally accepted ‘customer service rating’ scheme, allowing customers to choose suppliers on this basis, was welcomed by some but was not unanimously accepted as an improvement on the current scenario.

> This was primarily due to the customers themselves admitting that customer service is less important than product/service, network coverage and price. Customer service issues arise when customers have to contact their CSP, normally once or twice a year, while product (for example, phone, internet speed, coverage) and price (bundles, plans, caps) affect them on an almost daily basis.

> Respondents spontaneously commented that an honest, independent and trustworthy comparison of the various bundles, plans and caps on offer from the different CSPs would be a more valuable service for customers.

acma | 13 4. Contact with CSPs

Chapter overview

> In the last six months, 57 per cent of respondents contacted a CSP.

> The incidence of contact with CSPs was highest among people aged 25–34 years (67 per cent) and 35–49 years (62 per cent).

> Of those who had contacted a CSP, 55 per cent were aged between 35 and 64 years.

> Having more telecommunications products increases the likelihood of a consumer contacting a CSP.

> Those in larger households (with 3 or more people) were more likely to contact a CSP (63 per cent) than those in smaller households (1–2 people, 51 per cent).

> The internet was the most common telecommunications product to contact a CSP about (50 per cent). This was followed by mobile phones (41 per cent) and home phones (32 per cent).

> Of those people who contacted a CSP about mobile phone issues, the majority were mobiles users on a contract; specifically on a contract with a cap plan (69 per cent).

Introduction Chapter 4 provides information from 2,520 respondents about telecommunications products and from a subset of 1,420 respondents who contacted a CSP in the past six months. Survey responses based on key demographics, telecommunications products held and major CSPs are examined.

In this chapter and onwards, quotations9 from the qualitative sessions are interspersed through the text to illustrate or expand on some of the points made by the survey findings.

General incidence of contact with CSPs Figure 1 shows that 57 per cent of the population contacted one or more CSP in the last six months (L6M). This rate was not uniform across the sample sub-groups. A significantly lower incidence of CSP contact was observed among people without a fixed-line home phone (those only using a mobile phone for their telecommunication needs)—47 per cent as opposed to 57 per cent of fixed-line customers.

9 Participants in focus groups sometimes interrupt each other, get distracted or take time to complete thoughts. Quotes have been modified in some cases to enhance clarity of expression. In no case has the meaning been altered.

14 | acma Figure 1 Incidence of contact with CSPs by total and sub-samples (L6M)

Have fixed-line connected Total Mobile phone only in the home

43 41 47 57 58 53

Contacted CSP (L6M) Did not contact CSP (L6M)

Base: All respondents n=2,520; have fixed-line connected in the home n=2,071; have mobile phone only n=449. Q14. In the past six months, have you contacted any of your telephone or internet service providers about your new or existing services, such as switching to a new provider or getting a new connection, making an enquiry about your product or service, querying a bill, or for technical support?

‘When there’s a problem, an issue with the bill, or any issue with the service, then I’ll need to contact the service provider, but when everything is running smoothly there is no need to contact.’ (Sydney, male, 35–49, switcher, 27 September 2010; products held include mobile, home phone and internet with different providers.)

Incidence of contact with CSPs by demographics Rate of contact with CSPs was influenced by respondent age, as shown in Figure 2. As age increased, contact incidence decreased (with the exception of the 18–24 group). In the last six months, two-thirds (67 per cent) of respondents aged 25–34 years contacted one or more CSPs —significantly higher than the total. In contrast, 41 per cent of respondents aged 65 and over made contact—significantly lower than the total.

Figure 2 Incidence of contact with CSPs by age group

80 67 62 57 57 60 53

% 41 40

0 Total 18–24 25–34 35–49 50–64 65+

Per cent of age group contacted CSP (L6M)

Base: All respondents n=2,520; 18–24 n=296; 25–34 n=481; 35–49 n=710; 50–64 n=599; 65+ n=434

The pattern seen in Figure 2 was repeated in the sub-groups, shown in Figure 3, which compares fixed-line participants with mobile phone-only participants.

acma | 15 Figure 3 Incidence of contact with CSPs by age group and sub-samples

Have fixed-line connected in the home Mobile phone only

100 100

80 71 80 64 58 58 58 57 60 100 60 47 44 44 % % 41 40 40 50 25 20 20 0 0 0 Total 18–24 25–34 35–49 Total50–64 18-2465+ 25-34 35-49Total 50-6418–24 65+25–34 35–49 50–64 65+*

Per cent of age group contacted CSP (L6M) Per cent of age group contacted CSP (L6M)

Base: Have50 fixed-line connected in the home: n=2,071; 18–24 n=178; 25–34 n=311; 35–49 n=608; 50–64 n=544; 65+ n=420. Have mobile40 phone only n=449; 18–24 n=118; 25–34 n=170; 35–49 n=102; 50–64 n=45; 65+ n=14* too small to show. 31 Another30 way to depict this age effect is shown in Figure 4, which charts24 the rate of CSP contact in each % age group relative to the proportion21 of that age28 group in the 24population. As a guide to 20 18 understanding Figure12 4, note that of all CSP contacts, 11 per cent were from the 18–24 group and 18 13 21 per 10cent were from the 25–34 group. 11 When CSP0 contacts are measured this way, the focus of the age groups shifts upward to the 35–64 group. That18-24 is, 55 per cent25-34 of all people35-49 who made a CSP50-64 contact were65+ in these age bands. This reflects the larger size of these age groups in the population (52 per cent). Per cent of total population Per cent of total contacted CSP (L6M) Figure 4 Age distribution of total population versus distribution of those who contacted CSPs (L6M)

18–24 25–34 35–49 50–64 65+

Base: All respondents n=2,520; contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420.

Household size was also significant (see Figure 5). Respondents in a larger household (with three or more people, 63 per cent) were more likely to contact CSPs than those in a smaller household (1–2 people, 51 per cent). Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the more telecommunication users in a household, the more reasons there may be to contact a provider; for example, for upgrades or questions. The effect of household size was most pronounced among the respondents aged 50–64 (see table in Appendix B3.1.1).

16 | acma Figure 5 Incidence of contact with CSPs (L6M) by household size

Total 1–2 people in HH 3+ people in HH

36 43 49 51 57 63

% % % Contacted CSP (L6M) Did not contact CSP (L6M)

Base: All respondents n=2,520; 1–2 in HH n=1,321; 3+ in HH n=1,197.

Regional differences in the rate of contact were rare. The exception was country Victoria, where respondents, who make up six per cent of the population, contacted one or more CSPs in the last six months much more often (69 per cent) than the average (57 per cent) (see table in Appendix B3.1.2).

There was no significant difference between genders on rate of contact with CSPs.

How particular telecommunications products drive consumer contact with CSPs Telecommunications products held by household customers As seen in Figure 1, 57 per cent of the population contacted one or more CSP in the last six months. What telecommunication products did people have and what product/s triggered this contact? Figure 6 shows that nine in 10 (90 per cent) participating households had a mobile phone for personal use. Mobile phones are now the most commonly held telecommunications product, with younger adults (18–34 years) leading this trend.

Figure 6 Telecommunications products held in household

Mobile phone 90

Home phone 86

Home internet 81

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Base: All respondents n=2,520. Q6. Now thinking about the forms of communication that you have for your personal use and not just for work-related usage, which of the following do you have in your household?

Despite the strong take-up of mobile phones, the home phone maintains a strong presence in households, with 86 per cent of the population (predominately older customers) having one connected. In comparison to home and mobile phones, the incidence of internet in the home was slightly lower at 81 per cent.

acma | 17 The effect of age on telecommunications products held by household customers10 Figure 7 illustrates that the penetration of mobile phones among adults aged 18–34 is almost at complete saturation—but only about 70 per cent of this age group has a home telephone connected.

The presence of a home phone increases with age, reaching 98 per cent in the 65 and older group. People in this age group are also significantly less likely to have a mobile phone (73 per cent) or a household internet connection (58 per cent). This supports the traditional view that newer technologies are most slowly taken up by those who have the most familiarity and experience with older communication technologies, such as a fixed-line.

More than two-thirds of respondents (68 per cent) held three communication products—home telephone, mobile phone and internet. Rates were significantly higher in the 35–64 age group. Of this group, six per cent have only a home phone, although this rises significantly to 22 per cent in the 65 years and older group.

Figure 7 Telecommunication products, and combination of, held by age groups

TOTAL 18–24 25–34 35–49 50–64 65+

% % % % % %

Mobile phone 90 96 97 93 92 73

86 67 Home phone 71 90 94 98 81 Home internet 85 88 89 82 58 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 Home phone, % % % % % % internet and mobile phone 68 59 64 78 75 52 Internet and mobile phone 9 23 22 6 2 1 Home phone and mobile phone 8 4 4 4 11 18 Home phone only 6 2 1 2 3 22 Mobile phone only 5 10 7 4 3 2 Home phone and internet 4 2 2 4 5 6 Base: All respondents n=2,520; 18–24 n=296; 25–34 n=481; 35–49 n=710; 50–64 n=599; 65+ n=434. Q6. Now thinking about the forms of communication that you have for your personal use and not just for work-related usage, which of the following do you have in your household?

Telecommunications products driving contact with CSPs ‘I think we’re getting more dependent on phones and lots of different ways of communicating, and so there is going to be a lot more issues.’ (Tamworth, female, 18–34, non-switcher, 29 September 2010.)

10The survey also probed the use of VoIP products/services as part of home telephony. The pattern of responses to VoIP and VoIP providers suggested some confusion about this still-new technology. With the approval of the ACMA, it was decided that this report would omit detailed coverage of VoIP.

18 | acma The expectation that having more telecommunications products increases the likelihood of contacting a CSP was confirmed. Figure 8 compares incidence of contact with CSPs across customers by the number of telecommunications products held (home phone, internet or mobile phone). As the number of products increased, so did CSP contact incidence. Just under one- quarter (23 per cent) of respondents with only one telecommunications product11 contacted a CSP in the last six months, while the rate was 66 per cent among respondents with three telecommunications products. This pattern was consistent across the age groups (see Appendix B3.2.3).

Figure 8 Incidence of contact with CSPs (L6M) by number of telecommunications products held

One Two Three Total telecommunications telecommunications telecommunications product held products held products held 23 34 43 45 57 55 66 % 77 % % % Contacted CSP (L6M) Did not contact CSP (L6M)

Base: All respondents n=2,520; one product in HH n=286; two products in HH n=598; three products in HH n=1,636.

Building on Figure 8, the table in Appendix B3.2.1 shows that 79 per cent of people who contacted CSPs had the three products, compared to 68 per cent in the total population. Further, 64 per cent of those who contacted a CSP had bundled services (two or more services with the same CSP on one plan12). Telstra is the company most likely to be contacted by people who have problems with bundling (see Appendix B3.2.2).

The main telecommunications product driving contact with a CSP was the internet (see Figure 9). Of those customers who contacted a CSP, one in two did so about the internet, despite the higher penetration of mobile and home phones in the population.

In line with the higher penetration of mobiles, they were more likely to be the reason for contacting a CSP (41 per cent) than home telephones (32 per cent).

11 If respondents had only one telecommunications product, this was either a home phone or mobile phone. 12 The bundling of services often draws a discount or reward but the questionnaire did not mention that feature in the definition.

acma | 19 Figure 9 Telecommunications products—why customers contacted CSPs (L6M) Internet 50 Mobile phone 41 Home phone 32 Bundled services 16 VoIP 3

0 20 40 60 80 100 % Telecommunication products contacted CSPs about (L6M)

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420. Q15. For which of your telecommunication services have you contacted a provider in the past six months? Was it your … ? (Note: multiple responses allowed).

Figure 10 shows that CSP contact about mobile phones exceeded that of the internet for the youngest age group, the 18–24s. For those aged 65 and older, the home phone was the most common source of CSP contact, reflecting the greater incidence of that product in older households. CSP contact about bundling was elevated among the 35–49 group. Table 6, in Chapter 6, shows that, for any given contact reason, rates of CSP contact do not vary markedly by age.

Figure 10 Telecommunications products—why customers contacted CSPs, (L6M) by age

Total 18–24 25–34 35–49 50–64 65+

% % % % % %

Internet 50 50 49 56 48 40 Mobile phone 41 46 43 36 26 53 Home telephone 32 15 32 35 32 41 Bundled services 16 16 11 16 21 11 VoIP 3 3 3 4 2 1

0 0 2020 40 4060 0 60 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; 18–24 n=154; 25–34 n=317; 35–49 n=435; 50–64 n=335; 65 n=179. Q15. For which of your telecommunication services have you contacted a provider in the past six months? Was it your … ? (Note: multiple responses allowed).

Most respondents (88 per cent) who contacted a CSP were responsible for paying the bill of that particular telecommunications product (see Appendix B3.1.1). This is not surprising, given CSPs’ privacy policies. Among the remaining 12 per cent (the non-bill payers), one in five of these contacts were by those aged 18–24 and were about the internet, with the majority wanting to resolve a technical problem.

Most recent contact with CSP To further explore the characteristics of CSP contact, respondents were asked to focus on their most recent experience within the past six months.

20 | acma Telecommunications product causing most recent contact with CSPs As Figure 11 illustrates, internet was the main product driving contact with a CSP in the last six months (50 per cent), as well as the main reason for the most recent contact with CSPs (37 per cent). Mobile phones accounted for 29 per cent of the most recent contacts with CSPs.

Figure 11 Most recent telecommunications product driving CSP contact (L6M)

Internet 50 37 Mobile phone 41 29 32 Home phone 19 16 Bundled services 14 3 V oIP 1

0 20 40 60 80 100 % Telecommunication products contacted CSPs about (L6M) Most recent telecommunications product contacted CSP about (L6M)

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420. Q15. For which of your telecommunication services have you contacted a provider in the past six months? Was it your … ? (note: multiple responses allowed). Q18. Thinking only about the one most recent issue that caused you to contact any of your telecom service providers, which service was it for (single response only)?

The remainder of the analyses in this report focus on the most recent CSP contact unless specified otherwise.

The CSP market and contact incidence Figure 12 compares the contact incidence across all customers of the three major telecommunication products. Of the 81 per cent of the population who had home internet, 25 per cent contacted CSPs about it. In contrast, mobile phones, which were more common (90 per cent), saw only an 18 per cent rate of contact.

acma | 21 Figure 12 Incidence of contact with CSPs (L6M) by telecommunication products held

Have home internet Have mobile phone Have fixed-line in the home

25 18 12

75 82 % % 88 % % Contacted CSP about internet Contacted CSP about mobile% phone Contacted CSP about home phone Did not contact CSP about internet Did not contact CSP about mobile phone Did not contact CSP about home% phone

Base: Have home internet n=2,030; mobile phone n= 2,289; home phone n=2,071. Q14. In the past six months, have you contacted any of your telephone or internet service providers in relation to your new or existing services, such as switching to a new provider or getting a new connection, making an enquiry about your product or service, querying a bill, or for technical support?

A focus group comment supports the higher incidence of contact among internet over home phone customers: ‘It’s also the thing [internet] I have the most issues with, so most of my calls [to CSPs] would be about the internet. I find the internet really hard over the phone because … like I know what the modem is but I don’t know what they’re talking about … for someone with just standard computer skills it’s too advanced for the conversation.’ (Alice Springs, female, 18–34, non-switcher, 7 October 2010.)

Telstra and Optus were the top two CSPs for the telecommunications products discussed. For all products, the distribution of CSP contacts closely mirrored the company share of customers (see Appendix B3.4).

Incidence of contact with CSPs—internet Figure 13 shows the percentage of each CSP’s customers who contacted them about the internet in their most recent contact. Overall, 25 per cent of customers with home internet contacted a CSP about this service (see Figure 12). Westnet customers contacted it at a rate significantly higher (39 per cent) than customers of iiNet (15 per cent) and 3 (six per cent). Additional provider- specific information is provided in Appendix B3, Table B3.4.1.

22 | acma Figure 13 Incidence of CSP contact about internet (L6M), of total with home internet 100 80 60

% 39 35 40 29 25 26 23 25 27 23 15 20 20 20 6 0

Per cent of CSPs' internet customers who contacted their CSP about internet (L6M)

Base: Have home internet n=2,030; Telstra n=909; Optus n=348; TPG n=104; iiNet n=87; 3 n=68; Westnet n=44; AAPT n=37; Dodo n=44; iPrimus n=35; Internode n=37; Vodafone n=36; Virgin n=33. Q10. Who is the service provider for your internet connection? Q19. Thinking only about the most recent issue that caused you to contact any of your telcom service providers, what was the name of the service provider you contacted?

Incidence of contact with CSPs—mobile phone Overall, 18 per cent of customers with a mobile phone contacted a CSP about their mobile service (see Figure 12). Figure 14 shows that, of those who contacted CSPs about mobile phone issues, 69 per cent were on a contract and a cap plan, while another 12 per cent were on a contract without a cap plan.

Figure 14 Payment type of people who contacted CSP about mobile issues (L6M)

Payment method for mobile phone— Payment method for mobile phone cap plan versus no cap plan

19 Post-paid service/ 69 on contract

81 12 Pre-paid service 10 % 9 Post-paid service/on contract Pre-paid service % On contract & have cap plan Pre-paid & have cap plan On contract & do NOT have cap plan Pre-paid & do NOT have cap plan

Base: Have mobile phone and contacted CSP about mobile phone in last six months n=434. Q13. Is your mobile phone pre-paid, or are you on a contract or plan where you are sent a bill? Q59. Are you on a cap or deal for your main mobile phone; that is, a set amount gives you a higher value of included calls/benefits?

Figure 15 shows that there were no significant differences among CSPs in the number of customers who contacted them about their mobile phone. Additional provider-specific information is provided in Appendix B3, Table B3.4.2.

acma | 23 Figure 15 Incidence of CSP contact about mobile issues, of total with a mobile phone (L6M)

100 80 60 % 40 22 18 17 15 19 17 20 0 Total Telstra Optus Vodafone 3 Virgin

Per cent of CSPs' mobile customers w ho contacted CSP about mobile (L6M)

Base: Have mobile phone n=2,289; Telstra n=1,029; Optus n=532; Vodafone n=325; 3 n=218; Virgin n=94. Q19. Thinking only about the most recent issue that caused you to contact any of your telcom service providers, what was the name of the service provider you contacted?

Incidence of contact with CSPs—home telephone Figure 12 shows that 12 per cent of customers with a home phone service had contacted a CSP. This rate was significantly lower for Optus13 (see Figure 16). Additional CSP specific-information is in Appendix B3, Table B3.4.3.

Figure 16 Incidence of CSP contact (L6M) about home phone, of total with home phone

100 80 60 % 40 13 14 20 12 7 7 6 0 Total Telstra Optus AAPT (i) Primus iiNet

Per cent of CSPs' home phone customers who contacted CSP about home phone L6M

Base: Have home phone n=2,071; Telstra n=1,454; Optus n=280; AAPT n=45; (i) Primus n=38; iiNet n=37. Q19. Thinking only about the most recent issue that caused you to contact any of your telcom service providers, what was the name of the service provider you contacted?

13 The six per cent figure for iPrimus is not significantly lower due to its much smaller sample size.

24 | acma 5. Reasons for choosing CSPs

Chapter overview

> People select a CSP because of price, network coverage, product range, customer service reputation or bundling.

> These characteristics vary in strength depending on the telecommunications products owned—price is most important overall but even more so for internet service.

Introduction Before examining why people contact a CSP with an inquiry or issue, a more fundamental point should be addressed—why did people who contacted a CSP choose that CSP in the first place?14

Main reasons for choosing CSPs Table 2 shows that, regardless of the type of service, the top five reasons for selecting a CSP are nearly always the same—price, network coverage, product range, customer service reputation and bundling. In addition, for 14 per cent of customers, their chosen CSP was the only provider available in their area when they signed up for the service. This was significantly higher among people who were contacting the CSP about their home phone. The complete table is shown in Appendix Table B3.5.1.

The significant differences shown in Table 2 are the greater focus that customers give to the price of internet contracts and the importance of mobile network coverage.

Table 2 Three main reasons for choosing CSP, by relevant product (L6M)

Mobile Home Bundled Total Internet phone phone services

% % % % % Price 46 52 48 32 46 Network coverage 28 28 34 16 31 Range of products/services offered 20 22 21 17 15 Reputation for customer service 17 17 18 18 16 Bundling—provider for other services 17 17 13 12 31 Only CSP available in area when signed up 14 13 10 19 17 Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; internet n=521; mobile phone 434; home phone n=260; bundled services n=183. Q50. What were the three most important factors you considered when you choose CSP contacted as your service provider?

During the qualitative sessions, respondents suggested that customer service was less important than product/service, network coverage and price. Customer service issues arise only when

14 In almost all cases, people contacted the CSP they were with during completion of the survey. However, analysis of the data shows that, in a small number of cases, people contacted a CSP that was not their current provider or a CSP from whom they did not receive the particular product they were calling about. For example, a person could have disconnected from company X but called X in the most recent contact.

acma | 25 customers have to contact their CSPs, whereas product (for example, mobile phone type, internet service speed and network coverage) and price (bundles, plans and caps) affect them on an almost daily basis: ‘I think if it comes down to a lower price or terrible customer service, lower price for sure. Compared to dealing with someone 10 minutes every six months, I prefer $20 less.’ (Sydney, female, 18–34, non-switcher, 27 September 2010.)

‘I am prepared to tolerate crappy service to get a cheaper or more convenient product … I wouldn’t bother checking out who’s going to give me the better service. Service is probably third on my list of priorities.’ (Melbourne, female, 61–75, non-switcher, 30 September 2010.)

When the reasons for choosing a CSP are distilled even further to find the most important one for customers (Table 3), price and network coverage are still first and second. The top three reasons cover 51 per cent of the respondents.

Appendix Table B3.5.2 shows all the reasons given. There were 11 other reasons that account for the remaining 49 per cent of respondents.

Table 3 Main reason for choosing CSP, by relevant telecommunications product

Bundled Total Internet Mobile phone Home phone services

% % % % % Price 26 30 27 19 21 Network coverage 14 13 17 10 14 Only provider available in area 11 11 7 15 12 Base: Contacted CSP in last six months excl. can’t say important factors in choosing CSP n=1,364; internet n=497; mobile phone n=425; home phone n=242; bundled services n=180. Q51. Which of these was the main reason you chose CSP contacted as your service provider?

It would be reasonable to assume that customers’ primary reasons for choosing a CSP match the reasons for CSP contact. For example, someone contacting a CSP about a billing issue is more likely to have been driven by price in the initial selection process. Table 8 in Chapter 6 more fully examines reasons for choosing versus reasons for contacting CSPs, showing that they do not always correspond.

The qualitative findings suggest that issues with previous CSPs influence choice of current CSP. This is illustrated in the following focus group quotes from customers, which stated why they chose their current CSP: ‘It was predominately price and particularly with our internet … [With previous internet CSP] if we went over our standard monthly usage, the bills were just horrendous.’ (Sydney, female, 35–49, switcher, 27 September 2010.)

‘My mobile is with [CSP] purely because the network was better [than the other], the 3G network when we’re travelling … that is the only reason I am with [CSP] for that and it is certainly is a better network.’ (Sydney, female, 51–60, switcher, 27 September 2010.)

However, the explanation of ‘choice’ as a reason for switching from a previous CSP only goes so far because the survey did not address the point raised in the qualitative session. We do not know whether the reasons for choosing a CSP reflect problems with the prior CSP (if there was one). Table 3 shows that 11 per cent of respondents did not even think they had the opportunity to switch CSPs (‘chosen CSP was the only provider available in their area’).

26 | acma 6. Reasons for CSP contact

Chapter overview

> Technical problems (36 per cent), billing problems (27 per cent) and new products or services (24 per cent) were the most common reasons for contacting a CSP.

> Contacts about technical problems were more likely to be about the internet, while contacts about billing problems were more likely to be about bundled services, home phone or mobile phone.

> There were no significant differences between age groups in terms of reasons for contact.

> For the most recently experienced issue, three contacts were typical.

> The telephone was the most common way to make contact about all product types (87 per cent), followed by face-to-face/in store—reflecting a preference for speaking to a real person.

Introduction Chapter 6 discusses why people contact a CSP and allied characteristics (the number of contacts needed, use of multiple channels of contacts). We begin with the clarification that not all contacts are complaints; some are inquiries or requests for clarification. Contacts may escalate to complaints and further to the CSPs’ complaints department if not handled well. Issues of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the contact experience are covered in later chapters.

Reasons for most recent CSP contact

The number one reason for the most recent CSP contact was to resolve a technical problem (36 per cent), followed by billing problems and new products or services (Table 4).

Table 4 Top reasons for contacting CSP (L6M)

Resolve a Resolve a Renew, change New product Update personal Total technical billing or upgrade or service information problem problem service

% 100 36 27 24 4 4

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420. Q20. What was the issue that caused you to make contact with [service provider]?

The internet caused significantly more contacts for technical problems and mobile phones caused significantly fewer (see Table 5). The internet’s complexity and jargon (upload/download, bandwidth, DSL, wireless network) makes the rate of technical contacts unsurprising but it sets out an important goal for CSPs—to be clearer in product and service descriptions and instructions.

This is especially important because contact rates to resolve a technical internet problem only varied narrowly—between 15 and 21 per cent—across the age groups (see Table 6). In fact, the contact rate to resolve technical problem across all products also varied narrowly—between 34 and 39 per cent.

The younger, and presumably more tech-savvy, groups had no easier a time with the technical aspects of internet products—and a more difficult time with mobile devices—than did the older

acma | 27 respondents. Of course, they may raise more complicated or challenging issues in the contacts and be heavier users of mobile devices.

28 | acma Table 5 Reason for contact with CSP, by relevant telecommunications product (L6M)

% % % % % Resolve a technical problem 36 50 23 39 23 Resolve a billing problem 27 16 31 33 40 New product or service 24 24 30 14 22 Renew, change, upgrade service or product 4 5 6 2 3 Update personal information 4 3 5 5 5 Cancel, disconnect, transfer 2 2 1 2 2 Failure to deliver promised service 1 1 0 1 4 Inquiry/upgrade to bundle 1 0 0 0 4 Other 7 5 9 9 8

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; internet n=521; mobile phone n=434; home phone n=260; bundled services n=183. Q20. What was the issue that caused you to make contact with your service provider?

Table 6 Contact with CSP (L6M) to resolve technical problems, by telecommunications product and age

Total 18–24 25–34 35–49 50–64 65+

% % % % % % Resolve a technical problem 36 37 34 36 39 34 Internet 19 19 15 21 21 15 Mobile phone 7 16 8 5 5 5 Home phone 7 1 6 6 10 12 Bundled services 3 1 4 4 2 2

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; 18–24 n=154; 25–34 n=317; 35–49 n=435; 50–64 n=335; 65+ n=179. Q20. What was the issue that caused you to make contact with your service provider?

Home phones and bundled services received significantly more contacts for billing than did the internet (see Table 5).

acma | 29 An interesting perspective on billing issues was voiced in the qualitative sessions: ‘They don’t give the fine print when you ring up and talk to them. They give us this wonderful deal up front, but it’s not until you get home or get on the internet that you start looking, because I thought I had X number of free calls and I didn’t.’ (Sydney, 18+, switcher, 27 September 2010.)

We noted in Chapter 4 that CSP contact about bundling was elevated among the 35–49 group. Of the 40 per cent with bundled services who had billing problems, 37 per cent was from that age group, yet they only account for 28 per cent of the population. Relevant focus group quotes are provided below that present respondents’ confusion with bundling and frustration with home phone bills. A common mention was the lack of itemised billing: ‘I never saw what was in this package anyway, they just told me that you pay this … and that is X a month … it was really simple, that is what I wanted, but it ... didn’t turn out that simple.’ (Alice Springs, non-switcher, 7 October 2010.)

‘Well I had a recent experience with my phone company. I had some unexplained charges on my phone bill so I called them up and I requested an itemised bill and the man I was speaking to was polite, he was very nice … I said I need the bill … It never arrived … but every bill since then has been itemised.’ (Perth, 18–34, non-switcher, 5 October 2010.)

‘What I was getting into … that’s got my nose out of joint at the present time is their new billing system. No list of the calls. I can’t dispute it unless I now request it.’ (Tamworth, non-switcher, 29 September 2010.)

‘I am simple around this stuff. I would like just something when looking at your landline, national calls and this sort of thing, it can just list how many or a number of calls, yes itemised billing, not the way it is done.’ (Alice Springs, non-switcher, 7 October 2010.)

Contacts about mobile phones were predominately for a new product or service (30 per cent) or to resolve a billing problem (31 per cent). The majority (86 per cent) of those who contacted about mobile phone billing problems were on a contract. Focus group participants discussed the frustration with billing issues and fine print: ‘You get to the point when you sign a mobile phone contract where you look at it and you go, doesn’t matter what they say, they’re going to rip me off … These caps are just a joke ... if I have a problem, I already know I’m behind the eight ball, because they’ve got some fine print somewhere to get them out of it.’ (Sydney, female, 51–60, switcher, 27 September 2010.)

As seen in Figure 14 in Chapter 4, customers with mobile issues were generally on a cap plan paying by contract (69 per cent). This rose to 76 per cent among mobile users who had made contact for new products or services.

Overall, age was not a strong influence on reasons for contacting a CSP (see Table 7), although new products did significantly elevate the contact rates for the 25–34 group.

30 | acma Table 7 Reason for contact with CSP, by age group (L6M)

Total 18–24 25–34 35–49 50–64 65+

% % % % % % Resolve a technical problem 36 37 34 36 39 34 Resolve a billing problem 27 25 27 29 27 25 New product or service 24 23 28 22 22 23 Renew, change, upgrade service or product 4 6 4 5 3 4 Update personal information 4 6 4 4 4 4 Cancel, disconnect, transfer 2 1 2 2 2 2 Failure to deliver promised service 1 2 0 2 0 1 Inquiry/upgrade to bundle 1 0 1 0 2 1 Other 7 8 7 6 8 10

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; 18–24 n=154; 25–34 n=317; 35–49 n=435; 50–64 n=335; 65+ n=179. Q20. What was the issue that caused you to make contact with your service provider?

Table 8 shows that the primary reason for choosing a CSP does not necessarily correspond with the reason for the CSP contact.

Table 8 Reason for contact with CSP (L6M), by main reason for choosing CSP

Reasons for choosing CSP Only provider Total Price Network coverage in area % % % % Resolve a technical problem 36 37 26 43 Resolve a billing problem 27 25 32 39 New product or service 24 25 30 14 Renew, change, upgrade 4 6 1 5 service or product Update personal information 4 5 4 2 Cancel, disconnect, transfer 2 1 2 - Failure to deliver promised 1 0 2 2 service Inquiry/upgrade to bundle 1 1 1 1 Other 7 6 9 4

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; main reason for choosing CSP was price n=355; main reason for choosing CSP was network coverage n=186; main reason for choosing CSP was only provider in area n=142.

acma | 31 Q20. What was the issue that caused you to make contact with your service provider? Number of issues raised in contact with CSP The majority of people (84 per cent) contacted the CSP about a single issue. People who contacted the CSP about two issues (14 per cent) were significantly more likely (20 per cent) than the total sample (14 per cent) to be contacting about bundled services.

Figure 17 Number of different reasons people had to contact CSP (L6M)

84 % One issue Two issues Three or more issues

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420.

Number of occasions CSP contacted By issue Up to this point, we have been discussing CSP contact as if it were a singular event or occasion. However, a telecommunications problem or issue may require multiple contacts. Figure 18 shows that 67 per cent of the most recent issues required only one or two separate contacts, while 20 per cent required four or more separate contacts. On average, 3.1 contacts were made. The number of contacts was affected by the reason for contact—from a significantly lower mean of 1.8 for ‘renew, change, upgrade’ to 3.8 for ‘resolve a billing problem’.

The two categories that explicitly involved problems—technical and billing—were less likely than others to be resolved on the first contact (38 per cent for technical and 35 per cent for billing) and more likely to see customers making more than five contacts about the issue (14 per cent for technical and 17 per cent for billing).

Conversely, a lower number of average contacts was reported when contact was about new (2.1) or renewing (1.8) services. The below quotes are from focus group respondents when asked if they felt the nature of the contact affected the CSPs’ customer service. There is a common perception among respondents that service is better during than after a sale: ‘If it’s a sale ... you’ve got their undivided attention … [laughter/general agreement] … I got a call the other day, I wanted to change onto to a cap … they seemed to really know what they were talking about because they were trying to sell me something. The best service I’ve ever seen.’ (Alice Springs, male, 18–34, non-switcher, 7 October 2010.)

‘Until we actually made that decision to move [switch CSP], then they were suddenly falling over to get us better offers. Now, where were those better offers when we were a customer? We’ve been yours for the last however many years.’ (Sydney, female, 35–49, switcher, 27 September 2010.)

32 | acma Figure 18 Number of contacts with CSP, by most recent issue

Resolve a Resolve a Renew, Update New product Total technical billing change or personal or service problem problem upgrade information

Mean: 3.1 3.6 3.8 2.1 1.8 2.6 Confidence interval: +/–0.3 +/–0.4 +/–0.6 +/–0.2 +/–0.3 +/–1.2

43 38 35 52 51 54 24 24 23 25 27 22 12 12 16 11 13 11 6 8 5 5 3 2 3 3 4 2 1 2 11 14 17 5 3 7

One Two Three Four Five More than five

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; resolve a technical problem n=506; resolve a billing problem n=387; new product or service n=337; renew, change or upgrade product/service n=61; update personal information n=57; other reasons omitted. Q21. On how many occasions did you contact your service provider about this issue?

It is worth noting that contact about updating personal information—an assumed straightforward process—required more than one contact in 46 per cent of cases.

By relevant telecommunications product For the variations in the number of contacts by telecommunications product (see Figure 19), it is worth remembering the main issues that led people to contact a CSP about that product. For example, of all products, mobile phone issues were most likely to be resolved on the first contact (48 per cent). Mobile phone contacts were more likely to be about new products or services (see Table 5) and the number of contacts for new products or services was significantly lower than average—2.1 versus 3.1 (see Figure 18).

The number of contacts for bundled services (3.9) was higher than the total (3.1, see Figure 19) but not significantly so. Contact about bundling—commonly to resolve a billing issue—was less likely to be only one contact (33 per cent versus 43 per cent). In part, this may reflect the complexity of the bundled service or the difficulty in identifying precisely what the issue is when more than one service is involved.

acma | 33 Figure 19 Number of contacts with CSP, by relevant telecommunications product

Mean: 3.1 3.2 2.6 3.2 3.9 Confidence interval: +/–0.3 +/–0.5 +/–0.4 +/–0.6 +/–0.7

43 43 48 43 33 24 24 25 24 25 12 11 12 15 15 6 7 6 3 6 3 3 2 2 3 11 11 6 13 18

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; internet n=521; mobile phone n=434; home phone n=260; bundled services n=183.

By major CSP

CSPs differed in the mean number of contacts they received to address the most recent customer issue (see Figure 20). Optus’s average of 1.9 contacts was significantly lower than the mean of 3.1. Optus was more likely than the norm to resolve an issue on first contact (53 per cent), while Telstra was less likely to do so (39 per cent).

Figure 20 Number of contacts with CSP, by CSP (if n=>30)

Total Telstra Optus Vodafone 3 TPG

Mean: 3.1 3.7 1.9 2.5 3.3 2.5 Confidence interval: +/–0.3 +/–0.4 +/–0.2 +/–0.6 +/–1.4 +/–0.7

44 41 43 39 53 52 24 24 26 16 28 28 12 13 11 12 10 15 6 6 4 9 5 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 11 15 4 9 12 10

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; Telstra n=766; Optus n=233; Vodafone n=83; 3 n=63; TPG n=38.

A larger number of contact occasions may simply mean a more thorough follow-up process was performed or a greater frequency of more complex issues. Telstra, for example, had the large majority of bundling contacts, which the data show require a greater number of contacts for resolution. However, as seen in Figure 23 (Chapter 7), there is an association between greater number of contacts and lower customer satisfaction.

34 | acma Means of first contact with CSP Table 9 shows that the telephone is overwhelmingly (87 per cent) the method of choice for CSP contact, regardless of the product prompting the contact.

Table 9 Means of first contact with CSP, by relevant telecommunications product

Telephone 87 89 76 98 91 In person 11 5 25 4 7 Website 5 6 5 1 4 Email 3 4 3 2 2 Other 0 0 0 0 1

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; internet n=521; mobile phone n=434; home phone n=260; bundled services n=183. Q22. Thinking about the ways that you made first contact with {provider}, did you contact them by …?

In qualitative sessions, the preference for telephone appeared to stem from the perception this would achieve instant acknowledgement from the CSP: ‘When there is something you cannot manage yourself you want to resolve straight away, so the phone for me is always the first … if they [the CSP] cannot resolve it, they will be able to tell you … you have closure at least, whereas if you send an email … you might get an email saying “we’ll look at it, at some point” and then you do not know if anything is being done.’ (Sydney, male, 18–34, non-switcher, 27 September 2010.)

Of the initial contact, 11 per cent was in person or in store—although this was higher among customers with mobile phone issues (25 per cent). This was driven by new products or services for mobile phones (of all contacts about mobile phones, 12 per cent were in person about new products/services). The overall much lower contact rate via a website or email is consistent with the qualitative finding that respondents preferred to speak to a real person.

Subsequent CSP contacts Of those customers who contacted a CSP, 79 per cent used only one mode of contact (usually telephone). The remaining 21 per cent had a subsequent contact via a different channel, of which the majority (92 per cent) used only one other mode from their initial contact. Refer to Appendix B3.6 for detailed analysis of breakdown by telecommunications product and reason for contact with CSP.

Table 10 should be viewed against the backdrop of mostly initial telephone contacts. When the follow-up contact is initiated by the provider, email is the preferred mode, followed by SMS. When the customer initiates subsequent contact, in person is the more common second contact mode. This discrepancy between what the customer prefers and receives in follow-up treatment may be important for addressing dissatisfaction with complaints-handling.

acma | 35 Table 10 Other forms of communication in subsequent contact, by who initiated this contact

Total had subsequent Customer initiated CSP initiated contact via subsequent contact subsequent contact different mode % % % Email 35 26 45 In person 23 35 8 Telephone 23 28 13 SMS/MMS 9 0 22 Through CSP’s website 8 12 4 Mail (by post) 7 1 16 Other 3 4 2

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months and had other forms of communication n=297; customer-initiated n= 160; CSP-initiated n=105. Q22A. Were there any other forms of communication used after first contact between you and your provider on this issue?

Combining those who used the telephone as their first mode of contact and those who used it for subsequent contact, 92 per cent of customers who contacted a CSP did so at some point by telephone.

Experiences during telephone contact with CSP Assistance with issue during telephone contact with CSP Table 11 shows that, of the respondents who contacted a CSP via telephone, 48 per cent had their issue resolved at the first point of contact and 79 per cent after three contacts or fewer.

Contacts involving billing problems were significantly less often resolved on first contact than the total (43 per cent versus 48 per cent). This was also the general consensus among focus group respondents: ‘I find that, especially with billing, I reckon it’s one of the most difficult things to sort out. You know technical things you can get people that know what they’re doing but billing always seems to be more hassle than anything else.’ (Alice Springs, female, 18–34, non-switcher, 7 October 2010.)

36 | acma Table 11 Number of people involved in most recent issue during telephone contact with CSP

Renew, Resolve a Resolve a New change, Update Total technical billing product upgrade personal problem problem or service product or information service

First person contacted was able to help with the issue 48 45 43 53 63 63 Two people 19 19 16 20 15 17 Three people 12 14 13 11 8 4 Four people 6 5 7 4 5 8 Five people 3 4 5 4 2 - More than five people 8 10 10 4 4 8 Issue never resolved 4 4 6 2 2 - Base: Contacted CSP by telephone in last six months and spoke to a CSP person n=1,222; resolve technical problem n=449; resolve billing problem n=354; new product or service n=260; renew service n=48; update personal information n=49. Q25. In total, how many different people did you need to speak to in order to resolve the issue?

Only four per cent of people indicated that their issue had not been resolved. This does not imply that it is a closed matter; the CSP could still have been working to address the issue.

Incidence of call drop-outs during telephone contact Of people who contacted a CSP by telephone, 14 per cent had a call ‘drop out’ (that is, the connection cut off unexpectedly). This rate did not vary whether telephone was the first or subsequent mode of contact. Further, the incidence was equivalent for the study sub-samples— the fixed-line and mobile-only groups.

The 25–34 years group (20 per cent) was more likely to experience drop-outs than the total (14 per cent). Although telephone contact by mobile phone or fixed-line cannot be distinguished, it could be inferred that this difference may have had an impact, given the lower penetration of home phones in this age group.

As Table 12 shows, drop-outs were associated strongly with billing problems (20 per cent versus 14 per cent for the total). Calls about new products or services were significantly less likely to drop out (nine per cent versus 14 per cent for the total).

acma | 37 Table 12 Incidence of call drop-out during telephone contact with CSP

Resolve a Resolve a New product Renew, Update Total technical billing change or personal problem problem or service upgrade information

% % % % % % Line dropped out 14 15 20 9 8 2 during call Line did not drop out 85 83 79 91 92 98 during call Can’t say 1 1 1 0 - -

Base: Contacted CSP by telephone in last six months and spoke to a CSP person n=1,222; resolve technical problem n=449; resolve billing problem n=354; new product or service n=260; renew service n=48; update personal information n=49. Q25. In total, how many different people did you need to speak to in order to resolve the issue?

More generally, call drop-outs were associated in the qualitative sessions with a ‘ploy’ by the CSP to avoid having to register the contact or as a way of disposing of difficulties: [Respondent talking about average number of calls on an issue]: ‘Depends if you get cut off or not, by them [general agreement/laughter]. Often if they can’t deal with your problem, oh woops, you’re not on the phone anymore.’ (Alice Springs, female, 18–34, non-switcher, 7 October 2010.)

Call disconnects send the wrong signal to customers: ‘They say they can’t fix the problem, that’s the frustrating part, they put you on to somebody else … or onto someone then the line drops out … then somebody who is going to call you back doesn’t … by this stage you become so frustrated … you’re ready to bin it, put the phone through the wall, be rude’. (Sydney, male, 51–60, switcher, 27 September 2010.)

‘What is annoying … and it is not only with the telephone companies, it’s with anything, you’re halfway saying something and you suddenly drop out and then you have got to ring again and I just think that has just cost me another phone call.’ (Perth, female, 61–75, non-switcher, 5 October 2010.)

Of the 14 per cent who experienced a call drop-out, almost nine in 10 rang their provider back, while only six per cent had the provider call them back. The remainder gave up or tried a different means of contact (one per cent)—refer to Appendix B3.7. While the phone is clearly the leading modality for CSP contact, some of its inadequacies are reflected in the following quote, which also shows why multi-mode options were used: [Talking about it being face to face with CSPs]: ‘Because you can show them … you can say here’s my receipt. If they’re seeing it they can’t say no, you haven’t got one, it’s not in the system and you can say this is what happened and then they sent me this and then that happened … It’s not feasible though in this day and age, is it? Not for telecommunications.’ (Melbourne, female, 51–60, non-switcher, 30 September 2010.)

Experiences during in-person contact with CSP Combining those who contacted a CSP in person (as either their first or subsequent mode of contact) shows that 16 per cent of customers who contacted a CSP did so in person at some point.

38 | acma Whether issue was resolved during first contact in person Of all CSP contacts, 16 per cent were made in person at a store or office. Of these, 11 per cent were the first mode of contact, while the other five per cent were subsequent modes of contact. Figure 21 shows the outcome is evenly divided between people who had the issue resolved in one visit (47 per cent) and those who needed further contact (49 per cent).

Figure 21 Incidence of contact with CSPs by total and sub-samples (L6M)

In-person subsequent Total contacted in person In-person first mode of contact mode of contact

4 2 9 36 47 46 49 53 56 % % % Issue was resolved during first in-person contact Issue was not resolved during first in-person contact Can't say

Base: Contacted CSP in person in last six months n=233; first mode n=163; subsequent n=70. Q30. Were you able to resolve the issue during your first visit to the shop or office?

Resolution of issues during the first in-person contact was significantly higher among those people whose initial first mode of contact was in person (53 per cent) compared to those who had already used other modes (36 per cent).

The following quote states a preference for contact in person: ‘I think it’s better face-to-face, because … you can show them. If you’ve got paper, you can say here’s my receipt. If they’re seeing it they can’t say no, you haven’t got one, it’s not in the system and you can say this is what happened and then they sent me this and then that happened.’ (Melbourne, female, 61–75, non-switcher, 30 September 2010.)

acma | 39 7. Satisfaction with CSP customer service

Chapter overview

> Satisfaction with customer service decreases as the number of contacts to address an issue increases.

> The lowest satisfaction and the most contacts were associated with bundled services.

> CSP ratings rarely exceeded 7.0 on a scale of 0 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied). Overall satisfaction with customer service by phone, in-person visits or via a website was between 6.0 and 6.5. (The satisfaction literature uses a mean of 7 as ‘neutral’ satisfaction rather than the scale mid-point of 5.)

> For telephone contacts—the most common mode of contact—satisfaction was highest for staff friendliness and lowest for staff availability and waiting time on telephone queue.

Introduction Previous chapters have described reasons for CSP selection and contact, and the number of contacts needed to address the most recent issue. Chapter 7 examines how satisfied or dissatisfied people are with CSPs generally and specifically with their customer service.

The results should be examined in the context of the different types of attributes that were used:

> specific features of a CSP contact experience—‘being able to speak to a person if I wanted to’

> ‘higher order’ attributes that are a blend of simpler attributes—‘I am happy to recommend the CSP to a friend’

> overall satisfaction—the synthesis of all the components.

In Chapter 8, this attribute structure is used for a multiple regression analysis, to reveal underlying drivers of overall satisfaction.

Overall satisfaction with CSPs’ customer service Figure 22 shows that 42 per cent of respondents gave a CSP an overall customer service satisfaction rating in one of the top three categories (on a 0 to 10 scale). This compares to the 16 per cent who gave a rating in the bottom three categories. More than twice as many people (62 per cent versus 27 per cent) gave a rating above the neutral scale mid-point than below. Overall, the mean was 6.2.

40 | acma Figure 22 Satisfaction with CSP customer service

0 (Very dissatisfied) 8 1 3 16% 2 5 3 5 4 6 5 (Neutral) 11 6 7 Mean 6.2 7 13 8 17 9 10 42% 10 (Very satisfied) 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; mean: 6.2; confidence limit: +/–0.2. Q44. Now taking everything into account, how satisfied were you overall with the quality of the customer service you received from your service provider on this issue?

Based on this information, it does not appear that dissatisfaction with CSPs is dominant for customer service on the most recent contact. However, academic sources recommend using a scale value of 7 as neutral rather than 5, which changes the dissatisfaction rate (ratings under 7) to 45 per cent and satisfaction (ratings over 7) to 42 per cent.15

Qualitative sessions painted a sobering picture of frequent ineffective and frustrating customer service: ‘At the end of the day for whatever reasons, he [CSP representative] didn’t get what I was telling him and somehow in the chain of things I didn’t get what I wanted. I got something actually completely opposite from what I wanted … so I would have to say the experience was a poor one. Since then I just threw up my hands and said forget it with [CSP].’ (Perth, male, 18–34, non-switcher, 5 October 2010.)

‘You’re their customer, the customer’s always right, you should be treated with a certain amount of respect but if you owe them money; your bills are overdue, it’s almost like that gives them a right to treat you with disrespect and you are no longer a valued customer … when you don’t owe them money and they want you to sign up for something else or to increase your contract then you are a valued customer again” (Melbourne, female, 35–50, non-switcher, 30 September 2010.)

While qualitative sessions are excellent for capturing the depth of involvement, feelings or emotions, and probing motives, quantitative data is accepted as the more trustworthy source for sizing the degree of an issue or problem.

Rating of CSP contacted in last six months, by attribute Respondents were also asked to rate their CSP on a range of individual attributes. This can help to clarify what causes overall judgments by customers.

On the 0–10 agree/disagree scale, where 0 is disagree strongly and 10 is agree strongly, mean attribute ratings varied from 5 (scale neutral point) for ‘hard to understand what is included in contract/services’ to 7 for ‘has range of product/services that satisfy my needs’ (see Figure 23). ‘Hard to understand what is included in contract/services’ is the only attribute here for which a

15 See Edwardson, M, ‘Measuring Consumer Emotions in Service Encounters: An Exploratory Analysis’, Australasian Journal of Market Research, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 34–48. The scale mid-point of 5 was labelled ‘neutral’ on the survey but the article argues for a higher standard.

acma | 41 lower rating is better—that is, disagreement is the desired answer. However, the mean of 5 indicates that people are ambivalent about this characteristic.

Advocacy measures such as ‘happy to recommend’ and re-purchase indicators such as ‘happy to continue using’ were above the scale mid-point, as was overall satisfaction (6.1 for ‘taking everything into account …’).

On the stricter scale where 7 is neutral, all scored at this value or below.

Figure 23 Rating of CSP contacted (L6M)

Their overall brand image appeals to me 6 They have a range of products and services that satisfy my needs 7 The amount I pay for their service is good value for money 6.1 I am happy to recommend them to my friends 5.6 I am happy to continue to use them in the future 6.3 Taking everything into account, I am very satisfied with them as my 6.1 service provider They have a reputation for good after-sales customer service 5.6 It is hard to understand what is included in their contracts or services 5

0 2 4 6 8 10 Strongly disagree Strongly agree

Note: At a 95 per cent confidence level, confidence intervals for above means do not exceed +/–0.2. Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420. Q52. Thinking about service providers, I am going to read out some statements that might be used to describe them and I would like you to tell me how much you agree or disagree with each one.

Refer to Appendix B3.8 for ratings of CSPs contacted, organised by attributes and by major providers.

Reasons for choosing CSP and rating of customer service Figure 24 looks at satisfaction with customer service by the main reason that the CSP was chosen. Satisfaction varied from a mean of 5.5 for those driven by network coverage to 6.7 when price was the main driver.

We noted in chapter 5, where reasons for CSP selection are covered, that some in the qualitative sessions were willing to trade price for customer service—that is, accept lower quality customer service for a lower price. Figure 24 does not indicate that this trade-off necessarily occurs in practice, as 50 per cent of those who selected their CSP on price were satisfied (gave a rating of 8, 9 or 1016) with the customer service. This is significantly higher than the overall total of 42 per cent.

16 Using 7 as the neutral scale point.

42 | acma Figure 24 Satisfaction with CSP customer service, by reasons CSP was chosen

Only CSP in area Total Price Network coverage when signed up Mean: 6.2 6.7 5.5 5.7 Confidence +/–0.2 +/–0.3 +/–0.5 +/–0.5 interval: 8 5 15 8 0 (Very dissatisfied) 3 1 2 4 1 5 3 6 8 2 5 3 4 5 8 4 6 5 6 5 5 (Neutral) 11 9 9 14 6 7 7 6 9 7 13 15 14 12 8 17 23 15 15 9 10 14 7 6 10 (Very Satisfied) 15 13 12 12 Base: Contacted CSP in0 last six10 months20 n=1,420;30 price40 n=355; 50coverage n=186; only CSP n=142. Q44. Now taking everything into account, how satisfied were you overall with the quality of the customer service you received from your service provider on this issue?

Number of contacts with CSP and rating of customer service Figure 25 shows that overall satisfaction with CSPs is strongly influenced by the number of contacts with the provider. As the number increases, overall satisfaction decreases.

Figure 25 Satisfaction with CSP customer service, by number of contacts

More than five contacts 3.0

Total 6.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; one n=617; two n=348; three n=173; four n=80; five n=36; more than five n=161. Q44. Now taking everything into account, how satisfied were you overall with the quality of the customer service you received from your service provider on this issue?

Rating of customer service by relevant telecommunications product Figure 26 shows that satisfaction with customer service is lowest for contacts about bundled services. This is not surprising given that the greater the number of contacts the lower the satisfaction with the service (see Figure 25) and that those who contacted about bundled services were significantly more likely to have had more than five contacts (18 per cent, see Figure 19).

acma | 43 Figure 26 Satisfaction with CSP customer service, by relevant telecommunications product

Bundled Total Internet Mobile phone Home phone services Mean: 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.1 5.5 Confidence +/–0.2 +/–0.3 +/–0.3 +/–0.4 +/–0.5 interval: 0 (Very dissatisfied) 1 8 8 7 10 12 2 3 2 4 2 2 5 4 4 9 3 5 5 6 4 5 4 4 6 5 7 5 8 5 (Neutral) 11 11 9 12 12 6 7 7 8 5 9 7 13 14 13 15 10 8 17 20 17 15 16 9 10 9 12 9 8 10 (Very Satisfied) 15 16 15 16 10

Base: Contacted CSP in0 last six10 months20 n=1,420;30 internet40 n=521;50 mobile phone n=434; home phone n=260; bundled services n=183. Q44. Now taking everything into account, how satisfied were you overall with the quality of the customer service you received from your service provider on this issue?

The focus group quote below reflects attitudes towards generally inconsistent customer service: ‘They’re a mixed bag [referring to CSPs] ... They seem to have so many different departments like new activations; then there’s a new customer visibility, and then there’s accounts and, depending on who you speak to, some seem to get priority and move straight through and some will be waiting for 40 minutes; some they transfer around because they don’t know—you just get a different experience every time.’ (Sydney, female, 18–34, non-switcher, 27 September 2010.)

Satisfaction with the CSPs was significantly lower among people making contact to resolve a billing problem (mean of 5.3 versus 6.2). In contrast, when contacting CSPs about new sales, satisfaction with customer service was significantly higher than the total (see Figure 27).

44 | acma Figure 27 Satisfaction with CSP customer service, by most recent issue for contact

Resolve a Resolve a New product Renew, change Update personal technical billing problem or service or upgrade information problem Mean: 6.0 5.3 6.9 7.2 6.9 Confidence interval: +/–0.3 +/–0.3 +/–0.3 +/–0.6 +/–0.7 0 (Very dissatisfied) 3 1 9 14 2 7 3 3 1 4 2 2 6 7 5 1 2 3 6 6 4 4 0 4 5 8 5 2 3 5 (Neutral) 12 14 7 14 3 6 7 5 9 3 15 7 13 12 14 11 10 8 16 14 22 27 31 9 8 5 13 17 14 10 (Very Satisfied) 15 12 17 16 10

Base: Contacted CSP0 in last10 six months;20 30 resolve40 a technical50 problem n=506; resolve a billing problem n=387; new product or service n=337; renew, change or upgrade n=61; update personal information n=57. Q44. Now taking everything into account, how satisfied were you overall with the quality of the customer service you received from /your service provider/ on this issue?

The below quote highlights the difference in respondents’ perception of the customer service during and after the CSP has made a sale: ‘If it’s a sale ... you’ve got their undivided attention. I got a call the other day and they [service provider] were asking me about my account, if I wanted to change over to a different plan and they seemed to really know what they were talking about because they were trying to sell me something. The best service I’ve ever seen from the [CSP] … Often they’ve got different phone numbers, for sales or for existing customers, and I think I have definitely noticed a difference in the level of customer service between those two numbers.’ (Alice Springs, male, 18–34, non-switcher, 7 October 2010.)

Appendix B3.9 shows the overall satisfaction with CSP customer service for the most recent issue.

Customer service contact with CSPs Satisfaction with customer service quality, by mode of contact Overall satisfaction varied narrowly by method of contact, from a mean of 6 for telephone to 6.4 for mail/SMS/email (see Figure 28). About 40 per cent gave ratings above 7.

acma | 45 Figure 28 Satisfaction with CSP customer service, by contact mode

Post/SMS/ Total Telephone In person Website email

Mean: 6.2 6 6.1 6 6.4 Confidence interval: +/–0.2 +/–0.2 +/–0.4 +/–0.7 +/–0.5

0 (Very dissatisfied) 8 9 9 9 11 1 3 3 3 2 1 2 5 5 6 4 4 3 5 5 6 9 5 4 6 6 5 9 3 5 (Neutral) 11 11 8 8 7 6 7 7 8 11 8 7 13 14 11 9 13 8 17 17 16 14 21 9 10 9 10 8 13 10 (Very Satisfied) 15 13 16 17 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; by telephone n=1295; in person n=233; by website n=90; by post/SMS/email n=181. Q44. Now taking everything into account, how satisfied were you overall with the quality of the customer service you received from your service provider on this issue?

Mode of contact was probed in greater depth through component attribute ratings. This is covered in the next section.

Satisfaction rating of customer service by contact mode17 Satisfaction with telephone CSP customer service As telephone was the most common channel for contact, the attribute ratings for customer service by telephone contact are of great importance. All attribute means were above the scale mid-point except for waiting time (4.8). However, only two attributes exceeded the higher standard of 7.0 (see Figure 29) and overall quality of customer service only reached 6.0. Staff friendliness was the top scorer.

The qualitative sessions identified friendliness and politeness as important to good customer service but rudeness and discourtesy were not a common experience. Rather, manifestations of rudeness such as long waiting times were mentioned.

17 Note that attributes vary somewhat for each mode of contact to address, for example, the unique elements of telephone versus in person.

46 | acma Figure 29 Satisfaction ratings with elements of CSP telephone customer service

Ease of finding providers' contact details 7.2 The waiting time before speaking to a customer service representative 4.8 Being able to navigate easily through the voice prompt menu 5.7 Being able to speak to a person if I wanted to 5.7 Being able to communicate easily with staff 5.9 Staff being knowledgeable to deal with my issue 6.1 Staff having the authority to deal with my issue 6.1 Staff being friendly or courteous 7.6 Staff being familiar with my personal account details 6.4 Staff being interested in helping me 6.8 Staff giving the correct information 6.3 Being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time 5.8 The extent staff did what they said they would do 6.5 Not having any language barriers 6.5 Overall quality of the customer service 6

Note: At a 95 per cent confidence level, intervals for above means do not exceed +/–0.2. Base: Contacted CSP by telephone in last six months n=1,295. Q23. Thinking about your telephone contact with service provider on this issue, I am going to read out different aspects of the customer service that you may have experienced and I would like you to tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you were with each aspect.

Satisfaction with in-person CSP customer service Figure 30 shows that five of the 12 attribute means for in-person service achieved a score of 7 or better, a noticeable improvement on the ratings for telephone contact. Overall quality of in-person customer service, however, was no different than that for telephone.

The lowest ratings were for number of staff available and the related factor of waiting time. It would appear that stores are open conveniently and staff members are friendly, but they are not sufficiently available to produce exceptional overall satisfaction. Remember that in-person customer service was favoured for mobile phone issues. Longer than expected waiting time would no doubt be annoying when the customer has made the effort to seek out a physical store location.

acma | 47 Figure 30 Satisfaction ratings with elements of CSP store/office customer service (in person)

Convenient office/shop location 7.6 Convenient office/shop opening hours 7.6 The waiting time to be attended to 6 The number of staff available to serve customers 5.7 Being able to communicate easily with staff 7.4 Staff being knowledgeable to deal with my issue 6.8 Staff being friendly and courteous 7.7 Staff being familiar with my personal account details 6.2 Staff being interested in helping me 7 Staff giving the correct information 6.7 Being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time 5.9 The extent staff did what they said they would do 6.9 Overall quality of the customer service 6.1

0 2 4 6 8 10

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

At a 95 per cent confidence level, confidence intervals for above means do not exceed +/–0.3. Base: Contacted CSP in person in last six months n=233. Q29. Thinking about that in-person contact with service provider on this issue, I am going to read out different aspects of the customer service that you may have experienced and I would like you to tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you were with each aspect.

Satisfaction with CSP website customer service Only six per cent of contacts were via a provider’s website. Satisfaction means never reached 7 for any attribute. Issue resolution and follow-through were the weakest performers see (Figure 31). Customers were most satisfied with the ability to contact the provider and set up an account but less happy with the quality of the information, the ease of finding it and issue resolution. Some of these lower ratings may relate to the lack of personal/human contact (for example, staff follow- through).

48 | acma Figure 31 Satisfaction ratings with elements of CSP website customer service

My provider’s website gave me the information I needed 6.2

It was easy to find what I wanted on my provider’s website 6.1 I was able to set up an online user account easily to access my account 6.8 information Being able to send my provider a message via its website 6.2 Being able to identify the correct address or number for sending an email or 6.9 message Receiving a quick reply to the message I sent 6

Getting a detailed reply which answered the issues in my message 5.6

Being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time online 5.6

The extent staff followed through on further actions to resolve the query 5.3

Overall quality of the customer service 6

0 2 4 6 8 10

At a 95 per cent confidence level, confidence intervals for above means do not exceed +/–0.8. Base: Contacted CSP via web in last six months n= 90. Q31 Thinking about your contact with service provider through their website on your most recent issue, I am going to read out different aspects of the customer service that you may have experienced and I would like you to tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you were with each aspect.

Satisfaction with post/email/SMS customer service Of the CSP contacts, 18 per cent were via post/email/SMS. The overall quality of customer service, 6.4, was the highest of any channel. Only one satisfaction attribute mean exceeded a rating of 7—‘identifying the correct address/number for sending the message’. Issue resolution was lowest at 5.6 (see Figure 32).

Figure 32 Satisfaction ratings with elements of CSP post/email/SMS customer service

Being able to identify the correct address or number for sending an email or message 7.6

Receiving a quick reply to the message I sent 6.7

Overall quality of the customer service 6.4

At a 95 per cent confidence level, intervals for above means do not exceed +/–0.5. Base: Contacted CSP via post/email/SMS in last six months n= 181. Q31 Thinking about your contact with service provider through post/email/SMS on your most recent issue, I am going to read out different aspects of the customer service that you may have experienced and I would like you to tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you were with each aspect.

acma | 49 8. Key drivers of satisfaction— statistical modelling

Chapter overview

> Multiple regression and other statistical techniques were used to identify the key drivers of customer satisfaction. These analysis techniques also highlight which customer service features a CSP would most benefit from if their performance was improved.

> ‘Being able to resolve issues in a reasonable time’, ‘follow through’ and ‘targeted personalised attention’ were important areas in which CSPs underperform. Improvements in these areas are most strongly linked to greater customer satisfaction.

Introduction Chapter 7 presented overall satisfaction with customer service and individual attribute measures but not the relation between them. For that direct linkage, the statistical technique of multiple regression is commonly used.

It is natural to think that overall customer service can best be improved by focusing efforts on the lowest mean attribute scores because they seem to be the ones lowering overall satisfaction. This, however, may not be the case as an attribute could ‘score low’ yet not be important to customers. Similarly, an attribute could achieve a high mean rating and be very important to overall assessments, so that small additional improvements on the attribute are rewarded by large increases in overall ratings.

Regression highlights which drivers are most important for overall customer satisfaction. Here, the technique is employed for each primary mode of CSP contact. This approach analyses the various factors that contribute to overall satisfaction and may help the industry to improve the customer service features that matter.

Satisfaction leverage analysis estimates the impact that an improvement in the rating of one individual factor will have on the overall satisfaction rating for customer service. Opportunity analysis assigns drivers to quadrants, each with an interpretation for the next step action plans of CSPs.

Data that was subjected to this analysis is derived from our survey of those customers who had made contact with a CSP in the past six months. It may not replicate results from a general customer sample.

A detailed explanation of the techniques applied here is in Appendix B1.3.

CSP contact by telephone Key drivers of satisfaction The two leading drivers of overall satisfaction for telephone contacts were timely issue resolution and delivery on promise (see Figure 33)—each accounted for 21 per cent of the overall customer service rating. It is interesting to note that ‘friendliness’ and ‘courtesy’ made no contribution to satisfaction, even though these were elements singled out in the qualitative sessions and friendliness was often one of the higher-scoring attribute means.

Another interesting finding is that ‘staff giving correct information’ (one per cent) and ‘staff being knowledgeable to deal with my issue’ (13 per cent) differ so much in their influence yet seem so

50 | acma similar. The former may be weak because it is generic, while the latter matters because it is about addressing ‘my’ issue.

Figure 33 Key drivers of satisfaction for telephone customer service

Ease of finding providers' contact details 0 The waiting time before speaking to a customer service representative 9 Being able to navigate easily through the voice prompt menu 2 Being able to speak to a person if I wanted to 5 Being able to communicate easily with staff 6 Staff being knowledgeable to deal with my issue 13 Staff having the authority to deal with my issue 5 Staff being friendly or courteous 0 Staff being familiar with my personal account details 2 Staff being interested in helping me 13 Staff giving the correct information 1 Being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time 21 The extent staff did what they said they would do 21 Not having any language barriers 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months by telephone n=1,295.

Satisfaction leverage analysis Leverage analysis in Figure 34 shows the effect that a 10 per cent increase in the attribute satisfaction level would have on the overall satisfaction rating. For example, policies or training programs that move the mean score for ‘resolving the issue in a reasonable time’ up 10 per cent from 5.8 to 6.38 would, according to the model, lead to a nearly two per cent increase in overall satisfaction, from 6.0 to 6.12.

Each element makes an independent contribution to improving overall ratings—for example, a 10 per cent improvement in both ‘resolving the issue in a reasonable time’ and ‘staff being interested in helping me’ would add 3.5 per cent to overall satisfaction, increasing a 6.0 to 6.21.These are additive effects.

Figure 34 Satisfaction leverage analysis by telephone

Ease of finding providers' contact details 0.0 The waiting time before speaking to a customer service representative 1.0 Being able to navigate easily through the voice prompt menu 0.2 Being able to speak to a person if I wanted to 0.6 Being able to communicate easily with staff 0.7 Staff being knowledgeable to deal with my issue 1.3 Staff having the authority to deal with my issue 0.5 Staff being friendly or courteous 0.1 Staff being familiar with my personal account details 0.2 Staff being interested in helping me 1.5 Staff giving the correct information 0.1 Being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time 2.0 The extent staff did what they said they would do 2.0 Not having any language barriers 0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 % increase in satisfaction with CSP telephone customer service

Opportunity analysis Are ‘resolving the issue in a reasonable time’ or ‘staff being interested in me’ the best issues to focus on? A technique called ‘opportunity analysis’ enables a more informed decision about where efforts should be placed. Opportunity analysis creates four quadrants defined by the plotting of satisfaction ratings versus factor importance as derived from the regression analysis.

acma | 51 Opportunity analysis assists with deciding what features of the customer service experience to work on by placing all the attributes in the same two-dimensional space. Figure 35 shows the resultant quadrant template and the interpretation for attributes that fall into the four zones.

Figure 35 Opportunity analysis template

Focus areas: h i g h e r i m p o r t a n c e Leverage strength: h i g h e r b u t l o w e r p e r f o r m a n c e / s a t i s f a c t i o n  ) i m p o r t a n c e a n d h i g h e r p e r f o r m a n c e  s

r n e e d i m m e d i a t e a t t e n t i o n

e a c u r r e n t s t r e n g t h v i r d

n a e M (

e c n a t r o p m

I Monitor: l o w e r r a t i n g s a n d l o w e r i m p o r t a n c e  d o e s n o t r e q u i r e Maintain: w e l l r a t e d b u t l o w e r i m m e d i a t e a t t e n t i o n b u t m o n i t o r t o i m p o r t a n c e  m a i n t a i n c u r r e n t e n s u r e i m p o r t a n c e d o e s n o t p e r f o r m a n c e i n c r e a s e

Performance (Mean satisfaction rating for the category)

According to this approach, efforts to improve attributes in the focus areas quadrant will deliver the most benefit as these are the ones that have higher derived importance to customers and lower performance.

A satisfaction-opportunity analysis on the ratings of customer service by telephone, as shown in Figure 36, indicates two factors in the ‘focus’ quadrant:

> being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time

> staff being knowledgeable to deal with my issue.

Other factors that fell into the ‘monitor’ quadrant are less important even though ratings were low:

> being able to communicate easily with staff

> staff having the authority to deal with my issue

> being able to speak to a person if I wanted to

> waiting time before speaking to a customer service representative

> being able to navigate easily through the voice prompt menu

52 | acma Figure 36 Opportunity analysis satisfaction, by telephone contact

e Focus areas Leverage strength c n a t r o

p Being able to resolve the issue in a The extent staff did what they said m reasonable time I

( they would do

e 20 c i v r e s

r e m o t s u c

15 e n

o Staff being knowledgeable h Staff being interested in helping me p to deal with my issue e l e t

f 10 o

n o i t c a f

s Being able to communicate easily i

t Monitor Maintain

a with staff s

f Being able to speak to a person if I

o 5 wanted to Staff having the authority s

r to deal with my issue e v i

r Staff being familiar with my d

Being able to navigate personal account details Ease of finding

y The waiting time before speaking to providers' e easily through the Staff being friendly a customer service representative Not having any K voice prompt contact details or courteous Staff giving the language barriers menu correct information 0 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 Satisfaction with CSP telephone customer service (Performance)

The importance of problem resolution is seen in this typical quote from the qualitative sessions: ‘Getting through to a person that can solve the problem, which I don’t know whether it fits into a mixture of … For me it’s talking to somebody that can actually solve the problem.’ (Melbourne, 35+, non-switcher, 29 September 2010.)

CSP contact by store/office in-person visit Key drivers of satisfaction For this category, one factor—‘being able to resolve issue in a reasonable time’—clearly had more impact on overall satisfaction than the others, accounting for 31 per cent of the variance (see Figure 37). No attribute better captures the service efficiency and minimisation of CSP contacts that customers in the qualitative sessions said they wanted.

acma | 53 Figure 37 Key drivers of satisfaction for store/office (in-person) customer service

Convenient office/shop location 5 Convenient office/shop opening hours 4 The waiting time to be attended to 3 The number of staff available to serve customers 7 Being able to communicate easily with staff 8 Staff being knowledgeable to deal with my issue 2 Staff being friendly and courteous 11 Staff being familiar with personal account details 9 Staff being interested in helping me 4 Staff giving the correct information 8 Being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time 31 The extent staff did what they said they would do 8

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Base: Contacted CSP in person in last six months n=233.

Satisfaction leverage analysis Figure 38 illustrates that a 10 per cent improvement in the rating for contact resolution time, from 5.9 to 6.49, would produce the largest increase (3.7 per cent) in overall satisfaction with CSP in-person encounters.

Figure 38 Satisfaction leverage analysis by store/office (in-person)

Convenient office/shop location 1.0 Convenient office/shop opening hours 0.9 The waiting time to be attended to 0.5 The number of staff available to serve customers 1.1 Being able to communicate easily with staff 1.4 Staff being knowledgeable to deal with my issue 0.3 Staff being friendly and courteous 1.9 Staff being familiar with personal account details 1.3 Staff being interested in helping me 0.6 Staff giving the correct information 1.0 Being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time 3.7 The extent staff did what they said they would do 1.1

0 2 4 6 8 10 % increase in satisfaction with CSP store/office customer service Base: Contacted CSP in person in last six months n=233.

54 | acma Opportunity analysis A satisfaction-opportunity analysis on the ratings of customer service contact in person (see Figure 39) showed that there are a couple of factors that fell into the ‘focus’ quadrant:

> being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time

> staff being familiar with my personal account details.

In addition there were a few factors that fell into the ‘monitor’ quadrant:

> staff giving the correct information

> the number of staff available to serve customers

> the waiting time to be attended to.

Figure 39 Matrix satisfaction mean, by driver

35 Focus areas Leverage strength Being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time

i 25 v r e s

r e m o t s u

e ) c e i f c f n o / a t e r r o o t p s

m I P ( 15 S C

n o i Staff being friendly and courteous t

c Staff being familiar with my personal a f s i 10 account details t a s

f o Being able to communicate s

r Staff giving the correct information

e The number of staff available to The extent staff did easily with staff v i

r serve customers what they said they would do d

Convenient office/

e shop location K Staff being interested in helping me Convenient office/ The waiting time to be attended to shop opening Staff being knowledgeable Monitor hours Maintain to deal with my issue 0 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 Satisfaction with CSP store/office customer service (Performance) Base: Contacted CSP in person in last six months n=233.

CSP contact by website Key drivers of satisfaction Key drivers of overall satisfaction were the same attributes that generated low satisfaction ratings —follow-through and reply quality. These attributes accounted for 53 per cent of the overall satisfaction variance (see Figure 40).

acma | 55 Figure 40 Key drivers of satisfaction for website customer service

My provider's website gave me the information I needed 17

It was easy to find what I wanted on my provider's website 11

I was able to set up an online user account easily to access my account information 6

Being able to send my provider a message via its website 6

Being able to identify the correct address or number for sending an email or message 2

Receiving a quick reply to the message I sent 3

Getting a detailed reply which answered the issues in my message 24

Being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time online 3

The extent staff followed through on further actions to resolve the query 29

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Base: Contacted CSP via provider website in last six months n=90.

Satisfaction leverage analysis Leverage analysis shows that efforts to improve follow-through and reply quality would improve overall satisfaction (see Figure 41). A 10 per cent improvement on each attribute would, when combined, generate a 7.7 per cent rise in overall satisfaction.

Figure 41 Satisfaction leverage analysis, by website

My provider's website gave me the information I needed 2.4

It was easy to find what I wanted on my provider's website 1.7

I was able to set up an online user account easily to access my account information 1.0

Being able to send my provider a message via its website 1.0

Being able to identify the correct address or number for sending an email or message 0.3

0 2 4 6 8 10 % increase in satisfaction with CSP website customer service

Opportunity analysis A satisfaction-opportunity analysis on the ratings of customer service contact via a website (see Figure 42) showed that there were two factors that fell into the ‘focus’ quadrant:

> the extent to which staff followed through on further actions to resolve the query

> receiving a detailed reply that answered the issues in my message.

In addition, there were a couple of factors that fell into the ‘monitor’ quadrant:

> receiving a quick reply to the message I sent

> being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time online.

56 | acma Figure 42 Matrix satisfaction mean, by driver

35 Focus areas Leverage strength

The extent staff followed through on

further actions to resolve the query

e 30 c i v r e s

o 25 t s u c

i Getting a detailed reply which s

b answered the issues in my message ) e 20 e w

c n P My provider's website gave me the a S t r C information I needed

o f p o

m n I ( o 15 i t c a f s i t a s

o 10 It was easy to find what I wanted on

s I was able to set up an online user r my provider's website e account easily to access my account v i information r d

e Being able to send my provider a

K 5 Monitor Maintain Being able to resolve the issue in a message via its website reasonable time online Being able to identify the correct Receiving a quick reply to address or number for sending an the message I sent email or message 0 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 Satisfaction with CSP webstite customer service (Performance)

CSP contact by post/SMS/email Key drivers of satisfaction Overall satisfaction was driven most strongly by the ability to identify the correct address/number for the message, and the speed of reply (see Figure 43).

Figure 43 Key drivers of satisfaction for post/SMS/email customer service

Being able to identify the correct address or number for sending an 32 email or message

Receiving a quick reply to the message I sent 30

Getting a detailed reply which answered the issues in my message 21

Being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time online 9

The extent staff followed through on further actions to resolve the query 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 % contribution to overall customer service rating

Base: Contacted CSP by post/SMS/email in last six months n=181.

Satisfaction leverage analysis Leverage analysis revealed that an improved ability to identify the correct address/number for the message and a quicker reply would improve overall satisfaction with that type of CSP contact.

acma | 57 Figure 44 Satisfaction leverage analysis, by post/SMS/email customer service

Being able to identify the correct address or number for sending an email 3.6 or message

0 2 4 6 8 10 % increase in satisfaction with CSP post/email/SMS customer service

Base: Contacted CSP by post/SMS/email in last six months n=181.

Opportunity analysis A satisfaction-opportunity analysis on the ratings of customer service via post/SMS/email (see Figure 45) showed that only ‘getting a detailed reply which answered the issues in my message’ fell into the ‘focus’ quadrant.

In addition there were a couple of factors that fell into the ‘monitor’ quadrant:

> the extent staff followed through on further actions to resolve the query

> being able to resolve the issue in a reasonable time online.

Figure 45 Matrix satisfaction mean, by driver

Focus areas Leverage strength e c i v r

e Being able to identify the correct s

address or number for sending an r 30

e email or message Receiving a quick reply to the m

o message I sent t s u c

S 25 M S /

l Getting a detailed reply which i

a answered the issues in my message m e / ) t e

s 20 c o n p

a t P r S o C p

f m I o

( 15 n o i t c a f s i

t Being able to resolve the issue in a

a 10 reasonable time online s

s The extent staff followed through on r

e further actions to resolve the query v i r

y e K Monitor Maintain 0 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 Satisfaction with CSP post/email/SMS customer service (Performance) Base: Contacted CSP by post/SMS/email in last six months n=181.

58 | acma 9. Advocacy, repeat purchase and overall satisfaction with CSPs

Chapter overview

> For customers who contacted their CSP in the past six months, perceived ‘value for money’ and ‘customer service satisfaction’ are important drivers of higher order attitudes and behaviours such as:

> repeat purchase

> advocacy

> overall satisfaction

> loyalty.

Introduction In addition to identifying customer perceptions of service quality, one of the key requirements of this study was to examine customer behaviours and attitudes more broadly.

Service quality forms only one aspect of a customer’s attitude toward a CSP. Satisfaction also has behavioural manifestations. Some customers may be dissatisfied enough to switch providers or consider switching; others may be sufficiently satisfied to advocate for or recommend the company to others. To what extent do customers of CSPs advocate or switch providers? How satisfied are they overall?

Model of customer loyalty In the Roy Morgan Research Model of Customer Loyalty (shown generically in Figure 46), drivers have a hierarchical structure. Service quality is one of four intermediate drivers—the others are price, product and brand image.18 Where customers stand on these four attribute categories shapes attitudes on the higher order factors of advocacy (‘recommend to friends/family’), repeat purchase (or its inverse, ‘switching’) and overall satisfaction.

18 Roy Morgan Research has extensive experience using and applying this model in research for customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction studies for government and commercial organisations.

acma | 59 Figure 46 Roy Morgan Research Customer Loyalty Model—Hierarchy of Drivers Custom er Loyalty Model Hierarchy of Drivers

Lower-Order Measures Intermediate Drivers Brand Question Set e.g. “A brand I can trust” “Financially secure” Brand Higher-Order Predictors “Market leader” (overall rating 0–10) “One-stop shop” ADVOCACY (overall rating 0–10) KPIs Product Question Set e.g. “Policy is easy to understand” “Policy is flexible” Product “Full range of products” (overall rating 0–10) CUSTOMER “Product options to suit my needs” LOYALTY REPEAT INDEX PURCHASE • Loyal Price Question Set (overall rating 0–10) e.g. “Value for money” • Positive “Price options to suit my needs” Price • Hesitant “Too expensive” (overall rating 0–10) • At Risk “Policy payment options” SATISFACTION (overall rating 0–10) Customer Service Question Set e.g. “Friendly staff” “Telephone menu easy to use” Service “Website has the information I need” (overall rating 0–10) “Service waiting time is too long”

In the following regression analyses, we look at the relative strength of the four intermediate drivers on each of the three higher order predictors for contacted CSPs.

The ratings overall and by individual CSP on these attributes are shown in Appendix B3.8.

The data that was subjected to this analysis is derived from our survey of those customers who had made contact with a CSP in the past six months. It may not replicate the results from a general customer sample.

Relative importance of intermediate drivers on advocacy Figure 47 shows that price (as defined by ‘value for money’) and service (‘satisfaction with customer service quality’) are strong drivers of customer advocacy of a CSP. These attributes account for 82 per cent of the total variance.

60 | acma Figure 47 Key drivers of advocacy, by intermediate drivers

Their overall brand image appeals to me 9

They have a range of produces and services that satisfy my needs 9

The amount I pay for their service is good value for money 45

Overall satisfaction with quality of customer service 37

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420. Q52. Thinking about service provider, I am going to read out some statements that might be used to describe them and I would like you to tell me how much you agree or disagree with each one.

The leverage analysis (see Figure 48) shows that combined efforts to increase ratings on price and service by 10 per cent would yield a 9.5 per cent increase in the advocacy score (from 5.6 to 6.1).

Figure 48 Leverage analysis of intermediate drivers, by advocacy

Their overall brand image appeals to me 1.3

They have a range of produces and services that satisfy my needs 1.4

The amount I pay for their service is good value for money 5.5

Overall satisfaction with quality of customer service 4.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 % increase in advocacy

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420. Q52. Thinking about service provider, I am going to read out some statements that might be used to describe them and I would like you to tell me how much you agree or disagree with each one.

Relative importance of intermediate drivers on repeat purchase Figure 49 shows that value for money (price) and service are again potent forces for determining loyalty to a CSP.

Figure 49 Key drivers of repeat purchase, by intermediate drivers

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420. Q52. Thinking about service providers, I am going to read out some statements that might be used to describe them and I would like you to tell me how much you agree or disagree with each one.

The leverage analysis (see Figure 50) shows that if the ratings of price and quality of customer satisfaction each increased by 10 per cent (6.3 to 6.8), this would increase repeat purchases by 7.6 per cent.

acma | 61 Figure 50 Leverage analysis of intermediate drivers, by repeat purchase

0 2 4 6 8 10 % increase in repeat purchase Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420. Q52. Thinking about service providers, I am going to read out some statements that might be used to describe them and I would like you to tell me how much you agree or disagree with each one.

Relative importance of intermediate drivers on overall satisfaction Value for money (price) and service quality are stronger drivers of overall satisfaction than are product range and brand image (see Figure 51).

Figure 51 Key drivers of satisfaction, by intermediate drivers

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Efforts to further improve value for money (price) and service quality could add 8.4 per cent to current levels of overall satisfaction (from 6.1 to 6.6).

62 | acma Figure 52 Leverage analysis of intermediate drivers, by customer satisfaction

0 2 4 6 8 10 % increase in customer satisfaction

Driving loyalty—an analysis of a composite attribute Earlier figures in this chapter look at the drivers of advocacy, repeat purchase and overall satisfaction separately. However, one can create an average of the ratings of these three higher- order attributes to create one composite measure of overall loyalty to CSPs. Then the regression analysis can be done to see how well the lower order variables (price, range, value for money and service satisfaction) drive this loyalty rating.

Figure 53 illustrates that loyalty is driven far more by value for money (40 per cent) and customer service quality (37 per cent) than product range and brand image for CSPs.

Figure 53 Key drivers of customer loyalty, by intermediate drivers

Overall Satisfaction with quality of customer service 37

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

While it is still the second-most important driver of customer loyalty, the fact that customer service quality only accounts for 37 per cent of overall customer loyalty may also help to explain why dissatisfied customers do not necessarily switch providers.

The leverage analysis is consistent with the pattern of results established in Figure 47. Working on improving value for money and customer service will reward CSPs with improved customer loyalty, with value for money being more influential than customer service.

acma | 63 Figure 54 Leverage analysis of customer loyalty, by intermediate drivers

Overall Satisfaction with quality of customer service 3.9

0 2 4 6 8 10 % increase in customer loyalty

64 | acma 10. Consequences of overall dissatisfaction with customer service

Chapter overview

> Nearly four in 10 customers were neutral or dissatisfied with recent customer service from a CSP.

> Despite being dissatisfied with customer service, taking action was viewed as a long, difficult and time- consuming process—people are ‘too busy’. Longevity of a relationship with a CSP is another possible impediment.

> Half had considered switching but only six per cent were motivated to actually switch CSP.

> Of the three main reasons for not switching, two were because the customer was unable to do so, either due to being locked into a contract (21 per cent) or because the CSP was the only one with coverage in the area (16 per cent).

Introduction Obtaining satisfaction measure scores and identifying drivers of overall satisfaction lead naturally to the next question—what do people say and do, if anything, when they are not satisfied? All people who were neutral or dissatisfied overall with the quality of customer service during their most recent contact were asked what, if any, actions followed.

Behaviour when dissatisfied with CSP customer service Of the people who had contacted a CSP, 37 per cent were neutral or dissatisfied with the customer service (using the scale midpoint as neutral). Figure 55 clearly shows that in more than three-quarters (76 per cent) of occasions, no action resulted. Only six per cent were motivated to switch CSPs.

Figure 55 Action as a result of dissatisfaction with CSP customer service

Did not do anything 76 Switched to a different provider 6 Provided feedback/complained to my provider about their poor customer service 4 Yes, but did not switch provider 2 Will contact the TIO 2 Stopped using/reduced use of service 1 Continued to call until resolved 1 I told others of my dissatisfaction 1 I had to resolve the problem myself 1 Waiting on resolution 1 Other 4

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months and rated between zero and five for the customer service n=530. Q45. The rating you just gave suggests that you were not completely happy with the overall customer service you experienced. Did you do anything as a result? Q46. What did you do as a result?

Why no action was taken Figure 56 shows an array of reasons why actions are infrequent despite dissatisfaction with the service—people have other things to do, they believe the process will be long and arduous, or

acma | 65 they are sceptical that anything would be achieved. A focus group participant expressed this sentiment: ‘I’ve been at the point with them [referring to CSP] a number of times where you are just so frustrated, by the time you’ve finally got your issue dealt with, to make another issue of complaint is just ... I can’t be bothered. In the end it’s like, they’ve finally solved it, I’ll move on from that.” (Alice Springs, 18–34, non-switcher, 7 October 2010.)

‘It is a bit different if you expect a higher level of customer service from your hairdresser because the way she colours your hair directly affects your everyday life … we do have a set of different set of rules for telecommunications because you are one little person and at the end of the day it doesn’t really affect your everyday life, as long as you have a phone and it is working; it is not a like a terrible hair colour that you are embarrassed by.’ (Sydney, 18–34, non-switcher, 30 September 2010.)

Figure 56 Why no action was taken despite dissatisfaction with CSP customer service

Wasn't bothered/too busy 24 Process takes too long 15 Didn't believe it would get a resolution 13 Issue was resolved 8 Didn't have a choice 8 Process is too complicated 8 Didn't believe it would change the way service was provided 7 Still an ongoing problem 6 Locked in a plan, change would incur cost 6 Only service provider with coverage 5 Didn't know who I could contact 3 Bad service 2 Fed up with their way of dealing 2 Language barrier 2 Didn't know could complain or the process 2 The process is costly 2 Other 13 0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months, rated between zero and five for the customer service but did not recall doing anything about dissatisfaction n=409. Q47. Why did you decide not to do anything on this occasion?

Some reasons for not switching are similar to those for not taking action when dissatisfied (see figures 56 and 57). However, one important reason for not switching is ‘locked into a contract’ (21 per cent)—compared to only six per cent when no action at all is taken. Still, the weight of inertia (too hard, too busy) and a feeling of impotence were consistent features of why dissatisfied customers did not switch.

66 | acma Figure 57 Reasons for not switching CSP among those dissatisfied with CSP customer service

Locked into a contract 21 Process of switching providers is too hard 17 Only service provider with coverage 16 Don't believe other providers would be different 10 Didn't think that it was bad enough to switch 6 No time/too busy to look at other options 4 Didn't want to pay additional charges 4 Current service is competitive 4 Service is bundled 2 Planning on switching providers soon 2 Habit/always been with them 2 Cost/convenient for me for price/cheaper option 2 Didn't know which provider to switch to 2 Other 7 Can't say 5

0 10 20 % 30 40 50

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months and dissatisfied with service but did not switch CSP n=488.

Q49. Why didn't you switch service providers?

The qualitative sessions aid in illustrating respondent views on why they did not switch CSP: ‘You’re usually locked into a one- or two-year contract, whether it’s your mobile or your bundle package, so that’s an issue … You can only change occasionally and that’s why they’re pricing them as contracts, they want to lock you in.’ (Sydney, 18–34, non-switcher, 27 September 2010.)

‘It’s difficult to change [internet CSP] … because I’ve linked my email account to my internet account for example. So when they decided to just up the plans and the prices, I didn’t feel like I had that luxury of change ... like it would just be too difficult ... and even with bad customer service experiences, it would take a lot to be bad.’ (Alice Springs, non-switcher, 7 October 2010.)

That is not to say consideration is not given to switching providers. Figure 58 shows a slim majority (51 per cent) of participants in the study who were dissatisfied with a CSP’s customer service considered changing CSPs.

acma | 67 Figure 58 Considered switching CSP, among dissatisfied with CSP customer service 1

% Considered switching provider Did not consider switching provider Can’t say

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months and dissatisfied with customer service but did not switch CSP n=488. Q48. Did you consider switching providers?

When switching consideration is examined by the reasons respondents gave for not switching, customers who felt that ‘other CSPs are not different’ and ‘the contact was not bad enough to switch’ were much less likely to have considered switching (see Table 13).

Table 13 Considered switching CSP, among those dissatisfied with CSP customer service Reasons for not switching CSP Total Only CSP Process of Other CSPs It was not dissatisfied Locked into for my switching are not bad enough with CSP contract coverage too hard different to switch service needs % % % % % % Considered switching 51 56 52 48 35 15 provider Did not consider 48 43 48 52 64 85 switching provider Can’t say 1 - - - 1 - Base: Contacted CSP in last six months and dissatisfied with customer service but did not switch CSP n=488; locked into contract n=106; too hard n=80; coverage n=77; other CSPs aren’t different n=48; not bad enough n=32. Q20. What was the issue that caused you to make contact with your service provider?

Customer tenure Added to consumer lack of action and scepticism is the fact that there is often quite a lot of longevity or tenure with the CSP.

Tenure with the CSP varied by telecommunications product held, but on average just under half (47 per cent) who had contacted a CSP had been with that provider for more than five years. Overall, 68 per cent had been with their CSP for three years or more (see table in Appendix B3.10).

Longevity creates loyalty and provides a force against change. As seen earlier, the ‘happy to continue using them in the future’ mean rating was 6.3 on the 11-point scale. One instance of

68 | acma dissatisfaction, however recent, may not trigger change when so much time has been spent with one service supplier. Although the survey did not probe what motivated the six per cent to finally switch providers, the qualitative sessions did include two groups of switchers. Typical comments were: ‘Then there was an issue with my mobile phone bill recently as well and there has just been no acknowledgement of the loyalty I gave this company I have just been treated like an annoyance every time I have called up and I’m [now] done.’ (Melbourne, female, switcher, 30 September 2010.)

‘Because it’s easier to ... either you can’t be bothered, getting on to them about moving, you’re not sure how much difference it will make any way, or if it really annoys you, you’ll end up just switching ... it’s just easier to go another than it is to, wait for them to process it and then hear the outcome.’ (Tamworth, female, 18–34, non-switcher, 29 September 2010.)

‘For me, bad customer service is the reason to leave a company … bad customer service pushed me to look somewhere else … but the cost is going to be the deciding factor.’ (Melbourne, female, switcher, 30 September 2010.)

‘That is why I switched from [CSP 1] to [CSP 2], because I was sick and tired of [CSP 1] customer service. I really was … Every time you phoned up, you would be put on hold … transferred to three different departments before you spoke to somebody that understood what your problem … then you would be transferred to somebody else because they did not know how to fix it and then they would not be able to speak English so they transfer you to somewhere else ... it is just ridiculous. I mean it would be all right if it just happened once or twice when you phoned them up, but every single stinking time. No way.’ (Alice Springs, female, 18–34, non-switcher, 7 October 2010.)

These quotes illustrate that when elements of customer service such as respect, recognition and price (value for money) are breached severely enough, this motivates people to leave their CSP.

Customer service quality and value for money were identified earlier as key drivers of loyalty and overall satisfaction.

acma | 69 11. CSP complaints-handling

Chapter overview

> A majority of respondents who contacted a CSP in the last six months did not know whether or not the CSP had a complaints-handling policy.

> Of those customers who contacted a CSP in the last six months, eight per cent had dealt with the CSP’s internal complaints department. Incidence of contact was higher among people with billing issues and even more so among customers who were very dissatisfied with the customer service they received during the contact (24 per cent).

> Among those who had contact with a CSP’s complaint departments, more than four in 10 (41 per cent) felt that their issue should have led to a quicker referral to the complaints department.

> Generally positive outcomes were noted from customers about their contact with a CSP’s complaints department. However, overall satisfaction with their handling of the issue yielded a mean just below the scale mid-point (4.8).

Introduction Whether or not dissatisfied customers take action by switching companies, there are other courses of action available, such as following a complaints process or contacting external authorities. Chapter 11 looks at what customers know of these options and whether they are used.

Awareness of provider complaints-handling policy Almost half (47%) of respondents who contacted a CSP in the last six months were not aware of the CSP’s complaints-handling policy (see Figure 59). Another 43 per cent were aware that the CSP had such a policy and seven per cent had read it.

Figure 59 Awareness of whether contacted CSP (L6M) has a complaints-handling policy

36 47 %

Aware and read policy Aware and have not read policy Not aware of policy Can’t say

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420. Q54. Do you know whether /service provider/ has a complaint handling policy? Q55. Have you read their complaint handling policy?

Dealing with internal complaints department during contact with CSP Contact with the internal complaint department was quite rare—only eight per cent of those contacting a CSP had done so. Responses across the 11-point satisfaction scale (where 0 is very dissatisfied and 10 is very satisfied) for CSP customer service shows significant differences in whether the internal complaints department was contacted (see Table 14). Customers who rated the customer service at the lowest points on the scale (zero or one) were most likely to have dealt

70 | acma with the complaints department (43 per cent combined). In comparison, those sitting above the scale value of 7 were significantly less likely to have dealt with the complaints department.

Table 14 Contact with internal complaints department of CSP contacted (L6M), by rating of customer service

Satisfaction with CSP customer service (refer Fig. 22 for distribution percentages) 0 10 5 Total very 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 very neutral dissatisfied satisfied % % % % % % % % % % % % Had contact with internal complaints 8 24 19 13 15 6 8 3 6 3 3 4 department Did not have 90 73 81 82 82 93 86 93 93 95 96 95 contact Can’t say 2 3 - 5 3 1 6 5 1 2 1 1 Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; 0 n=120; 1 n=36; 2 n=73; 3 n=67; 4 n=82; 5 n=152; 6 n=102; 7 n=187; 8 n=245; 9 n=134; 10 n=216. Q32. At any stage during your contact with service provider on this issue, did you deal with their internal complaints department, that is, the special department within service provider?

The incidence of contact with the internal complaints department was also influenced by the reason for CSP contact and satisfaction with customer service. Contacts about billing problems had the lowest satisfaction with customer service (5.3) and were also more likely to result in contact with an internal complaints department (12 per cent). In contrast, when the reasons for contact scored higher on customer satisfaction—such as for new products or renewing/upgrading products—(see Table 15), the level of contact with an internal complaints department was significantly lower (four per cent).

Table 15 Contact with internal complaints department of CSP contacted (L6M), by reason for contact

Resolve a Resolve a Renew, Update New product Total technical billing change or personal or service problem problem upgrade information

% % % % % % Mean customer service satisfaction 6.2 6.0 5.3 6.9 7.2 6.9 rating: (refer Figure 27) Confidence interval: +/–0.2 +/–0.3 +/–0.3 +/–0.3 +/–0.6 +/–0.7 % % % % % % Had contact with internal complaints department 8 9 12 4 2 7 Did not have contact 90 88 83 96 97 93 Can’t say 2 2 5 1 2 - Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; resolve technical problem n=506; resolve billing problem n=387; new product or service n=337; renew service n=61; update personal info n=57. Q32. At any stage during your contact with service provider on this issue, did you deal with their internal complaints department; that is, the special department within service provider?

Rates of contact with internal complaints departments were significantly lower than the total for internet issues (five per cent, see Table 16). Chapter 6 showed that CSP contacts about the internet were less likely to have been about billing problems.

acma | 71 Table 16 Contact with internal complaints department of CSP contacted (L6M) by relevant telecommunications product

Bundled Total Internet Mobile phone Home phone services % % % % % Had contact with internal complaints department 8 5 8 10 10 Did not have contact 90 92 91 86 88 Can’t say 2 2 1 4 2 Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; internet n=521; mobile phone 434; home phone n=260; bundled services n=183. Q32. At any stage during your contact with service provider on this issue, did you deal with their internal complaints department; that is, the special department within service provider?

Additional analysis showed that, of those who were aware of and had read a provider’s complaints-handling policy, contact with an internal complaints area was slightly higher at 12 per cent.

Contact with internal complaints department of CSP contacted in the last six months Those who contacted an internal complaints department were slightly more likely to have initiated the referral than to have been referred by the provider (52 per cent versus 43 per cent, see Figure 60). However, this difference is not statistically significant due to the relatively small sample base (n=107).

Figure 60 Who initiated contact with CSP internal complaints department 5

Asked to speak to complaints department Referred onto complaints department by provider Can't say

Base: Total had contact with CSP in last six months by telephone and dealt with the internal complaints department n=107. Q33. Did you ask to speak to the complaints department or were you referred to them by your service provider staff member?

Reason for referral to CSP’s complaints department Not surprisingly, the referral occurred most often because earlier contact did not lead to a resolution (22 per cent) or discussions finally led to the person being passed onto the complaints department (14 per cent).

72 | acma Figure 61 What prompted decision to refer to complaints department

CSP referred after trying to resolve the issue 22 I asked after a lot of discussion 14 I asked and was put through straight away 11 I asked after they couldn't understand my issue 10 CSP referred as they did not have the authority to resolve my issue 9 Dissatisfied with the service provided 6 My issue/problem was not resolved 4 CSP said they would put in the complaint 3 I asked as they did not help me/resolve my issue 2 Others 14 Can't say 5

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Base: Total had contact with CSP in last six months by telephone and dealt with the internal complaints department n=107. Q34. What prompted the decision to put you through to the complaints department?

Satisfaction with stage of referral to CSP internal complaints department More than four in 10 (41 per cent) customers felt that their issue should have led to quicker referral to the complaints department, while 30 per cent were satisfied with the point at which the transfer occurred (see Figure 62).

Figure 62 Satisfaction with stage of referral to CSP internal complaints department 16

Earlier About the same Later Can't say

Base: Total had contact with CSP in last six months by telephone and dealt with the internal complaints department n=107. Q35. Should you have been put through to the complaints department earlier, after about the same length of time, or after trying further to resolve your issue?

Internal complaints department outcome People cited mostly positive outcomes from their encounter with a complaints department (see Figure 63). Of the top six responses identified, four were favourable, from ‘problem resolved’ (34 per cent) to ‘received some personal acknowledgment’ (11 per cent). However, overall satisfaction with the complaints department’s handling of the issue yielded a mean just below the scale mid-point, which was labelled ‘neutral’ (4.8); see Figure 64.

acma | 73 Figure 63 Internal complaints department outcome

CSP resolved the problem 34 CSP compensated me 18 CSP did nothing 17 CSP apologised 12 Acknowledged by CSP with personal message 11 Issue unresolved 7 Acknowledged by CSP with automatic message 3 Had to wait a while before the problem was fixed 3 I shouldn't be expected to pay the wrong bill 2 Service provider tried to solve the problem 2 Referred me to a third party 1 Referred me to an external complaints body 1 Others 12 Can't say 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Base: Total had contact with CSP in last six months by telephone and dealt with the internal complaints department n=107. Q36. What happened as a result of your contact with the internal complaints department? Anything else?

Figure 64 Satisfaction with outcome of complaining to CSP internal complaints department

0 (Very dissatisfied) 30 1 2 2 5 3 4 Mean: 4.8 4 4 cl: +/–0.8 5 (Neutral) 7 6 3 7 11 8 7 9 7 10 (Very satisfied) 18

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Base: Total had contact with CSP in last six months by telephone and dealt with the internal complaints department n=107. Mean = 4.8; confidence limit +/–0.8.

Q37. How satisfied were you with the outcome of your complaint?

When the data shown in Figure 64 was examined by reason for contact with CSP, the average satisfaction among customers with billing and technical problems did not vary from the overall mean of 4.8. The mean was also not significantly higher or lower when the age variable was examined or when initiators were separated from those who were referred to the complaints department.

74 | acma 12. Lodgement of complaint with external body

Chapter overview

> Of customers who contacted CSPs in the last six months, three per cent ultimately ended up lodging a complaint with an external body. This incidence increased to 21 per cent of people who had contact with a CSP’s complaint department.

> The majority of complaints lodged externally were with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO).

> The TIO solved or facilitated a resolution in 48 per cent of cases.

Introduction A company’s internal complaints-handling mechanism is only one of several ways to resolve a complaint. This chapter looks at other avenues.

Complaints lodged with other organisations As shown in Figure 65, only two per cent of all contacts with CSPs in the last six months led to a complaint with the TIO

In qualitative sessions, we learned that people think of the TIO in the following ways: ‘I think even if you did want to complain, where would you complain to?’ [Another respondent]: ‘Exactly, I wouldn’t really know where to complain to.’ (Tamworth, non-switcher, 29 September 2010.)

[Talking about should there be an independent authority to complain to]: ‘If they know there is something out there watching them, they’d probably behave better.’ (Sydney, 18–34, non-switcher, 27 September 2010.)

When only the sub-group of customers who had dealings with a CSP complaints department was examined, it was found (right panel of Figure 65) that 21 per cent went on to lodge a complaint with an external body—18 per cent with the TIO and three per cent with another external body.

acma | 75 Figure 65 Lodging a complaint with external body

Total had contact with their CSP’s Total contacted CSP internal complaints department about most recent issue

2 1 18

97 79 % % Lodged complaint with TIO Lodged complaint with external body other than TIO Have not lodged a complaint with any external body

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; contact with internal complaints department n=107. Q38. Did you lodge a complaint with anyone else other than your service provider on this issue? Q39. Who else did you lodge your complaint with on this issue?

Complaints lodged with the TIO Lodging complaints with the TIO is a rarity. Only 11 per cent of all customers who contacted a CSP in the last six months had ever lodged a complaint with the TIO (see Figure 66), including the two per cent who lodged a complaint in the last six months. However, the most common reactions were positive. The TIO resolved the issue or facilitated a resolution in 48 per cent of the cases (see Figure 67).

Figure 66 Complaints lodged with the TIO

88 % Lodged complaint with TIO in last six months Lodged complaint with TIO prior to last six months Have not lodged complaint with TIO ever

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420. Q40. Have you ever lodged a complaint with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman for any issues you may have experienced as a telecommunications customer in the past?

76 | acma Figure 67 Outcome of TIO complaint

TIO facilitated a resolution—mediated 35 My issue was resolved 7 48% resolved Was refunded 5 Took a long time to resolve 1 TIO referred me to the CSP's resolution department 16 Nothing/ unresolved 15 35% unresolved TIO said there was nothing they could do 3 Changed CSPs because issue wasn't resolved 1 I didn't follow through with the process 4 Others 19 Can't say 5

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months and had lodged a complaint with TIO for any issue experienced n=161. Q42. What happened as a result of your complaint to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman?

Awareness of the TIO Qualitative sessions indicated that most respondents were aware of the TIO, usually after prompting: ‘I know that there is an ombudsman there but I don’t understand what he does.’ [Another respondent]: ‘Yes, I feel the same, I don’t quite know.’ (Alice Springs, non-switcher, 7 October 2010.)

However, some people were aware of the seriousness of the matter when the TIO gets involved: ‘I think it’s a case of people by their very nature, if it’s a mild thing like the bill is a bit abnormal, which is just for cash, we’re not going to go run to a government body … Most of the complaints you have are really in the bigger scheme pretty minor, they’re irritations.’ (Perth, 18–34, non-switcher, 5 October 2010.)

‘They’re important [the issues], but I don’t think they’re ombudsman important I guess.’ (Alice Springs, non-switcher, 7 October 2010.)

The survey confirms the high level of prompted awareness for the TIO, with Figure 68 showing this to be at 70 per cent, including people who had lodged a complaint with the TIO in the past. However, unprompted awareness could not accurately be measured as the TIO had been mentioned earlier in the survey.

acma | 77 Figure 68 Previous awareness of the TIO

1 11 29

59 % Had lodged a complaint with TIO Aware of the TIO Not aware of the TIO Can't say

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months and did not lodge complaint for issue contacted CSP about, nor had previously lodged a complaint with TIO for any issue experienced n=1,259. Q41. Have you previously heard of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman?

78 | acma Appendix A—Qualitative research

acma | 79 Appendix A1—Qualitative research methodology

A1.1 Sample structure

Figure 69 Sample of groups (minimum of six, maximum of ten participants)

Group Location Age Gender Behaviour Switched provider in the last 12 months 1 Sydney, NSW 18+ because of poor customer service 2 Sydney, NSW 18–34 Range, as per norm 3 Melbourne, Vic. 35+ Range, as per norm Switched provider in the last 12 months 4 Melbourne, Vic. 18+ because of poor customer service 5 Tamworth, NSW 18–34 Mix Range, as per norm 6 Tamworth, NSW 35+ Range, as per norm 7 Perth, WA 18–34 Range, as per norm 8 Perth, WA 35+ Range, as per norm 9 Alice Springs, NT 18–34 Range, as per norm 10 Alice Springs, NT 35+ Range, as per norm

Rationale for sample In segmenting the sample into the above structure, Roy Morgan Single Source data, as well as previous and relevant published research studies by the ACMA19, were reviewed and the following factors were used to arrive at the group structure:

> Location—metropolitan versus non-metropolitan:

> non-metropolitan customers have a lower level of satisfaction for some telecommunications devices (especially internet)

> non-metropolitan customers are more likely to mention ‘poor customer service’ as a reason for overall dissatisfaction

> non-metropolitan customers are more likely, on a per capita basis, to have made a complaint to the TIO.

> Age—18–34 versus 35+ years:

> 18–34-year-olds are more likely to be heavy users of a wider range of telecommunications devices

> 18–34-year-olds are more likely to believe that telecommunications devices play a crucial role in their lifestyle

> 18–34-year-olds are more likely to say that their current CSP did not meet their expectations.

19 Especially ACMA Communications Report 2008–09 and Telecommunications Today Report 4—Consumer Satisfaction, February 2008.

80 | acma > Impact on behaviour:

> Whether or not a ‘poor’ customer service experience caused them to switch CSP. Recruitment of sample Participants were recruited from Roy Morgan Research Single Source20, which provided detailed information on ownership and use of telecommunications products, as well as detailed demographics, satisfaction levels and incidence of switching CSPs. The focus group recruitment questionnaire is provided in Appendix A2.1.

A1.2 Discussion guide The prime objective of the qualitative stage of the research was to gain a more insightful interpretation of the outcomes from the quantitative stage. The groups were principally concerned with:

> the components of customer service and an in-depth exploration of the issues that affect a customer’s perception of the customer service experience

> customer perceptions of the customer service provided by CSPs, drawing out both positive and negative experiences

> the impact of CSPs’ customer service on customer behaviour.

A semi-structured discussion guide was developed in close consultation with the ACMA and approved by the ACMA prior to use. The range of topics and issues to be discussed in the focus groups closely mirrored the detailed customer service information provided by the ACMA and were further developed by close consultation between the ACMA and Roy Morgan Research. The discussion guide is provided in Appendix A2.2.

A1.3 Pre-task At the time of recruitment, respondents were given a short questionnaire to complete as a homework exercise prior to attending their focus group. The questionnaire collected various details about the most recent contact they had with their CSP. Coding of these responses allowed for an overlay of quantitative analysis of results, although caution should be taken in the analysis of results due to the relatively small sample size.

Key outcomes and full results can be seen in the tables included in Appendix A3.

20 One focus group conducted in Melbourne was partially recruited by a professional recruitment agency as there was insufficient Single Source sample available.

acma | 81 Appendix A2—Qualitative research instruments

A2.1 Focus group recruitment questionnaire

Good [Morning/ Afternoon/ Evening]. My name is (SAY NAME) from Roy Morgan Research. We are recruiting people aged 18 years and over for some focus group discussions about the level of customer service you get from your phone or Internet service provider.

These focus group discussions will involve around 8–10 people getting together with a group facilitator. We will be giving eligible participants $80 as a thank-you for participating. Most people who attend focus groups have an enjoyable and interesting experience. It usually takes one–and- a-half hours, and light refreshments are served.

It is just your perceptions and opinions we are interested in, and no particular expertise or knowledge is needed.

If necessary say: Is now a good time or would it be more convenient if I made an appointment to speak to you at another time?

If asked where did you get my number, say: You previously participated in a Roy Morgan Research survey and said that you would be interested in other market research.

If asked who the study is being conducted for, say: The study is part of an important government study for the Australian Communications and Media Authority

QSCREEN 1: Would you be interested in attending a group discussion? Yes No / Can’t Say—Thank and close Not available on these dates—Thank and close

I just need to ask you a few questions to see which particular group you may qualify for.

QSCREEN 2: Could you please tell me whether you work in any of the following industries Market Research—Thank and close Telstra or Optus or any other company providing a mobile, landline telephone, internet or VoIP service—Thank and close None of these

QSCREEN 3: RECORD GENDER Male Female GENDER QUOTAS—Ensure a 50:50 gender balance in each focus group—IF FULL—Thank and close

QSCREEN 4: Could you please tell me which of the following age groups you belong to? 18–24 years 25–34 years 35–50 years 51–60 years 61–75 years Refused—Thank and close Check age quotas—If full—Thank and close

82 | acma QSCREEN 5: Which of the following do you own and use for mainly personal usage? Mobile phone Internet VoIP handset that plugs in a home internet connection

QSCREEN 6: Does your household currently bundle two or more services (i.e. Home telephone line, Mobile phone, internet, VoIP) with a telecommunications company? Yes No/Don’t Know

QSCREEN 7: In the last six months have you contacted any of your telephone or internet service providers? Yes No / Don’t Know—Thank and close

If in Sydney or Melbourne—(Specifically to meet quota requirement ‘switched service provider because of poor customer service’ in groups 1 & 4)

QSCREEN 8: In the last 12 months have you switched service provider for any of your telecommunication products because of poor customer service? Yes No / Don’t Know

Check quotas: If Sydney and Group 1 is full—check quotas for group 2—if full thank and close If Melbourne Group 4 is full—check quotas for group 3—if full thank and close If successfully passes through all screening questions go to q1.

Q1. You meet the criteria for the group we are holding on Date and Time. As I mentioned earlier, you would be given $80 as a thank-you for attending, and light refreshments would be provided. Will you be available to attend this group? Yes—available No—not available—Thank and close

Q2. The discussion will be audio- and video-taped for research purposes ONLY. This recording will not be used for any other purposes, such as advertising. Do you agree to this recording for research purposes? Yes No—Thank and close

If available to attend: ‘Thank you for agreeing to attend. Do you have a pen and paper handy to note down the address and time? The group will be held at … Address details; Instructions on how to find venue/public transport details/parking details; Group date; Group time’

Can I also get some contact details from you?

Q3. Do you have an email address so we can confirm the details of the Focus Group date, time and location? Yes No

Q4. Alternatively can we send you an SMS reminder? Yes No

Thank you for your time and assistance. We will contact you a few days before the group is scheduled to confirm your attendance.

acma | 83 A2.2 Guidelines for focus group moderators

Introduction

> Introduce moderator and thank participants for coming to the group session.

> Mobiles OFF.

> Directions to the toilets.

> Privacy provisions— gain permission to record and inform that the recording will only be used internally to aid with analysis and reporting.

> Audiovisual taping—thus only one person to speak at once to ensure audio recording clear.

> Advise that the group is also being viewed live.

> Interested in all the opinions, experiences and perceptions on CSP customer service (be it positives or negatives).

> No right or wrong answers/everybody has a different opinion and circumstances.

> Self-introduction of group participants.

PART A—What are the components of customer service? Respondents will be encouraged to spontaneously raise what they see are the components that impact on their perception of the customer service experience. Moderator will list these on whiteboard as they emerge.

> Each respondent to think about a recent experience of ‘excellent’ customer service in any field/ industry (not just in the telecommunication industry).

> What were the elements that stimulated an ‘excellent’ perception? Why?

> Probe if necessary for elements within the categories of:

> Touchpoints?

> Contact experiences?

> Staff experiences?

> Service experiences?

> Problem resolution experiences?

> Outcomes?

> What were the elements that ‘delighted’ them? Why?

> Moderator to probe for full understanding of words/descriptions used, for example:

> ‘What do you mean by “friendly” staff?’

> ‘What do you mean by “understanding my needs”?’

Each respondent to then think about a recent experience of ‘poor’ customer service in any field (not just the telecommunications industry).

> What were the elements that stimulated a ‘poor’ perception? Why?

84 | acma > Probe if necessary for elements within the categories of:

> Touchpoints?

> Contact experiences?

> Staff experiences?

> Service experiences?

> Problem resolution experiences?

> Outcomes?

> What were the elements that ‘disappointed’ or ‘frustrated’ them? Why?

> Moderator to probe for full understanding of words/descriptions used, for example:

> ‘What do you mean by “rude” staff?’

> ‘What do you mean by “difficult to communicate with them”?’

> Are the elements of ‘excellent’ service and ‘poor’ service the same, and is it only the performance of the service provider on these consistent elements that categorises them as ‘excellent’ or ‘poor’? OR Do ‘excellent’ and ‘poor’ service have different, unique elements?

Respondents will then be asked to categorise each of the individual elements listed on the whiteboard into the ‘main components’ of customer service and to spontaneously name each of these main components.

For example, the elements of ‘friendly staff’ and ‘knowledgeable staff’ might be categorised together into the main component of ‘Staff Attitude and Expertise’. Similarly, the elements of ‘call centre is open 24/7’ and ‘they have a range of touchpoints I can use to contact them’ might be categorised together into the main component of ‘Ease of Contact’.

The moderator will transfer these ‘Main Components of Customer Service’ onto small showcards and lay them out on the table. Respondents will be encouraged to sort the cards in terms of factors such as ‘importance’, “taken for granted” versus ‘wow factors’, ‘service provider differentiators’, etc. > How would you rank order these in terms of ‘importance’?

> How do you define ‘importance’?

> If you had to trade off (for example) ‘Staff Attitude and Expertise’ against ‘Ease of Contact’, which would you choose? Why?

> Which of these components do you take for granted (expected) and which are seen as ‘wow factors’ (service delighters)? Why?

> Are there other components not listed that you think are part of the customer service experience

> Which of these components are most likely to vary significantly between different CSPs?

> Which are the ones which would be most likely to cause an ‘excellent’ customer service experience?

acma | 85 > Which are the ones which would be most likely to cause a ‘poor’ customer service experience?

> Are there particular components that, if delivered very poorly, would cause you to think about changing your service provider? (Note: Moderator will cap the time spent on this exercise if appears to be taking too much time)

PART B—CSP customer service perceptions Moderator will now ask respondents to focus only on CSPs and the level of customer service they provide.

Establish current CSP services: > Which telecommunications services do they currently have?

> Fixed-line

> Mobile

> Internet

> VoIP

> Who are their CSPs for each?

> Bundled versus separate CSPs?

> How long have they been with each CSP?

> Are they in a ‘locked-in’ contract? If so, how long is the contract and for which services?

Ask respondents to refer to their pre-group/homework exercise to share their experiences throughout this next section. Draw out examples of both positive experiences and negative experiences to share.

Explore what they expected, why they did or did not get assistance, resolution and or satisfaction, before going into general ratings of CSPs.

> (Referring back to elements decided on by the group) How does your CSP perform on both these individual elements and these ‘main components’ of customer service?

> What areas is your CSP/s strong in? Why?

> What areas is your CSP/s weak in? Why?

> What are the things that your CSP/s handles well?

> What are the things they handle badly?

> Why do you contact your CSP (e.g., check your limit, query bill, etc.)?

> Does your CSP/s’ service performance differ based on the reason for customer contact:

> Querying a bill

> Requesting product/service information

> Making a complaint?

> How do you normally contact them (telephone, in person, email, etc.)?

> Does your CSP/s’ customer service performance differ based on choice of touchpoint:

86 | acma > Telephone call-centre

> In-person

> Email?

> How do respondents choose which touchpoint to use?

> Which is your preferred touchpoint? Why?

> From your experience, does CSP customer service performance differ based on the type of service:

> Home phone

> Mobile

> Internet

> VoIP

> Bundled services?

> What have been the outcomes of their recent CSP customer service contacts:

> Did they get what they wanted?

> How did they feel?

> Were they frustrated and why?

> Has anyone in the group gone through a formal complaints-handling experience? What happened? Satisfied/dissatisfied? Do respondents understand the distinction? Any experience of external complaints processes; e.g., TIO?

> Are they aware the number of complaints against CSPs has increased in recent years?

> Why do they think this is?

> Are they aware of the TIO and its role?

> How do individual CSPs compare on these main components of customer service:

> Telstra

> Optus

> Vodafone

> Virgin

> TPG?

> Are these perceptions based on respondents’ own experiences with these CSPs or on ‘word of mouth’ or both?

> Which CSPs are rated best for customer service? Why?

> What is different about these ‘good customer service’ CSPs? How do they do it?

> For instance: Does being given a ‘reference number’ for their customer service query have any impact on their perception of customer service quality?

acma | 87 PART C—Impact of CSPs’ customer service on respondent behaviour

> What factors did they consider in selecting their CSPs?

> Range of products/services?

> Quality of products/services?

> Pricing structure?

> Brand image?

> Did you take customer service level into account; if so, to what extent?

> If each CSP had a customer service level rating (e.g., out of 10) that was standardised across the industry, would you use this in choosing a service provider? If Yes, how? (e.g., minimum acceptable level, trade-off on price, etc.)

> If you picked a CSP with a poor rating, how do you think you’d react/behave when you had to contact them and received poor service?

> Do you expect to have to contact your service provider on many occasions?

> Would they recommend their CSP to a friend? Why/why not?

> Have they/would they use either their CSPs or an independent online forum (e.g., Whirlpool) to share their views and experiences about CSP customer service levels? Why/ why not?

> If they would use an independent website but not a CSP website, why (e.g., probe for trust issues, etc.)?

> What other online tools do/would customers find useful? (e.g., following discussions about the CSP on Twitter). Are they users or observers? Why?

> If they complained via a social networking site such as Twitter, do they feel they would get a better or worse outcome? Why?

> Do they share their customer service experiences with their friends? Both good and bad? What influence does word of mouth have on their expectations and choice of CSP?

> Are they happy to continue using their CSP in the future? Why/why not?

> Has their CSP customer service experience ever impacted on their telecommunications behaviour? In what way?

> Does/would their behaviour differ based on the reason for customer contact and its outcome:

> Querying a bill

> Requesting product/service information

> Making a complaint>

> Have they ever switched CSPs because of poor customer service? For which device? (Note: we have one specific group of such switchers in each of Sydney and Melbourne).

> What were the reasons for their customer service contact?

> What were the touchpoints?

> What were the outcomes?

> What were the individual elements and the main components of customer service that influenced them to switch?

88 | acma > What was different about this experience that caused them to switch?

> How did they choose which new CSP to switch to?

> Was the process (effort required) of switching a difficult one to administer? Were there any barriers you had to overcome to switch?

> How would you compare your new CSP’s customer service to your old one? What is different? What if any aspects do they do better? What if any aspects do they do worse?

> For those respondents who have received poor customer service but not switched, why?

> What are the barriers to switching?

> How could these barriers be overcome?

PART D—For regional focus groups (Tamworth/Alice Springs) only

> Are there any local issues (e.g., quality of network coverage, choice of available CSPs, etc.) that have impact on any of the topics discussed? > What issues? What impact? Why?

acma | 89 Appendix A3—Focus group pre-task

A3.1 Introduction Prior to attending the group, respondents were given a simple homework exercise. The questionnaire collected various details relating to the most recent experience they had with their CSP. Each respondent to describe in detail their most recent experience with their current CSPs customer service:

> The telecommunication product contact was about

> The CSP contact was with

> What was the issue involved? (query, complaint etc.)

> Touch-points (types of contact/methods of communication—face-to-face, telephone, email, etc.)

> Customer service experience (detailed description of what happened, including how many calls/visits they had to make, etc. until the issue was resolved)

> Outcomes

> Overall perceptions/evaluations/satisfaction with service (positive and negative)

> Did the experience cause any change in respondent behaviour? Coding of the responses given in this homework exercise allowed us to overlay a quantitative analysis of results, although caution should be taken in the analysis of results due to the relatively small sample size.

The key outcomes and detailed results follow below.

A3.2 Key outcomes

> Internet (47 per cent) emerged as the predominant service for which respondents had contacted their provider. This was followed by mobile phone (27 per cent) and home phone (20 per cent).

> The main issues that caused respondents to contact their service provider were:

> Changing current plan (expired or exceeding current cap)—16 per cent

> Overcharged for service—13 per cent

> Internet not working/faulty—10 per cent

> Looking for better offer/deal—10 per cent.

> Telstra was by far the dominant service provider contacted (57 per cent), followed by Optus (12 per cent).

> Almost two-thirds of respondents (62 per cent) had to contact their provider more than once on the same issue.

> The most common means of contact was by telephone (63 per cent), followed by in-person (13 per cent) and via the provider’s website (12 per cent).

> When asked to describe their customer service experience each time they made contact on this issue, the most common responses were:

90 | acma > Time-consuming/slow service (20 per cent)

> CSP staff were helpful/friendly/polite (18 per cent)

> Different/incorrect information given by CSP staff (10 per cent).

> Only half of respondents (51 per cent) said that the final outcome was that the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

> Only a third of respondents (36 per cent) described the customer service as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. Almost half (47 per cent) said they were ‘not very satisfied’ or that the customer service ‘could have been better’.

> When asked to rate how satisfied they were with the customer service they received, using a 0 to 10 scale, the average score was only 5.2.

> Despite this generally negative rating of customer service quality, the majority of respondents said the experience had not caused them to change their relationship with the provider

A3.3 Pre-task results

Thinking about the most recent issue that caused you to contact any of your CSPs, which service was it for? % Internet 43 Mobile phone 27 Home phone 20 VoIP 6 Other 4

What was the issue that caused you to contact your CSP? % Service/account issue (including coverage, speed, global roaming and cancellation) 22 Change current plan (including expired)/exceeding current cap/usage 16 Overcharged for phone/internet/mobile service 13 Internet service not working/faulty 10 Looking for a better phone/mobile/internet offer 10 Inquiry about new product (T-Box, phone and internet) 9 Equipment not working/faulty 7 Phone service not working/faulty 7 Email service not working/faulty 3

acma | 91 What was the name of the service provider you contacted? % Telstra Bigpond 57 Optus 12 iiNet 5 Pennytel 3 TPG 3 Virgin Mobile 3 AAnet 2 Dodo 2 Internode 2 Linear G 2 Netspace 2 Startel 2 Telecom 2 3 2 Vodafone 2 Other 2

How many times did you make contact with the service provider about this issue? % One 38 Two 25 Three 18 Four 15 Eight 2 Don’t know/Can’t say 2

92 | acma In what ways did you make contact? % By telephone 63 In person 13 By email 10 Through their website 12 By SMS/MMS 1 By letter/post 0 Other 1

What was your customer service experience each time you made contact about this issue? % Time-consuming/slow service 20 CSP staff helpful/friendly/polite 18 Different/incorrect information given by CSP 10 Quick and good customer service 8 Transferred to someone else or different department 7 Issue not resolved over phone 5 Sometimes difficult to understand the CSP 5 Was offered a different plan/contract by CSP 5 Average/OK customer service 4 CSP staff tried to troubleshoot over phone 3 Issue resolved by technician/Twitter/face-to-face 3 Poor/bad customer service 3 Issue resolved face-to-face 2 Recorded message stated there was an issue 2 Other 1 None/blank 3

acma | 93 What was the final outcome of this issue? % Issue was resolved 51 Issue was not resolved/service cancelled 28 Issue was resolved, but not happy 11 Issue was not resolved, but credit given 3 Part of the issue was resolved, but not happy 2 Other 2 None/blank 3

How do you feel about the level of customer service given by your telecom service provider on this issue? % Good customer service 26 Not very satisfied with customer service 25 Customer service could have been better 22 Average/OK customer service 12 Very good customer service 10 Bad customer service face to face 1 None/blank 4

How satisfied were you with the overall customer service you received on your issue? % Zero 5 One 5 Two 10 Three 15 Four 7 Five 10 Six 5 Seven 10 Eight 17 Nine 8 Ten 5 None/blank 3 Mean: 5.2

94 | acma Appendix B—Quantitative research

acma | 95 Appendix B1—Quantitative research methodology

B1.1 Sample structure

The sample was stratified within age, gender and location (metropolitan versus regional/rural).

Figure B1.1 Sample breakdown Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female Total 18–24 25–34 35–49 50–64 65+ 18–24 25–34 35–49 50–64 65+

Total 2,520 137 243 356 298 204 159 238 354 301 230

Sydney 492 33 52 70 49 35 35 52 70 54 42

ACT 56 5 3 4 14 7 3 4 5 8 3

NSW x-city 288 15 22 38 38 28 16 22 38 39 32

Melbourne 459 32 49 65 47 32 33 49 65 49 38

Vic. x-city 160 7 8 25 21 16 7 13 23 22 18

Brisbane 218 10 29 30 24 14 13 25 34 24 15

Qld x-city 279 10 25 45 33 23 21 27 38 33 24

Adelaide 140 6 16 17 17 12 9 11 20 18 14

SA x-city 64 3 4 9 9 5 2 4 10 9 9

Perth 186 13 16 29 22 13 11 18 27 20 17

WA x-city 69 2 7 10 9 5 5 6 11 8 6

Hobart 38 - 6 4 6 6 2 3 4 4 3

Tas. x-city 46 - 4 8 5 6 2 2 6 7 6

NT 25 1 2 2 4 2 - 2 3 6 3

An increasing proportion of the Australian population does not have a fixed landline connected in the home and uses a mobile phone only for the communication. To ensure this group of people in mobile phone-only households was reached, interviews were obtained separately, recruiting a sample of mobile phone-only users (have a mobile phone and no landline connected in the home) from Roy Morgan Single Source database.21

Quotas were set for both the RDD and mobile phone-only samples to ensure a representative coverage of the Australian population by age, gender and geographical location (state and metro/non-metro). Furthermore, quotas were set for both samples to ensure that their demographic profile was representative of those with a household landline and those with only a mobile phone, as determined by the latest Roy Morgan Single Source data.

Proportional weights were applied to the data to reflect the true distribution of Australians 18 years and older with a fixed-line home phone or mobile phone only. Weights applied were an interlocking weight of age, by sex and by sample type (have a home phone connected, and have a mobile phone but no fixed-line home phone) and a rim weight for area (state and region). The weights used were calculated from the latest Roy Morgan Single Source data.

21 Every year, Roy Morgan Research conducts over 50,000 face-to-face interviews in Australia. There are also approximately 22,000 respondents returning additional self-completion diaries, the Product Poll and Media Diary.

96 | acma Sample breakdown of respondents, by demographics and characteristics A total of 2,520 computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI surveys) were conducted. A total of 1,420 respondents had contacted a CSP in the last six months and were asked in-depth questions about their experience.

The table below shows a breakdown of sample sizes for key demographics and characteristics of both total respondents and the 1,420 respondent who had contacted a CSP in the last six months.

Table B1.1 Sample sizes for key demographics and characteristics of respondents

acma | 97 Area Total respondents Contacted CSP (L6M) Sydney 492 266 ACT 56 35 NSW X-City 288 150 Melbourne 459 252 Vic. X-City 160 109 Brisbane 218 131 Qld X-City 279 154 Adelaide 140 81 SA X-City 64 33 Perth 186 109 WA X-City 69 43 Hobart 38 22 Tas. X-City 46 20 NT 25 15 Sex Male 1,238 710 Female 1,282 710 Age 18–24 296 154 25–34 481 317 35–49 710 435 50–64 599 335 65+ 434 179 Level of education reached Total respondents Contacted CSP (L6M) Primary school n/a 5 Some secondary school n/a 225 Completed secondary school n/a 273 TAFE, trade certificate n/a 232 Undergraduate university degree, CAE diploma n/a 488 Postgraduate qualification n/a 190 Can’t say n/a 7 Employment Employed full-time n/a 666 Part-time n/a 188 Casual n/a 113 Retired n/a 249 Unemployed n/a 37 Home duties n/a 109 Student n/a 58 Current living arrangements Live alone n/a 200 Partner and no children under 18 n/a 412 Partner and children n/a 479 Single parent n/a 90 With parents n/a 96 Boarder n/a 13 Shared household n/a 125 Can’t say/refused n/a 5 Household income

98 | acma acma | 99 B1.2 Statistical modelling overview

Regression analysis It is tempting and intuitive to think that overall customer service can best be improved by focusing efforts on the attributes with the lowest mean scores, because they seem to be the ones most likely to be pulling overall satisfaction down. This, however, may not be the case—an attribute could ‘score low’ yet not be important to customers. Similarly, an attribute could achieve a high mean rating and be very important to overall assessments, so that small additional improvements on the attribute are rewarded by large increases in overall ratings.

Regression analysis is designed to compute more accurate inferences. Therefore, to identify the key drivers of satisfaction with customer service, the statistical technique of multiple regression was used.

Regression analysis is a statistical method where the mean of one or more variables is estimated based on other variables. Specifically, the analysis conducted in the report uses linear regression to estimate the ‘line of best fit’.

In order to determine the various factors that contributed to overall satisfaction with the quality of the most recent customer service experience, multiple regression was used to generate a score that quantified the strength of the relationship between the single dependent variable (overall satisfaction with customer service) and several independent variables (each element of customer service experience specific to the primary modes of contact).

Leverage analysis Used in connection with multiple regression technique, leverage analysis uses the ‘Unstandardised Coefficients’ for the regression equation. This enables an estimate of the impact that an improvement in the rating of one individual factor will have in terms of the overall satisfaction rating. The report assesses the percentage increase in overall satisfaction with customer service if there is a 10 per cent increase in satisfaction with one of the elements of the customer service experience.

Opportunity analysis Opportunity analysis creates four quadrants defined by plotting the mean satisfaction score with each element of the customer service experience (by mode of contact) against the factor’s importance, as derived from the regression analysis.

Opportunity analysis assists with the decision about what features of the customer service experience to work on, by placing all the attributes in the same two-dimensional space and dividing it into four quadrants:

> The x-axis is calculated based on the average of the mean satisfaction scores of each element of the customer service experience (by mode of contact).

> The y-axis is calculated based on the average of the mean scores of importance of each element of the customer service experience (by mode of contact). The figure below shows the resultant quadrant template and the interpretation for attributes that fall into the four zones.

100 | acma Figure B1.2 Opportunity analysis template

higher importance Focus areas: Leverage strength: higher

) but lower performance/satisfaction importance and higher performance s

r need immediate attention

e a current strength v i r d

n a e M (

e c n a t r o p m

I Monitor: lower ratings and lower importance does not require Maintain: well rated but lower immediate attention but monitor to importance maintain current ensure importance does not performance increase

Performance (Mean satisfaction rating for the category)

According to this approach, efforts to improve attributes in the ‘focus areas’ quadrant will deliver the most benefit, as they have higher derived importance and lower performance.

acma | 101 Appendix B2—Quantitative research instruments

B2.1 Questionnaire design The questionnaire for the quantitative phase of the research was developed by close consultation between ACMA and Roy Morgan Research. The questionnaire covered the following topics:

> Consumer household telecommunications products and uses

> Experience of contacting and contact with CSPs

> Satisfaction with facets of CSP customer service

> Relative importance of customer service and level of influence on behaviour.

> Awareness and satisfaction with telecommunications complaints-handling practices

> Rating of aspects, other than customer service, of CSP.

In addition, basic personal and household demographic data were also collected.

The final questionnaire approved by the ACMA prior to fieldwork is provided in section B2.2 below.

B2.2 Questionnaire

Good [Morning/Afternoon/Evening], my name is [say name] from Roy Morgan Research. I’m calling on behalf of the Australian Government. We are conducting an important survey about the level of customer service given by telephone and internet service providers.

[IF GOVERNMENT AGENCY QUERIED: ‘The study is being conducted for the Australian Communications and Media Authority—the ACMA—the Commonwealth Government agency responsible for regulating telecommunications in Australia.”]

May I please speak to the youngest male at home who is aged 18 or over?

If no males available ask: May I please speak to the youngest female at home who is aged 18 or over?

If necessary repeat introduction

If necessary say: is now a good time or would it be more convenient if I made an appointment to speak to you at another time?

If respondent asks how long the survey will take, say: It will take about 15 minutes.

If necessary say: The information you provide will only be used for research purposes and will remain strictly confidential. You will not be identified in any way in the results.

If necessary say: If you would like any more information on this research you can call our hotline on 1800 337 332.

For landline sample—if queried about how name/number was sourced (e.g., unlisted number): We are contacting people from all over Australia. A computer has randomly generated numbers

102 | acma for us to phone. If necessary add: To ensure a representative sample of Australian households it is very important to include households like yours in the survey.

SCREENER: Do you, or does any member of your immediate family work in any of the following:

1. In the telecommunications industry or for a phone company or internet service provider 2. In marketing or market research 3. DO NOT READ OUT None of the above

IF CODES 1 OR 2 ON QSCREENER, SCREEN OUT AND SAY: Thank you for your time, unfortunately you do not meet the eligibility criteria for this survey.

[Quantity] {Min: 0, Max: 99} 1. Firstly, to ensure we are interviewing a representative sample of Australian households, could you please tell me how many people are currently living in your household? RECORD NUMBERS 99. Refused/Can’t Say

(single) 2. Would you mind telling me your age please? READ OUT IF NECESSARY 1. 18–24 2. 25–29 3. 30–34 4. 35–39 5. 40–44 6. 45–49 7. 50–54 8. 55–59 9. 60–64 10. 65–69 11. 70 and over 12. Refused

(single) 3. RECORD SEX OF RESPONDENT 1. Male 2. Female

(single) 4. In which state/territory are you currently living? READ OUT IF NECESSARY 1. New South Wales 2. ACT 3. Victoria 4. South Australia 5. Tasmania 6. Western Australia 7. Northern Territory 8. Queensland

[Quantity] {Min: 0, Max: 9999} 5. Could you please give me your postcode? RECORD NUMBERS

(multiple) 6. Now thinking about the forms of communication that you have for your personal use and not just for work-related usage, which of the following are in your household? 1. Home phone to make or receive personal telephone calls. This can be either a normal fixed line or VoIP Internet connection for personal usage

acma | 103 2. Internet connection for personal usage 3. Mobile phone for PERSONAL usage 4. None of them Home phone respondents will not see option 1 and mobile respondents will not see option 3.

(multiple) 7. Do you have a telephone which plugs into a traditional telephone wall socket, a VoIP handset that plugs into your broadband/internet connection or both of these? 1. Standard/traditional telephone wall socket only 2. Internet connection/VoIP handset only 3. Both standard/traditional telephone wall socket and internet connection/VOIP handset 4. Can’t Say if has standard wall socket telephone (codes 1 or 3 on q7), ask: (Single) 8. Who is the service provider for your standard home telephone?

If has VoIP handset telephone (codes 2 or 3 on q7), ask: (Single) 9. Who is the service provider for your VoIP handset telephone?

If internet connection (code 2 on q6) ask q10-q11: (Single) 10. Who is the service provider for your internet connection?

11. Do you use your internet connection for … READ OUT (Multiple) 1. Email 2. Voice or video calls using your computer, such as Skype, Google talk, live messenger or other VoIP service… 3. Social networking such as: Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Chat Rooms, LinkedIn 4. Instant Messaging 5. None of these

If make voice or video calls using computer (code 2 on q11) ask: (Single) 12. Who is the service provider for your VoIP service on your computer?

If has mobile telephone (code 3 on q6), ask: (Single) 13. Who is the service provider for your mobile phone?

ASK EVERYONE 14. In the past six months, have you contacted any of your telephone or internet service providers in relation to your new or existing services, such as switching to a new provider or getting a new connection, making an enquiry about your product or service, querying a bill, or for technical support? (Single) 1. Yes 2. No 3. Can’t say

If has not contacted any telephone or internet service providers (code 2 or 3 on q14) will terminate and say: Thank you for your time, unfortunately you do not meet the eligibility criteria for the rest of this survey 15. For which of your telecommunication services have you contacted a provider in the past six months? Was it your…

104 | acma READ OUT (multiple) 1. Home telephone 2. Mobile phone 3. Internet 4. VoIP 5. Bundled services

16. And are you the person responsible for paying the bill for that service? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Can’t say  Those who have made contact with a service provider in the last six months will be asked the above two questions

If contacted home telephone provider (code 1 on q15) ask: 17. In the past six months, how many times have you contacted your home telephone provider

If contacted mobile telephone provider (code 2 on q15) ask: 17. In the past six months, how many times have you contacted your mobile telephone provider

If contacted internet provider (code 3 on q15) ask: 17. In the past six months, how many times have you contacted your internet provider

If contacted voip provider (code 4 on q15) ask: 17. In the past six months, how many times have you contacted your VoIP provider

If contacted bundled services provider (code 5 on q15) ask: 17. In the past six months, how many times have you contacted your bundled services provider

18a. Thinking only about the one most recent issue that caused you to contact any of your telcom service providers, which service was it for? Was it your ... 1 Home telephone 2 Mobile phone 3 Internet 4 VoIP 5 Bundled services (DO NOT READ) CAN'T SAY

IF BUNDLED SERVICES (CODE 5 ON Q18A) ASK: 18B. Which of the following services were included in your bundle at that time? [Multiple] Home telephone Mobile phone Internet VoIP Pay TV (DO NOT READ) CAN'T SAY

ASK EVERYONE 19. Thinking only about the most recent issue that caused you to contact any of your telcom service providers, what was the name of the service provider you contacted? DO NOT READ [Single] 1. 3 19. PennyTel 2. AAPT 20. Primus/iPrimus 3. Adam 21. Reward

acma | 105 4. Austar 22. SavvyTel 5. B-Digital 23. SimPlus 6. Boost 24. Skype 7. Chariot 25. Soul 8. Crazy John’s 26. Southern 9. Dodo 27. Telstra / BigPond 10. Exetel 28. TPG 11. GoTalk 29. Transact 12. HP 30. Unwired 13. iiNet 31. Virgin 14. Internode 32. Vodafone 15. Lebara 33. Westnet 16. MyNetPhone 34. Other (specify)………… 17. Netspace 35. Can’t say 18. Optus

20. What was the issue that caused you to make contact with # [Provider mentioned in Q19] #/your service provider/? Any other reasons? 1. NEW SERVICE OR PRODUCT 2. UPDATE PERSONAL INFORMATION 3. RESOLVE A TECHNICAL PROBLEM 4. RESOLVE A BILLING PROBLEM 96. OTHER PROBLEM (SPECIFY) 97. OTHER REASON (SPECIFY) 98. CAN'T SAY

21. On how many occasions did you contact # [Provider mentioned in Q19] #/your service provider/ about this issue

22. Thinking about the ways that you first made contact with # [Provider mentioned in Q19] #/your service provider/ about the issue? Did you contact them by … READ OUT 1. Telephone 2. In person 3. Through their website 4. Twitter/Facebook/other social media 5. Email 6. Mail (by post) 7. SMS/MMS 97. Other (specify) 98. CAN'T SAY

If codes 1 to 7 mentioned on q22, the codes will be removed from q22a 22 A. Were any other forms of communication used after first contact between you and your provider on this issue? 1. Telephone 2. In person 3. Through their website 4. Twitter/Facebook/other social media 5. Email 6. Mail (by post) 7. SMS/MMS 97. Other (specify) 98. CAN’T SAY 99. No other forms of communication used

22B. Who initiated this other contact? Was it ... [Single]

106 | acma 1. Yourself 2. The provider 3. Both the provider and yourself 4. Partner/family member/friend 5. (DO NOT READ) OTHER PERSON 6. (DO NOT READ) CAN'T SAY

IF TELEPHONE CONTACT (CODE 1 ON Q22 OR Q22A) ASK 23. Thinking about your telephone contact with # [Provider mentioned in Q19]# /your service provider// on this issue, I am going to read out different aspects of the customer service that you may have experienced and I would like you to tell me how #/satisfied or dissatisfied/dissatisfied or satisfied/ you were with each aspect. Please use a rating scale of 0 to 10 where, #/0 is very dissatisfied, 5 is neutral and 10 is very satisfied/ 10 is very satisfied, 5 is neutral and 0 is very dissatisfied/. y r d e e i y V l f d a d s a e i s r t e s t i t f a ’ u u f s s n i e

e t a y N a r R C s e s i V d Ease of finding providers’ contact details 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 The waiting time before speaking to a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 customer service representative Being able to navigate easily through the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 voice prompt menu Being able to speak to a person if I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 wanted to Being able to communicate easily with 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 staff Staff being knowledgeable to deal with my 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 issue Staff having the authority to deal with my 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 issue Staff being friendly and courteous 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 Staff being familiar with my personal 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 account details Staff being interested in helping me 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 Staff giving the correct information 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 Being able to resolve the issue in a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 reasonable time The extent staff did what they said they 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 would do Not having any language barriers

24. Was the first person you contacted able to assist you with your issue, or were you referred onto another person to help you? 1. First person contacted was able to help with the issue 2. Was passed on to another person 3. Did not speak to a person at all 97. Other (specify) 98. Can’t Say

IF ‘PASSED ON TO ANOTHER PERSON’ (CODE 2) AT Q24, ASK: 25. In total, how many different people did you need to speak to in order to resolve the issue? 1. Two people (first contact plus one other) 2. Three people 3. Four people 4. Five people 5. More than five people

acma | 107 6. Issue was never resolved 7. Other (specify 8. Can’t say If ‘passed on to another person (code 2) at q24, ask: 26. Now we’d like to try to understand the process which you went through to speak to each of these people. Could you describe what happened when you spoke to each person?

27 During your call or calls, did you experience the call being cut off unexpectedly? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Can’t say don’t remember

If cut off (code 1 on q27) ask: 28 What happened next as a result of the call dropping out? 1. I called them back 2. They called me back 3. I gave up 4. I tried a different means of contacting them 5. Other (specify) 6. Can’t say > The above questions look at in detail the steps the person went through in contact their provider. > Q24 and Q25 are designed to jog the respondents memory so that the respondent can easily answer the open ended question in Q26

If contact in person (code 2 on q22 or q22a) ask: 29. Thinking about that in-person contact with # [Provider mentioned in Q19]# /your service provider// on this issue, I am going to read out different aspects of the customer service that you may have experienced and I would like you to tell me how #/satisfied or dissatisfied/dissatisfied or satisfied/ you were with each aspect. Please use a rating scale of 0 to 10 where, #/0 is very dissatisfied, 5 is neutral and 10 is very satisfied/ 10 is very satisfied, 5 is neutral and 0 is very dissatisfied/. y r d e e i y V l f d a d s a e i s r t e s t i t f a ’ u u f s s n i e

e t a y N a r R C s e s i V d Convenient office/shop location 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 Convenient office/shop opening hours 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 The waiting time to be attended to 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 The number of staff available to serve 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 customers Being able to communicate easily with 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 staff Staff being knowledgeable to deal with my 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 issue Staff being friendly and courteous 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 Staff being familiar with my personal 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 account details Staff being interested in helping me 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 Staff giving the correct information 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 Being able to resolve the issue in a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 reasonable time The extent staff did what they said they 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

108 | acma would do

acma | 109 30. Were you able to resolve the issue during your first visit to the shop or office? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Can’t say

If contact through website/ email/ mail/ sms or mms (codes 3,5,6 or 7 on q22 or q22a) ask: Thinking about your contact with # [Provider mentioned in Q19] /your service provider// through #/thier website// #/e-mail// #/mail// #/SMS OR MMS// on your most recent issue, I am going to read out different aspects of the customer service that you may have experienced and I would like you to tell me how #/satisfied or dissatisfied/dissatisfied or satisfied/ Please use a rating scale of 0 to 10 where, #/0 is very dissatisfied, 5 is neutral and 10 is very satisfied/ 10 is very satisfied, 5 is neutral and 0 is very dissatisfied/. Only if through website (code 3 on q22 or 22a) ask a, b, c, d. y r d e e i y V l f d a d s a e i s r t e

s t i t f a ’ u u f s s n i e

e t a y N a r R C s e s i V d a. My provider’s website gave 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 me the information I needed b. It was easy to find what I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 wanted on my provider’s website c. I was able to set up an 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 online user account easily to access my account information d. Being able to send my 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 provider a message via its website e. Being able to identify the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 correct address or number for sending an email or message f. Receiving a quick reply to 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 the message I sent g. Getting a detailed reply 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 which answered the issues in my message h. Being able to resolve the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 issue in a reasonable time online i. The extent staff followed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 through on further actions to resolve the query

ASK EVERYONE 32. At any stage during your contact with #[Provider mentioned in Q19]# /your service provider// on this issue, did you deal with their internal complaints department, that is, the special department within #[Provider mentioned in Q19] /your service provider// that specifically deals with formal complaints? (Single) 1. Yes 2. No 3. Can’t say

If dealt with internal complaints department (code 1 on q32) ask:

110 | acma 33. Did you ask to speak to the complaints department or were you referred to them by a #212. [OpenResponse]#212. #/your service provider// staff member? (Single) Yourself Provider Can’t say

34. What prompted the decision to put you through to the complaints department? (Single) I asked to be put through and was put through straight away I asked to be put through after they couldn’t understand my issue I asked to be put through after a lot of discussion They referred me on as they did not have the authority to resolve my issue They referred me on after trying to resolve the issue Other Can’t say

35. Should you have been put through to the complaints department earlier, after about the same length of time, or after trying further to resolve your issue? DO NOT READ Earlier About the same Later Can’t say

If ‘yes’ at q32, ask q36–q37

36. What happened as a result of your contact with the internal complaints department? Anything else? PROBE FULLY. DO NOT PROMPT

1. Acknowledged my complaint— automatic message 2. Acknowledged my complaint—personal message or call 3. Service provider compensated me (e.g., reduced a bill, gave me credit) 4. Service provider apologised 5. Service provider resolved the problem I was experiencing 6. I never heard anything back—service provider did nothing 7. Service provider referred me to a third party (such as another service provider or one of their suppliers) 8. Service provider referred me to an external complaints body (such as the ombudsman) 9. Other (please specify) 10. Can’t say

37. How satisfied were you with the outcome of your complaint? Please use a rating scale of 0 to 10, where 0 = ‘very dissatisfied’, 5 = ‘neutral’ and 10 = ’very satisfied’.

ASK EVERYONE: 38. Did you lodge a complaint with anyone else other than (provider mentioned at Q19) on this issue ? If ‘yes’ at q38, ask:

39. Who else did you lodge your complaint with on this issue?

If not lodge with the TIO, ask:

40. Have you ever lodged a complaint with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman for any issues you may have experienced as a telecommunications customer in the past? If no or can’t say (codes 2 or 3) on q40, ask:

41. Have you previously heard of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman?

acma | 111 If ‘Telephone Industry Ombudsman’ at q39 or q40, ask:

42. PROBE FULLY. DO NOT PROMPT What happened as a result of your complaint to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman? Anything else?

ASK EVERYONE: 43. Overall, how long did it take between when you first contacted [provider mentioned at Q19] on this issue to when the issue was resolved? minutes……. hours………. days………... weeks………. months..……. Still not resolved Can’t say

44. Now taking everything into account, how satisfied were you overall with the quality of the customer service you received from (provider mentioned at Q19) on this issue? Please use the same rating scale of 0 to 10, where 0 = ‘very dissatisfied’, 5 = ‘neutral’ and 10 = ‘very satisfied’.

If rating 0–5 at q44, ask: (Single)

45. The rating you just gave suggests that you were not completely happy with the overall customer service you experienced. Did you do anything as a result? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Can’t say

If ‘yes’ at q45, ask: (Multiple)

46. What did you do as a result? Anything else? PROBE FULLY. DO NOT PROMPT 1. Switched to a different provider 2. Stopped using/reduced use of service, but did not switch provider 3. Provided feedback/complained to my provider about their poor customer service 4. Other (specify)……………….

If ‘no’ at q45, ask: (Multiple)

47. Why did you decide not to do anything on this occasion? Anything else? PROBE FULLY. DO NOT PROMPT

1. I didn’t believe I would get a resolution (it wouldn’t have changed anything if I’d complained) 2. I didn’t believe it would change the way they provided service 3. The process takes too long—get left on hold for too long 4. The process is too complicated 5. The process is costly—cost of call is high/no free call to service provider 6. Wasn’t bothered to/ too busy 7. No other option so no point complaining

112 | acma 8. Didn’t know I could complain or the process for doing it 9. Didn’t know who I could contact 10. Embarrassed 11. Was locked into a plan so couldn’t change without incurring cost 12. I wanted to switch ISP but keeping my email address is too important to me ONLY SERVICE PROVIDER WITH COVERAGE/ RECEPTION FOR MY PURPOSES 13. Other reason (specify)………………. 14. Can’t say

If unsatisfied (rating of 0–5 on q44) and not code 1 on q46, ask: 48. Did you consider switching providers?

49. Why didn’t you switch service providers?

ASK EVERYONE 50. What were the three most important factors you considered when you chose (provider mentioned at Q19) as your service provider? DO NOT READ Price Best signal strength Range of products offered Reputation for customer service Bundling—provider for other services Only provider available because of where I live Family/friends are with this provider so get cheaper/free calls to them Family/friends recommended this provider Other (specify) Other (specify) Other (specify) Can’t say

51. Which of these was the main reason you chose (provider mentioned at Q19) as your service provider? (Only show those mentioned)

ASK EVERYONE 52. Thinking about (provider mentioned at Q19), I am going to read out some statements that might be used to describe them and I would like you to tell me how much you agree or disagree with each one. Please use a rating scale of 0 to 10, where 0 = ‘disagree strongly’, 5 = ‘neutral’ and 10 = ‘agree strongly’.

acma | 113 114 2. 1. READ NOT DO OUT callsof included benefits?other or 57. has If home phone(code1 onq6), ask: (single) 3. 2. 1. phone, mobile internet, service?PayTV, VoIP (single) 56. ask: q7) has If than more meansofone communication in (count household q6thangreater 1 code or on 3 Can’t say No Yes 55. has complaints-handlingIf a policy (code1 on q54)ask: Don’t know No Yes 54. say 9. Can’t 8. thanyearsMore 5 years 7. 5 years 6. 4 years 5. 3 years 4. 2 year 3. 1 2. 6–11 months sixmonths1. Less than 53. contracts or services or contracts in what their is includedis hard understand to It service customer good after-sales good reputation for a They have provider service my them as am verywitheverything Isatisfied into Takingaccount, futurein the use amto them happy continue to I friends my amthem to happy recommend to I money isgood value serviceItheir for pay for The amount needsmy services satisfy products and of range that a They have image overallbrandappeals meTheir to

Are Are cap you on a dealfor HOME or your thatphone, ais, set amount you a gives highervalue Do Do you orbundle two services more togetherin plan,one the such as landline your phone, Haveyou readtheir complaints-handling policy? Do you know (insert whether provider Q19)mentioned hasin a complaints-handling policy? longHow youhave been with, were or (provideryou with mentioned at Q19)? No Yes Can’t Say No Yes READ NOT DO OUT | a c m a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 stronglyDisagree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Neutral 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Agree strongly 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 Can’t say

Refused 3. Can’t Say If has mobile phone (code 3 on q6) ask q36-q38: 58. Is your mobile phone pre-paid or are you on a contract or plan where you are sent a bill? Interviewer note: if more than one mobile phone, ask for the main one used for personal use DO NOT READ OUT (single) 1. Pre-paid 2. Contract or plan where you are sent a bill 3. Can’t say

59. Are you on a cap or deal for your main MOBILE phone, that is, a set amount gives you a higher value of included calls or other benefits? (single) DO NOT READ OUT 1. Yes have cap or deal 2. No, do not have cap or deal 3. Can’t say

60. Who usually pays for your mobile phone usage? (single) DO NOT READ OUT 1. Pay for all myself 2. Pay for part myself 3. Don’t pay for it at all

ASK EVERYONE Now just some questions about yourself so that we can make sure we have been speaking to a good range of people (Single) What is the highest level of education you have reached? DO NOT READ 1. Primary school 2. Some secondary school 3. Completed secondary school 4. TAFE, trade certificate 5. Undergraduate university degree, CAE diploma 6. Post graduate qualification 7. Can’t say (Single)

Is your current occupational status … READ OUT If more than one occupation then respondent to nominate which is their main 1. Employed full-time (ONLY IF NECESSARY: By ‘Full-time’ we mean for 35 hours or more a week) 2. Part-time 3. Casual 4. Retired 5. Unemployed 6. Home duties 7. Student 8. REFUSED(DO NOT READ OUT)

I’d now like to ask you about your combined HOUSEHOLD income, from all sources before tax. Roughly speaking, is your annual household income before tax more or less than $75,000? DO NOT READ OUT (Single) 1. $0 to $75,000 2. More than $75,000 3. Don’t know 4. Refused If household is income between $0 and $75,000 (code 1 on q63) do not show response categories 4 or 5 or 6 on q44

If household is more than $75,000 (code 2 on q63) do not show response categories 1 or 2 or 3 on q44 If does not know household income or refused (codes 3 or 4 on q63) go to q45

acma | 115 And into which of the following ranges would your annual household income fall? Would it be … (Single) 1. Under $25,000 2. $25,000 to $49,999 3. $50,000 to $74,999 4. $75,000 to $99,999 5. $100,000 to $149,999 6. Over $150,000 7. (DO NOT READ OUT) DON’T KNOW 8. (DO NOT READ OUT) REFUSED

Which of the following describes your current living arrangements? READ OUT (Single) 1. Live alone 2. Partner and no children under 18 3. Partner and children 4. Single parent 5. With parents 6. Boarder 7. Shared household

IF NOT CODE 1 OR 2 ON Q45, ASK: How many children living in your household are aged between 0 and 10 years?

How many children living in your household are aged between 11 and 17 years?

ASK EVERYONE (Single) And finally, do you speak a language other than English at home? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Refused

Thank you for your time and assistance. This market research is carried out in compliance with the Privacy Act and Telecommunications and Research Calls Industry Standard, and the information you provided will be used only for research purposes.

As I mentioned, we are conducting this research on behalf of the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

If you would like any more information about this project or Roy Morgan Research, you can phone us on 1800 337 332.

116 | acma Appendix B3—Supporting quantitative findings of main report

B3.1 Profile and incidence of contacting provider in the last six months B3.1.1 By age and household size

Table B3.1.1 Profile and incidence of contacting provider in the last six months, by age and household size Per cent of total Per cent of total Incidence of contact population contacted CSP L6M with CSP (%) (%) (%) Total 57 1–2 people in household 51 46 51 3+ people in household 48 54 63 18–24 12 11 53 1–2 people in household 4 3 47 3+ people in household 8 8 56 25–34 18 21 67 1–2 people in household 6 7 63 3+ people in household 11 14 69 35–49 28 31 62 1–2 people in household 9 9 59 3+ people in household 20 22 63 50–64 24 24 57 1–2 people in household 17 15 52 3+ people in household 7 8 67 65+ 18 13 41 1–2 people in household 16 12 41 3+ people in household 1 1 40 Base: All respondents n=2,520; base: contacted provider in last six months n=1,420; 1–2 people n=1,321; 3+ people n=1,197; 18–24 years n=296; 1–2 people n=95; 3+ people n=201; 25–34 years n=481; 1–2 people n=182; 3+ people n=298; 35–49 years n=710; 1–2 people n=224; 3+ people n=486; 50–64 years n=599; 1–2 people n=419; 3+ people n=179; 65+ years n=434; 1–2 people n=401; 3+ people n=33.

acma | 117 B3.1.2 By area

Table 3.1.2 Profile and incidence of contacting provider in the last six months, by area Per cent of total Per cent of total Incidence of contact population contacted CSP L6M with CSP (%) (%) (%) Area

Sydney 20 19 54 NSW X-City (Excl. ACT) 13 12 53 ACT 2 2 63 Melbourne 19 18 55 Vic. X-City 6 8 69 Brisbane 9 9 60 Qld X-City 11 11 56 Adelaide 5 6 58 SA X-City 2 2 51 Perth 8 8 59 WA X-City 3 3 63 Hobart 1 1 58 Tas. X-City 1 1 44 NT 1 1 60 Base: All respondents n=2,520; base: contacted provider in last six months n=1,420. Sydney n=492; ACT n=56; NSW x-city n=288; Melbourne n=459; Vic. x-city n=160; Brisbane n=218; Qld x-city n=279; Adelaide n=140; SA x-city n=64; Perth n=186; WA x-city n=69; Tas. n=84.

B3.2 Multiple product holdings B3.2.1 Combination of telecommunications products held

Table B3.2.1 Combination of telecommunications products if contacted CSP, compared to total population

Total Contacted provider (L6M) % % Home phone, internet and mobile phone 68 79 Internet and mobile phone 9 9 Home phone and mobile phone 8 5 Home phone only 6 1 Mobile phone only 5 3 Home phone and internet 4 3 Base: All respondents n=2,520; contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420.

118 | acma B3.2.2 Bundling—CSP contacted about bundling issues

Figure B3.2.2 Bundled services provider if contacted CSP about bundling

Telstra 75 Optus 13 AAPT 3 (i) Primus 2 iiNet 2 Other 5 Can't Say 2

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Base: Contacted CSP in last six months about bundling n=183.

B3.2.3 Incidence of contact with CSPs (L6M), by number of telecommunications products held, by age

Table B3.2.3 Incidence of contact with CSPs by number of telecommunications products held, by 18–24 years One Two Three Total telecommunications telecommunications telecommunications product held products held products held % % % % Contacted CSP (L6M) 53 40 44 60 Did not contact CSP (L6M) 46 60 56 38 Base: 18–24 years n=296; one product in HH n=39; two products in HH n=99; three products in HH n=158.

Table B3.2.4 Incidence of contact with CSPs by number of telecommunication productss held, by 25–34 years One Two Three Total telecommunications telecommunications telecommunications product held products held products held % % % % Contacted CSP (L6M) 67 40 60 73 Did not contact CSP (L6M) 33 60 40 27 Base: 25–34 years n=481; one product in HH n=46; two products in HH n=156; three products in HH n=279.

acma | 119 Table B3.2.5 Incidence of contact with CSPs by number of telecommunications products held, by 35–49 years One Two Three Total telecommunications telecommunications telecommunications product held products held products held % % % % Contacted CSP (L6M) 62 30 54 66 Did not contact CSP (L6M) 38 70 46 34

Base: 35–49 years n=710; one product in HH n=54; two products in HH n=122; three products in HH n=531.

Table B3.2.6 Incidence of contact with CSPs by number of telecommunications products held, by 50–64 years One Two Three Total telecommunications telecommunications telecommunications product held products held products held % % % % Contacted CSP (L6M) 57 19 35 65 Did not contact CSP (L6M) 43 81 65 34 Base: 50–64 years n=599; one product in HH n=47; two products in HH n=112; three products in HH n=440.

Table B3.2.7 Incidence of contact with CSPs by number of telecommunication products held, by 65+ years One Two Three Total telecommunications telecommunications telecommunications product held products held products held % % % % Contacted CSP (L6M) 41 10 31 60 Did not contact CSP (L6M) 58 89 68 39

Base: 65+ years n=434; one product in HH n=100; two products in HH n=109; three products in HH n=225.

120 | acma B3.3 Bill-payer of service B3.3.1 Whether respondent is bill-payer of service

Table B3.3.1 Whether respondent is responsible for bill payment of the relevant product

Total Internet Mobile phone Home phone Bundled services

12 15 1 8 10 11 1

88 84 92 89 88 % % % % %

Bill-payer Someone else pays bill Can't say

Base: Contacted CSP in the last six months n=1,420 Q15. What was the issue that caused you to make contact with //your service provider/?

B3.4 Market share versus share of contacts B3.4.1 Market share versus share of contacts, by CSPs for internet

Table B3.4.1 Internet providers share compared to CSP contacted about internet

Have home internet by CSP (%) CSP contacted about internet (L6M) (%)

Telstra BigPond 45 48 Optus 17 17 TPG 5 6 iiNet 4 3 3 3 1 Westnet 2 3 AAPT 2 2 Dodo 2 2 (i) Primus 2 1 Internode 2 2 Vodafone 2 2 Virgin 1 2 Other 11 9 Can’t say 2 1 Base: Have internet connected at home for personal use n=2,030; contact with CSP about internet in last six months n=521. Q10. Who is the service provider for your internet connection? Q19. Thinking only about the most recent issue that caused you to contact any of your telcom service providers, what was the name of the service provider you contacted?

acma | 121 B3.4.2 Market share versus share of contacts, by CSPs for mobile phone

Table B3.4.2 Mobile phone providers share compared to CSP contacted about mobile phone

CSP contacted about mobile phone (L6M) CSP for mobile phone (%) (%)

Telstra 45 42 Optus 24 21 Vodafone 14 15 3 9 12 Virgin 5 4 Other 4 6 Can’t say 1 0 Base: Have mobile phone for personal use n=2,289; contact with CSP about mobile phone in last six months n=434. Q13. Who is the service provider for your mobile phone? Q19. Thinking only about the most recent issue that caused you to contact any of your telcom service providers, what was the name of the service provider you contacted?

B3.4.3 Market share versus share of contacts, by CSPs for home phone

Table B3.4.3 Home phone providers share compared to CSP contacted about home phone

CSP contacted about home phone (L6M) CSP for home telephone (%) (%) Telstra 72 76 Optus 14 11 AAPT 2 1 (i) Primus 2 1 iiNet 2 2 Other 7 8 Can’t say 1 1 Base: Have home phone n=2,008; contact with CSP about home phone in last six months n=260. Q8. Who is the service provider for your standard home telephone? Q19. Thinking only about the most recent issue that caused you to contact any of your telcom service providers, what was the name of the service provider you contacted?

122 | acma B3.5 Main reasons for choosing CSPs contacted B3.5.1 Three most important factors in choosing CSP Table B3.5.1 Three most important factors in choosing service provider, by service type

Mobile Home Bundled Total Internet phone phone services % % % % % Price 46 52 48 32 46 Network coverage 28 28 34 16 31 Range of products/services offered 20 22 21 17 15 Reputation for customer service 17 17 18 18 16 Bundling—provider for other services 17 17 13 12 31 Only provider available in area when signed up 14 13 10 19 17 Company reputation 9 9 9 12 9 Existing customer of other services 9 7 8 14 9 Good customer service/support 7 8 6 8 7 Convenient or easiest option 7 9 7 4 5 Had a product/service/deal they wanted 5 4 9 4 3 Family/friends recommended this provider 5 5 8 3 5 To be on the same network as family/friends 5 2 11 1 3 Reliability of service 4 5 2 3 5 Other 15 14 13 17 18 Can’t say 4 5 2 7 2 Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; internet n=521; mobile phone 434; home phone n=260; bundled services n=183. Q50. What were the three most important factors you considered when you your service provider as your service provider?

B3.5.2 Most important factor in choosing CSP

Table B3.5.2 Most important factor in choosing service provider, by service type

Mobile Home Bundled Total Internet phone phone services % % % % % Price 26 30 27 19 21 Coverage 14 13 17 10 14 Only provider available in area when signed up 11 11 7 15 12 Bundling—provider for other services 8 9 5 6 13 Existing customer of other services 6 5 5 10 5 Range of products/services offered 4 4 5 5 5 Company reputation 4 4 3 8 2 Reputation for customer service 4 4 4 7 3 Had a product/service/deal they wanted 3 2 4 2 2 To be on the same network as family/friends 2 0 6 0 1 Convenient/easiest option 2 3 2 1 1 Good customer service/technical support 2 2 2 3 3 Reliability of service 2 2 1 1 4 Family/friends recommended this provider 2 2 2 1 2 Other 7 6 7 10 8 Can’t say 2 2 2 2 2 Base: Contacted CSP in last six months n=1,420; internet n=521; mobile phone 434; home phone n=260; bundled services n=183. Q50. What were the three most important factors you considered when you your service provider as your service provider?

acma | 123 B3.6 Using other forms of communication modes after initial contact

Figure B3.6.1 Whether other forms of communication used in subsequent contact, by product

Total Internet Mobile phone Home phone Bundled services

11 11 14 6 7 14 8 7 1 8 1 9 1 11 1 2 2 1 1 1 01 0 75 75 79 80 I n t e r n e t H o m e P h o n e M o b i l e B u n d l e V o I P 84 Other form initiated by consumer Other form initiated by provider Other form initiated by both consumer and provider Other form initiated by family/friend No other forms of communication used

Base: Contacted CSP in the last six months n=1,420. Q22B. Who initiated this other contact? Was it … ?

Figure B3.6.2 Whether other form of communication used in subsequent contact, by issue

Renew, Resolve a Resolve a New product change or Update technical billing upgrade personal Other problem problem or service product/ information service Other form initiated by consumer 10 13 13 9 12 8 Other form initiated by provider 7 5 8 11 11 9 Other form initiated by both consumer and provider 1 1 2 3 - 1 Other form initiated by both family/friend 0 1 1 2 2 2 No other forms of communication 81 80 75 75 75 79 Base: Contacted CSP in the last six months n=1,420. Q22B. Who initiated this other contact? Was it … ?

124 | acma B3.7 Telephone contact with CSP—call drop-out

Figure 3.7 Action if line dropped out during CSP contact, by telephone

3 111 6 I called them back They called me back I gave up Try a different means of contact Others Can't say % 88

Base: Contacted CSP by telephone in the last six months and line dropped out during call n=175. Q27. During your call or calls, did you experience the call being cut off unexpectedly? Q28. What happened next as a result of the call dropping out?

B3.8 Rating of current CSP, by major providers

Figure B3.8.1 Rating of current CSP—Telstra

They have a range of products and services that 6.8 satisfy my needs The amount I pay for their service is good value for 5.2 money

I am happy to recommend them to my friends 4.7

I am happy to continue to use them in the future 5.8

Taking everything into account, I am very satisfied 5.5 with them as my service provider They have a reputation for good after-sales 4.9 customer service It is hard to understand what is included in their 5.4 contracts or services

0 2 4 6 8 10

Base: Contacted Telstra in the last six months n=766. Q52. Thinking about your service provide/, I am going to read out some statements that might be used to describe them and I would like you to tell me how much you #/agree or disagree/disagree or agree/ with each one.

acma | 125 Figure B3.8.2 Rating of current CSP—Optus

0 2 4 6 8 10

Base: Contacted Optus in the last six months n=233. Q52. Thinking about your service provider, I am going to read out some statements that might be used to describe them and I would like you to tell me how much you #/agree or disagree/disagree or agree/ with each one.

Figure B3.8.3 Rating of current CSP—Vodafone

0 2 4 6 8 10 Base: Contacted Vodafone in the last six months n=83. Q52. Thinking about your service provider, I am going to read out some statements that might be used to describe them and I would like you to tell me how much you #/agree or disagree/disagree or agree/ with each one.

126 | acma Figure B3.8.4 Rating of current CSP—3

0 2 4 6 8 10

Base: Contacted 3 in the last six months n=63. Q52. Thinking about your service provider, I am going to read out some statements that might be used to describe them and I would like you to tell me how much you #/agree or disagree/disagree or agree/ with each one.

B3.9 Overall satisfaction with customer service of CSP for most recent issue

Table B3.9.1 Overall satisfaction with customer service quality for internet by CSP

Total Telstra BigPond Optus TPG % % % % 0 (Very dissatisfied) 8 11 2 9 1 2 3 - - 2 5 6 1 6 3 6 6 4 7 4 5 6 5 - 5 (Neutral) 11 13 10 9 6 7 8 6 2 7 14 13 20 16 8 20 16 25 21 9 9 6 9 13 10 (Very satisfied) 16 11 15 17 Can’t say 0 - 2 - Refused - - - - Mean 6.3 5.5 7.1 6.5 Base: Contacted CSP in the last six months n=521; Optus n=88; Telstra n=245; TPG n=32. Q44. Now taking everything into account, how satisfied were you overall with the quality of the customer service you received from your service provider// on this issue?

acma | 127 Table B3.9.2 Overall satisfaction with customer service quality for mobile phone by CSP

Total Telstra Optus Vodafone 3 % % % % % 0 (Very dissatisfied) 7 9 8 3 4 1 4 5 3 4 7 2 4 6 2 4 5 3 4 6 2 3 2 4 7 7 10 3 6 5 (Neutral) 9 8 10 7 10 6 8 6 7 13 9 7 13 11 14 15 19 8 17 12 13 24 26 9 12 13 16 8 4 10 (Very satisfied) 15 16 16 16 7 Can’t say 0 - - - 2 Refused - - - - - Mean 6.3 6.0 6.5 6.7 6.1 Base: Contacted CSP in the last six months n=434; 3 n=53; Optus n=91; Telstra n=181; Vodafone n=67. Q44. Now taking everything into account, how satisfied were you overall with the quality of the customer service you received from /your service provider// on this issue?

Table B3.9.3 Overall satisfaction with customer service quality for home phone, by CSP

Total Telstra

% % 0 (Very dissatisfied) 10 13 1 2 3 2 4 5 3 5 5 4 5 5 5 (Neutral) 12 12 6 5 7 7 15 16 8 15 16 9 9 7 10 (Very satisfied) 16 12 Can’t say - - Refused 0 1 Mean 6.1 5.7

Base: Contacted CSP in the last six months n=260; Telstra n=196. Q44. Now taking everything into account, how satisfied were you overall with the quality of the customer service you received from /your service provider// on this issue?

128 | acma Table B3.9.4 Overall satisfaction with customer service quality for bundled services, by CSP

Total Telstra

% % 0 (Very dissatisfied) 12 15 1 2 3 2 9 11 3 4 5 4 8 8 5 (Neutral) 12 13 6 9 10 7 10 8 8 16 10 9 8 6 10 (Very satisfied) 10 12 Can’t say 1 1 Refused - - Mean 5.5 5

Base: Contacted CSP in the last six months n=183; Telstra n=137. Q44. Now taking everything into account, how satisfied were you overall with the quality of the customer service you received from /your service provider// on this issue?

B3.10 Tenure with CSP

Figure B3.10 Length of time with CSP

Mobile Home Bundled Total Internet phone phone services

12 12 15 17 19 14 14 16 19 11 16 21 25 18 23

58 47 48 52 40

Less than 1 year 1–2 years 3–5 years More than 5 years Others Can't say Total Internet Mobile Phone Home Phone Bundled Services Base: Contacted CSP in the last six months n=1,420; internet n=521; mobile phone n=434; home phone n=260; bundled services n=183. ; Q53. How long have you been with, or were you with your service provider?

acma | 129