AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
World Internet Project New Zealand WORLD INTERNET PROJECT NEW ZEALAND The Internet in New Zealand 2015
The Internet in New Zealand 2015
Charles Crothers Philippa Smith Poutasi W. B. Urale Allan Bell AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
WORLD INTERNET PROJECT NEW ZEALAND
The Internet in New Zealand 2015
Charles Crothers Philippa Smith Poutasi W. B. Urale Allan Bell
Institute of Culture, Discourse & Communication Auckland University of Technology Auckland New Zealand wipnz.aut.ac.nz
World Internet Project New Zealand Team Professor Allan Bell, Project Director Institute of Culture, Discourse & Communication, Auckland University of Technology
Dr Philippa Smith, Executive Director Institute of Culture, Discourse & Communication, Auckland University of Technology Professor Charles Crothers, Project Methodologist School of Social Sciences & Public Policy, Auckland University of Technology
WORLD INTERNET PR World Internet Project Poutasi W. B. Urale, Data Analyst and Report Writer Institute of Culture, Discourse & Communication, Auckland University of Technology New Zealand Acknowledgements Numerous people have contributed to the 2015 World Internet Project New Zealand survey and to this report. We extend our thanks to David Fougere and Jeanette McKee at Phoenix Research, to Vanessa Simpson and Mary OJECT NEW ZEALAND ZEALAND NEW OJECT Wignall at Infield, and their team, for conducting the telephone and face-to-face surveys, and to Ben Parsons, Grace Meikle, and Katrina Van Loon at BuzzChannel for their generosity in supporting and administering the online component of the survey. Thanks to Susan Shaw and Andy Gibson for their checking and proofreading of this report, and also to Esther Puru and the production team at Printsprint. At the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) Nadia Jones and Paul Alexander steered their aspects of the project, while at Crown Fibre, Rohan MacMahon provided helpful advice, and at Chorus, Liam Gunson and, at Ultrafast, Fibre, Peter Glensor were notably helpful. Thank you to disability consultants Sacha The Internet
Dylan and Kevin Prince for their involvement. We also gratefully acknowledge the ongoing support of Auckland University of Technology, especially its Faculty of Culture & Society. in New Zealand The Internet Zealand 20 in New Past members of the WIPNZ team whose contributions to the project have remained particularly important for this report are Andy Gibson (data analyst/report writer) and Melissa Miller (data analyst). In addition we acknowledge Jennie Billot, Nigel Smith, Ian Goodwin, Kevin Sherman, and Karishma Kripalani. 2013
Other individuals who have supported the WIPNZ project over the years include Winston Roberts (Senior Advisor, National Library of New Zealand), Jordan Carter (CE of InternetNZ), Ellen Strickland (Collaboration and Community Lead, InternetNZ) and Vikram Kumar (former CE of InternetNZ). Our thanks finally to Professor Jeff Cole, International Director of the World Internet Project, at the Center for the Digital Future at the University of Southern California, for his ongoing encouragement and support, and for his frequent visits to New Zealand which have helped raise awareness of the project.
1
This report is available online: wipnz.aut.ac.nz 3
© 2016. Institute of Culture, Discourse & Communication, Auckland University of Technology. Original document published 15 April 2016. Updated on 6 May 2016. Andy Gibson This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 New Zealand Licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work, the new works are non-commercial and you abide by the other licence terms. Melissa Miller
Please cite as: Philippa Smith Crothers, C., Smith, P., Urale, P. W. B., & Bell, A. (2016). The Internet in New Zealand 2015. Auckland, New Zealand: Institute of Culture, Discourse & Communication, Auckland University of Technology. Allan Bell Charles Crothers ISBN: 978-1-927184-38-7
This project was funded by the Government through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Mbie), and by InternetNZ. Auckland Council funded a small enhancement of the survey to The Southern Initiative area. Additional support was provided by BuzzChannel, and by the Faculty of Culture & Society, Auckland University of Technology. WIPNZ 2015
Executive Summary
The fifth two-yearly survey of the World Internet Project New Zealand (WIPNZ) was conducted between September and November 2015, using both telephone and online platforms. The survey questionnaire has undergone substantial updating since the 2013 survey to keep pace with changing digital technologies and question changes agreed with our international partners, which in particular extended coverage of the areas of security and privacy. This report presents an analysis of the usage of and attitudes towards the internet of the resulting sample of 1377 New Zealanders.
Usage The sample divides into five usage categories: never-users (5% of sample), ex-users (3%), low level users (11%), first generation users (9%) and next generation users (71%). Most users in our survey (76%) regarded the internet as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ in their everyday life. The leading devices used to access the internet were laptop/netbooks (75%), mobile phones (74%) and desktop computers (70%). Over half of the users surveyed (59%) had accessed the internet through a tablet, up by 11% from 2013. Only 19% of users had a connection to ultra-fast/fibre broadband.
Activities Most internet users say they surf or browse the web (95%) or visit social networking sites (85%). Some 49% of users now report that they use the cloud, up 15% on 2013. Over half of our users (52%) have logged in to secure areas on Government or Council websites, and 55% have paid taxes, fines or licences online in the past year – steady increases since 2013. Other common internet behaviours continue to spread and increase across the population. For entertainment purposes, 81% surfed the web daily (up from 75% in 2013), and 66% visited social network sites daily (up from 59% in our last survey). Daily Instant Messaging is increasing apace, now 43% compared to 32% in 2013. In comparison, other internet activities are stabilizing in 2015 across the population. Commercial activities like online seeking of product information, buying, banking and paying bills are similar to 2013. Those checking email daily amount to 89%, identical to 2013, indicating that this behaviour is now close to saturation level. The main activities on social networking sites like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and LinkedIn, involve content creation such as the posting of messages or comments (82%) and the posting of pictures, photos or videos (73%).
Attitudes Nearly half of respondents (45%) agree that there is no such thing as privacy online, and they accept that situation. However, a majority (68%) are active in trying to protect their online privacy. Nearly three quarters (73%) have updated their internet security in the past year to protect their computer from viruses and malware. More respondents are concerned about companies checking on their personal online activity than about government checking. Comparing the importance of various forms of media as information sources, online information sources now rate very much higher than offline media. More than half of our respondents (56%) rate the internet very important, compared to 16% for television, 12% for radio, and 11% for newspapers.
Diversity and Divides Being a former user is directly related to economic factors. For people younger than 65, 14% of the under-$35K household income bracket are ex-users, and 4% of the $35-50K bracket, but there are no ex-users at all in households above $50K. Men aged 16-44 are slightly more likely to go on social network sites than women of the same age. For those under 45, more than 90% rate the internet important or very important as an information source.
i WIPNZ 2015 WIPNZ 2015
Contents
Executive Summary ...... i Contents ...... iii Introduction...... v Section 1 Key Findings...... 1 Usage Patterns...... 2 Information Seeking...... 7 Entertainment and Leisure...... 9 Relationships and Communication ...... 11 Commerce...... 14 Public Sector and Politics...... 15 Internet Security...... 16
Section 2 The Diversity of Internet Users...... 20 Age...... 21 Gender...... 24 Ethnicity...... 27 Household Income...... 29 Area: Urban to Rural...... 31 People with Disabilities and Their Internet Use...... 32
Section 3 Digital Disadvantage in 2015...... 33 The Persistence of the Digital Divide...... 35 Focus on Non-Users...... 37 General and Specialist Internet Activities...... 38
Appendix 1: Ranking of Online Activities...... 41 Appendix 2: Definition of Usage Index and User Types...... 42 Appendix 3: Methodology...... 43
iii WIPNZ 2015 WIPNZ 2015
Introduction
The fifth World Internet Project New Zealand (WIPNZ) survey continues our biennial analysis of New Zealanders’ usage of, and attitudes towards, the internet. It follows on from the surveys undertaken in 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013. In this report, we present top-level analysis of data from the survey carried out between September and November 2015. Both telephone and online interviews were conducted, together with a small sample of face-to-face interviews, and extensive material on the use of and attitudes towards Ultra-fast broadband (UFB) was collected. The inclusion, again, of online interviews has resulted in what we believe to be a more representative sample, since some of the growing group of New Zealanders who do not have landlines are now covered in the sample. The face-to-face interviewing tapped the views of otherwise difficult-to-interview groupings. Comparative findings with our earlier surveys will be presented in a later report.
The report is divided into three sections:
• Section 1: Key Findings shows selected results from the survey for the full sample and is structured according to the various themes of the questionnaire.
• Section 2: The Diversity of Internet Users looks in more detail at how responses to the survey differ according to age, gender, ethnicity, household income and area, and is structured in terms of these social groupings. For the first time in the survey, we include people with disabilities to illustrate further the diversity of internet users.
• Section 3: Digital Disadvantage in 2015 looks at the sample from the perspective of different types of user – from the highly engaged to the low-level user. Section 3 also presents, in more detail, the characteristics and opinions of internet non-users in parameters such as age and gender.
Methodology The data used in this report are based on telephone and internet surveys carried out on our behalf by Phoenix Research Limited, subcontracting to Infield (telephone) and Buzz Channel (online). The survey includes recontacts from previous rounds of WIPNZ, a further simple random sample of New Zealand adults and a panel of online respondents, which includes a sub-sample of individuals who do not have landlines. Also, a small sub-sample of respondents was interviewed face-to-face in South Auckland.
The dataset was weighted to take into account the characteristics of the New Zealand population. The analysed sample comprises 1377 respondents aged 16 years and older. Most graphs present information about all respondents or about internet users only. The full survey and analysis methodology are presented in Appendix 3 at the end of this report; this appendix details the shape and treatment of the database from which these results are drawn, and gives indicative confidence intervals for the results. For the internet users subset (n=1258), 95% confidence intervals vary from approximately ±2.0% on percentages under 20% or over 80%, to around ±2.5% on percentages in the 20%–80% range.
New Zealand in an international context This New Zealand survey contributes to a larger international collaborative project, the World Internet Project (WIP), which compares the social, political and economic impact of the internet and other new technologies in more than 30 countries. The data that is gathered from a set of questions common to all WIP partners enables a greater understanding of developments and trends in internet usage both locally and internationally. A report including international comparisons of the 2013 WIPNZ data is available at http://www.digitalcenter.org/world-internet-project/. In addition, the WIPNZ survey includes a further set of questions designed specifically for New Zealand. It is intended that the WIPNZ findings provide the country with information that assists in decision-making and planning around government policy and industry in New Zealand. Our 2015 New Zealand findings will be included in a later international report.
v WIPNZ 2015
Glossary of acronyms
NGU Next Generation User FGU First Generation User LLU Low Level User SNS Social Networking Site UFB Ultra-fast Broadband
vi Key Findings
Section 1 Key Findings
Presentation of the main findings of the survey starts with a section on ‘Usage Patterns’. We categorise the sample into five subgroups: those who have never used the internet (Never-users); those who have used the internet in the past but are not current users (Ex-users); those who use the internet but at a relatively low level (Low Level Users); internet users who tend to connect through fewer, or more traditional, devices (First Generation Users); and internet users who are highly connected – using multiple, and more mobile, devices to go online (Next Generation Users). The sub-section on general usage patterns goes on to describe internet use/non-use from various locations and through various devices, and looks at some key attitudes and opinions about the internet overall.
The other themes in this section move from information-seeking activities and opinions about online and offline sources of information, to entertainment and leisure activities, both online andoffline. The ‘Relationships and Communication’ section looks at online communication and the sharing of information. This is particularly relevant with the increased use of social networking as a platform where people can keep in touch with family and friends. The other areas that are covered include ‘Commerce’ and ‘Public Sector and Politics’. Under ‘Internet Security’, we include information on people’s experiences relating to security issues and what household rules they have in place regarding internet use. This section also provides responses to a new question in this survey on privacy.
Results are presented as percentages throughout this first section. Each result is discussed briefly alongside a graph showing the proportions of respondents in each response category. Presentation of results includes the following details:
• Survey question wording: The full wording of the relevant survey question is given in relation to each graph. The number of the question as listed in the WIPNZ 2015 questionnaire is also given.
• Base: A description of the set of respondents of whom the question was asked. Most commonly, this is either all respondents or all internet users. Some questions were asked of different or more-restricted groups, depending on the relevance of the question to the group.
• Number of respondents: The first presentation of a result for a particular base includes the weighted numberof respondents for that sample or sub-sample. This information is also shown below for the bases that occur more than once. Cases where a respondent declined to answer a question, or gave a ‘don’t know’ response, are treated as missing values in almost all questions. As a result, the actual sample sizes of the data, as shown in the graphs, are often slightly below then shown in the base.
• All respondents: n = 1377 • Internet users: n = 1258 • Internet users with an internet connection at home: n = 1220 • Non-users (ex-users and never-users combined): n = 119 • Students: n = 224 • Internet users in a household that includes somebody under the age of 18: n = 516
• See Appendix 3 for a description of indicative confidence intervals.
• Numbers (in %) are rounded to integers, and displayed on graphs for all but the smallest of results.
1 WIPNZ 2015
Usage Patterns
Q1: Do you currently use the internet? User status Q1B: Has there ever been a period of time in the past when you have used the internet? 3 Of the 1377 participants surveyed, 91% 5 declared themselves to be active internet users. The remainder are split into two groups: Never-users (5 %), who say they 11 have never used the internet; and Ex-users (3%), who have used the internet formerly but are not doing so currently. 9 We distinguish between five categories in our sample. Technically, ‘Low Level Users’ (LLUs) use the internet but they do so very rarely and employ only a limited range of devices and activities. ‘First Generation Users’ (FGUs) make 71 use of fewer, more-traditional devices for internet use. ‘Next Generation Users’ (NGUs) are defined by criteria such as use of the internet on mobile devices and have at least a moderate usage level across a range of criteria. See Appendix 2 for full criteria for each category.
Of note is that, in the 2013 WIPNZ report, FGUs and NGUs each made up some 40% of the sample. These numbers Ex-user have changed markedly since: FGUs Never-user now make up around 9% of the sample while NGUs account for 71%. Low level user (LLU) First generation user (FGU) Evidently, the use of the internet across multiple devices for a range of activities Next generation user (NGU) is increasing rapidly.
Base: All respondents (n = 1377) | The WIPNZ sample contained both a landline and Never-users and Ex-users internet sample. Because all internet-based respondents are invariably internet-users, (119 respondents) were asked to give the numbers here may underestimate the percentage of non-users in the population. This issue was addressed to an extent in the weighting procedure. Numbers in the the main reason why they do not use graph indicate percentages. the internet. Twenty percent of this number said they do not use the internet because they do not know how to use or are confused by technology, and 18% said that they do not own a device capable of accessing the web. Thirteen percent had no internet connection, 11% did not use the internet because it was too expensive, and 5% do not have enough time to access the internet. The remaining (33%) answered “Do not know” or gave no answer.
2 Key Findings
Internet access through various devices Q8: In the past year have you connected to the internet, from any location, from … ? 1. a desktop computer 100 2. a laptop 3. a mobile phone 80 4. a tablet, e.g. iPad 5. any other device (e.g. smart TV, game console) 75 74 70 60 In our sample, the internet was reported 59 to be accessed mainly through four
40 devices: laptops/netbooks, mobile phones, desktops and tablets. Each of the first three of these is used by at 20
% accessing through device 22 least 70% of all internet users. Laptops 17 and netbooks are the most popular 0 option, followed by mobile phones and Laptop/Netbook Mobile phone Desktop Tablet Games console Smart TV desktops. Notably, access to the internet Base: Internet users (n = 1258) via tablets is 59%, compared to 48% in the 2013 report.
Household access to devices (1) Q2B: Which of the following devices, if any, do you have access to in your household? 1. a desktop computer 100% 2. a laptop computer (or notebook) 3. a mobile phone (of any kind) 80% 4. a smartphone 82 77 5. a tablet (e.g. iPad or an Android tablet) 75 6. an e-reader (e.g. Kindle, NOOK, Kobi) 60% 7. a smart television (i.e. an internet capable 59 television that can connect directly to a 53 40% broadband connection) 41 8. a digital video recorder 9. a home network 20% 10. a game console (e.g. Xbox or PlayStation) 11. a smartwatch 12. a set-top box such as Freeview that allows 0% on-demand content to be streamed directly to Mobile phone Laptop/netbook Smartphone Tablet Desktop Home network a television
Household access to devices (2) Recently released devices such as smartwatches are accessible in 100 the households of only a small percentage (4 %) of all respondents. 80 By comparison, mobile phones of any kind (82%), laptops/netbooks (77%) % having access to device in household 60 and smartphones (75%) are available in most households. It is likely that only a very small proportion of mobile phones 40 44 currently in use are not smartphones. 36 34 33 20 20 4 0 Game console Smart television Digital video Set-top box E-reader Smartwatch recorder
Base: All respondents (n = 1377)
3 WIPNZ 2015
Q7: Which internet provider are Internet service provider you currently using? 50% While the range of different devices
that access the internet has changed 40% 43 markedly in recent years, uptake of internet service providers (ISPs) has 30% remained relatively stable. The two 29 predominant ISPs are Xtra/Spark (43%) 20% and Vodafone/Telstra (29%), followed by a handful of other ISPs such as Slingshot 10% 12 and Orcon. 7 4 0% 3 Xtra/Spark Vodafone Slingshot Orcon 2degrees Other
p.Base: 4 Internet bottom users (n = 1258)graph | This number (UFB includes) those who reported multiple ISPs | y-axis values range from 0% to 50% Replace with this graph:
Q5A2: Is your household connected to Ultra-fast broadband/fibre broadband status fibre optic broadband, such as Ultra-fast broadband/UFB or do you have 100% an ADSL or VDSL connection?
80% Nineteen percent of internet users in our sample are currently connected to ultra-fast/ fibre broadband. The majority 60% 66 (66%) of users do not have ultra-fast/ fibre broadband. 40%
20% 19 15 0% UFB/Fibre Not fibre Don't know if connection is fibre or not
Base: users who have a broadband connection at home’ (n = 1154).
Base: users who have a broadband connection at home’ (n = 1154).
4 p.5 Top (Usage of cloud) Replace with this graph: Key Findings
Usage of cloud computing Q2E: Do you use the cloud? Nearly half (49%) of internet users 2 use cloud computing, which involves storing data and using applications run on a third-party server. Examples of cloud computing include Google Cloud, Use the Dropbox, and GitHub. cloud 49
49 Do not use the cloud
Don't know
p. 5 Bottom (reasons for not using cloud) ReplaceBase: with Internet this users graph: (n = 1258)
Q2F: Which, if any, of the following are reasons Reasons for not using the cloud (Base remains the same as in the existing text) you don’t use the cloud? 1. Don’t know how to use it 100% 2. Privacy reasons 3. Security reasons 4. It isn’t useful 80% 5. Cost 6. Wasn’t aware of it before now
60% The majority of those who do not use the cloud reported their reason for
49 non-use as lack of knowledge (49%). 40% Other reasons given include: privacy (25%) and security concerns (27%),
27 27 and lack of usefulness (27%). Because 25 20% cloud computing occurs on a third- party server, some view it as having an 11 9 elevated risk compared to that of storing 0% Don't know how Privacy Security Not useful Cost Wasn't aware of it data on personal devices. to use it before now The small proportion of respondents Base: Cloud non-users (n= 619) indicating ‘cost’ as a reason for not Base: Cloud non-users (n= 619) using the cloud points to the relatively inexpensive nature of cloud computing while only a very small percentage of users had never heard of cloud computing.
5 WIPNZ 2015
100% 56 16 11 12 19 Q50: Overall, how important is the internet to Importance of the internet to everyday life your everyday life? 27 80% 34 30 41 More than 76% of all respondents said Very important that the internet is ‘Important’ or ‘Very 7 Important’ in their everyday lives, while 4 VeryImportant important 11% said it is either ‘Not important’ 60% Neutral Important or ‘Not important at all’. A further 13 27 Not important at all 13% of responses were neutral. These 27 40 Neutral categories largely overlap with internet 27 29 Not important at all 40% user and non-user classifications, as only 30 Not important four non-user participants indicated 20 Not important at all ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’. 18 Moreover, only 4% of internet users 20% 13 answered Not important at all’ or ‘Not 9 15 important’. 3 13 8 368 0% 5 The internet Television Newspapers Radio (not Other people (not online) online) Base: All respondents (n = 1377)
Q11: How would you rate your ability Self-rating of ability to use the internet to use the internet?
On a scale from 1 to 5, 71% of 6 6 respondents rated their ability to use 4 4 5 - Excellent the internet as either ‘Excellent’ (39%) 5 - Excellent or ‘4’ (32%). Eleven percent have less 4 4 confidence in their ability, rating 18 39 3 - Neutral themselves as either ‘2’ (4%) or ‘Poor’ (6). 18 39 2 3 - Neutral Taken as a whole, the sample shows high confidence in using the internet. 1 - Poor 2
1 - Poor
32
32
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
6 Key Findings
Information Seeking
Rating importance of information sources Q18: How important is each of the following to you as a source of information in general? 1. The internet (through any device and 100% 56 16 11 12 19 including online media) 2. Television (not online)
27 30 3. Newspapers (not online) 80% 34 Very important 41 4. Radio (not online) 5. Other people such as family and friends Important 60% The internet, in all its forms, seems 27 Neutral 27 for many to be the predominant source 29 Not important of information, with 83% of respondents 40% 27 30 Not important rating it as either ‘Important’ or ‘Very 20 at all important’. That percentage can be 18 20% compared to 38% for non-internet 13 9 newspapers, which are the least- 15 13 3 8 favoured source of information. 5 8 0% The internet Television Newspapers Radio Other people Non-internet radio remains for Base: All respondents (n = 1377) | Except for “The internet”, all categories refer some (42%) an important source of to their non-internet equivalent. information, despite most radio stations also being available online. Other people as sources of information were still deemed ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’ by 60% of respondents; this is an increase of almost 10% from the 2013 findings.
Reliability of information on the internet Q51: In your opinion, how much of the information on the internet overall is generally 3 3 reliable? 5 3 3 5 - All of it is reliable 5 Part of experienced contemporary 4 5 - All of it is reliableinternet usage is discerning which 3 - Neutral4 sources are reliable and which are not. Very few people rated reliability of 2 3 - Neutral information as low, while almost half 44 1 - None of it is (47 %) rated it at a level of ‘4’ or ‘5’. A 2 reliable similar proportion (45%) gave it a ‘3’ 45 44 1 - None of it is rating. It is possible that this response reliable reflects the belief of respondents that 45 the internet contains a mixture of both reliable and unreliable information.
Base: All respondents (n = 1377)
7 WIPNZ 2015
Q21/Q38: How often do you use the internet for Online information seeking (1) the following purposes?
1. Look for news - local, national, international 100% 2. Look for jobs/work 5 3. Read blogs 10 6 15 4. Look for jokes, cartoons, or other humorous 7 15 80% 18 16 Less than content 23 31 monthly 5. Look for images and content for re-use 19 70 Monthly 6. Use a search engine to locate information 41 60% 7. Use an online map or an app for navigation Weekly 55 8. Look up a definition of a word 35 9. Find or check a fact Daily 33 10. Get information for school or university 40% related work
The majority of participants access the 20% 26 internet to use search engines (95%), 12 18 and most of those people do so daily. 0% Similarly, looking for news is popular Use search engine Find a fact Look for news Use online map Look up word (91%) and frequent, with over half of definition Base: Internet users (n = 1258) | The original available answers to this question users reading news on the internet daily. included ‘Daily’ and ‘Several times daily’. For parsimony, these two categories Overall, these results seem to reflect were merged for the above graph. The same applies for all forthcoming graphs the relative (irrespective of internet representing similar data use) frequency for all of these activites. News is accessed most often because it is refreshed each day while looking for work is a less-frequent activity. Most Online information seeking (2) users need to look up word definitions 100% sometimes but most do not do so daily. Forty-eight percent of users have used
the internet to access school or work 80% information; again, this is most likely Less than monthly to reflect disparities between age and 20 Monthly vocational groups. 60% 22 31 19 Weekly 19 13 Daily 40% 16
11 7 20 11 14 16 12 20% 11
12 12 16 10 9 0% Access images Look for humorous Look for work Read blogs Access school/uni and content to content information reuse
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
8 Key Findings
Entertainment and Leisure
Rating importance of entertainment sources Q17: How important is each of the following media to you as a form of entertainment? 1. The internet (through any device and 100% including online media) 35 21 10 12 2. Television (not online)
21 3. Newspapers (not online) 29 4. Radio (not online) 80% Very important 35 Important The internet and TV were rated by our
27 respondents as ‘Very important’ or Neutral 60% 33 ‘Important’ media for entertainment 29 Not important (68% and 56% respectively). Traditional Not important broadcast radio is important for 41% of at all 25 all respondents, compared to 31% for 40% 24 newspapers in hard-copy form.
16 18 20%
11 18 8 12 8 8 0% The internet Television Newspapers Radio
Base: All respondents (n = 1377) | ‘Television’, ‘Newspapers’, and ‘Radio’ all refer to those media when they are not accessed through the internet.
Online entertainment (1) Q19: Now I’d like you to think about the routine things you do for personal entertainment, like
100% playing games or listening to music. How often do you use the internet for the following purposes?
10 1. Surf or browse the web 4 2. Visit SNSs such as Facebook 80% 3 81 3. Watch TV shows online or on demand 12 17 4. Download or watch feature films from the internet 60% 66 Less than monthly 5. Look at sites with sexual content 17 Monthly 17 Simply surfing sites on the internet Weekly remains the most popular form of 40% 25 Daily entertainment: 95% of all users stated 13 11 that they do this at least monthly. Of that 20% number, more than 80% surf or browse 15 7 17 either daily or several times each day. 10
6 4 0% Visiting social networking sites Surf or browse Visit social Watch TV shows Download or Look at sites the web networking sites online or on watch feature with sexual continues to be popular (85%), as is such as demand films from the content Facebook internet watching TV shows (76%). Thirty-two percent of respondents look at sites Base: Internet users (n = 1258) with sexual content though just under two-thirds do this either monthly or less often than that.
9 WIPNZ 2015
Q19 (continued): Online entertainment (2) 1. Download or listen to music online 2. Download or watch videos online 3. Play games online 100% 4. Listen to a radio station online 100% 5. Look at religious or spiritual sites 6. Bet, gamble or enter sweepstakes online 80% Online gambling is the least- 80% popular internet activity (16%) and, 2315 15 2310 Less than proportionally, is engaged in least often 60% 10 DailyLess than monthly monthly 60% 9 by those who do it. By comparison, 13 WeeklyMonthly downloading or listening to music online 13 9 2511 Monthly 21 26 11 1116 MonthlyWeekly is fa popular (72%) and the majority do 26 40% 21 26 6 16 Weekly so weekly or daily. More than half of 40% 21 6 LessDaily than monthly p.10 Bottom (no 11graph12 there currently, was removed earlier) users participate in online gaming. 11 10 13 11 10 6 Daily Insert this graph in empty25 bottom10 half of10 page: 20% 23 23 12 5 25 10 20% 23 239 6 12 6 5 6 9 15 16 6 5 Include heading. 11 11 9 3 10 510 9 11 6 3 5 0% 6 5 0% Download or Download or Play games Listen to a Look at Bet, gamble1 or Downloadlistenlisten toto musicmusic or Downloadwatch videos or Playonline games Listenradio stationto a religiousLook at or Bet, gambleenter1 or listen onlineto music watchonline videos online radioonline station religiousspiritual orsites sweepstakesenter online online online spiritual sites sweepstakesonline Base: Internet users (n = 1258) online Online activities that users want to do more of
Q39A. Which, if any, of the following would you Online activities that users want to do more of like to do more of on the internet? 1. Use government or council services 100% 2. Use the internet for entertainment 3. Access education 4. Keep up with news 5. Shopping 80% 6. Networking, including social networking 7. Upload or post your own content 8. Look for information of any kind 60% The most popular activities that users wanted to do more of online were 50 keeping up with the news (50%) and 40% using it for entertainment (40%). 40 34
20% 26 20
0% Use the internet Keep up with Shopping Use government Upload or post for news or council your own entertainment services content
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
10 Key Findings
Relationships and Communication
Ways of keeping in touch Q30: Thinking of people who do not live in the same household as you, how often do you contact 100% family or friends by... ? 1. Meeting them in person 8 2. Writing a card or a letter to them 3. Texting them 80% 13 10 4. Calling them on the phone 8 5. Emailing them (including sending 44 14 private messages in a social networking site) 13 60% 22 Less than monthly 6. Using any kind of instant messaging 35 Monthly 7. Calling them through the internet e.g. Skype 24 8. Ways other than these (e.g. meeting them in Weekly 40% person or calling them on the phone) 19 Daily Offline methods of keeping in touch, 28 29 20% such as writing letters or meeting 17 22 face to face, are still popular: 93% of participants engage in such activities. 5 0% However, online options like email and Using other offline Emailing them/ Instant messaging Calling through the methods sending private internet private messages are not far behind messages (81%), with instant messaging occurring
Base: All respondents (n = 1377) less frequently (74%) followed by internet-mediated calling (63%).
Note that instant messaging includes chat functions such as those available on Facebook or Google, while internet- mediated phone calling includes programmes such as Skype.
Online communication and sharing (1) Q25: Now I’d like you to think about the different ways people keep in touch with each other in their everyday lives. How often do you use the internet 100% for the following purposes? 1. Check your email 7 2. Do instant messaging 89 3. Post messages or comments on social 80% networking sites 4. Repost or share links or content created by 7 11 15 others. 60% 6 Less than monthly 12 17 15 Monthly Checking email is by far the most 25 popular and frequent form of online Weekly 40% communication engaged in by almost 43 24 Daily all users. Most indicated that they check emails at least once a day. Just over 20% 25 70% of all users engage in three other 18 activities, including instant messaging, posting messages or comments on 0% social networking sites and reposting Check your email Do instant Post messages or Repost or share or sharing links or content created by messaging comments on links or content social networking created by others others . sites Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
11 WIPNZ 2015
Q25 (cont.): Online communication and sharing (2) 5. Make or receive phone calls over the internet 6. Post messages or comments on discussion 100% boards or forums 7. Post your own content that you created. 8. Upload music or music videos 80% Around two-thirds of participants use the internet to make phone calls 21 Less than monthly and, of that number, about 40% make 60% Monthly calls at least weekly. The composition, 18 17 however, of each category of online Weekly 40% 18 communication varies. For example, Daily few respondents make or receive online 11 14 17
phone calls daily, whereas 43% of those 19 20% 12 who use instant messaging do so at least 13 9 daily, if not several times each day. 11 5 8 8 4 0% Make or receive Post messages or Post your own Upload music or phone calls over the comments on content that you music videos internet discussion boards created or forums
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
12 Key Findings
Content creation on social media sites Q24A: Thinking about the social networking site or sites you use, do you ... ? 100% 1. Post messages or comments 2. Post pictures, photos or videos 3. Post audio material 4. Post content for financial gain 80% 82
73 Q24B_1 … 2: Do you have the following? 60% 1. A website 2. Write a blog
40% The main social media activity is posting messages or comments (82%), followed by posting pictures or videos (73%) and 20% audio material (13%). This is likely to reflect the ease of posting a comment or 13 10 9 3 photo, compared with the effort required 0% for the other activities, such as creating a Post messages Post Post audio Have a website Write a Post content for or comments pictures/photos material blog post financial gain website or writing a blog post. or videos
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
13 WIPNZ 2015
Commerce
Q31: Now I’d like you to think about different Online consumer transactions (1) transactions people do in their everyday lives like banking or shopping. How frequently do you use the internet for the following purposes? 100% 1. Get information about a product online 12 2. Compare prices of products/services online 3 14 26 3. Make travel reservations/bookings online 80% 10 27 6 4. Buy things online 28 26 5. Sell things online 45 6. Use your bank’s online services 60% Less than monthly 7. Pay bills online 39 Monthly 8. Pay for online services, subscriptions or 41 43 software 40% 36 Weekly 9. Use your smartphone or tablet to make a Daily purchase of any kind 29 20% The most popular kinds of online 19
consumer transactions are accessing 13 9 6 information about products, comparing 0% prices, buying online, online banking Get product info Compare prices Buy things online Online banking Pay bills and paying bills. A moderate proportion of users choose to buy things online Base: Internet users (n = 1258) (84%). Most users engage in online banking at least weekly while, in contrast, they buy things online monthly or less often. Online consumer transactions (2) There are clear differences in frequency for less-popular online activities. While 100% most users indicated that they find travel
information online, most do so less often 80% than monthly. Overall, users are less 53 likely to sell than to buy online; most Less than monthly of those who sell do so less often than 60% Monthly monthly. 26 40 Weekly 26 40% Daily
20 21 20% 17 11 11 4 4 3 0% Make bookings Use tablet/ Sell online Pay for online (travel) smartphone to services purchase
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
14 Key Findings
Public Sector and Politics
Political issues on the internet (1) Q37: I’m going to read you a list of statements. Please tell me how much you disagree or agree 100% with each of these statements. 61 35 65 1. In general, I feel comfortable saying whatever I think about politics 80% 2. On the internet, it is safe to say whatever you think about politics 3. People should be free to criticise their 60% 32 Agree government on the internet Neutral 4. It is okay for people to express their ideas on 40% Disagree the internet, even if they are extreme 26 5. The government should regulate the internet 24 33 more than it does now 20% 6. I am worried about the government checking what I do online 13 11 7. I am worried about companies checking what I 0% do online. Feel comfortable expressing Safe to express political People should feel free to opinions on politics opinions online criticise govts online Most respondents (65%) gave a ‘4’ or Base: Internet users (n = 1258) ‘5-Strongly Agree’ rating regarding the freedom to criticise the government online. Participants echoed this Political issues on the internet (2) when asked whether or not they feel comfortable expressing political 100% 42 22 32 45 opinions, with 61% of participants indicating that they did, and 80% only 13% disagreeing. However, 35 respondents were divided about whether 30 60% or not it is ‘Safe to express political Agree 32 29 opinions online’. Neutral 40% 43 Disagree 39 Forty-two percent of respondents think that it is okay to express any views 20% 26 26 (even those that are extreme) online. Over 40% disagree with the suggestion 0% that the government ought to regulate It's okay to express The government Worried about govts Worried about any opinions on the should regulate the checking online companies checking the internet more. Under half of the internet internet more activity online activity participants are concerned about Base: Internet users (n = 1258) companies checking on their personal online activity (45%), though 32% of respondents expressed concern about the government doing the same thing. Use of the internet for public information services Q34: Talking now about government information and services, have you used the internet in the past 80% year for the following purposes? 1. To use Government or council services that are delivered online 2. To log in to secure areas on Government or 60% council websites 57 55 3. To look for information about MP, political 52 party or candidate 40% 4. To pay taxes, a fine, or for a licence online
Accessing government services is a fairly
20% 23 common occurrence. Across all internet users, more than half use the internet to access government or council services, to 0% log in to government websites and to pay Use government or council To pay for taxes or a fine, To log in to secure areas To look for information services online or for a license on govt or council about an MP, a political taxes or fines, or for licences. Around websites party or a candidate a quarter look online to find more Base: Internet users (n = 1258) | y-axis values range from 0% to 80% information about political candidates or parties; this, most likely, reflects the 15 relative infrequency of popular political events. WIPNZ 2015
Internet Security
Q48: In the past year have you ...? Nuisances and security (1) 1. Received a virus onto your computer 2. Bought something which has been 80% misrepresented on a website 3. Had credit card details stolen via use on the 73 internet 60% 4. Been given information about internet safety 5. Updated your internet security to protect your 57 computer 40% 6. Received obscene or abusive emails 40 7. Been contacted by someone online asking you to provide bank or personal details 31 8. Accidently arrived at a pornographic website 20% when looking for something else 9. Been bullied or harassed online 0% Not all online activity is useful or Updated your internet Been given information Been contacted by someone Accidently arrived at a security to protect your about internet safety online asking you to providepornographic website when desirable and our results show a general computer bank or personal details looking for something else awareness of some risk associated with the internet. Fifty-seven percent Base: Internet users (n = 1258) | y-axis values range from 0% to 80% of users have been given some form of information about internet safety and more (73%) have updated their internet Nuisances and security (2) security to protect against viruses. 80% Forty percent of users reported receiving malicious requests for bank account details. Almost a third (31%) 60% of users have arrived accidentally at pornographic sites when they had not intended to do so. 40%
Looking at less common issues, 29% of 29 users reported knowledge of receiving 20% 15 viruses into their computers. Online 13 bullying (or ‘cyber-bullying’) has been of 6 4 0% particular public concern in recent years. Received a virus into Bought something Received obscene or Been bullied or Had credit card details In our sample, 6% have experienced your ocmputer which has been abusive emails harassed online stolen via use on the misrepresented internet online bullying or harassment. Of on a website interest, is that a higher percentage (13%) Base: Internet users (n = 1258) | y-axis values range from 0% to 80% reported receiving obscene or abusive emails, which signals that not all such emails fall under ‘bullying’. This may be because some obscene or abusive emails are sent en masse, and not directed to the recipient personally. Credit card fraud, one of the most serious internet issues queried, was infrequent (4 %).
16 Key Findings
Household rules for internet usage Q46: What rules does your household have regarding use of the internet? Are children guided or told ...? 100% 1. Not to visit some sites 2. How much time to spend online 95 90 90 90 3. Not to give out personal information 80% 81 4. Not to chat with strangers online 5. Not to meet up with someone they’ve only met 60% online 58 6. To use the computer only under parent’s control 40% It can be expected that the ubiquity 20% of the internet has motivated some parents to advise their children 0% on how to use the internet safely. Not to give out Not to visit Not to meet up Not to chat with How much time To use the Close to all parents tell their children not personal some sites with someone strangers online to spend online computer only information they have met under parent's to engage in risky behaviours such as only online control giving out personal information (95%),
Base: Internet users in households that include someone under the age of 18 visiting certain websites (90%) and (n = 516) chatting with strangers online (90%). Fewer (58%), though still a majority go so far as to limit children’s internet use to a parent-controlled computer.
Monitoring internet use Q47: Does your household use a filter that controls or restricts access to certain websites? 100% Q47B: Do you monitor what your children do on social networking sites such as Facebook? 80% Sixty-five percent of parents with children who use the internet 60% 65 reported monitoring their children’s SNS activity. A more systematic method of
40% controlling children’s online activity is to use website-filtering software, which 36 limits access to certain inappropriate 20% websites. More than one-third (36%) of parents use such software. 0% Monitor child's SNS activity Use website filter
Base: Internet users in households that include someone under the age of 18 (n = 337)
17 WIPNZ 2015
Q49A: Have you ever had your privacy Violation of privacy violated online?
The majority (79%) of internet 11 Never had privacy users reported that they have not violated experienced any violation of privacy online , while 11% have. While this is a 10 Do not know small percentage it presents violation of privacy online as a major issue when extrapolated to the total population of Privacy has been internet users. violated
79
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
Q49B. Which, if any, of these happened Consequences of online privacy violation as a result of this? 1. It was a minor problem 80% 2. It was embarrassing 3. It had financial consequences 4. It affected your job/career 5. It affected your personal relationships 60% 61 Respondents who reported a violation of online privacy were queried over the consequences of the violation(s). Sixty- one percent of those who reported a 40% breach of online privacy view it as a minor problem. Few stated that it had
an impact on their lives such as on their 20% personal relationships, jobs or careers.
12 11 5 2 0% It was a minor It had financial It was embarrassing Affected personal Affected job/career problem consequences relationships
Base: Respondents who had experienced a violation of privacy (n = 137) | Multiple responses were permitted across the categories shown | y-axis values range from 0% to 80%
18 Key Findings
Opinions on online privacy (1) Q49CG: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 1. There is no privacy online and I accept it 100% 6 2. I am concerned governments are violating my 100% 29 30 12 14 10 15 7 17 privacy online 22 3. I am concerned companies and corportations 33 19 are violating my privacy online 80%80% 31 27 35 4. I am concerned with other people are violating 5 - Strongly agree my privacy online 39 5 - Strongly agree 37 34 39 5. I actively protect my online privacy 60%60% 44 6. Concerns about privacy online are exaggerated 32 31 3 - Neutral 7. I have nothing to hide 35 3 - Neutral 8. I feel I can control my privacy online 2 40% 2 40% 27 1 - Strongly disagree 23 25 24 1 - Strongly Twenty-nine percent of respondents 24 disagree 20% 19 19 indicated that they were concerned 20% 16 about violations of their internet privacy 159 5 7 8 by the government. This is fewer than 7 0% 5 4 the 42% percent who are concerned 0% There is no privacy I am concerned I am concerned3 I am concerned 2 I activelyonline protectand governmentsConcerns about are I companieshave nothing and to Iother feel I peoplecan control are about such violations by corporate my Iprivacy accept onlineit privacyviolating online my are corporationshide are myviolating privacy onlinemy entities but the same as those concerned privacyexaggerated online violating my privacy privacy online online about privacy violations by other people.
Base: Internet users (n = 1258) Sixty-eight percent of users protect their privacy online actively, compared to 45% who feel as though they can control their online privacy. Few users agree Opinions on online privacy (2) that concerns over online privacy are exaggerated while most reported that 100% 6 they have nothing to hide (64%). 29 30 12 17
33 At least one-quarter of responses about 80% internet security are neutral 35 and, in some cases, the proportion of 39 5 - Strongly agree 34 neutral responses is much higher. For 60% 4 instance, 39% of responses regarding violations of online privacy by other 35 3 - Neutral people are neutral. 2 40% 27 1 - Strongly disagree 25 24 20% 16 15 7 5 4 0% 3 2 I actively protect Concerns about I have nothing to I feel I can control my privacy online privacy online are hide my privacy online exaggerated
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
19 WIPNZ 2015
Section 2 The Diversity of Internet Users
Our findings show that the internet is used differently by certain groups of people in society. In this section, we look at the most interesting and significant differences relating to groups based on age, gender, ethnicity, household income and area (urban–rural). This section introduces a Usage Index as a way to understand the differences between demographic sub-groups. The Index is the mean frequency of use for each individual across a range of online activities. The minimum possible score is zero, if a person replied ‘never’ to all questions. The maximum score, representing answers of ‘several times a day’ to all questions, is 5. The average Usage Index across all users is 1.5. See Appendix 2 for more detail about how the Usage Index was calculated.
Some of the notable patterns for each social grouping are: • Age: The younger a person is, the greater their internet use. However, there is variation in the steepness of the gradient in this trend depending on the different activities that are carried out online.
• Gender: Males and females use the internet on a more or less equal basis for activities such as browsing the web or watching feature films online. Differences are apparent, however, with men being more focused on entertainment activities and women more likely to visit social networking sites.
• Ethnicity: Asian and New Zealand European internet users are more highly engaged in a range of activities, such as buying things online. Pasifika people, however, are more likely to look at religious sites and, along with Māori, lead the way in subscribing to online music services.
• Household income: Internet use and access to multiple devices generally increases with household income, though people aged 16 to 29 years are noticeably high internet users regardless of income.
• Area: Higher internet use continues to occur in urban areas compared with rural locations as indicated in earlier surveys.
Presentation of results includes the following details • Base: A description of the set of respondents of whom the question was asked or the group over which percentages are calculated.
• The numbers shown on graphs in this section represent percentages (rounded to integers), and Usage Index scores (rounded to one decimal place).
• Survey question wording: The full wording of the relevant survey question is given at the top of the column for any questions that were not already covered in Section 1. The number of the question as listed in the WIPNZ 2015 questionnaire is also given.
20 The Diversity of Internet Users
Age
Usage Index by age group The graph opposite shows an average Usage Index of respondents’ internet use 2.5 across a range of activities (see Appendix 2 for full description of the Usage Index). Usage indices in this report range from 2.0 0 (no usage) to 5 (very high level of 1.9 2.0 usage). Across all users, the average index is around 1.5 and the Usage Index 1.5 1.5 is plotted
1.3 across five age brackets .
1.0 1.1 There is no meaningful difference
Average Usage Index Usage Average between the 16–29 and 30–44 age 0.5 brackets, with both sitting at a usage value just under 2.
0.0 16 - 29 30 - 44 45 - 59 60 - 69 70+
Age group
Base: Internet users (n = 1258) | Values indicate average Usage Index for each age group. Because the Usage Index is a subtle measure, operating within a small range, all Usage Index results are plotted with a y-axis range of 0 to 2.5, even though the theoretical upper limit of the index is 5.
Paid subscriptions and cloud computing by age Rates of online subscription and cloud usage across four different age brackets indicate that cloud computing is used 100% more readily by younger respondents, Subscription to although 30–44-year-olds make slightly music service more use of it than do the youngest age 80% bracket. This may reflect vocational Subscription to online newspaper differences. 60% Online subscription One-third of 16–29-year-olds (other) subscribe to an online music 40% Use the cloud service. This percentage drops steadily for each of the three older
20% age groups. Online newspaper subscriptions are uncommon across all age groups and are not 0% used by more than 15% of respondents 16 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 64 65+ of any age. Other online subscriptions, Age group which could include online video games, Base: Internet users (n = 1258) newsletters or paid memberships, are more popular collectively than are online newspaper subscriptions but, still, are not used by more than 40 % of respondents in any age group.
21 WIPNZ 2015
Our results show clearly that younger Importance of the internet as entertainment respondents place more importance on
the internet as a source of entertainment 100%100% than do other age groups. However, for all except the oldest age group, the 80%80% NotVery important important at all internet was still rated by the majority Not important at all 60%60% NotImportant important of respondents as either ‘Important’ or NeutralNeutral 40% Not important ‘Very important’. 40% Important Not important at all Very important 20% Ratings of television, radio and 20% 0% newspapers (in their offline forms) 0% show less striking trends. However, 161616-29 to - 29 29 303030-44 to - 44 44 454545-64 to - 64 64 65+65+ there is a tendency for older age brackets to assign more importance to these offline media as sources of entertainment. Importance of TV as entertainment 100% 100% 80% 80% Very important Not important at all 60% Important 60% NotNeutral important 40% NeutralNot important 40% ImportantNot important at all 20% Very important 20% 0% 0%16-29 30-44 45-64 65+ 16 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 64 65+
Importance of newspapers as entertainment
100%100%
80%80% NotVery important important at all Important 60%60% Not important Neutral Neutral 40% Not important 40% Important Not important at all Very important 20% 20%
0% 0% 16-29 30-44 45-64 65+ 1616 to - 29 29 3030 to - 44 44 4545 to - 64 64 65+
Importance of radio as entertainment
100%100%
80%80% NotVery important important at all 60%60% NotImportant important NeutralNeutral 40%40% Not important 40% ImportantImportant Not important at all Very important 20%20%
0% 0% 161616-2916-29 to - 29 29 303030-44 to - 44 44 454545-64 to - 64 64 65+65+
Base: All respondents (n = 1377)
22 The Diversity of Internet Users
Importance of the internet as an information source When asked about the importance of various media as forms of 100% 100% information, respondents across age groups reported similarly. The internet 80% 80% is seen as an either ‘Very important’ VeryNot important important at all 60% Important or ‘Important’ source of information 60% Not important NeutralNeutral for the majority of members of all age 40% 40% NotImportant important groups, and only a very small number NotVery important important at all 20% of respondents in the two youngest age 20% groups reported the internet as ‘Not 0% 0% important’ or ‘Not important at all’. 161616-29 to- 29 29 303030-44 to - 44 44 454545-64 to - 64 64 65+65+ Results for the same question directed at television indicate that older age groups have a slightly greater tendency Importance of TV as an information source than do others to rate television as 100% either ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’ 100% as a source of information. The same 80% 80% Very important can be said for newspapers and radio Not important at all 60% Important although, for all three of these media. 60% Not important Neutral the composition of responses remains Neutral 40% Not important 40% Important relatively stable across all age groups. Not important at all 20% Very important 20%
0% 0% 16-29 30-44 45-64 65+ 16 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 64 65+
Importance of newspapers as an information source
100% 100% 80% 80% Very important Not important at all 60% Important 60% Not important 60% NeutralNot important Neutral 40% NotNeutral important 40% Important NotImportant important at all 20% Very important 20% 0% 0% 0%16-29 30-44 45-64 65+ 1616 to - 29 29 3030 to - 44 44 4545 to - 64 64 65+
Importance of radio as an information source 100% 100% 80% 80% Very important 60% ImportantNot important at all 60% NeutralNot important 40% NotNeutral important 40% NotImportantImportant important at all 20% VeryVery importantimportant 20% 0% 0%16-29 30-44 45-64 65+ 1616 to - 29 29 3030 to - 44 44 4545 to - 6464 65+65+
Base: All respondents (n = 1377)
23 WIPNZ 2015
Gender
The Usage Index indicates the average Usage Index by gender and age of a given respondent’s internet usage over a range of activities (see Appendix 2.52.5 2 for a full description). Scores close to 1
indicate next to no usage whereas scores 2.02.0 2.12.1 2.02.0 closer to 5 indicate very high usage. 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 MaleMale 1.51.5 FemaleFemale Average usage scores for 16–29-year- 1.51.5 1.4 olds are more or less the same for males 1.4 1.01.0 and females while, for older age groups, males have consistently higher average 0.90.9
Average User Index Average 0.5 scores. 0.5
0.30.3 0.00.0 1616 to - 2929 3030 to - 4444 4545 to - 6464 65+65+ Age group
2.5 Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
2.0 2.2 Almost all users of both genders surf the 2.0 2.1 Entertainment activities1.9 by gender (1) web. Moreover, there is little difference Male 1.5 100% 1.6 1.6 Female between the genders when it comes to 100% 98 97 downloading or watching feature films 29 25 1.3 1.0 89 from the internet, playing games online, 80% 25 1.1 80% 83 29 80 or looking at spiritual or religious sites. 76 75 44 75 83 71 55 50 Male 0.5 89 Male Slightly more females visit social 60% 66 Female 60% 18 Female networking sites than do males whereas, 40%0.0 notably, more males listen to radio 40% stations online. The most pronounced 16 - 29 30 - 44 45 - 64 65+ 20% difference between the genders here 20% is that half of the male users in our 0% sample reported looking at sites with 0% Surf or browse Visit social Download or Watch TV shows Download or Surf or browse Visit social Download or Watch TV shows Download or sexual content; only 18% of female users the Web networking sites listen to music online or on watch videos the Web networking sites listen to music online or on watch videos such as Facebook online demand online reported doing so. such as Facebook online demand online
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
Entertainment activities by gender (2)
100%
80%
Male 60% Female 6657 5355 75 53 52 51 76 40% 50 5744
7529 9829 20% 8025 9725 7118 0% ListenListen toto aa Play games Download or Look at sites Bet, gamble or Look at radioradio stationstation online watch feature with sexual enter religious or online filmsfilms fromfrom thethe content sweepstakes spiritual sites internetinternet online
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
24 The Diversity of Internet Users
Social media usage by age and gender The difference in social media usage between genders (see p. 24) prompted us to examine male–female 100% differences across four age groups. Social media usage is most popular in the youngest users and declines with age. 90% Male Social media usage differs between MaleMale the two genders only for the 45–64 age Female 80% bracket. In other words, the gender trend 80% Female Female for SNS usage shown above is carried by only a particular age bracket, with middleaged women using social media 70% more than men of the same age.
60%
50% 161616 to -- 29 2929 303030 to - -44 44 44 4545 45to - 64 64- 64 65+65+ Age group
Base: Internet users (n = 1258) | Usage rates calculated from Q23. Are you a member of a social networking site or sites
Facebook and LinkedIn usage by age and gender To investigate usage across age groups and between genders, Facebook was chosen for its popularity as a social 100% 100% networking site, and LinkedIn for its FacebookFacebookFacebook - Male -- MaleMale focus on vocational information and professional networking. Data presented FacebookFacebookFacebook - Female -- FemaleFemale 80% here indicates how often gender and LinkedinLinkedinLinkedin - Male -- MaleMale age groups list Facebook or Linkedin as the sites they use most often (referred to LinkedinLinkedinLinkedin - Female -- FemaleFemale 60% here as ‘main SNS’).
There is no pronounced difference
40% between age groups in terms of using LinkedIn as a main SNS, although men have a slightly higher percentge than women. In the 16–29 age bracket, females 20% consider Facebook as their primary SNS more than males do whereas this pattern is reversed for older males and females 0% 0% 16 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 64 65+ (65+). 1616 to - 29 29 3030 to - 44 44 4545 to - 6464 65+65+ Age Group
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
25 WIPNZ 2015
The rate at which each gender views Viewing sites with sexual content sites with sexual content does not converge until the very oldest bracket by age and gender (65+). The majority of males in the 16–29 and 30–44 age groups view sites with 100% sexual content, and just under half of males aged between 45 and 64 use such sites. Across all age groups, a minority of 80% Male women look at sexual sites and there is a downward trend from younger to older Female age brackets. 60%
40%
20%
0% 1616 to - 29 29 3030 to - 44 44 4545 to - 64 64 65+ Age group
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
Common stereotypes predict that men Playing games online by age and gender play more games than do women. Looking at online video games, this is true only for those in the 30–44 age 100% bracket. For those aged 45–64, women actually play online games more often than do men and, for the youngest age 80% Male group, there is only a small difference between the genders (with males playing 60% Female online games slightly more often). 60%
40%
20%
0% 1616 to - 29 29 3030 to - 44 44 4545 to - 64 64 65+ Age group
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
26 The Diversity of Internet Users
Ethnicity
Usage Index by age and ethnicity This graph presents average Usage Index scores for four ethnicities, split into two age groups. For those 2.5 2.5 under 40, New Zealand Europeans 2.5 (NZEs), Māori and Asian respondents have similar average Usage Index scores, 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 with a notably lower score for Pasifika. 2.0 2.1 Under 40 2.1 2.0 Under 40 There is a more discernible difference 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 Under 40 40+ 40+ between ethnicities for those aged over 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.7 40+ 40. Asians have a clearly higher average 1.5 score, followed by NZEs; 1.2 1.2 1.2 Māori and Pasifika respondents have the 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.2 lowest scores in this age bracket. 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.9 Average Usage Index Usage Average 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 NZE Māori Pasifika Asian NZE0.0 Māori Pasifika Asian Other NZE EthnicMāori group Pasifika Asian Other
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
Importance of other people as an information source Attitudes towards other people as information sources are split by ethnicity by ethnicity. Pasifika users stand out as valuing other people for this 100% 19 16 45 11 purpose more than do members of other groups (80% listed other people as ‘Very 52 Important’ or ‘Important’). Asians have 80% 35 41 Very important similar views but tend to give answers on the less-extreme end of the Likert Important 60% scale.
35 Neutral
30 40% Not important 31 29 Not important at 20% all 10 18
6 8 6 0% 4 NZE Māori1 Pasifika Asian Ethnic group
Base: All respondents (n = 1377)
27 WIPNZ 2015
Pasifika people are much more likely to Online activities by ethnicity visit religious sites than are people of
other ethnicities, who do so relatively 100% infrequently. In stark contrast is the 97 98 97 very high proportion of each group that 90 91 88 uses search engines. Asian and NZE 80% NZE respondents are matched for buying 78 76 Māori things online, followed by Māori; 60% Pasifika Pasifika people are least likely to do so. 60 Asian
40%
32 29 20% 21
0% Look at religious sites Use a search engine to locate Buy things online information
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
High percentages of NZE, Māori and Checking email by ethnicity Asian respondents indicated that they 100% check emails either ‘Daily’ or ‘Several 6 927 80 69 94 times a day’. However, 69% of Pasifika 92 8020 6930 94 92 94 participants reported that they check 80% emails daily. The latter group also 80 had the highest proportion of ‘Never’ 69 Daily 60% DailyLess than daily responses. Less thanLess dailyDaily than daily
40%
30 30 20% 20 20
88 Ethnic group 7 7 0% NZENZE MāoriMāoriMāori PasifikaPasifikaPasifika Asian AsianAsian
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
The popularity of online music Music subscriptions by ethnicity subscriptions is reported on p. 21. Māori had the highest percentage of such 60% subcriptions (28%), whereas NZE had the lowest (11%).
40%
28 20% 24
11 14
0% NZE Māori Pasifika Asian Ethnic group
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
28 The Diversity of Internet Users
Household Income
Usage Index by age and household income Earlier in this report, a decrease in Usage Index scores with increasing 2.5 age was noted. This pattern is preserved <$35k here within each income group .
2.2 Furthermore, there is a small but 2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 $35k< to <$50k perceptible increase in the average Usage 1.9 Index as annual household income 1.7 $50k< to <$100k 1.5 1.6 1.6 increases. This pattern is most evident 1.5 1.4 1.3 $100k+ for those in the 30-44 and 45–59 age
1 groups.
0.9 0.9 0.9
Average Usage Index Usage Average 0.5
0.4
0 19 - 29 30 - 44 45 - 59 60+ Income group
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
Devices in household by income (1) As with the Usage Index, users in higher income groups reported greater frequencies of owning electronic devices. 100% 100% For some devices, such as mobile phones 92 9393 9393 9494 9090 9292 93 93 94 <$35k<$35k 80% 90 8787 <$35k (of any kind), this increase is not very 80% 8484 87 79 84 8181 79 81 $35k<$35k< to to <$50k <$50k pronounced in any but the lowest 7272 $35k< to <$50k 60% 72 income categories, whereas there is a 60% $50k<$50k< to to <$100k <$100k 56 5858 much clearer increase in ownership 56 58 $50k< to <$100k $100k< to <$140k 40% 46 $100k< to <$140k 40% 46 with higher income for smartphones, 38 $100k< to <$140k 38 $140k+$140k+ game consoles, tablets and desktops. 20% 27 20% 27 $140k+ Smartphone ownership shows the greatest divide between income 0% groups: 94% of the highest income Desktop Laptop/NotebookLaptop/Netbook MobileMobile phone phone (any) (any) Desktop Laptop/Netbook Mobile phone (any) group (earning more than $140,000) have smartphone in their households, compared to 53% of the lowest income group (earning less than $35,000). Devices in household by income (2)
100%
94 93 <$35k<$35k 80% 85 8383 $35k< to <$50k $35k< to <$50k 60% 67 6868 63 $50k< to <$100k 56 5858 53 56 $50k< to <$100k 52 $100k< to <$140k 40% 46 4646 3838 $100k<$140k+ to <$140k 20% 2727 $140k+ 0% Smartphone Tablet Game console
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
29 WIPNZ 2015
Aligning with average Usage Index Importance of the internet and people for scores, greater affluence coincides with larger proportions of people who see information by household income the internet as an important source of information. The importance of other 100% people for information remains stable across income levels but is rated as less important than is the internet for all but 80% the lowest income group.
60%
40% Internet
Other 20% people
0% <$35k $35k to $50k to $100k to $140k< $50k $100k $140k Income group
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
There is a less clear but still discernible Using the cloud by age and household income increase in cloud usage with greater income. This is more pronounced for 100% some age groups than for others. The 100% numbers here should be interpreted with caution as, in some cases, some 87 87 categories (e.g. 19–29-year-olds earning 80% 81 81 more than $140,000) are reduced to a 19 to 29 19 to 29 small number of cases. But note that the 7070 7171 6666 60% 64 64 30 to 44 number of respondents in some cells is 6262 low. 30 to 44 55 55 5353 45 to 59 50 50 4949 46 40% 46 60+ 45 to 59 3636 3434 3232 3030 29 29 2828 20% 60+ 20 1818 20
0% <$35k<$35k $35k$35k to to $50k $50k $50k$50k to to $100k $100k$100k$100k to to$140k $140k $140k<$140k< Age group
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
30 The Diversity of Internet Users
Area: Urban to Rural
Usage Index by urban-rural and age Because of inconsistencies in infrastructure, a difference in usage between urban and rural respondents 2.5 is to be expected. Overall, rural users’ average Usage Index score is only slightly lower than is that of their urban 2 counterparts. Splitting these scores by 2.0 2.0 age, higher usage for urban users can be 1.8 1.8 seen in all but the oldest age group. Urban 1.5 1.6
1.3 Rural
1 1.1 1.0 Average User Index User Average
0.5
0.4 0.3
0 19 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 59 60 to 69 70+ Age group
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
Satisfaction with internet connection by area Differences between urban and rural locations also play out in respondents’ satisfaction with connection speed: 69% 100% of urban dwellers are satisfied with internet speed compared with 52% of 80% rural dwellers. Similarly, 71% of urban users are satisfied with the reliability of
69 71 their internet connections while 58% of 60% Urban rural users are satisfied with theirs. 58 Rural 52 40%
20%
% answer with ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Very satisfied’ ‘Very or with ‘Satisfied’ % answer 0% Speed Reliability
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
31 WIPNZ 2015
p.32 Top (Disability question, Corrected data labels) People with DisabilitiesReplace with and this graph: their Internet Use
Q2D1: In some settings do you find Internet users with disabilities it difficult to ... 50% 1. Use your hands to hold, grasp, or use objects, including fine movements 2. Hear 45 3. Learn, think, concentrate, and remember 40% 4. Communicate, mix with others, or socialise 5. See 6. Walk, lift, or bend down 30% 29
A new question was introduced to 25 23 the 2015 survey in order to gain a better 20% understanding about people with 21 disabilities and their internet use. Of the respondents who used the internet, 14% 10% indicated that they live with impairment 10 or ongoing health concerns. Of these respondents, 45% said they had difficulty 0% seeing, while around one in four UseFine your motor hands skills to HearingHear Learn,Learning think, Communicate,Socialisation mix VisionSee Walk,Mobility lift, or bend hold, grasp, or use concentrate, or with others, or down identified issues with hearing, learning, objects remember socialise Base: Internet users who report having difficulty with a disability (n = 195) fine motor skills or socialisation. Ten percent reported having difficulty with mobility. Hi Esther – this is the graph that I couldn’t make the changes to the names under the bars. So in this order they should be from left to right:
Q2D2: Which of these, if any, help you use the Internet users with disabilities: alternative strategies internet? Fine motor skills Hearing Learning Socialisation Vision Mobility
Participants with disabilities reported 50% most commonly that assistance for their internet use came from friends 40% and family (41%). It should be noted 41 that the lower percentages for the other categories indicated could mean that these alternative strategies might not be 30% available to respondents.
20%
17
14 10% 9 8 7
0% Friends and Training or Standards Specialised Support workers Specialised family technical support compliant sites equipment software or apps
Base: Internet users who report having a disability (n = 195)
32 Digital Disadvantage in 2015
Section 3 Digital Disadvantage in 2015
In considering how New Zealanders use the internet, this section indicates a small but significant portion of our sample who may be ‘digitally disadvantaged’ – be they non-users or low-level users. In this final section of the report, we identify those online activities that are engaged in by users, irrespective of their levels of skill or online engagement, to determine what kind of burden of exclusion non-users may face. As the proportion of non-users has gradually decreased in our WIPNZ surveys, we are more aware that this group may be increasingly disadvantaged as they are more easily overlooked as a shrinking minority.
We can think of all online activities as sitting somewhere on a scale between online ‘Specialist’ and online ‘General’ activities.1 Those activities on the ‘Specialist’ end of the spectrum usually require strong engagement with the internet, high-speed connections or newer devices. ‘General’ internet activities are more likely to be accessible on slower connections and may not entail strong online engagement. To gauge the extent to which activities are considered ‘General’, we have examined the relative usage of Next Generation Users and Low Level Users (the methods for defining these groups are described in detail in Appendix 2). Those activities which are newer and less mainstream will be conducted much more often by NGUs than by LLUs. As activities become ‘naturalised’ to the extent that they become a part of everyday life, LLUs will ‘catch up’ to NGUs in their capabilities. Based on this logic, we have ranked in Appendix 1 all of the internet activities measured in the survey according to the ratio of NGU usage to LLU usage. We demonstrate here one example of how this metric is calculated and what it means (Appendices 1 and 2 give further detail). Downloading smartphone apps sits towards the ‘Specialist’ end of the ‘General to Specialist’ continuum at this relatively early stage in its life cycle. Eighty-six percent of NGUs download apps, compared to 17% of LLUs. By dividing the percentage of usage for NGUs by the percentage of usage for LLUs, we see that NGUs are five times more likely to download apps than are LLUs. This is a high figure, 7th highest out of the 52 activities analysed in this way, placing the downloading of smartphone apps firmly at the ‘Specialist’ end of the continuum at this time.
This metric produced intuitive results which could not be ascertained by looking at levels of usage in isolation – it is the ratio of usage between different types of user that gives us a picture of how far along the ‘General to Specialist’ continuum an internet activity sits. LLUs are defined according to low frequencies of internet use across online activities. The NGU measure, by contrast, is based on access through multiple devices, along with other indicators of high internet engagement (see Appendix 2 for a full definition). This analysis, therefore, provides some insight into which activities might be on their way to becoming so naturalised that being deprived of them could result in genuine exclusion from mainstream society.
1 These descriptions replace ‘luxury’ and ‘core’ that were used in the 2013 report to better reflect the types of activities rather than to infer status.
33 WIPNZ 2015
34 Digital Disadvantage in 2015
The Persistence of the Digital Divide
User status by household income: For those respondents aged under 65 and earning more than $50,000 Under 65s household income annually, the proportions making up each of the five 100% 4 34 8 54 14 4 7 8 different classifications are 4 14 9 15 91 almost identical across the three different 857 87 91 4 87 income brackets; more than 80% of 80% 85 2215 users of each level fall into the Next 1563 Generation User classification. This
45 percentage shrinks for groups earning 60% 63 Never-userEx-user 15 less than $50,000, which include more Ex-userNever-user Low Level Users, First Generation Users
40% 45 LLUFGU and, in the case of the <$35k bracket, FGUNGU Ex-users.
NGULLU 20% 22
15
7 5 5 0% <$35k $35k to $50k $50k to $100k $100k to $140k $140k< Income group
Base: Respondents younger than 65 who gave income information (n = 1141)
User status by household income: The digital divide between income groups is much more evident for 65 years and older those people aged over 65 years. The large majority of respondents in the 100% 9 8 4 highest income group are NGUs (75%), 37 12 10 13 13 10 11 compared to 17% in the lowest income 38 4 7 74 13 7 12 bracket. 33 33 80% 18 36 47 40 75 Overall, user status seems to be affected by an interaction between income 60% 27 Ex-userNever-user 10 and age. But note that the number of 13 7 Never-userEx-user 23 13 respondents in some cells is low. 40% 18 47 FGULLU 17 36 40 33 NGUFGU 33 13 27 LLUNGU 20% 23
17 13
0% <$35k $35k to $50k $50k to $100k $100k to $140k $140k< Income group
Base: Respondents 65 years old or older who gave their income information (n = 235)
35 WIPNZ 2015
There is a stark pattern in user User status by age classification according to age group;
younger groups are made up mostly 100% 66 85 4 308 of NGUs and the proportion of NGUs 4 8 886 1113 91 5 30 decreases at an accelerating pace across 91 88 16 71 22 older age groups. Thirty-eight percent 80% 11 of respondents over 70 years of age 49 8 are either Never-users or Ex-users, 71 60% 16 13 Ex-userNever-user compared with 4% of 16–29-year-olds. 27 Never-userEx-user 21 49 40% FGULLU NGUFGU 13 27 LLUNGU 20% 22 21 13
0% 6 1616 toto 2929 3030 toto 4444 4545 toto 5959 6060 toto 6969 70+70+ Age group
Base: All respondents (n = 1377)
Almost all (98%) of the Asian User status by ethnicity respondents are classified as NGUs; this is a higher proportion than for any other 100%100% 100% 6 6 4 4 ethnic group. The NGU classifications 15715 6 11 9898 1111 98 for NZE, Māori and Pasifika are similar, 13 15 1013 4 7 7 80% 11 with NGUs making up between 60% and 80% 11 68 1010 1313 70% of each. 62 621111 68 60% 68 Never-user 60% 63 Ex-userNever-user 63 6262 Never-userEx-userEx-user LLU 40%40% FGULLU NGUFGUFGU LLUNGUNGU 20%20%
13 13 12 0%0% NZENZE MāoriMāori PasifikaPasifika AsianAsian Ethnic group
Base: All respondents (n = 1377)
Consistent with previous findings, User status by urban-rural there is a higher percentage of 100% 4 NGUs among urban (74%) than 3 14 100% 4 among rural participants (56%). For 11 4 3 14 14 80% 811 15 rural respondents, there are higher 8 80% 74 14 15 proportions of FGUs and Never-users. 74 8 14 60% 74 Never-user 56 14 60% 56 Ex-userEx-userNever-user 40% 56 Never-userLLU Ex-user 40% FGUFGU LLU NGUNGU FGU 20% LLU NGU 20%
15 0% 11 0% Urban Rural UrbanUrban RuralRural
Base: All respondents (n = 1377)
36 Digital Disadvantage in 2015
Focus on Non-Users
Reasons for non-use Q1A: What is the main reason you do not use the internet?
40% Of the small percentage of Never-users and Ex-users, 34% reported not using the internet because of lack of interest 34 30% or perceived usefulness. Others cited a lack of knowledge (20%), lack of devices (18%) and cost (11%).
20% 20 18
13 10% 11
5
0% Not interested/ Don't know how No computer/ No internet Too expensive No time not useful to use tech no device connection
Base: Never-users (n = 75) and Ex-users (n = 44)
Proxy internet use by ethnicity Q16: In the past year have you asked someone to do something on the internet for you, such as send an email, get information or make a purchase? 100% 7 55 32 An example of using a proxy may be 13 asking a relative or friend to search for 80% a fact on the internet. From the group 80 of Never-user and Ex-user respondents,
68 Pasifika people use the internet through 60% Never proxies more often (93%) than do New Zealand Europeans (45%) or
Yes, once Māori (68%). But note that the number of 40% 25 or twice respondents in some cells is low.
Yes, several times 20% 20
0% NZE Māori Pasifika Ethnicity
Base: Never-users (n = 75) and Ex-users (n = 44)
37 WIPNZ 2015
General and Specialist Internet Activities
Appendix 1 shows all of the online Top eight ‘general’ internet activities (1) activities surveyed, ranked by the NGUs%/LLUs% ratio: that is, taking the 100% percentage of NGUs declaring that they 100 100 100 100 98 100 had ever engaged in a given online 95
activity and dividing that percentage 87 87 80% by the equivalent LLU percentage. 83 78 This ratio gives an indication of which 74 LLU activities are more exclusive to NGUs 60% and which are carried out more or less FGU equally by NGUs and LLUs.
40% NGU Here we plot activities with the lowest NGUs%/LLUs% values (in no case was there a ratio of less than 1). Because these 20% activities are used frequently by NGUs and LLUs alike, we consider these to be ‘general’ internet activities. They include 0% checking email, looking up information, Check your email Use a search engine Surf or browse Post messages to locate information the web or comments browsing webpages and using social media. Note that ‘general’ holds the Base: Internet users (n = 1258) same meaning as ‘core’ activities in the 2013 WIPNZ report.
Other general activities include finding Top eight ‘general’ internet activities (2) specific facts, looking for news, looking up product information and looking 100%100% for travel information. 99 97 97 98 98 98 98 99 97 97 96 96 93 93 Overall, a large part of core internet use 80% 86 86 includes retrieving specific information 80% 78 78 77 or social correspondence. 77 76 76 LLULLU 60%60% 64 64
FGUFGU
40%40% NGUNGU
20%20%
0%0% FindFind or check or check a fact a fact LookLook for fornews news GetGet information information about about LookLook for fortravel travel a producta product online online informationinformation
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
38 Digital Disadvantage in 2015
Top eight ‘specialist’ internet activities (1) On the bottom end of the list in Appendix 1 are activities with the highest NGUs%/LLU s% 100% ratios, to which we refer here as ‘specialist’ activities. These are activities in which NGUs engage 86 80% much more often than do LLUs. In this plot, NGUs have proportions of more LLU than five times the size of corresponding 66 LLU proportions. FGUs occupy 60% intermediary positions between NGUs FGU 54 FGU and LLUs.
46 40% 41 NGU
32
20% 25
17 14 12 9 9 0% Engage in online Download smartphone Read blogs Download and watch distance learning apps feature films
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
Top eight ‘specialist’ internet activities (2) This plot gives activities with even 100% more extreme NGU%/LLU % ratios. 100%
80%
80% LLU 70 60% LLU 70 FGU 60% 53 FGU 40% 53 NGU 40% NGU 20% 2 20 17 17 20% 20 13 11 10 20 17 7 17 0% 3 3 13 11 Bet, gamble or enter Use a smartphone10 Buy apps Invest in stocks, funds or 7 sweepstakes0% 3 online or tablet to make a bonds3 Bet, gamble or enterpurchaseUse a smartphone Buy apps Invest in stocks, funds or sweepstakes online or tablet to make a bonds purchase
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
39 WIPNZ 2015
This graph shows the overall proportion Social networking: of each group that uses social networking and the nature of that usage general or specialist? in terms of frequency. As expected, LLUs 100% 3 have lower values for social network use 14 9 3
but of note is that, for each category, it is 13 still common for those who do use social 7 9 networking to check it at least daily. A 80% 17 81 Less than monthly characteristic of NGUs is that a large 28 majority (81%) of them check online Monthly 67 Weekly social networks daily 60% Daily
49 40%
20%
0% LLU FGU NGU
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
Lastly, we look at how many Online engagement with government: respondents of each user classification use government services online. Based general or specialist? on these criteria, we can see that NGUs are more likely to make use of these 100% services than are LLUs, although not by much. Thus, this can be considered to be a ‘general’ activity. 80%
LLU
60% 62 60 56 56 FGU 51 49 40% NGU
29 27 27 20% 25 24
8 0% To use government or To log in to secure To look for To pay for taxes, council services that areas on government information about a fine or a licence are delivered online or council websites an MP, political party online or candidate
Base: Internet users (n = 1258)
40 Appendix 1: Ranking of Online Activities
Appendix 1: Ranking of Online Activities
Rank Descriptions of online activity NGUs%/LLUs%* 1 Check email 1.05 2 Post messages or comments 1.13 3 Surf or browse the web 1.14 4 Use a search engine to locate information 1.15 5 Find or check a fact 1.25 6 Look for local/national/international news 1.28 7 Get information about a product online 1.30 8 Look for travel information 1.44 9 Look for health or medical information 1.49 10 Use an online map or an app for navigation 1.50 11 Look for information about New Zealand events, culture or history 1.51 12 Post messages or comments on social networking sites 1.66 13 Compare prices of product services online 1.67 14 Use your banks online services 1.68 15 Buy things online 1.69 16 Look up the definition of a word 1.76 17 Pay bills online 1.78 18 Make travel reservations/bookings online 1.80 19 Visit social networking sites 1.85 20 Post audio material 2.06 21 Watch TV shows 2.09 22 Look for information on entertainment activities 2.10 23 Make or receive phone calls over the internet 2.22 24 Repost or share links or content created by others 2.22 25 Play games online 2.38 26 Look at religious or spiritual sites 2.40 27 Post pictures, photos, or videos 2.49 28 Get information for school or university related work 2.58 29 Do instant messaging 2.84 30 Look for images and content for reuse 3.06 31 Listen to a radio station 3.08 32 Upload music or music videos 3.19 33 Look for jobs/work 3.27 34 Look for information on a social networking site 3.44 35 Download free apps 3.59 36 Download or listen to music online 3.73 37 Look for jokes, cartoons, or other humorous content 3.82 38 Sell things online 3.86 39 Post content for financial gain 3.92 40 Pay for online services, subscriptions or software 4.08 41 Look at sites with sexual content 4.09 42 Post your own content that you created 4.21 43 Post messages or comments on discussion board or forum 4.39 44 Download or watch videos online 4.53 45 Participate in distance learning 4.76 46 Download apps on a smartphone 4.98 47 Read blogs 5.68 48 Download or watch feature films 5.80 49 Bet, gamble, or enter sweepstakes 6.04 50 Use your smartphone or tablet 7.06 51 Buy apps 7.65 52 Invest in stocks/funds/bonds online 7.80
* This ranking is the percentage of Next Generation Users (NGUs) who ever engage in the activity divided by the percentage of Low Level Users (LLUs) who ever carry out the activity 41 Appendix 2: Definition of Usage Index and User Types
Appendix 2: Definition of Usage Index and User Types
Usage Index Update The Usage Index is the average frequency at which a person engages in a range of online activities, where ‘0’ equals ‘never’ on all questions, and ‘5’ equals ‘several times a day’ on all questions. The following 46 activities were included in the calculation of the Usage Index for each individual.
Table 1: List of activities used to calculate Usage Index Q19: Entertainment Q25: Communication 1. Play games online 1. Check your email 2. Download or listen to music online 2. Do instant messaging 3. Download or watch videos online 3. Make or receive phone calls over the internet 4. Look at religious or spiritual sites 4. Work on your blog 5. Listen to a radio station online 5. Post photos or pictures on the internet 6. Bet, gamble or enter sweepstakes online 6. Upload music or music videos 7. Surf or browse the Web 7. Update your status 8. Watch TV shows online or on demand 8. Comment on other people’s blogs, posts etc. 9. Download or watch feature films from the internet 9. Download apps on a smartphone 10. Visit social networking sites such as Facebook 10. Share links (this includes emailing a link to a website/video/ 11. Look at sites with sexual content photo etc. or sharing such a link through a social networking site, such as on your own or somebody else’s Facebook page) Q21: Information/Q38: Education 1. Look for news - local, national, international Q31: Commerce 2. Look for travel information 1. Buy things online 3. Look for jobs/work 2. Sell things online 4. Read blogs 3. Get information about a product online 5. Look for jokes, cartoons, or other humorous content 4. Compare prices of products/services online 6. Look for information on entertainment activities such as movies 5. Make travel reservations/bookings online or shows 6. Use your bank’s online services 7. Look for health information 7. Pay bills online 8. Look for information on a social networking site 8. Invest in stocks/funds/bonds online 9. Look for information about New Zealand events, culture or 9. Pay for online services, subscriptions or software (e.g. for history premium membership to a site) 10. Look for images and content for re-use 10. Buy apps 11. Use a search engine to locate information 11. Download free apps 12. Use an online map or an app for navigation, for example to plan 12. Use your smartphone or tablet (e.g. iPad) to make a purchase of the route of a journey or estimate how long a journey will take any kind 13. Look up a definition of a word
Next Generation Users (NGUs) We defined Next Generation Users as those who have accessed the internet in the past year through two or more of the following devices: smartphone/tablet/e-reader/game console/smart TV. This group was then refined down to the more involved users by excluding the following: 1. Those who do not spend any time on a wireless handheld device (either ‘no’ in Q2, or zero time spent accessing the internet through a wireless handheld device on an average day in Q2A) 2. Those with no internet connection (including mobile connection) at home 3. Those who have dial-up access only at home (or didn’t know/refused connection type), i.e. included only those who stated they had broadband (including mobile) at home 4. Those who rated their internet ability a 1 or 2 out of 5 5. Those who rated the importance of the internet to their everyday life a 1 or 2 out of 5 6. Those with a Usage Index of less than 1, i.e. those who also fell into the LLU definition.
Low Level Users (LLUs) This group includes all internet users with Usage Indices of less than 1.
First Generation Users (FGUs) The remainder of users, who are neither highly connected Next Generation Users, nor low-use Low Level Users, are considered to be First Generation Users.
42 Appendix 3: Methodology
Appendix 3: Methodology
Sample design The design aimed at achieving a representative sample of approximately 1300–1400 people, aged 16 and older across New Zealand. Previous waves of the survey were undertaken using CATI telephone interviewing, carried out by Phoenix Research; in 2015, this was carried out by Infield. However, in 2013 a new sampling design was implemented where part of the sample was achieved through online survey methods using an online panel provided by BuzzChannel (in addition to the telephone interviews). A small sample of face-to-face interviews was carried out in South Auckland. The purpose of this mixed methodology approach was to balance out the sample more effectively and also to include people without landlines: an increasingly large proportion of New Zealand households.
The sample design involved the following strata: 1. Recontact of those who were part of the 2013 (and earlier) samples who had indicated that they were prepared to consider answering a further wave of questions for the WIP study. Of these, those who had provided an email address in a previous sample were invited to complete the survey online; the remainder were contacted using CATI telephone interviewing. 2. A a fresh sample of households which are likely to be connected to internet through UFB as indicated by fibre companies and/or UFB coverage maps3. A fresh simple random sample of phone numbers. 4. An online panel sample drawn to provide adequate coverage (in conjunction with the recontact and fresh telephone components) of the New Zealand population. 5. An online sample of people without landlines, who were also members of the same panel. 6. Face-to-face interviews.
The sampling frames for the CATI telephone fresh simple random sample were developed using telephone directories. Representative coverage of geographic areas and gender was ensured by the setting of quota based on census data. Exclusions: non-English speakers; those refusing.
Achieved sample and weighting The achieved sample for the 2015 survey was 1377, including 1258 internet users and 119 non-users. The combined database was weighted, taking into account the survey design, incorporating probabilities of selection for each cell in the sample design and to correct for departures from Statistics New Zealand- estimated proportions on several important parameters: age (grouped); gender; and ethnicity. Where available, the most recent estimates were used. The final weights were scaled to match the sample size. For weighting purposes, ethnicity was coded in such a way as to match census data; this allows for multiple ethnicities to be reported by an individual. The weighted sample is well matched to the New Zealand population estimates for 2013 (as calculated by Statistics New Zealand based on the 2013 census) for the demographics used for weighting purposes.
Statistical procedures The primary means of determining the statistical significance of differences between demographic categories was through the use of Pearson chi-square tests for nominal (and ordinal) data. Additional tests were used, where appropriate, for ordinal data. The Pearson chi-square test is a non-parametric test for tables of counts, where a significant result means that the distribution of counts is different across the categories of a certain demographic. All of the tests are two-sided, meaning that no pre-judgment is made about the directionality of differences.
Confidence intervals update The precision of estimated weighted proportions can be assessed using indicative confidence intervals.
43 Appendix 3: Methodology
For all respondents (n=1377), 95% confidence intervals varied from approximately ±1.8% on percentages under 20% or over 80%, to around ±2.3% on percentages in the 20%–80% range. For the internet users subset (n=1258), 95% confidence intervals varied from approximately ±2.0% on percentages under 20% or over 80%, to around ±2.5% on percentages in the 20%–80% range. In sections where cross- tabulation of results by demographics leads to smaller numbers of respondents in each reported cell, the confidence intervals increase. When reporting 2015 results in terms of three age categories, for example, the confidence intervals are around ±3.5% for the under-40s (n=845) and for the 40–64 group (n=826), and around ±5% for the 65+ (n=335) group. The sub-sample sizes for various demographics are given below. The bootstrap calculator in the SPSS descriptives procedure was used to calculate the confidence intervals. This increases the reported confidence intervals in order to compensate for any extra sampling error caused by the complexity of the sample. Note that this process affects confidence intervals, but does not change the estimates of the results themselves.
Weighted sample sizes
Table 2. Weighted sample size according to user status
User n User 1258 Never-user 75 Ex-user 44 Total 1377
Table 3. Weighted sample size according to grouped age Age n 16-19 119 20-29 244 30-39 214 40-49 231 50-59 213 60-69 185 70+ 171 Total 1377
Table 4. Weighted sample size according to ethnicity*
Ethnicity n NZ European 944 Māori 113 Pacific Islander 69 Asian 125 Other 25 Total 1276
* Note: When reporting results on ethnicity, we use the ‘main’ ethnicity given by respondents when asked, ‘which ethnicity do you most strongly identify with’. Since a proportion of respondents said they could not choose a ‘main’ ethnicity, the n is somewhat lower when ethnicity cross-tabulations are presented.
44 Appendix 3: Methodology
Table 5. Weighted sample size according to area
Area n Three main cities 823 Other cities 268 Towns (secondary/minor urban areas) 133 Rural centres and rural areas 153 Total 1377
Table 6. Weighted sample size according to combined household income
Household income n <$35k 200 $35k to <$50k 151 $50k to <$100k 392 $100k to <$140k 209 $140k+ 178 Total 1130
Table 7. Un-weighted sample size according to sample strata
Sample source n Telephone fresh sample 164 UFB targeted 138 Face-to-face 29 Telephone recontacts 298 Online recontacts 75 Online general sample 385 Online no landline sample 287 Total 1377
45 Allan Bell Allan 2013 Andy Gibson Melissa Miller Philippa Smith Charles Crothers The Internet New Zealand New World Internet Project World Internet Project
New in Zealand
WORLD INTERNET PROJECT NEW ZEALAND The Internet in New Zealand 2015
WORLD INTERNET PROJECT NEW ZEALAND The Internet in New Zealand 2013