Consumer Service Finrep en

CONSUMER SATISFACTION SURVEY
FINAL REPORT
May 2007
BY
IPSOS INRA for THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Health & Consumer Protection Directorate - General
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................. 8 A. 1. 2. 3. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ...............................................................19 Context and objectives of the consumer satisfaction survey.....................19 Methodology ..............................................................................21 Satisfaction indicators ..................................................................23 3.1. Defining Consumer Satisfaction Indicators ....................................23 3.2. Structure of the final report.....................................................29 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY RESULTS ...................................30 Electricity supply ........................................................................30 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 2. Overall results .....................................................................30 Differences between EU Member States.......................................31 Differences by socio-economic group ..........................................33 Other key observations arising from the survey ..............................34 Advanced analyses ................................................................35
B. 1.
Gas supply.................................................................................40 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. Overall results .....................................................................40 Differences between EU Member States.......................................41 Differences by socio-economic group ..........................................43 Other key observations arising directly from the survey ...................44 Advanced analyses ................................................................45
3.
Water distribution .......................................................................50 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. Overall results .....................................................................50 Differences between EU Member States.......................................51 Differences by socio-economic group ..........................................53 Other key observations resulting directly from the survey .................54 Advanced analyses ................................................................55
4.
Fixed telephone service ................................................................59 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. Overall results .....................................................................59 Differences between EU Member States.......................................60 Differences by socio-economic group ..........................................62 Other key observations arising directly from the survey ...................63 Advanced analyses ................................................................64
| FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.
Mobile phone service ....................................................................68 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. Overall results .....................................................................68 Differences between EU Member States.......................................69 Differences by socio-economic group ..........................................70 Other key observations arising directly from the survey ...................71 Advanced analyses ................................................................73
6.
Urban transport ..........................................................................77 6.1 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. Overall results .....................................................................77 Differences between EU Member States.......................................78 Differences by socio-economic group ..........................................80 Other key observations arising directly from the survey ...................81 Advanced analyses ................................................................82
7.
Extra-urban transport ...................................................................87 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. Overall results .....................................................................87 Differences between EU Member States.......................................88 Differences by socio-economic group ..........................................90 Other key observations arising directly from the survey ...................91 Advanced analyses ................................................................93
8.
Air transport ..............................................................................97 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5. Overall results .....................................................................97 Differences between EU Member States.......................................98 Differences by socio-economic characteristics ............................. 100 Other key observations arising directly from the survey ................. 101 Advanced analyses .............................................................. 102
9.
Postal services.......................................................................... 106 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. 9.5. Overall results ................................................................... 106 Differences between EU Member States..................................... 107 Differences by socio-economic characteristics ............................. 108 Other key observations arising directly from the survey ................. 109 Advanced analyses .............................................................. 110
10. Retail banking .......................................................................... 114 10.1. 10.2. 10.3. 10.4. 10.5. Overall results.................................................................. 114 Differences between EU Member States ................................... 115 Differences by socio-economic characteristics ........................... 116 Other key observations arising directly from the survey ................ 117 Advanced analyses............................................................. 118
FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11. Insurance services ..................................................................... 122 11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.4. 11.5. C. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Overall results.................................................................. 122 Differences between EU Member States ................................... 123 Differences by socio-economic characteristics ........................... 125 Other key observations resulting directly from the survey ............. 126 Advanced analyses............................................................. 127
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY RESULTS BY COUNTRY ................ 131 EU25 ..................................................................................... 132 Austria ................................................................................... 133 Belgium .................................................................................. 134 Cyprus ................................................................................... 135 Czech Republic ......................................................................... 136 Denmark................................................................................. 137 Estonia................................................................................... 138 Germany................................................................................. 139 Greece ................................................................................... 140 Finland................................................................................... 141 France ................................................................................... 142 Hungary.................................................................................. 143 Ireland ................................................................................... 144 Italy ...................................................................................... 145 Latvia .................................................................................... 146 Lithuania ................................................................................ 147 Luxembourg............................................................................. 148 Malta ..................................................................................... 149 Netherlands ............................................................................. 150 Poland ................................................................................... 151 Portugal ................................................................................. 152 Slovakia.................................................................................. 153 Slovenia ................................................................................. 154 Spain ..................................................................................... 155 Sweden .................................................................................. 156 United Kingdom ........................................................................ 157
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. 1.
OVERALL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................... 158 Consumers overall satisfaction ..................................................... 158 1.1. Average score .................................................................... 158 1.2. Percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers ...................... 159 Criteria that contribute to consumers overall satisfaction .................... 161 2.1. Consumers satisfaction with quality, pricing and image................. 161 2.2. The relative importance of Quality, Pricing and Image in consumers overall satisfaction with SGIs.................................................. 161 Differences between EU Member States ........................................... 163 3.1. Differences between EU15 and NMS10 countries........................... 163 3.2. Differences between individual Member States ............................ 164 Other key findings ..................................................................... 168 4.1. The socio-economic characteristics of consumers ......................... 168 4.2. Market issues ..................................................................... 169 4.3. Opportunities for priority actions ............................................ 170 Recommendations ..................................................................... 172 5.1. Questionnaire and survey design ............................................. 172 5.2. Areas for further research ..................................................... 173
2.
3.
4.
5.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table of graphs
EL. 1 EL. 2 EL. 3 EL. 4 Electricity supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ........ 30 Electricity supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. 31 Electricity supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentage (2006) .................................................................................................. 33 Two-dimensional analysis - Electricity .......................................................................... 37 40 41 43 47 50 51 53 56 59 60 62 65 68 69 70 74 77 78 80 84 87 88 90 94
GAS. 1 Gas supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ................. GAS. 2 Gas supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006) .. GAS. 3 Gas supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. GAS. 4 Two-dimensional analysis - Gas .................................................................................. WAT. 1 Water distribution: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ..... WAT. 2 Water distribution: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. WAT. 3 Water supply: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. WAT. 4 Two-dimensional analysis Water ............................................................................... FT. 1 FT. 2 FT. 3 FT. 4 MP. 1 MP. 2 MP. 3 MP. 4 UT. 1 UT. 2 UT. 3 UT. 4 Fixed telephony: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ......... Fixed telephone: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. Fixed telephony: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category - percentages (2006).................................................................................... Two-Dimensional analysis Fixed telephone .................................................................. Mobile phone: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)............. Mobile phone: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. Mobile phone: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category - percentages (2006)................................................................................... Two-dimensional analysis Mobile phone ...................................................................... Urban transport: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ......... Urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. Urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic category - percentages (2006).................................................................................... Two-dimensional analysis Urban transport...................................................................
EUT. 1 Extra-urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006). EUT. 2 Extra-urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. EUT. 3 Extra-urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic category - percentages (2006).................................................................................... EUT. 4 Two-dimensional analysis Extra-urban transport ........................................................... AT. 1 AT. 2 AT. 3 AT. 4
Air transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ............ 97 Air transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country percentages (2006) ................................................................................................. 98 Air transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentages (2006) ................................................................................................ 100 Two-dimensional analysis Air transport...................................................................... 103
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PS. 1 PS. 2 PS. 3 PS. 4 RB. 1 RB. 2 RB. 3 RB. 4 INS. 1 INS. 2 INS. 3 INS. 4
Postal services: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)......... 106 Postal services: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)................................................................................................................. 107 Postal services: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category - percentages (2006)................................................................................... 108 Two-dimensional analysis Postal services ................................................................... 111 Retail banking: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ......... 114 Retail banking: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country percentages (2006) ................................................................................................ 115 Retail banking: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentages (2006) ................................................................................................ 116 Two-dimensional analysis Retail banking.................................................................... 119 Insurance: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006) ............... 122 Insurance: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006). 123 Insurance: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentages (2006) ................................................................................................ 125 Two-dimensional analysis - Insurance.......................................................................... 128
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
1. CONTEXT
In 2003 and 2004 a pilot study on consumer satisfaction was carried out by INRA and Deloitte for the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General of the European Commission. This aim of the study was to develop a methodology for producing consumer satisfaction indicators in the European Union and to carry out a pilot survey. In 2005, the European Commissions Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General launched a call for tender to prepare, implement and analyse an EU-wide consumer satisfaction survey using the methodology developed during the pilot study. INRA, which has become part of the Ipsos Group, was given this assignment together with Deloitte and some independent experts. The consumer satisfaction survey was held in all of the 25 countries that were members of the European Union at that time and covered 11 services of general interest: Electricity Supply Gas Supply Water Distribution Fixed Telephony Mobile Telephony Urban Transport Extra-Urban Transport Air Transport Postal Services Retail Banking Insurance Services.
2.
A ROBUST METHODOLOGY
The questionnaire used for the pilot survey was slightly changed in line with the recommendations of the pilot study itself and the Commissions requirement for the survey to be based on face-to-face rather than telephone interviews. With the assistance of a Scientific Committee, the survey was designed so that it would guarantee a sufficiently large sample size per service to run the satisfaction model whilst at the same time staying within the agreed budget. For the purposes of the survey, consumers were defined as people (18+) having used the service in the past 12 months. Satisfaction was defined as the consumers assessment of a product or service in terms of the extent to which that product or service has met his/her needs or expectations. Consumer satisfaction was measured both directly (observed satisfaction) and after the responses to specific questions were statistically processed (calculated satisfaction). The model developed during the pilot study allowed us to gain an understanding of the factors that contributed most to consumer (dis)satisfaction for each of the services. A robust and homogeneous methodology was used across countries and services, including over 29,000 interviews in the 25 EU member states. There were on average 500 interviews per service and country. The interviews were face-to-face, took place at the respondents homes, lasted 45 to 60 minutes each and covered 4 to 5 different services per respondent.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.
EUROPEAN CONSUMERS ARE FAIRLY SATISFIED WITH SERVICES OF GENERAL INTEREST
Overall, European consumers appear to be fairly satisfied with services of general interest. For each service surveyed they gave an average score (on a scale from 1 to 10) ranging from 7.04 for Urban Transport to 7.96 for Air Transport, as can be seen in the table below:
Average score Air Transport Mobile Telephony Insurance services Retail Banking Water Distribution Gas supply Electricity supply Postal Services Fixed Telephony Extra Urban Transport Urban Transport 7.96 7.91 7.92 7.82 7.73 7.64 7.61 7.42 7.30 7.05 7.04
If consumers give a service a score of 8, it usually means that they are very satisfied with it. Therefore, looking at the average scores obtained for each service, it is fair to say that: European consumers are particularly satisfied with air transport, mobile telephony, insurance services and retail banking European consumers are less satisfied (or are more neutral in their opinion) with utility services (gas, electricity, water) They are least satisfied with extra-urban and urban transport.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.
CONSUMERS IN THE EU25 ARE LEAST SATISFIED WITH URBAN AND EXTRA-URBAN TRANSPORT
Another way of looking at overall satisfaction is to calculate the proportions of satisfied consumers and dissatisfied consumers. Satisfied consumers are people who gave the service a rating of 8, 9 or 10 while dissatisfied consumers are people who gave the service a rating of 4 or less. The proportions of satisfied consumers are displayed in the following graph:
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your supplier?

% satisfied customers - EU25
66.1
65.9
64.4
63.1 60.2 57.9 57.6 52.9 52 45.6 44.5
Air transport
Mobile phone
Insurances
Banking retail
Water
Gas
Electricity
Postal services
Fixed phone Extra-urban transport
Urban transport
The majority of EU consumers said they were satisfied with most of the services surveyed, especially with air transport, mobile telephony, insurance services and retail banking. The only exceptions are urban and extra-urban transport: less than 5 consumers out of 10 said that they were satisfied with them.
10 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A third way of looking at overall satisfaction is displaying the proportion of dissatisfied consumers:

% dissatisfied customers - EU25
10.3 9.4 8.4
6.9 5.4
5.3 4.6 4.4 4.1 3.5 3
Extra-urban transport
Urban transport
Fixed phone
Postal services
Water
Electricity
Banking retail
Gas
Mobile phone
Air transport Insurances
While EU consumers are least satisfied with urban and extra-urban transport, only 10% of them said that they were dissatisfied with both services.
| 11
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.
PRICE IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR EU CONSUMERS
EU consumers were asked to evaluate each service according to three criteria: Quality, Image and Pricing. For each of these three criteria, they were asked to say whether they agreed or not (by giving a score from 1 to 10) with a list of statements. The following table shows the average satisfaction scores for each criterion and each service.
Service Mobile Telephony Retail Banking Air Transport Insurance Gas Supply Postal Services Water Distribution Fixed Telephony Electricity Supply Extra Urban Transport Urban Transport
Quality 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.8 7.3 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.0 7.0
Pricing 7.5 7.3 7.6 7.4 6.4 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.6
Image 8.0 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.4 6.8 6.9
Overall, EU consumers tend to be more satisfied with the quality of service offered than the image of the service provider and the prices offered by their provider. However, advanced statistical analyses show that pricing tends to be the main element that determines the extent to which consumers are satisfied with a service. This is the case in 6 out of 11 services surveyed i.e. insurance, electricity supply, retail banking, fixed telephony, mobile telephony and water distribution. In other words, for these services, reducing prices would have the greatest impact on overall consumer satisfaction. Trying to improve consumer satisfaction with a better quality service would have less of an impact on overall satisfaction. On the other hand, image is the key factor that determines consumer satisfaction for service providers for postal services, urban transport and extra-urban transport. In other words, consumers who believe their supplier has a negative image will tend to be less satisfied than those who believe their supplier has a positive image.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.
COMPARISON OF COUNTRY RESULTS
A majority of EU25 consumers (more than 50%) are satisfied with 9 out of the 11 SGIs evaluated, especially air transport, mobile phone, insurance, retail banking and water distribution services. Consumers are least satisfied with extra-urban (45.6%) and urban transport (44.5%) services. Results diverging from the EU average are found below: Austria Austrians tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all 11 services evaluated. They tend also to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with all these services. Belgium Consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with retail banking, mobile phone, insurance, electricity, gas, water, fixed phone and urban and extra-urban transport and less satisfied with air transport and postal services. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with all the 11 services. Cyprus Consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all the services, except urban transport (23% of satisfied against 44.5% at the EU level). They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with urban transport (53.8% of dissatisfied against 9.4% at the EU level). Czech Republic Consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with air transport, mobile phone, retail banking and gas distribution and less satisfied with fixed phone. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with all the services except mobile phone. Denmark Danes tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with the three utilities (water, electricity and gas), insurance, retail banking, mobile phone and fixed phone and less satisfied with extra-urban services. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services, urban and extra-urban transport. Estonia Consumers in Estonia tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with retail banking, mobile phone, electricity, postal services, fixed phone, insurance, gas distribution, urban and extra-urban transport and less satisfied with water distribution. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution and less dissatisfied with extraurban transport.
| 13
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Germany German consumers are most satisfied than the EU average with all the services except extra-urban transport. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average extra-urban transport and less dissatisfied with fixed phone. Greece In Greece, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with gas distribution, air transport, mobile phone, postal services, insurance and extra-urban transport and less satisfied with electricity and fixed phone. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with water and electricity distribution and less dissatisfied with postal services and extra-urban transport. Finland Finns tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all SGIs. In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with urban and extra-urban transport and fixed phone. France French consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with extra-urban transport and less satisfied air transport, retail banking, mobile phone, water distribution and postal services. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with extra-urban transport. Hungary Hungarians tend to be more satisfied than the EU25 average with almost all SGIs except with urban transport (37.7% against a EU25 average of 44.5%). However, they tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with electricity, insurance, gas, urban and extraurban transport. Ireland Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with Air transport (where the proportion of satisfied is equal to the EU average). They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services, fixed phone, urban and extraurban transport.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Italy Italians tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with urban and extra-urban transport, postal services and fixed phone. Latvia Latvians tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs, except with water distribution (50.5% are satisfied against 60.2% at the EU level). They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution and less dissatisfied with urban and extra-urban transport and fixed phone. Lithuania Lithuanians are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with water distribution (where the proportion of satisfied is equal to the EU average). They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with gas and electricity distribution, retail banking, postal services, air transport, insurance, fixed phone and extra-urban transport but are more dissatisfied with water distribution. Luxembourg Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with mobile phone and air transport (where the proportions of satisfied are in line with the EU average). They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water, electricity and gas distribution, fixed phone, postal services and extra-urban transport. Malta Consumers in Malta tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with mobile phone, retail banking, fixed phone, insurance and postal services and tend to be less satisfied with water and electricity distribution and urban transport. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with fixed phone and more dissatisfied with insurance, water and electricity distribution and urban transport. Netherlands Just as with Italy, Dutch consumers tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs. However, they also tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution, air transport, postal services, insurance, fixed phone, urban and extra-urban transport. Poland In Poland, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with postal services and insurance and tend to be less satisfied with fixed phone and urban transport. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with air transport and tend to be more dissatisfied with fixed phone.
| 15
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Portugal Portuguese consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with postal services and extra-urban transport and tend to be less satisfied with water, gas and electricity distribution, insurance and fixed phone. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services, retail banking, air transport and urban/extra-urban transport and they tend to be more dissatisfied with water and electricity distribution and fixed phone. Slovakia Slovaks tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with mobile phone and postal services and tend to be less satisfied with insurance, water, electricity and gas distribution, urban and extra-urban transport. In addition, they tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with air transport, insurance, water, electricity and gas distribution and urban and extra-urban transport. Slovenia Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with urban transport (where the proportion of satisfied is in line with the EU average). In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with electricity and gas distribution and postal services. Spain Spaniards tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with insurance, retail banking, postal, gas, water and electricity distribution, air transport, mobile phone, fixed phone and urban transport. In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services and extra-urban transport but tend to be more dissatisfied with air transport and mobile phone. Sweden Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with water distribution, retail banking, gas, mobile phone, fixed phone and extra-urban transport and tend to be less satisfied with air transport and postal services. They also tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water and gas distribution and retail banking but tend to be more dissatisfied electricity, postal services and urban transport. United Kingdom Consumers in the UK tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with fixed phone, retail banking and extra-urban transport services. In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with fixed phone and extra-urban transport.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.
EU CONSUMERS FACE DIFFICULTIES WHEN IT COMES TO CHANGING SERVICE PROVIDER
Overall, a large proportion of EU consumers (more than 5 out of 6) think that they will stay with their current provider for the next 12 months. This is the case for most of the sectors, except for air transport and fixed telephony, where 3 consumers out of 4 think that they will stay with their current provider for the next 12 months. Even in markets where there is more than one provider, changing from one supplier to another is often difficult. The only exceptions are in fixed telephony, mobile telephony, retail banking, insurance and especially air transport services. In these cases, at least 2 EU consumers out of 3 who can choose between at least 2 providers state that is easy to change. Buying services from another country is only considered possible and even of potential interest in the case of air transport (4 consumers out 5), and, to a lesser extent, retail banking and mobile telephone services (48% and 41% respectively). A very large majority of users prefer to deal with a national supplier (more than 90% of consumers). This is less the case for air transport services (60%).
8.
Pricing
PRIORITY ACTIONS SHOULD FOCUS ON PRICING
As mentioned earlier, pricing issues are major factors determining consumer satisfaction for most of the services surveyed. Among these components, price levels are identified as the main issue in all the services. Consumers tend to think they pay too much for services of general interest. In addition, EU25 consumers tend to think that suppliers do not offer enough by way of special tariffs for specific target groups or specific usage. Actions designed to increase consumer satisfaction should therefore focus on these price components for maximum effect. Image Consumer satisfaction with urban transport, extra-urban transport and postal services is mostly influenced by the image their supplier has on the market. More specifically, in these sectors, elements such as the reputation of the supplier, its willingness to put the client first and its flexibility are of great importance for consumers.
| 17
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quality Quality of service is the element that has the least influence on overall consumer satisfaction and yet people are most satisfied with this element when evaluating SGIs. This statement tends to prove that consumers take quality of service for granted. Consequently, long-term actions are appropriate in this area. Making the consumers aware of the quality of the services they are using could improve satisfaction with these services in the long term. Urban and extra-urban transport Urban and extra-urban transport are clearly the services with which consumers are least satisfied. Moreover, this observation applies to almost all the countries. Actions to improve satisfaction could target the maintenance of transport networks and vehicles, reliability of the services (frequency of service, punctuality, etc.) and the way the problems and questions raised by consumers are handled.
9.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall, the questionnaire and design of this survey appears to be robust. The questionnaire survey and the underlying model and methodology could be used without major changes for future surveys. One hypothesis that emerges from the results of this survey is that consumer satisfaction in certain services e.g. air transport, retail banking - is affected by the extent to which people are familiar with the internet (since those who are may benefit more from certain services). In order to test this hypothesis, a question on this topic might be included in future surveys. With the current survey approach, an analysis of complaints is difficult to carry out because of the low number of complaints made by the respondents. Since the option of much larger sample sizes is likely to be rejected due to cost implications, this issue may have to be dealt with in another way, e.g. by asking other types of related questions for which the response rates are likely to be higher. Further investigation would need to be done to see whether there is a link between consumer satisfaction and the extent to which a sector has been liberalised. An interesting exercise would be to examine whether any form of statistical clustering of countries and/or services makes sense. This would allow the Commission to answer the question as to where particular consumers have similar attitudes across sectors and countries. It might even lead to the definition of a typology for EU consumers. This could help in predicting consumer behaviour towards changes in market structures and service offers. A final thought is that the way the survey and model has been constructed allows for its extension into other services and also the retailing of consumer goods. If the Commission were to consider the inclusion of new service categories in the future, a small preliminary study and small pilot survey could be undertaken in order to design and test the survey questions that should be included in the questionnaire.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1. Context and objectives of the consumer satisfaction survey

Services of General Interest (SGIs) are of great importance in achieving the fundamental objectives of the European Union. The provision of high quality, accessible and affordable services of general interest meeting the needs of consumers is essential for the social and economic inclusion of all EU citizens and the territorial integrity of the EU. Therefore, understanding EU citizens perceptions of SGIs and the problems they have experienced with SGIs through various studies and opinion surveys is one of the priorities of the Commission and in particular of the Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO). Indeed, DG SANCO has been building up an 'evidence base' regarding services of general interest in order to improve policymaking and integrate consumer concerns into other EU policies. In addition, data facilitates the monitoring and evaluation of EU and national policies. For this purpose, DG SANCO has been carrying out regular quantitative surveys (e.g. Eurobarometers) and qualitative studies (e.g. focus groups) to measure consumer satisfaction with services of general interest. Qualitative studies are organised in connection with issues raised in Eurobarometers in order to have a better understanding of consumers views and cross-check Eurobarometer results. Data related to services of general interest are also made available in the publication entitled Consumers in Europe Facts and Figures. A special edition of Consumers in Europe - Facts and Figures, devoted to Services of General Interest, is to be published in 2007. In 2003, DG SANCO launched an open call for tender on the Development of consumer satisfaction indicators; pilot survey on consumer satisfaction. Together with Deloitte, INRA won this call. The assignment had three objectives: o To develop a methodology for the construction of consumer satisfaction indicators in the European Union. This methodology had to be practical and have a sound scientific basis, reflecting recent insights into consumer satisfaction and its measurement; o To develop and carry out a pilot survey based on the proposed methodology. The purpose of this pilot survey was to test the methodology and its underlying modelling and to propose a preliminary set of indicators; o To analyse the outcomes of the pilot survey in order to indicate possible adaptations to the methodology developed in the first stage. INRA and Deloitte developed an appropriate survey framework (e.g. questionnaires, population and sampling, survey methods, etc.) and proposed statistical methods to be used and methods for calculating and presenting the consumer satisfaction indicators.
| 19
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Another open call for tender was launched in 2004 to prepare, implement and analyse the consumer satisfaction survey using the methodology developed during the first assignment. INRA (now Ipsos Belgium), which had become part of the Ipsos Group, won the contract. In order to gather the most effective resources for this contract, Ipsos decided to continue its partnership with Deloitte, which acted as policy analysts and advisers and selected two independent experts to work on the pilot survey: Dominique Vanmarsenille and Professor Vanhoof (Hasselt University). The survey outcomes should serve as a tool to support EU consumer policy-making in SGIs. The satisfaction indicators that were developed are sector-based and should enable DG SANCO to: o o o o o understand how consumers perceive certain SGIs, what their main requirements are and how key service areas meet their expectations; benchmark performance amongst EU member states within particular SGIs; benchmark the performance of SGIs within a specific country or at the EU level; identify priorities for improvement - in other words the areas where improvements will produce the greatest gain in consumer satisfaction; set goals for improvement and monitor progress.
The indicators resulting from the survey ought to become a reference tool for EU policymakers in SGIs, which would allow them to gauge both overall consumer satisfaction levels and to measure the specific elements that determine satisfaction levels in individual areas. The consumer satisfaction indicators proposed should be able to help EU policymakers define and review EU policy in these areas. The indicators provide signals of whether SGIs are functioning properly and whether corrective regulatory or enforcement measures should be considered. The scope of the project focuses on 11 services of general interest across all 25 EU members: gas, water, electricity, postal services, mobile telephone, fixed telephone, urban transport (within towns/cities: tram, bus, underground, rail/RER), extra urban transport (between towns/cities: rail, bus), air transport, retail banking and insurance.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Methodology
Ipsos INRA applied a robust and homogeneous methodology across all the countries in order to guarantee a complete benchmark in terms of results: 500 interviews per sector and per country (250 for sectors of low levels of usage); Face to face data collection, at home, with interviews lasting an average of 55 minutes; Representative random sample of users for each sector in the past 12 months, via sampling procedures based on a stratification of each country according to region and urbanisation degree, gender, age and occupation.
The questionnaire collects observed dimensions (i.e. easily observable criteria for consumers) among users and drivers of consumer satisfaction, including common and specific items adapted for each sector: Overall satisfaction with the service: overall satisfaction with the service extent to which the requirements of consumers are met; Price: price level transparency (i.e. tariffs and invoices are clear and easy to understand) payment process (i.e. it is easy to pay ones supplier invoices) affordability (i.e. the services cost more than one can afford to pay) accuracy (i.e. the suppliers invoices are correct) commercial offer (i.e. suppliers have attractive special tariffs for specific target groups) profitability (i.e. the supplier shares their profit with consumers) overall price; Quality: reliability of the service provided service safety offer relevance (i.e. the service meets consumers needs) information (i.e. suppliers regularly inform their customers about their services and special tariffs) technical support (i.e. the supplier offers high quality technical assistance) handling questions and problems (i.e. suppliers react promptly and appropriately) availability of the supplier professional, helpful and friendly staff confidentiality (i.e. the supplier respects customers privacy/discretion when dealing with delicate problems) investment and maintenance of infrastructures points of sales order ease (how easy it is to make an order or a booking) transport comfort transport network overall quality; Image: suppliers reputation relationship between supplier and customers uniqueness of the suppliers image familiarity of customers with their suppliers services popularity of the supplier flexibility of the supplier suppliers customer mindedness (i.e. the supplier puts always customers first) state of the art (i.e. supplier is technologically innovative) environment (i.e. supplier respects the environment) overall image; Market and personal factors: enough competition ability to move (change supplier) accessibility of the services cross-border purchasing national preference (i.e. a prefer for dealing with a national supplier);
| 21
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Commitment to the service (i.e. the consumer will still use his/her service supplier/change supplier/stop using the service); Negative experiences with the services and complaints: number of problems experienced with suppliers complaints (i.e. did the consumer communicate his/her problem) satisfaction with the way the problems were solved.
The individual rating of each consumer satisfaction item is based on a 1 to 10 scale which allows consumers to carry out a nuanced evaluation. Regarded by the community of satisfaction research experts as the most academic and commonly accepted scale, it is also the most consistent scale able to measure satisfaction across borders, across sectors and over time.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Satisfaction indicators
3.1. DEFINING CONSUMER SATISFACTION INDICATORS
In order to take into consideration the complexity and multifaceted nature of consumer satisfaction, the analysis presented in this report provides the reader with two groups of indicators measuring consumers satisfaction towards SGI sectors: A. Primary indicators, reporting direct consumer feedback on their satisfaction levels in each sector both at overall and component levels (i.e. for price, quality and image). B. Added value indicators, calculating a consumer satisfaction level that integrates consumers expectations for each component (i.e. expectations towards price, quality and image) with their satisfaction, helping to identify and prioritise action that needs to be taken (i.e. criteria raising high levels of expectation among consumers but showing current low levels of satisfaction).
A) PRIMARY INDICATORS
The first level of analysis aims to describe consumers feelings about services of general interest and about elements that constitute suppliers services as well as the problems encountered when using these services. This analysis is built in such a way as to allow meaningful comparisons (and aggregations) of how consumers feel: across sectors in one member state; in one sector across member states (EU25, EU15, NMS10); and (at a later stage) over time. For each sector and all elements measured in the questionnaire (see Section 2), we calculate two basic and complementary indicators that are commonly used in satisfaction research area: o Average levels of satisfaction: for each sector, people were asked to evaluate, on a scale from 1 (not satisfied at all) to 10 (fully satisfied), the extent to which they are satisfied with their supplier. On the basis of individual scores, average scores are calculated for each sector. Example: the average satisfaction score with sector x is 7.8 out of 10 Levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction: the research experts community widely admits that the average satisfaction score (as described above) is necessary but requires a complementary approach that helps distinguish between satisfied, neutral and dissatisfied consumers. As stated in most satisfaction surveys in Europe and confirmed in this survey - the average value of satisfaction on a 10 point-scale is not the arithmetical average of 5 but is closer to 7. There is therefore an inherent bias in the use of 1-10 scales in satisfaction surveys. In order to correct this standard bias the research community generally uses the Top 3 Bottom 4 model that says: Consumers rating 1, 2, 3 or 4 are considered as dissatisfied Consumers rating 5, 6 or 7 are considered as neutral Consumers rating 8, 9 or 10 are considered as satisfied
| 23
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Based on this grouping rule, we can more easily measure the percentage of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers for each sector and each criterion. The graph below shows the two complementary indicators of satisfaction (average / satisfied-dissatisfied) from a typical distribution of individual scores. Typical distribution of satisfaction scores (1-10 scale)
6
Neutral
9
Satisfaction = 45%
10
Dissatisfaction =9%
Average Satisfaction = 7,7
In addition, other key indicators are provided in the analysis: o o Average numbers of consumer complaints. Example: On average, consumers have experienced 3 problems with their supplier in the last 12 months. Breakdown analysis by consumer demographic profile (age, gender, occupation level etc.). Example: 60% of men and 40% of women are satisfied with sector x.
B) ADDED VALUE INDICATORS

While the main objective of the first level of analysis was to measure key satisfaction indicators and give an overall picture of a given service sector/country, the second level intends to make use of more advanced statistical methods in order determine the interaction of these key indicators so as to explain consumers overall satisfaction.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The results of this advanced analysis will provide useful information for the Commission and DG SANCO in particular, which could be used to determine the areas of priority and the appropriate actions to be taken in order to improve satisfaction in a given sector/country. It will also be a useful tool for monitoring consumer satisfaction by country/sector over time and for evaluating the impact of a policy on consumer satisfaction. In the rest of the section we set out details of the two statistical tools that were used: the satisfaction model and the two-dimensional analysis. B1) Satisfaction model A statistical model has been specifically built for DG SANCO and was previously validated during the pilot stage. This model offers a range of possible added-value analysis and allows especially to explain the contribution of observed variables to overall satisfaction, allowing us to determine the levels of consumers expectations. Contribution of observed variables to overall satisfaction The satisfaction model uses two types of variables: Driving factors i.e. variables explaining satisfaction: (perceived) quality (perceived) price image Performance indicators: variables that are a consequence of satisfaction i.e. commitment complaints
The model helps explain the level of overall satisfaction observed for a given sector with the help of the above-mentioned variables. In other words, the model indicates the level of contribution made by each variable to overall satisfaction. This contribution is calculated through a regression analysis, which determines the weight of each variable. These weightings can take a value ranging from 0 to 1. The more a weighting is close to 1, the more the variable is contributing to overall satisfaction, or, in other words, the higher consumers expectations are. For example, if the regression coefficients are the following: 0.4 (price), 0.35 (image) and 0.25 (quality). This means that price is the variable that contributes to satisfaction most, i.e. where consumers expectations are the highest. The model also indicates the variables that are a consequence of satisfaction and the contribution of overall satisfaction to these variables for a given sector. Here again, weightings are calculated in order to quantify the contribution of the overall satisfaction to the commitment and complaints level. The relationship between overall satisfaction and the above-mentioned variables provides useful information for policy-making.
| 25
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For example, lets suppose that, for a given sector, the level of satisfaction is low and that price is the variable that contributes most to this level of satisfaction. In addition, lets suppose that complaints are the main consequence of this low level of satisfaction. Policy-makers should then focus their attention on price as it contributes to dissatisfaction and consequently to complaints. The model can also be used to set and test further hypotheses and assess the potential impact of actions, as in the following hypothetical example: In the fixed phone sector within the EU25, an increase of 10% in consumer satisfaction regarding prices would improve the overall consumer satisfaction level to 33% Policymakers efforts could therefore be focused first on price transparency and information. B2) Two-dimensional analysis The two-dimensional analysis is one of the most common approaches to be carried out on consumer satisfaction data and helps in the presentation of the final results. The aim of this analysis is to summarise the opportunities for action (i.e. areas where the SGI does not perform so well and where actions to change the situation are needed in order to improve consumer satisfaction) and areas where no action is needed (i.e. areas where the SGI performs well and where no action is required), on a simple mapping system that takes into account: the score of each variable on a 10-point scale (satisfaction); the regression coefficient in other words consumers expectation levels - of the 3 drivers of satisfaction (quality, price, image). As mentioned before, these coefficients express the importance (contribution) of each of these 3 drivers in the overall satisfaction. The regression coefficient can have a value from 0 to 1. This mapping system is particularly useful in providing a visual representation of priority areas for improvement for the European Commission and DG SANCO to take into account. Example: lets suppose that we find regression coefficients of 0.40 for price, 0.25 for quality and 0.35 for image. This means that price accounts for 40% of the observed satisfaction; quality accounts for 25% of it and image 35%. In other words, price contributes most to overall satisfaction; this is the most important factor. This said, if price reaches a low satisfaction score, it therefore becomes a priority area of action for policy-makers to increase the overall satisfaction of the sector.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Four quadrants are formed: the upper left quadrant corresponds to a priority action i.e. situation where the items satisfaction scores are below average whereas consumers expectations for these variables are quite high (i.e. these variables contribute a large amount to overall satisfaction). Consumers are not very satisfied with the items falling into this quadrant whereas these are important items for them. This quadrant defines the policy areas where action will have the greatest effect on overall consumer satisfaction. the upper right quadrant corresponds to an ideal situation, i.e. an area where no action is needed. This is a situation where the items satisfaction scores are above average and consumer expectations are quite high for these variables. Consumers are very satisfied with the items falling into this quadrant. In addition, these contribute most to consumer satisfaction. This quadrant defines the policy areas where action will have the least effect on overall consumer satisfaction. the lower left quadrant corresponds to a low importance area i.e. a situation where the items satisfaction scores are below average and expectations are quite low for these variables. Attention should not be focused on these variables as they are secondary factors. This is not a priority for the moment. This quadrant defines the policy areas where action will have a small effect on overall consumer satisfaction. The lower right quadrant corresponds to a long-term action i.e. a situation where the items satisfaction scores are above average whereas expectations are quite low for these variables. Consumers are quite satisfied with the items falling into this quadrant but these items do not contribute much to the overall satisfaction. Although these are not priority areas, there may be an opportunity for raising consumers awareness about the importance of these items. This quadrant defines the policy areas where action could have a longer term effect on overall consumer satisfaction.
Example: For a given sector, we find the following: Satisfaction scores: 5.5 for price level (PRICE) and 7.9 for payment process (PRICE); 6.0 for points of sale (QUALITY) and 7.5 for staff professionalism (QUALITY); 7.25 for reputation (IMAGE) and 6.8 for customer mindedness (IMAGE) Regression coefficient: 0.4 for PRICE, 0.35 for IMAGE and 0.25 for QUALITY Average score: 6.83
| 27
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Expectations + Priority actions Price level (5.5) Customer mindedness (6.8) Ideal situation Payment process (7.9) Reputation (7.25)
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Low importance area Points of sale (6.0)
Long-term actions Staff professionalism (7.5)
Expectations -
Price level and customer mindedness are two priority areas for the sector given as an example. These two items are of high importance to consumers (they make a considerable contribution to overall satisfaction) whereas they obtain low satisfaction scores (compared to the average). An action in these two areas would have the greatest effect on consumer satisfaction.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On the other hand, consumers are quite satisfied with payment process and reputation as these items obtained satisfaction scores above the average. These two items correspond to an ideal situation as they play an important role in consumer satisfaction. No action is required in these areas. Staff professionalism performs very well as the satisfaction score is above the average. For the moment, this item is of less importance (it does not contribute much to overall satisfaction). Communication in this area should raise consumer awareness of the importance of this item. Action taken in the area of point of sales would have little effect on consumer satisfaction as peoples expectations in this area are low.
3.2.
STRUCTURE OF THE FINAL REPORT
The first part will present a descriptive analysis of the survey results for each sector - at the EU and country level for each of the main topics assessed by the respondents. The results of the survey will be analysed by socio-economic group. Advanced analysis based on the satisfaction model will complete this descriptive part. In the second part we use graphs to show the percentage of consumers who are satisfied or dissatisfied with the eleven SGIs (services of general interest) by country and for the EU25 as a whole. The last part of this report will highlight the main findings of the survey. We will also conclude with recommendations for future improvements and research.
| 29
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
B. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY RESULTS 1. Electricity supply

1.1. OVERALL RESULTS
EU consumers are fairly satisfied with electricity supply: the average score at EU25 level is 7.6 (on a scale of 1 to 10). Compared to the EU15, there are relatively more satisfied consumers (those giving a score from 8 to 10) in the new member states (62%) but also relatively more dissatisfied consumers (7% of respondents gave a score from 1 to 4). This result suggests that consumers from the new member states pay more attention to this service than EU15 consumers but it could also point to higher differences in quality and/or perception levels within these countries. The percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers are displayed in the following graph:
EL. 1 Electricity supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your electricity supplier?
% Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
EU25
57.6
5.3
Satisfied Dissatisfied EU15 56.5 4.9
NMS10
62.3
6.7
20
40
60
80
100
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EU MEMBER STATES
The following graph shows the percentage of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers per country:
EL. 2 Electricity supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your electricity supplier? Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
LT AT DK SI IE LV DE HU EE LU CY BE FI NMS10 FR PL CZ UK EU25 EU15 SE SK EL MT ES NL PT IT 0
81.6 79.5 78.9 73.5 73.2 73.1 72.7 72.6 71.8 71.5 70.1 65.2 63.2 62.3 60.4 59.9 58.3 58.2 57.6 56.5 53.2 52.8 48.1 47 42.7 41.1 36.4 34.8 20 8.3 40 60 4 6.4 12.8 9.5 17.4 3.1 6.4 9.2 6.6 5.3 4.9 11.5 8.5 2.1 6.1 6.7 2.5 3.5 3.2 2.4 8.6 4.4 2.1 6.4
1.6 2 2.2
Satisfied Dissatisfied
80
100
At country level, the proportion of satisfied consumers ranges from 35 % (Italy) to 82 % (Lithuania).
| 31
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Based on the proportion of satisfied consumers, EU countries can be divided into two groups: 1. The first group includes countries where consumers are more satisfied than the EU25 on average. In descending order, these are: Lithuania, Austria, Denmark, Slovenia, Ireland, Latvia, Germany, Hungary, Estonia, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Belgium and Finland. Most of the new member states (6 out of the 10) are in this first group. 2. The second group contains countries where consumers are less satisfied than the EU25 on average: Slovakia, Greece, Malta, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy. In Portugal and Italy less than 40% of consumers say they are satisfied with their electricity supply. The survey results also show that the proportion of dissatisfied consumers in Malta, Portugal and Sweden is higher than 10% (it is even 17 % in Malta). At the other extreme fewer than 3% of consumers say they are dissatisfied in Lithuania, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany and Slovenia.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.3.
DIFFERENCES BY SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP
The following graph displays the proportion of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers for different socio-economic groups:
EL. 3 Electricity supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentage (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your electricity supplier?
% by socio-demographics
Gender
Men
57.6
Women
57.6
5.5
18-34
57.3
5.5
Age
35-54
56
6.4
55+
59.7
3.9
Up to 15 years
54.6
5.7
Education
16-19 years
58.3
5.5
20 years +
59
4.6
Still studying
56.8
4.5
Self-employed
52.5
6.9
Managers
62
3.7
Other white collars
56.7
5.2
Occupation
Blue collars
60
4.6
Students
55.3
5.4
House-persons
50.5
6.6
Unemployed
58.8
8.7
Retired
60.9
3.9
| 33
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In terms of occupation, the graph shows the following results: 1. Managers (62%), retired consumers (61%) and blue collar workers (60%) tend to be more satisfied than those belonging to other professional categories while the selfemployed and house-persons are the least satisfied; 2. The unemployed tend to be more dissatisfied than the others with respect to electricity supply. In terms of age, people over 55 years old are more satisfied (60%) than the other categories and than the EU25 on average. Lastly, consumers who completed their secondary school studies tend to be more satisfied than those who dropped out of school early.
1.4.
OTHER KEY OBSERVATIONS ARISING FROM THE SURVEY
A) OVERALL IMAGE
In Austria, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Ireland, more than 7 consumers out of 10 consider their electricity provider to have a positive image overall (as against an EU25 average of 51%). Only 28% of consumers in the Netherlands, 31% in Portugal and Malta, 33% in Italy and 35% in Spain and Sweden consider their electricity provider to have a positive image overall.
B) OVERALL QUALITY
For the majority of EU25 consumers (57%), their electricity provider offers a quality service. Austrians are the most satisfied consumers as far as the overall quality of electricity distribution is concerned (80% of consumers say they are satisfied).
C) OVERALL PRICE
Only 35% of consumers say that their providers prices are fair given the services provided. Luxembourg, Slovenia, Finland and Germany are the only countries where an absolute majority (from 50% to 52%) agrees with this statement.
D) COMMITMENT
In countries where consumers have the choice between electricity providers, i.e. in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, the vast majority of consumers have no intention of changing supplier in the short run (within a year). The only exception is Belgium, where only 46% say they are committed to their supplier.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E) MARKET AND PERSONAL FACTORS

More than 8 consumers out of 10 prefer to deal with a national electricity provider. The same proportion think that the services of these providers are available for everybody and available everywhere. In liberalised markets, almost two thirds of consumers think that there is enough competition. In the UK and the Netherlands, this idea is shared by 84% and 77% of users respectively, whereas only 28% of Czech consumers think so. However, when asked about changing their provider, consumers are less convinced that this would be easy to do: only 54% believe that there are no barriers. The Czechs, Danes, Austrians and Belgians are the least convinced. 18% of Czechs, 22% of Danes, 35% of Austrians and 36% of Belgians believe that it is easy to change from one supplier to another. Finally, only 23% of EU consumers think that it is possible to buy electricity from an electricity supplier outside their country. A majority (41%) of them could not give an answer.
1.5.
ADVANCED ANALYSES
A) CRITERIA THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CONSUMERS OVERALL SATISFACTION

As mentioned at the beginning of this report, before taking any action to improve consumers overall satisfaction, it is important to determine the criteria or elements that influence and explain consumers overall satisfaction. These criteria are quality, pricing and image. This contribution to consumers overall satisfaction is calculated through a regression analysis which determines the relative weighting of quality, pricing and image in overall satisfaction. The weighting of each of these criteria (regression coefficient1) calculated for the electricity supply service is shown in the following table: Regression coefficients Quality Image Pricing 0.302 0.314 0.493
These weightings can take a value ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 meaning that the criteria has no influence on overall satisfaction and 1 meaning that it contributes fully to overall satisfaction. FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO
| 35
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The regression coefficients show that all three factors are important. However, pricing has the biggest impact on satisfaction (i.e. consumers expectations as to price are higher than for quality and image). This result can be partially explained by the fact that in the electricity market the price elasticity of demand is low (an increase in the electricity price level causes a less than proportional decrease in domestic demand). Another part of the explanation is probably that, in a mature market with few differentiated products, the main (or remaining) factor that influences consumer satisfaction and choice of supplier is price all other factors are considered to be good enough. In other words, efforts to improve consumers overall satisfaction with the electricity supply service need to be focused on pricing issues to a large extent and then on image and quality.
B) OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

In order to define precise and concrete actions to improve consumers satisfaction with the electricity supply service, another advanced analysis needs to be performed: the twodimensional analysis. The aim is to determine: the areas where the SGI does not perform well and where actions to change the situation is needed in order to improve consumers satisfaction; the areas where the SGI performs well and where no action is needed.
This is done by mean of a diagram taking into account the following information: The average satisfaction score given by consumers to each criterion related to quality, pricing and image (marked as Satisfaction on the X-axis of the map) The weighting or contribution of each criterion (quality, pricing and image) to consumers satisfaction - this weighting represents the extent to which each criterion is important to consumers (marked as Importance on the Y-axis of the map).
The diagram on the following page shows the areas where priority actions are needed in order to improve consumers satisfaction with the electricity supply service.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EL. 4
Two-dimensional analysis - Electricity Importance + Priority actions Transparency (7.05) Overall price (6.56) Commercial offer (6.41) Price level (5.81) Environmentally friendly actions (7.22) Familiarity (7.15) Ease (7.07) Customer service mentality (6.86) Uniqueness (6.74) Ideal situation Payment process (7.92) Accuracy (7.37) Popularity (7.75) State of the art technology (7.49) Overall image(7.43) Relationship (7.38 Reputation (7.27)
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Low importance area Points of sale (6.64) Information (6.56)
Long term actions Safety (8.11) Reliability( 7.96) Offer relevance (7.89) Overall quality (7.71) Confidentiality (7.69) Order ease (7.58) Staff professionalism (7.55) Infrastructure (7.53) Technical support (7.34) Availability (7.29) Questions/problem handling (7.29)
Importance -
| 37
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS In the previous section, the diagram shows that perceived price is the element that has the greatest influence on consumer satisfaction with their electricity supply service. In addition, consumers are not fully satisfied with price issues. Therefore, it can be assumed that most of the opportunities for improvement are related to improving consumers perception of price and that these improvements would consequently influence overall consumers satisfaction with this service. Given the weighting of the pricing criteria (near to 0.5), any action that would lead to an increase of 10% of consumers who are satisfied with the price of their electricity supply service would lead to an increase of 5% in overall consumers satisfaction with this service. SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST PRICING The elements of pricing that consumers are particularly dissatisfied with and that need special attention are: the price level charged by suppliers for electricity distribution services; commercial offers i.e. there are not enough attractive special tariffs for specific groups of consumers; the transparency of tariffs.
On the other hand, consumers are satisfied with the different options they are given to pay their invoices (payment process) and the accuracy of the invoices received from their supplier. No particular action needs to be taken in these areas. IMAGE Overall consumers satisfaction can also be improved by taking measures that would: increase the differentiation between electricity providers - consumers expect their electricity provider to have a unique image that others do not have; Improve suppliers customer service mentality.
These observations might be explained by the fact that member states domestic markets are not yet fully liberalised and that, even in liberalised markets, the competition is still limited (former state-owned suppliers continue to have most of the market share). In this context of newly competitive markets, it is only now that major electricity providers are beginning to feel the need to advertise and invest in their image or in added value information services (e.g. related to price calculation or energy-savings tools). To a lesser extent, consumers expect to deal with their supplier in a flexible way, to receive more information about their suppliers services and expect their supplier to take environmental concerns into account.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
QUALITY As mentioned earlier, consumers tend to be satisfied with the quality of service provided by their electricity provider. Nevertheless, quality does not have a major influence on consumers overall satisfaction with this service. This does not mean that consumers show little interest in the quality of electricity or related services they receive. But it could be explained by the fact that, since they are used to receiving electricity on a reliable and constant basis, their needs are sufficiently met and there are not many opportunities for improvement in this area. CONCLUSIONS Considering these statements, priority actions that need to be taken in electricity supply in order to increase consumer satisfaction are as follows: o o increase the number of special tariffs and the transparency of tariffs on the one hand and decrease the price level on the other hand; strengthen the supplier image by developing a unique image and improving customer service mentalities.
On the other hand, the following positive elements need to be maintained: the popularity and the reputation of suppliers, the type of relationship between consumers and suppliers and the fact that suppliers deliver their products and services via state of the art technologies; o the accuracy of invoices and the ease of the payment process. o
| 39
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Gas supply
EU consumers are fairly satisfied with their gas suppliers: the average score at EU25 level is 7.6 on a scale from 1 to 10. The following graph shows the percentage of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers at EU level:
GAS. 1 Gas supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your gas supplier? % Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied
EU25
57.9
4.4
Satisfied Dissatisfied EU15 57.2 4
NMS10
60.9
6.6
20
40
60
80
100
Questions not asked for that service in Cyprus and Malta
The above graph shows that both the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers are higher in the ten new member states (considered as group). In most of these countries fewer consumers take a neutral position (i.e. rating their satisfaction between 5 and 7 out of 10). This finding is similar to the results for electricity supply.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.2.
The percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers in EU countries2 are shown in the graph below:
GAS. 2 Gas supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your gas supplier?
Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied (% by country)
EL LT IE DK SI FI AT SE DE LU EE LV BE HU CZ NMS10 PL UK FR EU25 EU15 PT ES NL SK IT 0
87.4 84.5 81.8 77.9 77.2 76.6 75.9 74.1 69.7 69.3 68.1 67.5 65.2 64.9 64.5 60.9 58.9 58.3 58.2 57.9 57.2 49.5 47.7 47.6 43.3 36.4 20 4.1 40 60 80 4.1 3.8 3.7 15 6.6 4.8 4.9 4.5 4.4 4 2.6 9.2 10.1 3.6 1.7 2.1 4.8 2.6 1.2 1.4 2.7 1.9 0.7 1.9
1.5
100
There is no gas distribution infrastructure in Malta or Cyprus. These countries have therefore been left out of the comparisons. FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO
| 41
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
At country level, the percentage of consumers who are satisfied with their gas supply service ranges from 36.4 % (Italy) to 87.4 % (Greece). Based on the percentage of satisfied consumers, EU countries can be organised into two groups: 3. The first group is made up of countries in which consumers are more satisfied than EU25 consumers are on average: Greece, Lithuania, Ireland - with very high percentages of satisfied consumers (from 82 to 87%). These countries are followed by Denmark, Slovenia, Finland, Austria and Sweden (from 74 to 78%) and finally Germany, Luxembourg, Estonia, Latvia, Belgium, Hungary and the Czech Republic (from 64 to 70%). As already noted, six of the ten new member states are in this group. 4. The second group is made up of countries in which consumers are less satisfied than the EU25 average: Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands and Slovakia (from 43% to 49% of satisfied consumers) and Italy, which has the lowest percentage of satisfied consumers (36%). The highest percentages of dissatisfied consumers are to be found in three new member states: Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary, with, respectively, 15%, 10% and 9% of dissatisfied consumers. Remarkably, the Czech Republic and Hungary have also relatively high percentages of satisfied consumers.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.3.
The following graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers according to their socio-economic category:
GAS. 3 Gas supply: proportion of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category
percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your gas supplier?
Gender
Men
58.2
4.4
Women
57.6
4.4
18-34
55.7
4.5
Age
35-54
57.2
4.5
55+
60
4.2
Up to 15 years
54.6
4.4
Education
16-19 years
59.6
4.1
20 years +
58.8
4.6
Still studying
48
7.5
Self-employed
51
5.4
Managers
62.2
4.1
Other white collars
59.2
3.7
Occupation
Blue collars
56.4
4.2
Students
51
6.6
House-persons
60.9
3.5
Unemployed
55.7
6.5
Retired
59.7
4.4
| 43
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
When the figures are broken down by socio-economic group, managers (62%) and house persons (61%) appear to be those who are most satisfied with their gas supplies. Respondents who have been at school up until the age of 15 (or less) are somewhat less satisfied (55% are satisfied) than those who have finished secondary school. In terms of age groups, respondents over 55 years old are clearly the most satisfied consumers 60% of them rated their satisfaction equal to or greater then 8 out of 10. There is no significant difference between men and women in terms of how far they are satisfied with their gas supply services.
2.4.
OTHER KEY OBSERVATIONS ARISING DIRECTLY FROM THE SURVEY
A) OVERALL IMAGE
In Greece, Ireland, Slovenia, Luxembourg and Finland, more than 7 consumers out of 10 see their gas provider as having a positive image overall (against an EU25 average of 49%). Only 25% in Sweden, 30% in Italy, 32% in the Netherlands and 39% in Portugal and Spain think that their gas provider has a positive image overall.
B) OVERALL QUALITY
For the majority of EU25 consumers (59%), their gas provider offers a quality service. The Greeks are the most satisfied consumers as far as the overall quality of gas distribution is concerned (88% of satisfied consumers).
C) OVERALL PRICE
For a small percentage of EU citizens, whether in the EU15 or in NMS10, their providers prices are considered fair given the services provided. This percentage is the lowest (16%) in Slovakia. Luxembourg, Finland, Lithuania, Ireland, Slovenia and Greece, on the other hand, are the only countries where an absolute majority (from 51% to 63%) agrees with this statement.
D) COMMITMENT
More than 8 consumers out of 10 who have the choice between several gas suppliers (i.e. Austria, Belgium, Spain, Greece, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK) will keep their supplier in the next 12 months.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Almost 8 EU consumers out of 10 prefer to deal with national gas providers. Their services are available for everybody and everywhere, according to 68% of EU gas users and especially in the new member states (75% against 67% in the EU15). In addition, when asked whether they think it is possible to buy gas distribution services from a supplier outside their country, a majority could not give an answer (40%) and 38% said they did not think it is possible. While 87% of British people, 79% of Portuguese people and 67% of Dutch people agree with the fact that there is enough competition in their country, 78% of French people and 74% of Slovaks do not think that there is enough competition in their country. With regard to changing provider, EU consumers have different views: 42% believe that there are no barriers, especially in the EU15 (43% as against 22% in the NMS10). The UK (80%) and Portugal (79%) are the countries where the greatest percentage of people agree with this statement. A similar percentage disagrees with this statement, especially in France (76%) and in Slovakia (71%).
2.5.
ADVANCED ANALYSES

The relative weight or importance of quality, pricing and image in consumers overall satisfaction (regression coefficient3) calculated for the gas supply service is shown in the following table: Regression coefficients Quality Image Pricing 0.488 0.276 0.204
As can be seen, quality is the criterion that is regarded by consumers as the most important when they evaluate their gas supply service. In other words, consumers overall satisfaction will be mostly influenced by how far they are satisfied with the quality of their gas supply service. In particular, consumers expect to receive a safe and reliable (e.g. no disruptions in the gas supply) service.
These co-efficients can have a value ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 meaning that the criteria has no influence on overall satisfaction and 1 meaning that it has a major influence on overall satisfaction. FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO
| 45
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As mentioned earlier, another advanced analysis needs to be carried out in order to define precise and concrete actions that can be taken to improve consumers satisfaction with gas supply service. This is called a two-dimensional analysis: The aim is to determine: the areas where the SGI does not perform well and where actions to change the situation are needed to improve consumer satisfaction; the areas where the SGI performs well and where no action is needed.
This is done by mapping out the results of the surveys by taking into account the following information: the average satisfaction score given by consumers for each criterion related to quality, pricing and image (marked as Satisfaction on the diagram, the X-axis); The weight or contribution of each criterion (quality, pricing and image) to consumer satisfaction. This weight represents how far each criterion is regarded as important by consumers (marked as Importance on the diagram, the Y-axis).
The diagram on the following page shows the areas in which priority actions are needed to improve consumer satisfaction with their gas supply service
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
GAS. 4 Two-dimensional analysis - Gas Importance + Priority actions Points of sale (6.79) Information (6.48) Environment friendly (7.24) Reputation (7.2) Familiarity (7.14) Ease (7.1) Customer mentality (6.91) Uniqueness (6.67) Ideal situation Safety (8.11) Reliability (8.07) Offer relevance (7.87) Order ease (7.85) Overall quality (7.76) Confidentiality (7.7) Staff professionalism (7.69) Infrastructure (7.5) Technical support (7.42) Questions/problem handling (7.38) Availability (7.31) Popularity (7.58) Relationship (7.45) State of the art (7.42) Overall image (7.34) Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Low importance area Transparency (6.98) Overall price (6.41) Commercial offer (5.91) Price level (5.74)
Long term actions Payment process (7.93) Accuracy (7.37)
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS The average satisfaction rating for all the variables is 7.2. Variables that have the greatest impact on consumers overall satisfaction, i.e. quality and image, gain good scores (7.8 and 7.3 respectively) while price is substantially below average levels of satisfaction (with a score of 6.4).
| 47
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST QUALITY The elements of quality that consumers are particularly dissatisfied with and that need special attention are: the information provided by gas suppliers: apparently consumers do not receive regular information about their suppliers services and special tariffs; point of sale: consumers would like to have a point of sale near to their home.
On the other hand, Consumers seem to be satisfied with: safety of service: their supplier provides them with a safe service; reliability of service: their supplier offers a reliable service i.e. it works well, all the time and without disruptions in the supply; infrastructure: their supplier invests in modernising their infrastructure.
This is an encouraging observation in a sector where safety and continuity of service are of paramount importance from a consumers point of view. IMAGE Similarly to the electricity supply sector, the areas where action needs to be taken to improve consumers levels of satisfaction are: building a unique suppliers image (uniqueness): consumers need to have a gas supplier with an image that is different from the others. Consumers are looking for more differentiation among gas suppliers; Customer service mentality: suppliers need to put the client first; Familiarity: consumers need to know about the services of their supplier and understand what their supplier does.
PRICE Consumers are dissatisfied with the following elements of pricing: price level: their provider does not offer reasonable or competitive prices; commercial offer: their supplier does not have attractive special tariffs for specific target groups or for specific usage; transparency: tariffs and invoices are not clear or easy to understand.
Although these elements are a source of dissatisfaction for consumers, they are not considered of great importance. They do not have much of an impact on consumers overall satisfaction. Therefore, no specific action is needed to change this situation.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSIONS Given the above, the main areas that the gas supply can be improved so as to increase consumer satisfaction are as follows: o o increase the quality of services and products by informing consumers better and being more consumer-focused; boost the suppliers image by developing a unique image, improving customer service mentality, increasing environmental care, boosting the consumers familiarity with and the flexibility of the supplier.
On the other hand, it is important to maintain the strengths (high satisfaction combined with high importance) of gas supply: in terms of quality, the safety, reliability, offer relevance, order ease, confidentiality, staff professionalism, quality of the infrastructure, technical support, questions/problems handling and availability; o in terms of image, popularity, relationship and respect for the use state of the art technology in the delivery of gas and related services. o
| 49
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Water distribution
On average, EU25 consumers give their water distribution service a satisfaction rating of 7.7 on a scale from 1 to 10. The following graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied respondents in the water distribution sector, broken down into the EU of 25 member states, the EU of 15 member states prior to the 2004 accession of ten new member states and the ten new member states that joined in 2004:
WAT. 1 Water distribution: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your water supplier?
EU25
60.2
5.4
NMS10
59.1
7.9
20
40
60
80
100
More than 60% of EU25 consumers are satisfied with their water distribution service. There is no significant difference between the percentage of satisfied consumers in the EU15 and the percentage of satisfied consumers in the NMS10. However, there are more dissatisfied consumers in the new member states than in the EU15 (7.9% of them being dissatisfied in the NMS10 against 4.8% in the EU15).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.2.
The differences between EU member states in terms of percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers are displayed in the following graph:
WAT. 2 Water distribution: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by countrypercentages (2006)
AT DK DE CY SE FI LU SI IE HU BE EU15 EU25 UK LT CZ NMS10 EL PL NL MT SK PT FR EE LV ES IT 0
86.8 84.8 83.9 83 80.7 79.6 73.5 72 71.5 70.6 64.3 60.5 60.2 59.7 59.6 59.2 59.1 59 56.8 53.4 53.1 52.8 52.2 52 51.5 50.5 46.9 40.4 20 40 8.6 60 80 6.1 1 14.3 8.9 8.6 4.4 12.3 11.7 7.6 0.4 4.8 5.4 5.5 8.5 9 7.9 9.8 3.2 4.8 8 7.4 1
1.5
2.2 2.3 1.6 2.9
100
| 51
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Compared to the EU average, consumers in the two following groups tend to be more satisfied with their water distribution service: o o Austria, Denmark, Germany, Cyprus Sweden and Finland (with percentages of satisfied consumers ranging from 80% to 87%); Luxembourg, Slovenia, Ireland and Hungary (from 71% to 73.5%).
The countries where consumers are least satisfied with their water distribution service are the Netherlands, Malta, Slovakia, Portugal, France, Estonia, Latvia (with the percentage of satisfied consumers ranging from 50% to 53%), and Spain and Italy, where only 40% to 47% of respondents say they are satisfied with their water distribution service. Most of the northern European countries are in the first group of countries with high percentages of satisfied consumers (Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Finland), while most of the southern European countries are in the second group (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Malta). Compared to other utility services, there are a number of countries where the percentages of dissatisfied consumers are relatively high: Malta (14%), Estonia (12%) and Latvia (12%), as well as Greece, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Portugal, Italy and Lithuania with a percentage of dissatisfied consumers between 8% and 10%. In several countries with average or lower numbers of satisfied consumers, the percentage of dissatisfied consumers is also very low: the figures range from 0.5% in Belgium to 1.5% in Sweden. In the Netherlands, consumers tend to be relatively neutral as there are both low percentages of satisfied consumers and low percentages of dissatisfied consumers in these countries.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.3.
The following graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers according to their socio-economic category:
WAT. 3 Water supply: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentages (2006)
Gender
Men
59.3
5.9
Women
61
18-34
60.1
5.2
Age
35-54
59.6
5.6
55+
61
5.2
Up to 15 years
54.8
6.2
Education
16-19 years
61.3
5.2
20 years +
62.6
5.2
Still studying
62.1
4.5
Self-employed
52.7
7.8
Managers
60
4.8
Other white collars
60.2
4.6
Occupation
Blue collars
63
4.9
Students
60.7
4.9
House-persons
57.3
5.9
Unemployed
60.5
6.7
Retired
63.4
| 53
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The extent to which consumers are satisfied with their water distribution service cannot be explained by their professional occupation or age. The only professional category where the number of satisfied consumers is significantly lower than the average is the selfemployed category (53%). In terms of education levels, as for the two other utility sectors, only the respondents who stopped studying at the age of 15 or before are less satisfied (55%) than the average population. Finally, men are slightly more satisfied with their water distribution than woman (61% versus 59%).
3.4.
OTHER KEY OBSERVATIONS RESULTING DIRECTLY FROM THE SURVEY
A) OVERALL IMAGE
In Austria, Cyprus, Finland and Luxembourg, 7 consumers out of 10 see their water provider as having a positive image overall (against an EU25 average of 49%). Consumers saw their water provider as having the least positive image in France and in most of the southern European countries (Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain), where fewer than 4 consumers out of 10 said they felt that their water provider had a positive image.
B) OVERALL QUALITY
The majority of EU25 consumers (58%) said that their water provider offers a quality service overall. Austrians are the most satisfied consumers as far as the overall quality of water distribution is concerned (83% are satisfied consumers) whereas Italians are again at the opposite end of the spectrum (38% are satisfied consumers).
C) OVERALL PRICE
With regard to consumers attitudes to price, there are considerable differences across the EU. In six countries, fewer than 30% of consumers think that their water provider prices are fair in terms of the service provided (against an EU25 average of 38%). This is the case in Slovakia (22%), Malta (23%), Italy and France (26% each), Portugal and Spain (29% each). On the other hand, more than 50% of consumers in Finland, Austria, Slovenia, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Hungary and Ireland think that their water provider prices are fair in terms of the service provided.
D) COMMITMENT
In the 3 countries where the market for water distribution is liberalised, i.e. Finland, France and Latvia, 9 consumers out of 10 said they will still use their supplier in the next 12 months.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Overall, a large percentage of EU25 consumers (72%) think that their water provider services are available for everybody. In the new member states, this percentage comes to 82% (as against 70% in the EU15). In Finland, on the other hand, only 44% of respondents agreed with the statement. Although consumers in Finland, France and Latvia have a choice between several suppliers, only a small percentage of them believe that there is enough competition (13% on average and only 4% in Latvia). Moreover, even fewer consumers find it easy to change from one supplier to another (8% on average). A small percentage of EU consumers (14%) believe that there is a possibility of buying water distribution services from another country. In Spain, a quarter of users believe that this is a possibility.
3.5.
ADVANCED ANALYSES
A) CRITERIA THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CONSUMERS OVERALL SATISIFACTION

As can be seen from the table below, pricing has the greatest impact on consumers overall satisfaction, followed by image and quality. Regression coefficients Quality Image Pricing 0.342 0.370 0.434
Therefore, efforts to improve consumers overall satisfaction with their water distribution service need to be focused on pricing issues to a large extent, followed by image and quality issues.

Another advanced analysis, the two-dimensional analysis, needs to be carried out in order to define precise and concrete actions to improve consumers satisfaction with their water distribution supply. The aim is to determine: the areas where the SGI is not performing well and where action to change the situation is needed in order to improve consumers satisfaction; the areas where the SGI is performing well and where no action is needed.
| 55
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is done via a diagram, which takes into account the following information: the average satisfaction score given by consumers to each criterion related to quality, pricing and image (marked as Satisfaction on the X-axis of the map); the weighting or contribution of each criterion (quality, pricing and image) to consumers satisfaction - this weighting gives an indication as to how important each criterion is to consumers (marked as Importance on the Y-axis of the map).
WAT. 4 Two-dimensional analysis Water Importance + Priority actions Overall price (6.77) Price level (6.21) Commercial offer (5.78) State of the art (7.19) Ease (7.13) Familiarity (7.12) Customer mentality (6.97) Uniqueness (6.58) Ideal situation Payment process (7.97) Accuracy (7.47) Transparency (7.23) Environment friendly (7.55) Popularity (7.48) Relationship (7.42) Overall image (7.37) Reputation (7.32)
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Low importance area Availability (7.19) Technical support (7.19) Points of sale (6.88) Information (5.92)
Long term actions Reliability ( 7.94) Safety (7.86) Offer relevance (7.82) Order ease (7.78) Confidentiality (7.69) Overall quality (7.64) Staff professionalism (7.52) Infrastructure (7.38) Questions/problem handling (7.27)
Importance -
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS In the previous section, the diagram shows that the element that has the greatest influence on consumer satisfaction with water distribution service is their perception of price levels. In addition, consumers are not fully satisfied with pricing issues. Therefore, it can be assumed that most of the opportunities for improvement are related to improving consumers perception of price and that these improvements would in turn have an impact on overall consumers satisfaction with this service. SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST PRICE Consumers are less satisfied with the price of their water distribution service and the special tariffs offered by their supplier than with other elements of pricing. Taking into account that this pricing is the criterion that has the biggest impact on consumers overall satisfaction, it is clear that this is again the area in which priority actions might be undertaken. On the other hand, consumers are satisfied with payment process (i.e. is it easy to pay invoices), accuracy (i.e. are invoices correct) and transparency (i.e. are tariffs and invoices clear and easy to understand). No particular action is needed in these areas.
IMAGE
The average satisfaction score that respondents give to uniqueness and customer service mentality is quite low compared to other elements related to the suppliers image. This might be explained by the fact that the water distribution service is not liberalised in most of the countries. Generally there is only one supplier, which does not need to differentiate itself from another competitor. In addition, the position of the state of the art item on the diagram suggests that consumers expect water distributors to take new technologies more into account and to improve their ability to innovate. This request could be linked to their wish for ICT (information and communications technology) to be used when they order services and for meter reading procedures.
| 57
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
QUALITY The elements of quality that consumers are least satisfied with and that need special attention are: information: they do not think that their supplier provides them with regular information about their services and offers; points of sale: there is no agency near to their home; availability: consumers cannot reach their supplier when they need to; technical support: their supplier does not offer a high quality technical service when it comes to new installation, repairs, etc.
This suggests that consumers would be interested in receiving more information about, for instance, the characteristics of the water they use and drink (e.g. how much limestone or nitrate it contains). On the other hand, consumers are relatively satisfied with their supplier in terms of the reliability and safety of the service provided, which might reflect the confidence consumers have in the quality of the water distribution services that are being delivered. CONCLUSIONS Given these statements, the areas in which priority actions might be taken are as follows: o o Pricing: bringing the price down whilst developing better and/or more commercial offers for specific target groups (or providing better information on the existing special tariffs); Image: increasing the focus on consumers and improving the image of the uniqueness of the supplier, strengthening consumers sense of familiarity with their water distributors and better use of new technologies (state of the art) to help consumers when they order a service and with meter readings.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Fixed telephone service

Overall, compared to other SGIs, consumers are less satisfied with their fixed telephone service (rating of 7.3 out of 10). Average satisfaction is slightly higher in the EU15 than in the NMS10. As can be seen in the graph below, this can be explained by a bigger percentage of dissatisfied consumers in the NMS10 than in the EU15.
FT. 1
Fixed telephony: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your fixed phone supplier?
EU25
52
8.4
NMS10
51.4
12.6
20
40
60
80
100
| 59
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.2.
The following graph shows the percentage of satisfied and dissatisfied respondents by country.
FT. 2 Fixed telephone: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country percentages (2006)
IE MT LT DE EE AT LU SI CY HU LV SE BE DK FI UK SK EU15 EU25 NMS-10 FR PL EL CZ NL ES PT IT 0
78.3 73 72.4 71.4 71 70.1 68.7 68.5 68.5 65.2 65.1 63.4 62 61.3 60.9 59.8 53.1 52.1 52 51.4 49.3 45.2 45.1 40.7 39.7 36 29.7 27.4 20 14.8 40 60 3.3 7.5 20.1 7.6 13.3 9.4 23.3 9.1 7.6 8.4 12.6 2.6 4.7 5.9 3.6 2.6 3.6 6.2 6.5 10.4 4.3 6.5 3.2 7.7 5.1 4.7
1.7
80
100
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers vary considerably from one member state to another. The difference between the highest (Ireland) and the lowest (Italy) percentages of satisfied consumers is greater than 50 percentage points. The countries with very high percentages of satisfied consumers by comparison with the EU25 average are Ireland, Malta, Lithuania, Germany, Estonia, Austria, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Finland and the UK. Ireland has the highest percentage of satisfied consumers (78%). On the other hand, countries with the lowest percentages of satisfied consumers are found in: Poland, Greece (45% each) Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Spain (between 35% and 40%) Portugal and Italy (less than 30% of satisfied consumers) Overall, southern European countries (except Malta and Cyprus) appear to have the lowest percentages of satisfied consumers. In addition, consumers in the Czech Republic (23%) and Portugal (20%) are most dissatisfied with fixed telephone services by comparison with other SGIs. The percentage of dissatisfied consumers in Italy, Poland and Hungary is between 10% and 15%. The member states with the lowest percentage of dissatisfied consumers are Ireland, Austria and Malta (less than 3%).
| 61
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.3.
The following graph shows the percentage of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic category.
FT. 3 Fixed telephony: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentages (2006)
Gender
Men
51.3
8.7
Women
52.6
8.1
18-34
47.3
9.8
Age
35-54
50.9
8.9
55+
56
6.9
Up to 15 years
50
7.9
Education
16-19 years
54.3
8.5
20 years +
51.5
8.1
Still studying
42.1
10.8
Self-employed
40.5
13.9
Managers
50.6
7.7
Other white collars
55.4
7.9
Occupation
Blue collars
52.5
7.8
Students
41.4
11
House-persons
49.9
7.9
Unemployed
54.9
5.1
Retired
58.3
6.9
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Once again, retired people are relatively more satisfied (58%), as are white collar workers (55.5%). Both groups are significantly more satisfied than the EU25 average. They are followed by unemployed people (55%), blue collar workers (52%), managers (51%) and house-persons (50%). Finally, students (41%) and self-employed people (40.5%) are significantly less satisfied than the average. These two groups also include the highest percentage of dissatisfied consumers (over 10%). Education does not seem to explain how far consumers are or are not satisfied with their fixed telephone service. The graph also shows that, the older the consumer, the more satisfied he/she is with his/her fixed telephone service. There are no differences between men and women in this respect.
4.4.
A) OVERALL IMAGE
Whereas fixed telephone operators enjoy a positive image in most EU countries, with results above 50%, consumers from 6 countries take the opposite view: Portugal (25%), Italy (31%), Spain (35%), Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden (39% each).
B) OVERALL QUALITY
More than 70% of users in Slovenia, Lithuania, Ireland, Cyprus, Latvia, Belgium, Estonia, Germany and Hungary think that their fixed telephone provider offers a quality service overall whereas this is the case for only 33% of Italians and Portuguese and 47% of Dutch citizens.
C) OVERALL PRICE
Germany and Ireland are the countries where fixed telephone users are the most satisfied with the overall prices charged by their operator (61% of them are satisfied in both countries). At the other end of the spectrum, the lowest percentages (less than 40%) of consumers satisfied with the prices they pay are to be found in most of the southern European countries (Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece and Malta).
D) COMMITMENT
The level of commitment towards their current fixed telephone operators is relatively high in the European Union. Indeed, 77% of consumers said they will still use their fixed telephone supplier in the next 12 months. In Luxembourg and Greece, this is the case for more than 9 users out of 10. People in the Czech Republic and in Estonia, on the other hand, show the lowest level of commitment (61%).
| 63
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Most of the EU25 consumers (84%), especially in the EU15 (85% against 79% in the NMS10), think that fixed telephone services are available for everybody in their country. In Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the Netherlands this is true for more than 90% of users. The lowest percentage of people agreeing with this statement can be found in Latvia (64%). In terms of competition, 75% of EU25 users (77% in the EU15 and 64% in the NMS10) believe that it is possible to get what they want from any fixed telephone supplier without a reduction in quality. Irish, Dutch and German consumers agree with this statement most (more than 80% in each country) whereas people in Latvia (32%), Malta (35%), Lithuania (43%) and the Czech Republic (46%) agree with it least. However, a lower percentage of EU25 users think (67% of EU25 consumers against 69% in the EU15 and 57% in the NMS10) that it would be easy to change from one operator to another, especially in Ireland (81%). The lowest percentages of people agreeing with this statement are to be found in Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Czech Republic (30%, 35%, 37% and 48% respectively). A small percentage of EU25 consumers (28%) believe that it is possible to buy fixed telephone services from another country. However, in Ireland, almost half of the users believe that it is possible. Finally, a large majority of EU25 citizens (80%) who use fixed telephone services prefer to deal with a national operator.
4.5.
ADVANCED ANALYSES

As shown in the table below, pricing issues have the biggest impact on consumers overall satisfaction, followed by image and quality. Regression coefficients Quality Image Pricing 0.241 0.428 0.464
Given the low impact that this criterion has on consumer satisfaction, people do not appear to have particular expectations regarding quality. This may be due to the fact that the quality of their fixed telephone service is taken for granted by consumers.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The diagram below shows the areas where priority actions are needed to improve consumers satisfaction with the electricity supply service. The diagram is put together by taking into account the following information: the average satisfaction score given by consumers to each criterion related to quality, pricing and image (marked as Satisfaction on the X-axis of the diagram); The weighting or contribution of each criterion (quality, pricing and image) to consumers satisfaction - this weighting gives an indication as to how important each criterion is to consumers (marked as Importance on the Y-axis of the diagram).
Two-Dimensional analysis Fixed telephone
FT. 4
Importance + Priority actions Commercial offer (6.92) Overall price (6.73) Price level (6.15) Overall image (7.21) Environment friendly (7.15) Ease (6.96) Reputation (6.89) Uniqueness (6.76) Customer mentality (6.74) Satisfaction Ideal situation Payment process (8.03) Accuracy (7.37) Transparency (7.27) Popularity (7.65) State of the art (7.63) Familiarity (7.25) Relationship (7.24)
Satisfaction +
Low importance area Availability (7.21) Questions/problem handling (7.07) Points of sale (6.64)
Long term actions Order ease (7.82) Reliability( 7.68) Infrastructure (7.62) Confidentiality (7.6) Overall quality (7.53) Offer relevance (7.47) Staff professionalism (7.37) Technical support (7.35) Information (7.3)
Importance -
| 65
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS The average satisfaction score that consumers give to all the items is 7.24 out of 10. For fixed telephony, consumers give a satisfaction score of 7.2 to the elements related to image and 6.7 to those related to pricing, which is below the average. At the same time, pricing and image are of high importance for consumers i.e. they have the biggest impact on consumers overall satisfaction. Therefore, efforts should be focused in these two areas in order to increase consumers overall satisfaction with their fixed telephone service. SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST PRICE The level of price (price level in the diagram) for fixed telephone services is one of the main sources of dissatisfaction for EU25 consumers. Historically, the price of telecommunications has been high in Europe compared to other countries such as the United States, Canada or even Hong Kong, where local calls were free. Recently, several factors have raised the price consciousness of EU consumers (liberalisation of the telecoms industry has put the spotlight on the different tariffs charged by different operators in different countries, competition between information technologies (e.g. Voice over Internet Protocol). All these factors make fixed telephony a basic service that consumers are not ready to pay much for any more. Consequently, in a number of countries, the penetration of mobile telephony has recently become higher than that of fixed telephony. All of this could explain why, in spite of considerable price reductions since 2000, the pricing of fixed phone services is still a point of dissatisfaction for EU consumers. Commercial offers from fixed telephone operators (the lack of special prices for specific target groups or specific usage) are also a source of dissatisfaction for consumers. Both price level and commercial offers are two areas that need special attention and on which action for improvement should focus. IMAGE Consumer expect their fixed telephone operator to have a unique image that other operators do not have have a consumer service mentality; have a good reputation; be flexible, i.e. they would like to be able to deal with their operator easily; be environmentally-friendly.
However, on the evidence of the low satisfaction scores given by consumers, their expectations are not being met in these areas.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It may well be that, although operators are offering more and more tailor-made solutions in terms of tariffs and services (e.g. second call signal, voice mail, forwarding, caller ID), the great diversity of tariffs makes the assessment of the best offer and the most interesting supplier difficult for consumers. Consequently, there is no consensus in the overall opinion about a particular operator. Nevertheless, according to the second quadrant of the diagram, consumers think that their operator is popular, they are familiar with their operator (they understand what they do) and they are satisfied with the relationship they have with them. In addition, their operator is technologically advanced and has the ability to innovate. QUALITY As mentioned before, quality of service does not have a big impact on consumer satisfaction. This does not mean that quality is not important for consumers. It may just mean that quality is generally guaranteed and therefore consumers tend to take it for granted. They do not have particular expectations in this respect. CONCLUSIONS Considering these observations and the fact that the criteria of image and pricing are the elements that have the most influence on consumers overall satisfaction, the following are potential ways in which fixed telephony services could be improved: o o decreasing the price level combined with increasing the quality and visibility of commercial tariffs; improving the overall image of the service providers in terms of reputation and customer service mentality.
On the other hand, the positive elements of the fixed phone services that must be maintained are: o o the transparency, accuracy and quality of the payment process; the overall quality of the services provided.
| 67
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Mobile phone service

Amongst the 11 SGIs surveyed in this study, mobile phone services are among the most appreciated, especially in the NMS10. This difference is clear from the much higher percentage of satisfied consumers in the NMS10, as shown in the graph below.
MP. 1 Mobile phone: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your mobile phone supplier?
EU25
65.9
4.1
NMS10
72.8
3.9
20
40
60
80
100
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.2.
The following graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied respondents for each of the countries:
MP. 2 Mobile phone: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
CY DE HU LV MT LT EE SI AT BE CZ IE SK NMS10 FI SE DK EL LU PT UK PL EU25 EU15 FR NL IT ES 0 55.3 51 49.7 41.7 20
83.9 83.5 82.9 79.9 79.6 79.1 78.3 76.8 76.4 74.4 73.8 73 73 72.8 72.7 71.7 71.4 70.9 69.2 68.8 67.5 67.2 65.9 64.4 6.4 2.5 2.6 8.7 40 60 80
0.7 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.3 3.6 1.7 2.8 2.4 1.3 5.8 2.6 4.1 3.9 3.4 4.8 6 2.7 3.4 2.6 3.4 4.1 4.1 4.2
100
Most countries have higher percentages of satisfied consumers than the EU25 does on average. This is especially the case for Cyprus, Belgium and Hungary. The lowest percentages of satisfied consumers are to be found in France (55%), the Netherlands and Italy (about 50%) and finally Spain (42%).
| 69
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.3.
The following graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic category:
MP. 3 Mobile phone: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentages (2006)
Gender
Men
65.5
Women
66.4
4.2
18-34
65.4
4.6
Age
35-54
65.7
4.3
55+
67
3.1
Up to 15 years
62.2
3.2
Education
16-19 years
66.3
4.4
20 years +
67.4
3.9
Still studying
65.2
4.5
Self-employed
60
4.5
Managers
69.7
3.2
Other white collars
67.2
3.8
Occupation
Blue collars
67
4.9
Students
63.9
4.2
House-persons
65.7
Unemployed
65.6
Retired
65.4
4.2
The only socio-demographic group characteristic that has an influence on consumer satisfaction is their level of education. The more consumers are educated, the more they tend to be satisfied with their mobile phone services.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.4.
A) OVERALL IMAGE
Operators in the new member states enjoy a more positive image than those in the EU15 do. Indeed, for 80% of those in the NMS10, their mobile provider has a good overall reputation in the market (against 66% in the EU15). This is especially the case for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia. In the EU15, Germans are the first to think that their mobile phone operator enjoys a good overall reputation (82%). At the other extreme, less than 50% of Spaniards and Dutch people say that their mobile phone operator has a good reputation (44% and 48% respectively).
B) OVERALL QUALITY
In terms of quality, users in the new member states are also more satisfied with the services provided by their operator than users in the EU15 are (80% for the former against 69% for the latter). The results by country are similar to the overall picture across the EU. Dutch people are more satisfied with their suppliers quality of service (56%) than with its overall image in the market (48%). Italy and Spain are the two countries where the lowest percentage of people satisfied with the overall quality of their mobile phone provider are to be found (47% and 43% respectively).
C) OVERALL PRICE
Mobile phone users are relatively satisfied with their operators prices (55% of consumers in the EU25 are satisfied). This is especially the case in the new member states (65% against 53% in the EU15). At the individual country level, in countries such as Ireland, Cyprus, Poland, Denmark, Austria, Slovenia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Germany, the percentage of people who are satisfied with their operators prices ranges from 60% to 77%. In 6 countries, this percentage falls below 50%: Spain (26%), Italy (39%), the Netherlands (42%), France and Portugal (44% each) as well as Sweden (46%).
D) COMMITMENT
The level of commitment towards mobile telephone operators is relatively high in the European Union. Indeed, 84% of consumers say they will still use their mobile telephone supplier in the next 12 months. In the new member states, 88% say they will still use their mobile telephone supplier in the next 12 months. In Portugal, Greece, Latvia, Czech Republic and Hungary, the level of commitment is higher than 90%. In Denmark, 76% say they will keep their provider but 15% will not, which is the highest score compared to the EU average (7%). In Cyprus, almost a quarter could not make up their minds (24% of dont knows against an EU average of 9%).
| 71
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Most of the EU25 consumers (88%) think that mobile telephone services are available for everybody in their country. In Greece and Ireland this is true for 98% and 96% of users respectively. The lowest percentage of people agreeing with this statement is to be found in Cyprus (60%). 89% of EU25 users (90% in the EU15 and 86% in the NMS10) believe that there is enough competition on the mobile phone market. This is especially the case for Greeks (98%), Estonians (97%), Latvians and British people (95% each), Dutch people (94%), Germans and Portuguese (93%), Spaniards (91%) and Polish (90%) whereas in Malta it is only the case for 52% of consumers. A lower percentage of EU25 users (78% of the EU25 as against 77% in EU15 and 82% in the NMS10) think that it would be easy to change from one operator to another. In France and Denmark it appears to be more difficult than in other countries, as only 54% and 60% respectively say that there are no barriers. A larger percentage of EU25 consumers (41%) believe that there is a possibility of buying mobile telephone services from another country than it is the case for fixed telephony (28%). However, only 23% of Danes, 27% of Maltese and 28% of Lithuanians and Slovenians think that buying mobile telephone services from another country is possible. Finally, a large majority of EU25 citizens (79%) who use mobile telephone services prefer to deal with an operator in their country.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.5.
ADVANCED ANALYSES

As shown in the table below, pricing is the criterion that has the biggest impact on consumers overall satisfaction, i.e. consumers biggest expectations regard pricing first. The second most important criterion is image, followed by quality in third place. Regression coefficients Quality Image Pricing 0.278 0.335 0.435
B) ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENT VARIABLES

It is important to consider the following information, which is reported in the diagram on the next page, in order to define precise and concrete actions to improve consumers satisfaction with their mobile phone service: the average satisfaction score given by consumers to each criterion related to quality, pricing and image (marked as Satisfaction on the X-axis of the diagram); The weighting or contribution of each criterion (quality, pricing and image) to consumers satisfaction - this weighting gives an indication as to how important each criterion is to consumers (marked as Importance on the Y-axis of the diagram).
The areas where priority actions are needed to improve consumers satisfaction with their mobile phone services are set out in this diagram.
| 73
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MP. 4
Two-dimensional analysis Mobile phone
Importance + Priority actions Transparency (7.76) Commercial offer (7.68) Overall price (7.47) Price level (7.19) Reputation (7.77) Familiarity (7.74) Ease (7.73) Customer mentality (7.57) Environment friendly (7.34) Uniqueness (7.06) Ideal situation Payment process (8.28) Accuracy (7.85) State of the art (8.15) Popularity (8.1) Relationship (7.97) Overall image (7.96)
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Low importance area Questions/problem handling (7.76) Safety (7.72) Points of sale (7.5)
Long term actions Order ease (8.36) Confidentiality (8.08) Infrastructure (8.07) Overall quality (8.05) Staff professionalism (8) Offer relevance (7.98) Information (7.93) Reliability( 7.93) Availability (7.91)
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS Consumers are very satisfied with all the elements regarding quality of service and image of their mobile phone operator. The average score given by respondents for the quality criterion is 8.1 and for image (8.0) while price, which is the main element of importance for consumers overall, obtained a lower satisfaction score (7.5).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST PRICE The elements of pricing which do not meet consumers expectations are the following: the price level of mobile phone services; commercial offer: there are not enough attractive special tariffs for specific target groups or for specific usage; transparency of tariffs and invoices: they are not clear and not easy to understand.
Given the fact that pricing is the criterion of highest importance for consumers, priority actions should be taken in this area. IMAGE Another source of discontent for consumers is the fact that their provider has no unique image. Consumers expect more differentiation between providers. This might be explained by the fact that, given the many providers, products, services and tariff plans on the market, consumers find it difficult to distinguish between the specificities of the providers and to make the best choice. In addition, consumers are concerned about the environment and the effect mobile services have on the environment. In this respect, mobile phone operators do not meet consumers expectations. These elements are two areas of interest where immediate action is needed to improve consumers overall satisfaction with mobile phone services. On the other hand, consumers believe that operators are technologically innovative, which is of high importance to them. This observation suggests that efforts should be made to maintain this situation. QUALITY There is no particular need for improvement in the short term. Although consumers are not happy with the way operators deal with their problems and questions, these elements are of less importance for them given the distance between points of sale and their home and the safety of mobile phone services. These elements have a low impact on consumers overall satisfaction.
| 75
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSIONS Given the above, the following are the main opportunities for action that could increase consumer satisfaction: o o o o bringing down prices whilst increasing the range of attractive special tariffs for specific target groups or specific usage; strengthening the image of the operators, bringing more differentiation onto the market so that operators get a unique image for consumers as well as a good reputation; improving the customer service mentality; raising operators awareness of environmental issues which translate into appropriate measures in this field.
On the other hand, items with which consumers are most satisfied and that must be preserved are: o o o the use of new technologies and the capacity to innovate; quality of service; flexibility in the payment process, making it easy for consumers to pay their invoices.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Urban transport
6.1 OVERALL RESULTS
Urban transport is the SGI with which consumers in the EU are least satisfied. The EU25 average is 7.0 on a scale from 1 to 10. As shown in the graph below, consumers in the new member states are less satisfied with this SGI than EU15 consumers are. Indeed, 40.3% of NMS10 consumers are satisfied while 45.2% of EU15 consumers are satisfied. There are also more dissatisfied consumers in the NMS10 compared to EU15. In addition, the proportion of dissatisfied consumers is the highest compared to other SGIs.
UT. 1 Urban transport: percentage of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your urban transport supplier?
EU25
44.5
9.4
NMS10
40.3
14.7
20
40
60
80
100
| 77
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.2.
The following graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers by country.
UT. 2 Urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country percentages (2006)
IE FI LV AT LU LT BE EL DE EE FR SI EU15 EU25 UK CZ DK PT NMS10 SE PL HU ES IT MT NL CY SK 0
65.6 63.9 62 61 57.5 57.4 57.1 53.6 52.3 49.7 49.2 46.4 45.2 44.5 43.3 42.7 42.1 40.4 40.3 39.5 39.2 37.7 35.4 33.7 29.4 25 23 21.9 20 31.5 40 60 3.7 53.8 10.7 13.7 15.9 5.1 14.7 17.3 10.8 22.2 4.2 7.2 9.4 6.8 3.9 8 7.8 10.9 7.2 12.4 8.4 9.4 6.7 18.8 16.7 5
80
100
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Satisfaction with urban transport varies from country to country in the EU25. The most satisfied consumers are to be found in Ireland, Finland, Latvia, Austria, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Belgium, Greece, Germany, Estonia, France and Slovenia. The percentages of satisfied consumers in these countries are higher than the EU25 average and range from 65.6% in Ireland to 46.4% in Slovenia. On the other hand, in Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Spain, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Cyprus and Slovakia, fewer than 4 consumers out of 10 are satisfied with urban transport. In Slovakia, only 22% are satisfied with this SGI. The highest percentages of dissatisfied consumers are in Malta (54%) and Slovakia (31.5%).
| 79
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.3.
The following graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic group:
UT. 3 Urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic category percentages (2006)
Gender
Men
43.5
9.8
Women
45.3
18-34
39.3
11.4
Age
35-54
42.3
9.6
55+
51.2
7.3
Up to 15 years
46.9
8.1
Education
16-19 years
46.7
8.2
20 years +
42.6
10.6
Still studying
34.7
13.5
Self-employed
40.2
14
Managers
38.7
11.5
Other white collars
40.5
Occupation
Blue collars
48
8.4
Students
35.6
12.2
House-persons
45.2
8.1
Unemployed
48.8
9.5
Retired
55.3
7.4
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Retired consumers are once again the most satisfied consumers (55%) compared to other socio-economic groups. They are followed by the unemployed and blue collar workers. The highest percentage of dissatisfied consumers is among the self-employed (14%). In terms of education levels, consumers who left secondary school early and those who stopped studying between 16 and 19 years appear to be the most satisfied (around 47%) compared to those who kept on studying after they were 20 years old (43%). Consumers ages tends to be an element that might explain satisfaction with urban transport. The older the respondents, the more satisfied they are with this SGI. There is no significant difference between men and women in terms of how far they are satisfied with urban transport.
6.4.
A) OVERALL IMAGE
Operators in Ireland, Finland, Austria, Latvia, Greece, Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg have a good reputation, according to more than 50% of users. In Cyprus, Malta, Slovakia and Denmark less than 20% of consumers see them as having a good reputation.
B) OVERALL QUALITY
In terms of quality of service, users in the EU15 are more satisfied with their urban transport services than users in the NMS10 (44% for the former against 37% for the latter). Overall, the results by country show similar profiles of responses to what has been observed in the EU as a whole.
C) OVERALL PRICE
Users in Ireland and Latvia are the most satisfied with the prices they pay for urban transport services. Indeed, 56% of users in both countries said prices were fair (against an EU25 average of 35%). The least satisfied are users in the Netherlands (17%), Slovakia (18%), Portugal (19%) and Denmark (20%). The percentage of dissatisfied people is relatively high in the European Union (14%), especially in Denmark (41%), Slovakia (36%) and Hungary (25%). In the first two countries mentioned, the percentage of dissatisfied users is even greater than the percentage of satisfied users.
D) COMMITMENT
In countries where people can have a choice between urban transport companies (i.e. Belgium, Greece, Finland, France, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden and the UK) a large majority of users (89%) have no intention of changing service provider in the short run (within a year).
| 81
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Most of the EU25 users (69%), especially in the NMS10 (77% against 67% in the EU15) think that urban transport services are available for everybody in their country. However, this is the case for only 24% of users in Cyprus and 47% in Sweden. In terms of competition, the majority of EU users of urban transport services do not think that there is enough competition (62%), especially in Sweden (84%), France (83%), the Netherlands (72%) and Slovakia (71%) whereas in Portugal and Ireland, users tend to have the opposite feeling (58% and 53% respectively saying that there is not enough competition). In addition, more than 5 users out of 10 feel that it would not be easy to change from one urban transport company to another. A small percentage of EU25 users (15%) think that it is possible to buy urban transport services in another EU country. Finally, roughly in line with what has been observed for other services, a large majority of EU25 citizens (77%) prefer to deal with a national operator when it comes to urban transport.
6.5.
ADVANCED ANALYSES

As can be seen in the following table, the image of a given urban transport company is the most important criterion determining consumers overall satisfaction. Regression coefficients Quality Image Pricing 0.347 0.516 0.394
The regression coefficient for image, which indicates the importance or weight of image in the overall satisfaction of consumers, is greater than 0.5. This means that actions that would improve the image of urban transport companies would result in a bigger increase in the percentage of consumers satisfied with this SGI than if these actions were focused on pricing or quality. As an example, if consumer satisfaction with image increased by 10% as a result of specific actions, the percentage of consumers satisfied with this SGI would increase by more than 5 percentage points. Actions focused on pricing would only increase the percentage of satisfied consumers by less than 4 percentage points.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As noted before, urban transport is the the SGI that satisfies consumers least. We also know that image and then pricing are criteria of importance for consumers. In order to design actions that would improve consumers overall satisfaction with urban transport, it is important to determine the priority areas that need special attention. This is done by means of a diagram taking into account the following information: the average satisfaction score given by consumers to each criterion related to quality, pricing and image (marked as Satisfaction on the X-axis of the diagram) The weighting or contribution of each criterion (quality, pricing and image) to consumers satisfaction - this weighting gives an indication as to the importance of each criterion to consumers (marked as Importance on the Y-axis of the diagram).
The diagram on the following page shows the areas where priority actions are needed to improve consumers overall satisfaction with urban transport.
| 83
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
UT. 4
Two-dimensional analysis Urban transport
Importance +
Priority actions Relationship (6.81) Environment friendly (6.72) Reputation (6.67) Ease (6.54) Customer mentality (6.4) Uniqueness (6.28) Overall price (6.59) Price level (6.03)
Ideal situation Popularity (7.35) Familiarity (7.07) Overall image (6.88) State of the art (6.82) Reputation (7.32) Payment process (7.67) Commercial offer (7.23) Transparency (7.14)
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Low importance area Reliability (6.8) Technical support (6.77) Questions/problem handling (6.49) Availability (6.24) Information (5.46)
Long term actions Order ease (7.75) Network (7.33) Points of sale (7.16) Overall quality (7) Infrastructure (6.96) Comfort (6.89) Safety (6.89) Offer relevance (6.87) Staff professionalism (6.84)
Importance -
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS Consumers seem to be more satisfied with the quality of urban transport services and the image of urban transport companies than with pricing issues. The satisfaction scores given by respondents are 7.0, 6.9 and 6.6 respectively. However, the regression coefficient mentioned in the previous section showed that image and not pricing is the criterion consumers consider to be the most important. It is therefore important to look into the elements of image and, to a lesser extent, pricing that need to be improved in order to increase consumers overall satisfaction with urban transport. The areas that need to be improved will be determined by looking at how far people are satisfied with the elements of image and pricing and how important they are for them. These are illustrated in the diagram on the previous page. SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST
IMAGE
Although urban transport companies seem to enjoy a positive image overall, 4 elements are sources of dissatisfaction among consumers: urban transport companies do not seem to have a unique image consumers expect more differentiation between theses companies; they also would like to have easier contact with these companies and request more flexibility; transport companies need to have a good reputation; these companies need have more of a customer service mentality.
Consumers also see being environmentally-friendly as an important criterion, which does not seem to be being met by transport companies that they use. This might reflect the fact that consumers are more and more concerned about environmental issues and they feel that it is necessary to look for alternative solutions in terms of energy sources used in urban transport. PRICING Although consumers feel that urban transport companies offer attractive special tariffs for specific targets and usage, that invoices and tariffs are easy to understand and that payment of tickets is fairly easy, using this service is still expensive.
| 85
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
QUALITY There are no particular improvements to be introduced as priorities as far as quality of service is concerned. This observation does not necessarily imply that consumers do not see safety or comfort in urban transport as being important. It might reflect the idea that consumers feel constantly satisfied and safe when using urban transport services. The overall results suggest that consumers are positively satisfied with the point of sales - it is easy for them to buy tickets. CONCLUSIONS Priority actions should be taken in the following areas in order to increase consumer satisfaction: o strengthening the supplier image by developing a unique image, improving customer service mentality, making consumers contact easier and improving the consumers relationship with their supplier and increasing urban transports awareness of environmental issues. All these actions should reinforce the overall reputation of these companies; bringing down the prices of urban transport services.
On the other hand, items that give the most satisfaction level to consumers must be maintained, such as: o the payment process, the transparency of invoices and tariffs and commercial offers plus their ability to innovate (state of the art).
Finally, in the long run it would be appropriate to take the following measures to boost consumers overall satisfaction with urban transport: raising consumers awareness of the high quality of transport infrastructure and network and the availability of many points of sale which can be found everywhere.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Extra-urban transport
Extra-urban transport is also one of the SGIs with which consumers are the least satisfied (average satisfaction score of 7.0). Looking at the percentage of satisfied consumers in the EU25 (45.6%) as shown in the graph below, it appears that consumers in the NMS10 are more satisfied with extra-urban transport services than consumers in the EU15 are. The percentage of dissatisfied consumers is also higher in these countries than in the EU15 (12% of them being dissatisfied as against 9.9% of them being dissatisfied in the EU15).
EUT. 1 Extra-urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your extra-urban transport supplier?
EU25
45.6
10.3
NMS10
47.1
12
20
40
60
80
100
| 87
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.2.
EUT. 2 Extra-urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country percentages (2006)
IE FI LT LV EL EE PT UK LU SE FR BE SI HU AT NMS10 PL EU25 EU15 CZ ES DE DK SK IT NL 0 28.6 24.2 24 20 6
72.4 67.4 66.5 66.2 63.4 58 55.5 55.4 54.2 54.1 52.6 52.2 51.5 50 49 47.1 46.2 45.6 45.3 43.7 43.6 42.4 37.5 23.4 18 17.1 5.1 16.2 7.4 10.3 9.9 17 4.5 6.3 6.8 7.9 7.2 4.6 8.3 17.6 12.7 12 6.3 3.3 5.2 3.5 4.4
3.3
40
60
80
100
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The most satisfied consumers are to be found in Ireland (72%), Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Greece, with the percentage of satisfied consumers ranging from 63% to 67%, followed by consumers in Estonia, Portugal, the UK, Luxembourg and Sweden, with figures from 54% to 58%, and finally France and Belgium, which are slightly above the average (52%). In Denmark the percentage of satisfied consumers is well below the average (37.5%). In Slovakia, Italy and the Netherlands the percentage of satisfied consumers is below 30%. 23% of Slovakians are dissatisfied consumers. In six other countries Italy, Hungary, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Germany and Austria the percentage of dissatisfied consumers is between 13% and 18%.
| 89
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.3.
The following graph shows the proportion of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic group:
EUT. 3 Extra-urban transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic category - percentages (2006)
Gender
Men
45.9
11.2
Women
45.3
9.4
18-34
42.1
12.2
Age
35-54
44.8
10.6
55+
49.8
8.1
Up to 15 years
50.3
7.7
Education
16-19 years
48
9.5
20 years +
43.6
10.7
Still studying
31.8
17.6
Self-employed
45.3
10.9
Managers
45.5
10.2
Other white collars
42.1
12.5
Occupation
Blue collars
49.8
8.1
Students
31.7
16.1
House-persons
49.2
6.8
Unemployed
46.5
13.6
Retired
52.2
6.5 Questions not asked for that service in Cyprus and Malta
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The graph on the previous page shows that about half of retired people, blue collar workers and house-persons are satisfied which is significantly higher than the EU25 average for this sector. Around 40% of white collar workers and 30% of students are satisfied with this SGI. The earlier consumers left school, the more satisfied they are. Age is also related to satisfaction: older consumers are more satisfied and there are more dissatisfied consumers among younger people. Men and women do not differ in this respect.
7.4.
A) OVERALL IMAGE
Operators in Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Greece, the UK, Slovenia, Estonia, Portugal and Poland have a good reputation according to more than 50% of the users. In Denmark and the Netherlands, less than 20% think that the operators have a good reputation.
B) OVERALL QUALITY
Overall, the results by country show similar patterns of responses to what has been observed for the EU as a whole.
C) OVERALL PRICE
Users in Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary and the UK are the most satisfied with the prices they pay for extra-urban transport services (more than 50% of users are satisfied). The least satisfied are users in the Netherlands (14%), Italy (18%), Slovakia (22%) and Denmark (28%). The percentage of dissatisfied people is relatively high in the European Union (15%), in particular in Denmark (34%) and Slovakia (33%). In both countries mentioned, the percentage of dissatisfied users is even greater than that of satisfied users.
D) COMMITMENT
In countries where people can choose between extra-urban transport companies (all except Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, France, Hungary, Luxembourg and Malta) a large majority of users (88%) have no intention of changing service provider in the short run (within a year).
| 91
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Most of the EU25 users (70%) think that extra-urban transport services are available for everybody in their country, especially in Greece (91%). However, this is the case for only 48% of users in Sweden. In terms of competition, EU users of extra-urban transport services are split when asked to say whether there is enough competition in their country or not. Indeed, 46% answer that there is enough competition and the same percentage takes the opposite view. However, users in the new member states have a more positive assessment than users in the EU15: in the former group, 51% think that there is enough competition while only 44% of the latter group think that there is enough competition. The majority of users in Austria, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Sweden do not think that there is enough competition while the majority of users in Estonia, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and the UK think that there is enough competition. A small percentage of EU users (30%) think that it is possible to buy extra-urban transport services across borders. However, the percentage is higher than it was for urban transport (15%). Finally, roughly in line with what has been observed for other services, a majority of EU25 citizens (75%) prefer to deal with a national operator when it comes to urban transport.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.5.
ADVANCED ANALYSES

The regression coefficients (i.e. the importance or weight in the overall consumers satisfaction) of the criteria of pricing, quality and image in extra-urban transport services are shown in the table below: Regression coefficients Quality Image Pricing 0.326 0.532 0.384
As with urban transport, consumers have the highest expectations when it comes to the image of extra-urban transport companies. Their overall satisfaction with this SGI is influenced to a great extent by this criterion. Pricing is the second most important criterion for consumers.

As noted before, extra-urban transport is the SGI that satisfies consumers least. We also know that image, followed by pricing, are important criteria for consumers. It is important to determine the areas that need special priority attention in order to design actions that would improve consumers overall satisfaction with extra-urban transport. This is done via a diagram, which takes into account the following information: the average satisfaction score given by consumers to each criterion related to quality, pricing and image (marked as Satisfaction on the X-axis of the diagram) The weighting or contribution of each criterion (quality, pricing and image) to consumers satisfaction - this weighting gives an indication as to how important each criterion is for consumers (marked as Importance on the Y-axis of the diagram).
The diagram on the following page shows the areas where priority actions are needed to improve consumers overall satisfaction with extra-urban transport.
| 93
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EUT. 4 Two-dimensional analysis Extra-urban transport
Importance +
Priority actions Environment friendly (6.81) Uniqueness (6.58) Reputation (6.57) Ease (6.55) Customer mentality (6.49) Transparency (6.8) Overall price (6.53) Price level (6.03)
Ideal situation Popularity (7.31) Familiarity (7.2) Relationship (6.98) State of the art (6.85) Overall image (6.83) Payment process (7.56) Commercial offer (7.2)
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Low importance area Technical support (6.8) Reliability (6.78) Questions/problem handling (6.53) Availability (6.37) Information (5.53)
Long term actions Order ease (7.56) Network (7.34) Comfort (7.16) Safety (7.06) Staff professionalism (7.02) Overall quality (7.01) Points of sale (6.93) Infrastructure (6.87) Offer relevance (6.87)
Importance -
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS Pricing is the main source of dissatisfaction among consumers. Indeed, they gave an average score of 6.5, which is below the average satisfaction score. And yet, this criterion is the second most important for consumers after image. SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST IMAGE Roughly in line with what was observed for urban transport, the elements with which consumers are the least satisfied but which are very important for them are: environmental-friendliness; uniqueness: companies do not have a unique image; reputation; ease: it is not easy to deal with extra-urban transport companies; customer service mentality.
This result from the survey might be explained by the fact that extra-urban transport suffers from a bad image due to delays, low flexibility, limited comfort, etc. Consequently, the use of extra-urban transport (especially train transport) fell in favour of other alternatives (e.g. car, plane). Thanks to improvements in quality, the constant rise of mobility problems and the increase in petrol prices, there has been a renewed interest in extra-urban transport. But the survey results show that much effort is still required to improve the image of the sector and to increase consumer satisfaction. PRICE Pricing is one of the areas where action is most needed and where there are most opportunities for action. More specifically, these actions might be taken with regard to transparency of tariffs and price levels. QUALITY Results related to quality of service are similar to what was observed for urban transport. Once again, people do not seem to have enough information about extra-urban transport. It can be assumed that this result is linked to the insufficient visibility or availability of timetables and/or to the information provided to passengers in the event of delays or other problems. Consumers seem satisfied with most of the important quality-related elements, such as comfort, network, infrastructure, safety. However, their expectations for improvement in these areas are also low. As in other services, the consumer seems to take quality for granted.
| 95
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSIONS Given these statements, suggested improvements needed to increase consumer satisfaction, which are similar to the ones identified for urban transport, are as follows: o the elements related to image are also the main drivers of overall satisfaction for extra-urban transport; strengthening the supplier image by developing a unique image, improving customer service mentality, improving the flexibility of suppliers in terms of consumer contact and increasing attention to environmental considerations to improve the suppliers reputation; bringing down the prices of extra-urban transport services and improving the transparency of tariffs.
On the other hand, elements with which consumers are satisfied and that need to be maintained are: o o the payment process and commercial offers; several elements relating to the overall image of extra-urban transport services, such as popularity, the way companies communicate about their activities to consumers, the quality of customer relationships, the capacity to innovate and the use of advanced technologies (state of the art).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Air transport
Air transport is the service with which EU consumers are most satisfied (8.0 out of 10). The average level of satisfaction is even higher in the new member states (8.3). The graph below shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers:
AT. 1 Air transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your air transport supplier?
EU25
66.1
3.5
NMS10
72.6
3.1
20
40
60
80
100
The percentage of satisfied consumers is relatively high, mainly in the new member states (nearly 3 out of 4 consumers gave a score of 8 or higher).
| 97
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8.2.
The graph below shows the same figures broken down by country:
AT. 2 Air transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
DE CY HU AT LT FI EL CZ SI NMS10 LV PL UK IE LU EU25 EU15 DK PT EE MT SE SK BE FR NL IT ES 0
83.2 83 82.5 82.2 78.6 77.5 76.2 75.7 73.8 72.6 68 67.7 67.6 67 66.5 66.1 65.5 65 64.1 64.1 63.6 62.4 62 59.7 56.1 52.9 51.1 45 20 40 6.1 60 80 1.2 3.4 2.4 5.7 3.6 1.3 4.4 3.6 2.6 3.5 3.6 5.1 0.9 3.9 2.9 4.5 8.2 0.7 3.2 3.8 6.9 4.5 3.1
1.7 3.5 2.5 1.1
100
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The satisfaction rates in countries with a score higher than the EU25 average range from 83% (Germany) to 74% (Slovenia). Cyprus, Hungary, Austria, Lithuania, Finland, Greece and the Czech Republic can also be found in this group. Only five countries drag the EU average down: Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Italy, with satisfaction levels from 60% to 51% and, substantially below this, Spain with 45%. The highest percentages of dissatisfied consumers are in the Czech Republic (8%) and Slovakia (7%), which is somewhat paradoxical since these two countries are not in the group with the lowest satisfaction rates. More logically, Spain has a relatively high dissatisfaction rate of 6%.
| 99
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8.3.
DIFFERENCES BY SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
The following graph shows the proportion of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic category:
AT. 3 Air transport: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentages (2006)
Gender
Men
65.7
Women
66.6
18-34
64.7
Age
35-54
64.7
3.1
55+
69.4
3.5
Up to 15 years
61.5
5.1
Education
16-19 years
67
3.5
20 years +
67.3
3.3
Still studying
60.8
2.9
Self-employed
64.7
Managers
63.4
4.1
Other white collars
64.9
3.8
Occupation
Blue collars
71.1
2.8
Students
62.5
2.5
House-persons
66.8
2.1
Unemployed
66.7
3.4
Retired
70.1
2.9
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The professional categories that are most satisfied with air transport are blue collar workers (71%) and retired people (70%). On the other hand, managers are relatively less satisfied, with only 63% of respondents satisfied. This result may be related to frequency of use of air transport but this question was not asked in the survey. However, if the percentage of respondents who answered the questions related to air transport is used as a proxy for frequency of use, it appears that occasional users are relatively more satisfied. This could be due to the fact that they associate air transport with pleasurable events (e.g. holiday, travel). Education levels have very little impact on satisfaction. However, respondents who did not complete secondary school and the ones who are still studying are once again significantly less satisfied than the others. Respondents aged 55 years and over are most satisfied (70%) - the other age groups are equally satisfied (65%). Gender does not explain satisfaction levels.
8.4.
A) OVERALL IMAGE
In Germany, Finland and Czech Republic more than 8 users out of 10 see their air transport company as having a positive overall image (against an EU25 average of 65%). Although in Spain and Italy less than 50% of users are satisfied with their air transport company, the percentage of dissatisfied consumers is very low (7% and 6% respectively), in line with the EU25 average (4%).
B) OVERALL QUALITY
The majority of users are satisfied with the overall quality of services, especially in the new member states (76% against 67% in the EU15). Again, the Czech Republic (87%), Germany (86%) and Finland (84%) are at the top of the list together with Hungary, where users are a little more convinced of the quality of services provided by their air transport company (83% against an NMS10 average of 76%) than its overall reputation on the market (79% against an NMS10 average of 77%).
C) OVERALL PRICE
For a large percentage of users in Germany (77%), Hungary (73%), Czech Republic (72%), Ireland (71%), UK (68%), Latvia (67%), Austria (66%), Slovakia (64%) and Finland (61%), the air transport company they use most has fair prices. This is less the case in Spain (34%), Italy and Portugal (both 36%), the Netherlands (37%), Sweden (43%), France (44%) and Malta (46%). Almost a fifth of Dutch users are dissatisfied with the prices charged by their air transport company (against an EU25 average of 12%).
| 101
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D) COMMITMENT
Although the level of commitment to air transport companies is relatively high (76%), it seems to be lower in the new member states (67%) than in the EU15 (77%). More than 80% of respondents in Finland, Greece, Portugal, Luxembourg and Germany said they will still use their air transport company in the next 12 months whereas in 56% in Slovakia and 59% in Hungary say they will still use their air transport company in the next 12 months.

Consumers preference for a national operator is less marked for air transport than for other services, especially in the new member states (54% as against 61% in the EU15). The least attached to national operators are the Danes, the Swedes and the Slovenians as a majority (more than 50%) said they do not prefer to deal with a national air transport company. The Greeks and Cypriots have the opposite opinion (more than 80% say they do prefer to deal with a national air transport company). In addition, when asked whether they think it is possible to buy air transport services from a supplier outside their country, 81% say that they think it is. There seems to be enough competition and it seems to be easy to change from one air transport company to another, according to more than 80% of EU consumers. Finally, services provided by air transport companies are available for everybody and everywhere, according to a majority of respondents in the EU25 and especially in the EU15 (83% as against 72% in the NMS10).
8.5.
ADVANCED ANALYSES

The importance of pricing, image and quality in the air transport service is shown by the following regression coefficients: Regression coefficients Quality Image Pricing 0.369 0.352 0.364
In the air transport service, quality, image and pricing impact on consumer satisfaction to almost the same extent. In the eyes of consumers, these factors are balanced: a reduction in one factor can be compensated by an increase in another (e.g. a consumer is prepared to take an airline with a somewhat lower image provided that the price is lower).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For the elements of pricing, image and quality, the following diagram shows the relationship between observed satisfaction (X-axis) and the impact that these elements have on overall consumer satisfaction (Importance, Y-axis).
AT. 4 Two-dimensional analysis Air transport
Importance +
Priority actions Questions/problem handling (7.67) Availability (7.4) Points of sale (6.56) Information (6.32) Overall price (7.6) Price level (7.24) Commercial offer (6.95)
Ideal situation Comfort (8.4) Order ease (8.24) Safety (8.24) Staff professionalism (8.18) Confidentiality (8.11) Infrastructure (8.06) Technical support (8.04) Overall quality (8) Network (7.95) Offer relevance (7.95) Reliability (7.89) Payment process (8.22) Accuracy (8.01) Transparency (7.83) Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Low importance area Customer mentality (7.68) Ease (7.58) Uniqueness (7.24) Environment friendly (6.96)
Long term actions Popularity (8.11) Relationship (8.07) State of the art (7.95) Overall image (7.9) Reputation (7.86) Familiarity (7.84)
Importance -
| 103
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OVERALL OBSERVATION As mentioned previously, the three criteria (quality, price and image) are almost as important as each other for consumers. They will therefore have almost the same influence on consumers overall satisfaction. However, consumers seem to be more satisfied with the overall quality of service (average satisfaction score of 8) and image of air transporters (7.9) than with pricing issues (7.6). AREAS OF SPECIFIC INTEREST PRICE Two items related to pricing are found in the upper-left quadrant, which corresponds to opportunities for priority actions: commercial offers and price level. This may seem surprising given the numerous possibilities to find cheap solutions and not to pay high prices. The reason might be that these possibilities are only available to some specific consumers, i.e. those who know where to find them, and, as is often the case, those who are familiar with the use of the internet. Only the better informed and the more knowledgeable consumers find the best promotional offers. The survey results may therefore suggest that the digital divide continues to be a challenge if we are to deliver equal services to EU consumers via online commercial offer and booking facilities. Other price-related items are in the upper-right quadrant, which indicates an ideal situation that needs to be maintained: easy means of payment (payment process), accuracy of invoices and transparency of tariffs. QUALITY In terms of quality, the lack of information about services and the presence of nearby agencies are the main sources of dissatisfaction. The concerns about information may be related to information provided in the event of late departures or cancellations. This situation ought to improve in the future because of the recent legislation on EU passenger rights. Other components of the quality and below average satisfaction are availability and, to a lesser extent, questions/problem handling. All these items are more or less related to service or to contact with the consumer. On the other hand, items relating to technical matters produce very high scores, including safety and reliability of service, which are important factors in air transport. IMAGE Working towards building a unique airline companies image and working on airline companies impact on the environment are their main areas for improvement. The reason that consumers are concerned about uniqueness is that there are no big differences between airlines in terms of the product they deliver. Consumers therefore usually choose the company that allows them to fly at the lowest price.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCUSIONS Potential areas for improvement in air transport are: o o o to work on all the client relationship related items: handling questions and problems, availability, presence of nearby points of sale, information and a customer service mentality; to make commercial offers and special conditions easily available to everyone, which should lead to lower perceived price levels; to work on parameters that could reduce the environmental impact of air transport and/or communicate on existing action in this domain.
Strengths that should be maintained are: o o o comfort, order ease, safety, staff professionalism, confidentiality, quality of the infrastructure and technical support, the network, offer relevance, reliability; payment process, accuracy and transparency; popularity, relationship, technological innovation, reputation and information provided to consumers about the airline companies activities.
| 105
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Postal services
Postal services is one of the SGIs with which consumers are the least satisfied. Indeed, they gave a score of 7.2 on a 10-point scale, which is similar to the rating they give to urban and extra-urban transport. The next graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers among the respondents:
PS. 1 Postal services: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your postal services supplier?
EU25
52.9
6.9
NMS10
62.7
7.5
20
40
60
80
100
In the new member states, consumers tend to be more satisfied than in the EU15. The percentage of dissatisfied consumers is also larger in the NMS10 than in the EU15. This observation implies that consumers in the NMS10 are less neutral or less indifferent towards postal services.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9.2.
PS. 2

Postal services: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
The following graph presents the overall results for each EU member state:
IE LT CY SI EE HU EL LV LU FI PT NMS10 MT PL SK DE AT UK EU25 DK CZ EU15 ES NL FR SE BE IT 0 28.7 20
81.7 80.2 77 74.2 71.5 70.7 69.7 67.8 67.5 66.4 64.9 62.7 61.7 61.3 59.4 58.5 57.9 55.8 52.9 52.8 51.8 50.5 47.7 47.5 46.1 44.8 43.8 10.2 40 60 80 6.4 3.8 2.5 7.3 21.7 6.9 11.6 10.7 6.8 4 4.1 2.6 5.3 3.9 7.5 8.2 7.8 5.9 5 7.6 9.2 3.6 2.8 7.6
2 1.2 5.8
100
In most of the EU25 countries (in 17 countries), consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU25 average. This is especially the case for Ireland and Lithuania, with more than 80% of satisfied consumers. The countries where less than 50% of consumers are satisfied are to be found in Spain (47.7%), the Netherlands (47.5%), France (46.1%), Sweden (44.8%), Belgium (43.8%) and Italy (28.7%). The highest percentages of dissatisfied consumers are in Sweden (21.7%), Denmark (11.6%), the Czech Republic (10.7%) and Italy (10.2%).
| 107
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9.3.
DIFFERENCES BY SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
The following graph shows the percentage of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic category:
PS. 3 Postal services: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentages (2006)
Gender
Men
51.5
7.7
Women
54.2
6.3
18-34
52.2
6.2
Age
35-54
50.9
8.7
55+
55.5
5.9
Up to 15 years
55.6
Education
16-19 years
52.7
7.1
20 years +
51.4
7.1
Still studying
52.4
4.2
Self-employed
51.7
9.3
Managers
48.8
Satisfied
Other white collars 50.4 6.7
Dissatisfied
Occupation
Blue collars
54.9
7.6
Students
51.4
4.6
House-persons
53.7
5.2
Unemployed
53.8
7.7
Retired
56.6
6.5
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Retired people (56.6%), blue collar workers (54.9%), the unemployed (53.8%) and housepersons are more satisfied than other consumers. Consumers who did not complete secondary school education are somewhat more satisfied (56%) with postal services than the other education groups. Consumers aged over 55 are once again the most satisfied group (55.5%) and the people aged between 35 and 54 are significantly less satisfied with postal services. There is no statistically significant difference between women and men in this respect.
9.4.
A) OVERALL IMAGE
The highest percentage of consumers in the NMS10 agreeing with the statement that postal services providers have a good reputation in the market are to be found in Slovenia (75% against an NMS average of 61%), Estonia and Lithuania (both 68%). In the EU15, Ireland (76% against an EU15 average of 46%), Greece (71%), Luxembourg (67%) and Finland (63%) have the highest percentage of consumers agreeing with the statement that postal services providers have a good reputation in the market. Only 21% of Swedes and 29% of Italians think so. In Sweden, 38% of consumers do not agree at all with this statement (against an EU25 average of 9%).
B) OVERALL QUALITY
61% of consumers in the NMS10, as against 48% in the EU15, agree with the statement that their postal services provider offers good quality services. Results at country level are in line with what was observed across the EU as a whole. However, it is interesting to note that, in Sweden, 45% of consumers agree with this statement and 15% do not (against an EU25 average of 7%). This last result contrasts with what was observed for the EU as a whole.
C) OVERALL PRICE
Although only 39% of EU consumers think that their postal services providers prices are fair, the level of dissatisfaction with these prices is quite low (11%). Ireland (69%) and Greece (61%) are the countries where the highest percentages of satisfied consumers are to be found. In Italy (25%) and Sweden (26%), on the other hand, the lowest percentages of satisfied consumers are to be found. Again, in Sweden, 37% of people are dissatisfied with the prices charged for postal services. To a lesser extent, this is the case for 27% of Danes and 23% of Slovaks. It is also interesting to note that, in Italy, the level of dissatisfied consumers is lower than the average (8% against 11% in the EU25).
D) COMMITMENT
Given that consumers can choose between several suppliers in only two countries, survey results concerning this area are not meaningful.
| 109
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For almost 9 consumers out of 10 in the European Union, postal services are available for everybody and everywhere. In Sweden, this is the case for only 57% of the people. In this country, 37% disagree with this statement (against an EU average of 10%). A large percentage of people do not seem to think that it is possible to buy postal services in another EU country. Only 29% of EU citizens believe that it is possible (31% in the EU15 and 21% in the NMS10). Finally, 83% of EU consumers prefer to deal with a national postal services company.
9.5.
ADVANCED ANALYSES
A) CRITERIA THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CONSUMERS OVERALL SATISFACTION Image is the criterion that seems to contribute most to consumers overall satisfaction, as shown in the table below. This result seems quite logical for a proximity service such as the postal service. One might also assume that, given the level of confidence that consumers needs to have in a mail service provider, consumers pay particular attention to the reputation of their provider.
Regression coefficients for the constructed variables Quality Image Pricing 0.327 0.475 0.394
B) OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION It is important to determine the areas where the SGI is not performing well and which are very important for consumers in order to define precise and concrete actions that need to be taken to improve consumers satisfaction with postal services. This is done via a diagram, which takes into account the following information: the average satisfaction score given by consumers to each criterion related to quality, pricing and image (marked as Satisfaction on the X-axis of the diagram) the weighting or contribution of each criterion (quality, pricing and image) to consumers satisfaction - this weighting gives an indication as to how important each criterion is to consumers (marked as Importance on the Y-axis of the diagram).
The diagram on the following page shows the areas where priority actions are needed to improve consumers satisfaction with postal services.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PS. 4
Two-dimensional analysis Postal services
Importance +
Priority actions Uniqueness (7.12) Reputation (7.09) State of the art (7.01) Ease (6.95) Customer mentality (6.8) Overall price (6.81) Price level (6.5) Commercial offer (5.93)
Ideal situation Popularity (7.88) Familiarity (7.53) Relationship (7.28) Environment friendly (7.26) Overall image (7.24) Payment process (7.88) Accuracy (7.53) Transparency (7.39)
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Low importance area Infrastructure (7.04) Questions/problem handling (6.8) Availability (6.46) Information (5.93)
Long term actions Points of sale (7.95) Order ease (7.54) Confidentiality (7.49) Offer relevance (7.43) Reliability (7.39) Overall quality (7.31) Staff professionalism (7.19)
Importance -
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS The average satisfaction score given by EU25 consumers is 7.1. Compared to this average, consumers are relatively more satisfied with quality (7.3) and image (7.2) than with pricing issues (6.8). As mentioned previously, image and, to a lesser extent, price, have the most impact on consumers overall satisfaction.
| 111
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST IMAGE The elements related to the image of postal services that provide the most satisfaction to consumers are the following: popularity: postal offices are well known and are popular; familiarity: consumers know exactly what they do; relationship: people at postal offices are friendly with consumers; environment: they respect the environment as much as possible.
These positive results are probably due to the fact that postal mail is an old, well identified and well-known institution in all the countries. However, results tend to indicate that improvement is needed in the following important areas for consumers: uniqueness: postal services providers need to build up a unique image to differentiate themselves from other providers; reputation: they need also to acquire a positive opinion among consumers; state of the art: they need to innovate in terms of new technologies; ease: flexibility need to be improved; customer service mentality: they should be more customer-oriented.
QUALITY Interestingly, consumers are quite satisfied with the points of sale, hence confirming the good proximity service of the postal services. However, consumers expect to receive more regular information about products and services. They also expect their problems or questions to be dealt with quickly and adequately. Lastly, they would like to have access to postal services when needed, at more convenient times. PRICE Two very important elements of price are a source of dissatisfaction among consumers: o o commercial offers price level
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSIONS Given the above, the actions to take to improve consumers overall satisfaction can be summarised as follows: o being more consumer-focused in delivering services and in the meantime improving the reputation of suppliers and improving suppliers image by providing new specific services or products and modernising postal services by using new technologies; bringing down prices and delivering more commercial offers for specific target groups.
On the other hand, the strengths of postal services must be maintained: o o o proximity, i.e. the number of points of sale; the transparency, accuracy and quality of the payment process; the popularity of the suppliers.
| 113
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10. Retail banking

Overall, consumers appear to be quite satisfied with retail banking services in the EU25 (average satisfaction score of 7.8 on a scale from 1 to 10). It is one of the SGIs with which consumers are the most satisfied. The following graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers:
RB. 1 Retail banking: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your banking retail supplier?
EU25
63.1
4.6
NMS10
67.9
4.7
20
40
60
80
100
Overall, consumers in the new member states tend to be more satisfied with this SGI than in the EU15.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10.2. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EU MEMBER STATES

The same percentages are shown by country in the graph below:
RB. 2 Retail banking: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your banking retail supplier?
FI CY EE LV LT SE DE AT MT BE LU SI HU DK NMS10 IE CZ UK EL PT SK EU25 EU15 PL FR ES NL IT 0 36.7 20
87.4 86.2 84.2 80.6 80.3 80.3 78.6 77.3 77.2 75.9 75.2 75.2 74.4 71.7 67.9 67.8 67.4 67.2 65.3 64.7 64.7 63.1 62.1 62 55.5 50.9 50.5 7.4 40 60 80 5.1 2.1 7.5 4.7 4 7.3 4.1 2.2 2.5 5.1 4.6 4.5 4.2 4.7 0.7 1.9 2 2.6 3.1 2.9 0.9 2.3 3.6 5.8
0.8 2.9 1.2
100
In all the member states except in Italy a majority of consumers are satisfied with their banking services. This is especially the case for Finland, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden, where more than 80% of consumers say they are satisfied. Only 36.7% of Italians are satisfied with their banking services.
| 115
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10.3. DIFFERENCES BY SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

The following graph shows the proportion of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic category:
RB. 3 Retail banking: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your retail banking supplier?
Gender
Men
61.1
5.5
Women
65.2
3.6
18-34
60.9
5.3
Age
35-54
61.8
5.1
55+
66.7
3.3
Up to 15 years
59.9
4.2
Education
16-19 years
64.8
20 years +
63.9
Still studying
54
5.3
Self-employed
60.5
5.7
Managers
63.4
4.5
Other white collars
64.1
4.4
Occupation
Blue collars
64.6
5.2
Students
53.5
4.8
House-persons
64
4.5
Unemployed
60.5
4.7
Retired
65.5
3.3
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Except for students, who are less satisfied than the average, the extent to which consumers are satisfied with retail banking services cannot be explained by the occupations of consumers. Consumers who stopped studying at 15 (or earlier) are significantly less satisfied with retail banking than those who left education when they were older. Consumers who are still studying are also significantly less satisfied. Consumers who are aged 55 or older are significantly more satisfied than the younger ones. Respondents aged between 18 and 34 are significantly less satisfied with the retail banking services than the EU25 average. Retail banking is the only SGI surveyed where women are significantly more satisfied than men (65% vs. 61%).
10.4. OTHER KEY OBSERVATIONS ARISING DIRECTLY FROM THE SURVEY

A) OVERALL IMAGE
The consumers who are most satisfied with their retail banks reputation are the Latvians (87%), the Estonians (86%), the Maltese (84%), the Finns (83%), the Cypriots and the Czechs (80% each). In Italy, France and Spain, this is the case for only 40%, 45% and 48% of consumers respectively.
B) OVERALL QUALITY
Overall, the results by country show similar patterns of responses to what has been observed for the EU as a whole.
C) OVERALL PRICE
More than 60% of consumers in Latvia, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary and Belgium are satisfied with the prices of retail banking services. The least satisfied are consumers in Italy (28%), the Netherlands (38%), Portugal (38%) and France (39%). The percentages of dissatisfied consumers in the Czech Republic (15% against 7% of EU25 consumers), Sweden (14%) and France (13%) are relatively high.
D) COMMITMENT
The level of commitment to a given current retail bank is very high in all EU countries (90%). People are not ready to change banks in the short term.
| 117
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Most of the EU25 users (86%) think that retail banking services are available for everybody in their country. In terms of competition, EU users of retail banking services believe that there is enough competition (87%) and that it is easy to change from one bank to another (80%). In addition, almost half of EU25 consumers think that it is possible to purchase services from a bank outside their country. However, they do not seem ready to do so as a great majority prefer national banks (83%).
10.5. ADVANCED ANALYSES

As shown in the table below, the most important criterion for consumers is pricing followed by image. Consumers overall satisfaction is mostly explained by these two criteria. This result seems quite logical given that pricing includes elements such as the profitability of the products and services (e.g. the interest rate paid for a mortgage loan), fixed costs of payments, services charges and financial gains on investments. The impact of quality is much more modest, indicating that consumers take quality (reliability, safety, etc.) for granted and do not consider it as an important differentiating factor. Regression coefficients Quality Image Pricing 0.217 0.381 0.466

The diagram on the following page shows the areas where priority actions are needed to improve consumers satisfaction with retail banking services. All the elements of pricing, image and quality have been plotted into the diagram using two axes: the average satisfaction score given by consumers to each criterion related to quality, pricing and image (marked as Satisfaction on the X axis of the diagram); the weighting or contribution of each criterion (quality, pricing and image) to consumers satisfaction - this weighting gives an indication as to how important each criterion is to consumers (marked as Importance on the Y axis of the diagram).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The diagram makes it possible to identify:

RB. 4
the areas where the SGI is not performing well and where action to change the situation is needed to improve consumers satisfaction; the areas where the SGI is performing well and where no action is needed.
Two-dimensional analysis Retail banking
Importance +
Priority actions Transparency (7.71) Commercial offer (7.34) Overall price (7.30) Price level (7.07) Profitability (6.89) Reputation (7.72) State of the art (7.71) Ease (7.70) Environment friendly (7.56) Customer mentality (7.51) Uniqueness (7.02)
Ideal situation Payment process (8.14) Accuracy (7.85) Popularity (8.01) Relationship (7.99) Overall image (7.83) Familiarity (7.82)
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Low importance area Information (7.67) Availability (7.33)
Long term actions Order ease (8.27) Confidentiality (8.24) Safety (8.21) Points of sale (8.14) Reliability (8.04) Staff professionalism (8.03) Overall quality (8.02) Offer relevance (7.87) Infrastructure (7.86) Questions/problem handling (7.82)
Importance -
| 119
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS As mentioned before, the average satisfaction score of all the elements assessed by consumers is 7.75, which puts retail among the SGIs with which consumers are most satisfied. In addition, the criteria that impact most on overall satisfaction are pricing and image, while quality seems to be less important in the eyes of consumers. The diagram shows that image and quality are the criteria with which consumers are most satisfied. Most of our suggested improvement opportunities will therefore concern pricing issues. SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST PRICE In terms of pricing issues, consumers are most satisfied with everything that is related to the payment process (making payments for instance) and accuracy (of bank statements), which can be considered as important strengths in this sector. On the other hand, consumers are less satisfied with: the profitability of investments: savings and investments do not generate reasonable profits for consumers and loans are not offered at a good rate; the transparency of tariffs; the commercial offer: there are not enough attractive special offer for savings, loans etc; the level of tariffs.
This may be explained by the fact that the consumer does not have access to the same information about the financial markets as a bank has. He does not know exactly how the bank invests his money and what return it obtains. Therefore, due to a lack of transparency, the consumer may have the feeling that commercial offers are not what they could be, price levels are too high (rates of loans) and the profitability of his investments is limited. This feeling is may be due to insufficient or inadequate information (often too complicated for the average consumer). IMAGE Banks appear to suffer from not having a unique image (uniqueness in the diagram). This may be due to the relative complexity of some banking products or to the high number of competitors in this sector. In addition, consumers do not think that banks have enough of a customer service mentality and that they are not environmentally-friendly. Popularity, relationship with the client and familiarity appear to be very important to consumers and to meet with consumer satisfaction.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
QUALITY Overall, banks are seen as providing quality services. Consumers are very satisfied with most of the elements relating to this criterion. No particular action is needed to improve the quality of service as this criterion has the least impact on consumers overall satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS The most urgent actions to be taken to raise consumers overall levels of satisfaction in the retail banking service are related to: o o o information about products/services and information about the investments banks make with their clients savings; banks providing consumers with clearer and better commercial offers; the availability and accessibility of the services (linked to the digital divide).
On the other hand: o o the accuracy and ease of the payment process must continue to be safeguarded; the familiarity and popularity of the suppliers and the good relationship between their staff and their clients are strengths that can be used to carry out the actions that are needed.
| 121
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11. Insurance services

Just as with banking services, EU25 consumers are very satisfied with insurance services (average satisfaction score of 7.9 out of 10). This is also one of the most highly rated SGIs among those surveyed. The following graph displays the proportion of satisfied and dissatisfied respondents:
INS. 1 Insurance: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers - percentages (2006)
Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your insurance supplier?
EU25
64.4
NMS10
62.9
5.3
20
40
60
80
100
Although there is no difference between the EU15 and the NMS10 in terms of their percentages of satisfied respondents, there are significantly more dissatisfied consumers in the NMS10 than in the EU15 (although the percentages are low).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11.2. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EU MEMBER STATES

The percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers are shown in the following graph:
INS. 2 Insurance: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by country - percentages (2006)
DE IE CY AT LT FI LU BE SI DK HU EE LV EL UK MT SE FR CZ EU15 EU25 NMS10 SK PL ES PT NL IT 0
81.4 81.3 79.1 76.1 75.7 75.2 74.7 74.3 73.9 73.6 71.3 70.7 70.6 68.4 67.6 67.2 67.1 65.3 65.1 64.6 64.4 62.9 58.1 55.7 54.7 50.3 46.6 42.3 20 40 1.4 4.8 60 4.2 3.5 3 9 2.6 3 5.3 3.3 2.8 1.5 2.5 5.6 4.3 2.3 9.1 1.8 1.7 2.1 3.8 1.4 2.5 3.2 7
1.9 0.9 4.4
80
100
| 123
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The countries where there are higher percentages of satisfied consumers than the EU average include the Czech Republic (65%) and Germany (81%). In this group, Germany, Ireland, Cyprus, Austria, Lithuania, Finland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Slovenia, Denmark, Hungary, Estonia and Latvia have 71% or more consumers that are satisfied with insurances services. The figures for Greece, the UK, Malta, Sweden, France and the Czech Republic are close to the EU average of 64%. Then come four countries - Slovakia, Poland, Spain and Portugal - with rates between 50% and 58%. The Netherlands and Italy are once again at the bottom of the list with 47% and 42% of satisfied consumers respectively. There is no country for which over 10% of consumers are dissatisfied. The three countries with the most dissatisfied consumers are the Czech Republic (9%), Slovakia (9%) and Hungary (7%).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11.3. DIFFERENCES BY SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

The following graph shows the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers by socioeconomic category:
INS. 3 Insurance: percentages of satisfied vs. dissatisfied consumers by socio-economic category percentages (2006)
Gender
Men
63.5
3.4
Women
65.3
2.6
18-34
62.5
3.8
Age
35-54
62.1
3.2
55+
68.3
2.2
Up to 15 years
61.4
2.6
Education
16-19 years
65.2
3.2
20 years +
65.5
2.6
Still studying
58.1
5.8
Self-employed
58.9
4.1
Managers
65.7
1.4
Other white collars
64.9
2.6
Occupation
Blue collars
64.6
3.2
Students
55.8
6.1
House-persons
62.3
2.7
Unemployed
63.1
3.9
Retired
70
2.9
| 125
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Retired people are the only socio-economic category that is significantly more satisfied than the EU25 average (70%). Once again, self-employed people and students, with percentages of satisfied consumers of 59% and 56% respectively, are below the EU average. Levels of education have some influence on how satisfied consumers are: early school leavers and people who are still studying score significantly below the average (with 61% and 58% respectively). Older people are once again the most satisfied group. Gender does not significantly impact on satisfaction.
11.4. OTHER KEY OBSERVATIONS RESULTING DIRECTLY FROM THE SURVEY

A) OVERALL IMAGE
The consumers who are most satisfied with their insurance companies reputation are located in Ireland (77%), Austria, Czech Republic and Slovenia (76% each), Lithuania (74%), Finland (73%) and Slovakia (71%). On the other hand, the least satisfied consumers are to be found in Portugal (41%), Italy (44%), Spain (46%), the Netherlands and Sweden (48% each). However, the percentage of people who disagree with the statement that their insurance company has a good reputation is very low in all countries (3% in the EU25).
B) OVERALL QUALITY
Overall, the results by country show similar patterns of responses to what has been observed in the EU as a whole. However, it is interesting to note that Swedes have a much better assessment of the quality of services provided by their insurance company (67%) than of the insurance companys reputation (48%).
C) OVERALL PRICE
More than 60% of consumers in Germany, Austria, Ireland, Hungary, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark and Slovenia are satisfied with the prices of insurance services. The least satisfied consumers are from Italy (33%), Spain (38%) the Netherlands (40%), Poland (42%), Sweden (43%), Slovakia (45%) and France (47%). There are relatively high percentages of dissatisfied consumers in Sweden and Portugal (16% each against an EU25 average of 6%).
D) COMMITMENT
The level of commitment to insurance companies is very high in all the EU countries (87%). People tend to stay with their current insurance company and have no intention of changing in the short term.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Most of the EU25 users (88%) think that insurance services are available for everybody in their country. EU users of insurance services believe that there is enough competition (88%) and that it is easy to change from one insurance company to another (77%). A relatively small percentage of EU25 users think it is possible to purchase services from an insurance company outside their country (37%). They do not seem ready to do so as a large majority prefer national insurance companies (83%).
11.5. ADVANCED ANALYSES

As shown in the table below, consumers see pricing as the most important criterion, followed by image. Consumers overall satisfaction is mostly explained by these two criteria. Regression coefficients Quality Image Pricing 0.239 0.317 0.524

The diagram on the following page shows the areas where priority actions are needed to improve consumers satisfaction with insurance services. All the elements of pricing, image and quality have been plotted into the diagram using two axes: the average satisfaction score given by consumers to each criterion related to quality, pricing and image (marked as Satisfaction on the X axis of the diagram); the weighting or contribution of each criterion (quality, pricing and image) to consumers satisfaction - this weighting gives an indication as to how important each criterion is to consumers (marked as Importance on the Y axis of the diagram).
The diagram makes it possible to identify: the areas where the SGI is not performing well and where action to change the situation is needed to improve consumers satisfaction; the areas where the SGI is performing well and where no action is needed.
| 127
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
INS. 4
Two-dimensional analysis - Insurance
Importance +
Priority actions Overall price (7.38) Price level (7.31) Commercial offer (7.21) Profitability (5.6) Customer mentality (7.57) State of the art (7.48) Environment friendly (7.34) Uniqueness (6.87)
Ideal situation Payment process (8.25) Accuracy (7.99) Transparency (7.76) Relationship (7.99) Overall image (7.79) Popularity (7.79) Familiarity (7.72) Ease (7.71) Reputation (7.66)
Satisfaction +
Satisfaction -
Low importance area Information (7.27) Points of sale (7.23)
Long term actions Order ease (8.28) Confidentiality (8.19) Staff professionalism (8.09) Safety (8.05) Overall quality (8.01) Reliability (7.94) Offer relevance (7.92) Questions/problem handling (7.88) Availability (7.64)
Importance -
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS As mentioned previously, the average satisfaction score of all the elements surveyed is 7.65. Consumers are particularly satisfied with image and quality: the average satisfaction scores are quite high compared to other sectors (8.0 for quality and 7.8 for image). On the other hand, consumers are least satisfied with pricing (a satisfaction score of 7.4 against an average satisfaction of 7.65) whereas it is the main criterion determining consumers overall satisfaction. SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST PRICE The elements of pricing which are very important to consumers but with which they are dissatisfied are: profitability: consumers do not think that insurance companies share their profits with their customers; commercial offers: there are not enough attractive special tariffs for specific target groups or usage; price levels: prices for insurance policies are considered too expensive.
On the other hand, consumers tend to be satisfied with such items as tariff transparency, the payment process or the possibilities offered by companies to pay their insurance policy. In addition, insurance statements or invoices are considered as being accurate. These results tend to indicate that consumers understand and are in control of the insurance process. The position of these variables in the table suggests that consumers are ready to pay for the risk cover but consider that the prices of insurance policies are too high and that the cost of the insurance cover does not give them a return in the long term. More particularly, the position of the items commercial offer and profitability could refer to the feeling of some consumers that they are not being rewarded for their loyalty. Indeed, they would, for instance, expect a considerable reduction in their insurance policy in cases where they have never had an accident during a given period of time. IMAGE Our main observation is the position in the upper-left quadrant of the item uniqueness, which means that, as with retail banking services, consumers do not see much differentiation between insurance companies. The variable environment friendly can also be found in the same quadrant.
| 129
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Finally, customer service mentality and state of the art (i.e. the fact that the suppliers are technologically advanced companies and have the ability to innovate) also seem to be issues. This observation may mean that, from the consumers point of view, insurance services do not take sufficient advantage of the new information technology in order to provide an easier service to the client. On the other hand, all the other image-related elements (popularity, familiarity, ease and reputation) are in the upper-right quadrant. These are the areas where no action is needed but where the current situation needs to be maintained. QUALITY Consumers give elements related to quality relatively high scores. The lower average score (compared to the average score for information) might be related to the fact that consumers often do not fully understand what they perceive as complex insurance products. In addition, consumers tend to think there is no insurance office/agency near to their home. Contrary to the situation for retail banking, insurance companies do not seem to enjoy a high level of visibility. However, these two areas, which are a source of discontent for consumers, are not opportunities for priority actions but only actions that could be taken in the long run. CONCLUSIONS Given that pricing issues are important to consumers, the main opportunities for improvement lie in this area. They are linked to price level, commercial offers and to the fact that insurance companies share their profits with customers. Nevertheless, improvements in the information provided on products and services could help consumers have a better understanding of prices/tariffs and could thereby improve consumers overall satisfaction with insurance services. In terms of image, the main priorities are to work on the uniqueness of insurance companies, respect for the environment and customer service mentality (through better use of ICT. Finally, insurance services processes, transparency, familiarity, reputation and public and consequently satisfaction in these areas. could take advantage of the quality and accuracy of payment good relationships between staff and clients, popularity, flexibility of suppliers by communicating these elements to the contributing, in the long run, to maintaining consumers
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY RESULTS BY COUNTRY

In this chapter, we use graphs to show the percentage of consumers who are satisfied or dissatisfied with the eleven SGIs (services of general interest) by country and for the EU25 as a whole. The measurement of satisfaction is based on the percentage of respondents who, on a scale from 1 to 10, rated their satisfaction in the range between 8 and 10. The measurement of dissatisfaction is based on the percentage of respondents who rated their satisfaction equal to or less than 4. When comparing the proportion of satisfied/dissatisfied consumers to the EU average, 2 situations can be observed on the graphs: either the proportion is greater than the EU average. In this case, we will say that consumers are more satisfied/dissatisfied than the EU average. or the proportion is smaller than the EU average. In this case, we will say that consumers are less satisfied/dissatisfied than the EU average
However, in some cases, the differences observed on the graphs are not statistically significant. In other words, the proportions of satisfied/dissatisfied consumers of a given country can be considered equal to the EU average. Statistical significance depends on a variety of factors such as sample size and observed percentages. The explanatory text below the graph will only highlight significant differences compared to the EU average. This is the reason why the reader may perceive some discrepancies between what is shown on the graph and the text. For example: in the Czech Republic, 5.8% of consumers are dissatisfied with mobile phone whereas the EU average is 4.1%. In this case, we cannot conclude that consumers in the Czech Republic are more dissatisfied with mobile phone than the EU average as the difference between these two proportions is not statistically significant. For the other services, the differences between the proportions of satisfied consumers and the EU average are statistically significant. In addition, these are greater than the EU average. Therefore, we will say that consumers in this country tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with all the services except mobile phone.
| 131
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. EU25
EU25
Air transport Mobile phone Insurance Retail banking Water Gas Electricity Postal services Fixed phone Extra-urban transport Urban transport 45.6 44.5
66.1 65.9 64.4 63.1 60.2 57.9 57.6 52.9 52
3.5 4.1 3 4.6 5.4 4.4 5.3 6.9 8.4 10.3 9.4 Satisfied Dissatisfied
As can be seen in the graph above, urban and extra-urban transport are the services with which EU25 consumers are, in general, the least satisfied.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Austria
AUSTRIA
Water EU25 Water Air transport EU25 Air transport Electricity EU25 Electricity Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Insurance EU25 Insurance Gas EU25 Gas Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Postal services EU25 Postal services Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport 44.5 57.9 52.9 49 45.6 52 61 57.9 70.1 64.4 75.9 65.9 76.1 63.1 76.4 57.6 77.3 66.1 60.2
86.8 5.4 82.2 3.5 79.5 5.3 3.1 4.6 2.4 4.1 1.8 3 2.7 4.4 2.6 8.4 7.2 9.4 7.6 6.9 12.7 10.3 2 1.1
1.5
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Austrians tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all 11 services evaluated. They tend also to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with all these services.
| 133
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Belgium
BELGIUM
Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Insurance EU25 Insurance Electricity EU25 Electricity Gas EU25 Gas Water EU25 Water Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Air transport EU25 Air transport Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Postal services EU25 Postal services 44.5 52.2 45.6 43.8 52.9 57.1 52 59.7 66.1 64.4 65.2 57.6 65.2 57.9 64.3 60.2 62 63.1
75.9 4.6 74.4 65.9 74.3 3 2.1 5.3 2.6 4.4 0.4 5.4 3.2 8.4 2.4 3.5 3.9 9.4 4.6 10.3 6.4 6.9 4.1
0.9
1.3
1.4
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Belgian consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with retail banking, mobile phone, insurance, electricity, gas, water, fixed phone and urban and extra-urban transport and less satisfied with air transport and postal services. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with all the 11 services.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Cyprus
CYPRUS
Retail banking EU25 Retail banking 63.1
86.2 4.6
2.9
Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone 65.9
83.9 4.1
0.7
Air transport EU25 Air transport 66.1
83 3.5
3.5
Water EU25 Water 60.2
83 5.4
2.3
Insurance EU25 Insurance 64.4
79.1 3
4.4
Postal services EU25 Postal services 52.9
77 6.9
5.8
Electricity EU25 Electricity 57.6
70.1 5.3
6.4
Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone 52
68.5 8.4
6.5
Urban transport EU25 Urban transport
23 44.5
53.8 9.4
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Consumers in Cyprus tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all the services, except urban transport (23% of satisfied against 44.5% at the EU level). They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with urban transport (53.8% of dissatisfied against 9.4% at the EU level).
| 135
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Czech Republic
CZECH REPUBLIC
Air transport EU25 Air transport Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Insurance EU25 Insurance Gas EU25 Gas Water EU25 Water Electricity EU25 Electricity Postal services EU25 Postal services Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone 43.7 45.6 42.7 44.5 40.7 52 66.1
75.7 3.5
6.9
73.8 65.9 67.4 63.1 65.1 64.4 64.5 57.9 59.2 60.2 58.3 57.6 51.8 52.9 17 10.3 18.8 9.4 23.3 8.4 4.4 9 5.4 9.2 5.3 10.7 6.9 3 10.1 4.6 9.1 4.1 7.3
5.8
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Consumers in Czech Republic tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with air transport, mobile phone, retail banking and gas distribution and less satisfied with fixed phone. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with all the services except mobile phone.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Denmark
DENMARK
Water EU25 Water Electricity EU25 Electricity Gas EU25 Gas Insurance EU25 Insurance Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Air transport EU25 Air transport Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Postal services EU25 Postal services Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport 42.1 44.5 37.5 45.6 52 52.8 52.9 64.4 71.7 63.1 71.4 65.9 65 66.1 61.3 57.9 73.6 57.6 60.2
84.8 5.4 78.9 5.3 77.9 4.4 3.2 3 4.7 4.6 6 4.1 5.1 3.5 7.7 8.4 11.6 6.9 16.7 9.4 17.1 10.3 2.6 2.2
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Danes tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with the three utilities (water, electricity and gas), insurance, retail banking, mobile phone and fixed phone and less satisfied with extra-urban services. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services, urban and extra-urban transport.
| 137
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Estonia
ESTONIA
Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Electricity EU25 Electricity Postal services EU25 Postal services Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Insurance EU25 Insurance Gas EU25 Gas Air transport EU25 Air transport Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Water EU25 Water Urban transport EU25 Urban transport 49.7 44.5 45.6 51.5 60.2 58 57.9 64.1 66.1 52 70.7 64.4 68.1 52.9 71 57.6 71.5 65.9 71.8 63.1
84.2 4.6 78.3 4.1 4.4 5.3 2.8 6.9 3.6 8.4 3.3 3 2.1 4.4 3.9 3.5 6.3 10.3 12.3 5.4 10.9 9.4 1.7
1.2
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Consumers in Estonia tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with retail banking, mobile phone, electricity, postal services, fixed phone, insurance, gas distribution, urban and extra-urban transport and less satisfied with water distribution. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution and less dissatisfied with extraurban transport.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Germany
GERMANY
Water EU25 Water Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Air transport EU25 Air transport Insurance EU25 Insurance Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Electricity EU25 Electricity Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Gas EU25 Gas Postal services EU25 Postal services Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport 57.9 58.5 52.9 52.3 44.5 42.4 45.6 44.9 69.7 57.6 71.4 63.1 72.7 64.4 66.1 65.9 60.2
83.9 5.4 83.5 4.1 83.2 3.5 81.4 3 78.6 4.6 2.4 5.3 5.9 10.3 3.6 4.4 5 6.9 7.8 9.4 16.2 10.3 2.6
2.2
2.9
1.7
1.9
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
German consumers are most satisfied than the EU average with all the services except extra-urban transport. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with extraurban transport and less dissatisfied with fixed phone.
| 139
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Greece
GREECE
Gas EU25 Gas Air transport EU25 Air transport Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Postal services EU25 Postal services Insurance EU25 Insurance Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Water EU25 Water Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Electricity EU25 Electricity Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone 45.1 52 44.5 48.1 57.6 45.6 59 60.2 53.6 52.9 68.4 64.4 65.3 63.1 63.4 66.1 70.9 65.9 69.7 57.9 76.2
87.4 4.4 3.8 3.5 2.7 4.1 4 6.9 1.5 3 2.2 4.6 4.4 10.3 9.8 5.4 8 9.4 9.5 5.3 9.4 8.4
1.5
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
In Greece, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with gas distribution, air transport, mobile phone, postal services, insurance and extra-urban transport and less satisfied with electricity and fixed phone. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with water and electricity distribution and less dissatisfied with postal services and extra-urban transport.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10. Finland
FINLAND
Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Water EU25 Water Air transport EU25 Air transport Gas EU25 Gas Insurance EU25 Insurance Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Postal services EU25 Postal services Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Electricity EU25 Electricity Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone 52 44.5 63.2 57.6 60.9 52.9 63.9 45.6 66.4 64.4 72.7 65.9 67.4 57.9 75.2 66.1 76.6 60.2 77.5 63.1
87.4 4.6 79.6 5.4 3.2 3.5 1.4 4.4 2.1 3 3.4 4.1 3.3 10.3 5.3 6.9 5 9.4 6.1 5.3 5.1 8.4 2.9
0.8
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Finns tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all SGIs. In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with urban and extra-urban transport and fixed phone.
| 141
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11. France
FRANCE
Insurance EU25 Insurance Electricity EU25 Electricity Gas EU25 Gas Air transport EU25 Air transport Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Water EU25 Water Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Postal services EU25 Postal services 49.3 52 49.2 44.5 46.1 52.9 52.6 45.6 52 55.5
65.3 64.4 60.4 57.6 58.2 57.9 56.1 66.1 7.5 3.1 5.3 4.5 4.4 5.7
2.3 3
3.5
63.1 55.3 65.9 7.2 10.3 4.4 60.2 7.6 8.4 7.2 9.4 7.3 6.9 6.4
4.6
4.1
5.4
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
French consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with extra-urban transport and less satisfied with air transport, retail banking, mobile phone, water distribution and postal services. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with extra-urban transport.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. Hungary
HUNGARY
Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Air transport EU25 Air transport Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Electricity EU25 Electricity Insurance EU25 Insurance Postal services EU25 Postal services Water EU25 Water Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Gas EU25 Gas Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Urban transport EU25 Urban transport 50 45.6 37.7 44.5 52 64.9 57.9 60.2 65.2 52.9 70.6 57.6 71.3 64.4 70.7 63.1 72.6 66.1 65.9
82.9 4.1 82.5 3.5 5.8 4.6 8.6 5.3 7 3 7.6 6.9 7.4 5.4 10.4 8.4 9.2 4.4 17.6 10.3 22.2 9.4
2.1
2.5
74.4
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Hungarians tend to be more satisfied than the EU25 average with almost all SGIs except with urban transport (37.7% against a EU25 average of 44.5%). However, they tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with electricity, insurance, gas, urban and extraurban transport.
| 143
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
13. Ireland
IRELAND
Gas EU25 Gas Postal services EU25 Postal services Insurance EU25 Insurance Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Electricity EU25 Electricity Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Water EU25 Water Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Air transport EU25 Air transport Urban transport EU25 Urban transport 44.5 60.2 67.8 63.1 67 66.1 65.6 45.6 71.5 65.9 72.4 57.6 73 52 64.4 52.9 57.9
81.8 4.4 81.7 6.9 81.3 3 78.3 8.4 73.2 5.3 2.6 4.1 3.3 10.3 8 5.4 4 4.6 3.6 3.5 5 9.4 3.5
1.9
0.9
1.7
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
In Ireland, people are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with air transport (where the proportion of satisfied is equal to the EU average). They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services, fixed phone, urban and extra-urban transport.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14. Italy
ITALY
Air transport EU25 Air transport Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Insurance EU25 Insurance Water EU25 Water Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Gas EU25 Gas Electricity EU25 Electricity Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Postal services EU25 Postal services Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport 24.2 27.4 28.7 33.7 34.8 36.4 36.7 40.4
51.1 66.1 49.7 65.9 42.3 64.4 8.6 60.2 7.4 63.1 4.1 57.9 8.3 57.6 13.7 44.5 10.2 52.9 14.8 52 18 45.6 4.8
3.4 3.5 2.6 4.1
5.4
4.6
4.4
5.3
9.4
6.9
8.4
10.3
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Italians tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with urban and extra-urban transport, postal services and fixed phone.
| 145
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
15. Latvia
LATVIA
Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Electricity EU25 Electricity Insurance EU25 Insurance Air transport EU25 Air transport Postal services EU25 Postal services Gas EU25 Gas Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Water EU25 Water 44.5 50.5 60.2 52 62 45.6 65.1 57.9 66.2 52.9 67.5 57.6 70.6 64.4 68 66.1 67.8 65.9 63.1
80.6 4.6 79.9 4.1 3.2 5.3 2.8 3 3.6 3.5 4.1 6.9 4.8 4.4 3.5 10.3 4.3 8.4 4.2 9.4 11.7 5.4
0.7
2.5
73.1
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Latvians tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs, except with water distribution (50.5% are satisfied against 60.2% at the EU level). They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution and less dissatisfied with urban and extra-urban transport and fixed phone.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16. Lithuania
LITHUANIA
Gas EU25 Gas Electricity EU25 Electricity Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Postal services EU25 Postal services Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Air transport EU25 Air transport Insurance EU25 Insurance Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Water EU25 Water Urban transport EU25 Urban transport 44.5 45.6 59.6 60.2 57.4 52 66.5 64.4 72.4 66.1 75.7 65.9 52.9 63.1 57.6 57.9
84.5 4.4 81.6 5.3 80.3 4.6 80.2 6.9 79.1 4.1 78.6 3.5 1.7 3 4.7 8.4 5.2 10.3 8.5 5.4 6.8 9.4 0.7 3.6 1.2 1.9
0.7
1.6
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Lithuanians are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with water distribution (where the proportion of satisfied is equal to the EU average). They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with gas and electricity distribution, retail banking, postal services, air transport, insurance, fixed phone and extra-urban transport but are more dissatisfied with water distribution.
| 147
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
17. Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG
Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Insurance EU25 Insurance Water EU25 Water Electricity EU25 Electricity Gas EU25 Gas Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Postal services EU25 Postal services Air transport EU25 Air transport Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport 44.5 54.2 45.6 52.9 52 57.9 57.6 60.2 64.4 63.1
75.2 4.6 74.7 3 73.5 5.4 71.5 5.3 69.3 4.4 69.2 65.9 68.7 8.4 67.5 6.9 66.5 66.1 57.5 9.4 6.8 10.3 9.4 2.6 3.5 2.6 3.4 4.1 3.6 1.7
2.3
3.8
3.2
2.1
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Consumers in Luxembourg are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with mobile phone and air transport (where the proportions of satisfied are in line with the EU average). They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water, electricity and gas distribution, fixed phone, postal services and extra-urban transport.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
18. Malta
MALTA
Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone 65.9
79.6 4.1
2.3
Retail banking EU25 Retail banking 63.1
77.2 4.6
2.9
Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone 52
73 8.4
2.6
Insurance EU25 Insurance
67.2 64.4 3
5.6
Air transport EU25 Air transport
63.6 66.1
2.9 3.5
Postal services EU25 Postal services 52.9
61.7 6.9
8.2
Water EU25 Water
53.1 60.2
14.3 5.4
Electricity EU25 Electricity
47 57.6
17.4 5.3
Urban transport EU25 Urban transport
29.4 44.5
15.9 9.4
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Maltese consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with mobile phone, retail banking, fixed phone, insurance and postal services and tend to be less satisfied with water and electricity distribution and urban transport. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with fixed phone and more dissatisfied with insurance, water and electricity distribution and urban transport.
| 149
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
19. Netherlands
NETHERLANDS
Water EU25 Water Air transport EU25 Air transport Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Gas EU25 Gas Postal services EU25 Postal services Insurance EU25 Insurance Electricity EU25 Electricity Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport 24 25 44.5 39.7 41.1
53.4 60.2 52.9 66.1 51 65.9 50.5 63.1 47.6 57.9 47.5 52.9 46.6 64.4 6.4 57.6 3.3 52 3.7 9.4 6 45.6 1.4 2.5 3.7
1 5.4 1.2 3.5 2.5 4.1 2.1 4.6
4.4
6.9
5.3
8.4
10.3
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Just as with Italy, Dutch consumers tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs. However, they also tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution, air transport, postal services, insurance, fixed phone, urban and extra-urban transport.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
20. Poland
POLAND
Air transport EU25 Air transport Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Postal services EU25 Postal services Electricity EU25 Electricity Gas EU25 Gas Water EU25 Water Insurance EU25 Insurance Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Urban transport EU25 Urban transport 39.2 44.5 46.2 45.6 45.2 52
67.7 66.1 67.2 65.9 62 63.1 61.3 52.9 59.9 57.6 58.9 57.9 56.8 60.2 55.7 64.4 7.4 10.3 13.3 8.4 10.8 9.4 3.5 6.9 6.4 5.3 4.8 4.4 7.6 5.4 4.2
1.3 3.5 4.1 4.1
4.6 7.8
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
In Poland, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with postal services and insurance and tend to be less satisfied with fixed phone and urban transport. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with air transport and tend to be more dissatisfied with fixed phone.
| 151
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
21. Portugal
PORTUGAL
Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Postal services EU25 Postal services Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Air transport EU25 Air transport Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Water EU25 Water Insurance EU25 Insurance Gas EU25 Gas Urban transport EU25 Urban transport Electricity EU25 Electricity Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone 29.7 52 40.4 44.5 36.4 57.6 49.5 57.9 50.3 45.6 52.2 55.5 52.9
68.8 65.9 64.9 6.9 64.7 63.1 64.1 66.1 4.5 10.3 8.6 5.4 4.2 64.4 4.1 4.4 5.1 9.4 12.8 5.3 20.1 8.4 3 2.5 4.6 0.9
2.6 4.1 3.9
3.5
60.2
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
In Portugal, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with postal services and extra-urban transport and tend to be less satisfied with water, gas and electricity distribution, insurance and fixed phone. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services, retail banking, air transport and urban/extra-urban transport and they tend to be more dissatisfied with water and electricity distribution and fixed phone.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
22. Slovakia
SLOVAKIA
Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Air transport EU25 Air transport Postal services EU25 Postal services Insurance EU25 Insurance Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Water EU25 Water Electricity EU25 Electricity Gas EU25 Gas Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Urban transport EU25 Urban transport 21.9 44.5 28.6 45.6 43.3 57.9 53.1 52 52.8 60.2 52.8 57.6 65.9 64.7 63.1 62 66.1 59.4 52.9 58.1 64.4
73 4.1 5.1 4.6 8.2 3.5 5.9 6.9 9 3 9.1 8.4 8.9 5.4 8.5 5.3 15 4.4 23.4 10.3 31.5 9.4
4.1
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Slovaks tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with mobile phone and postal services and tend to be less satisfied with insurance, water, electricity and gas distribution, urban and extra-urban transport. In addition, they tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with air transport, insurance, water, electricity and gas distribution and urban and extra-urban transport.
| 153
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
23. Slovenia
SLOVENIA
Gas EU25 Gas Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Postal services EU25 Postal services Insurance EU25 Insurance Air transport EU25 Air transport Electricity EU25 Electricity Water EU25 Water Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Urban transport EU25 Urban transport 52 51.5 45.6 46.4 44.5 60.2 57.6 64.4 52.9 63.1 65.9 57.9
77.2 4.4 76.8 4.1 75.2 4.6 74.2 6.9 73.9 3 73.8 66.1 73.5 5.3 72 5.4 6.2 8.4 8.3 10.3 12.4 9.4 3.5
1.2
2.8
3.6
3.6
2.5
4.5
2.5
4.8
68.5
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with urban transport (where the proportion of satisfied is in line with the EU average). In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with electricity and gas distribution and postal services.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
24. Spain
SPAIN
Insurance EU25 Insurance Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Postal services EU25 Postal services Gas EU25 Gas Water EU25 Water Air transport EU25 Air transport Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Electricity EU25 Electricity Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Urban transport EU25 Urban transport 35.4 44.5 36 41.7 43.6 45.6 42.7 45
54.7 64.4 50.9 63.1 47.7 52.9 47.7 57.9 46.9 60.2 6.1 66.1 5.1 10.3 4 57.6 8.7 65.9 7.5 52 10.7 9.4 6.1 3.8 3.8 5.1
3 3
4.6
6.9
4.4
5.4
3.5
5.3
4.1
8.4
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Spaniards tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with insurance, retail banking, postal, gas, water and electricity distribution, air transport, mobile phone, fixed phone and urban transport. In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services and extra-urban transport but tend to be more dissatisfied with air transport and mobile phone.
| 155
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
25. Sweden
SWEDEN
Water EU25 Water Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Gas EU25 Gas Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Insurance EU25 Insurance Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Air transport EU25 Air transport Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Electricity EU25 Electricity Postal services EU25 Postal services Urban transport EU25 Urban transport 39.5 44.5 44.8 52.9 54.1 45.6 53.2 57.6 52 62.4 66.1 57.9 71.7 65.9 67.1 64.4 63.4 63.1 60.2
80.7 5.4 80.3 4.6 74.1 4.4 4.8 4.1 2.5 3 6.5 8.4 4.5 3.5 7.9 10.3 11.5 5.3 21.7 6.9 17.3 9.4 1.9
1.6
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with water distribution, retail banking, gas, mobile phone, fixed phone and extra-urban transport and tend to be less satisfied with air transport and postal services. They also tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water and gas distribution and retail banking but tend to be more dissatisfied electricity, postal services and urban transport.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
26. United Kingdom

UNITED KINGDOM
Insurance EU25 Insurance Air transport EU25 Air transport Mobile phone EU25 Mobile phone Retail banking EU25 Retail banking Fixed phone EU25 Fixed phone Water EU25 Water Gas EU25 Gas Electricity EU25 Electricity Postal services EU25 Postal services Extra-urban transport EU25 Extra-urban transport Urban transport EU25 Urban transport 45.6 43.3 44.5 52
67.6 64.4 67.6 66.1 67.5 65.9 67.2 63.1 59.8 8.4 59.7 60.2 58.3 57.9 58.2 57.6 55.8 52.9 55.4 10.3 6.7 9.4 6.9 6.3 5.5 5.4 4.9 4.4 6.6 5.3 9.2 4.7
2.5 3 4.4 3.5 3.4 4.1 4.1 4.6
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Consumers in the UK tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with fixed phone, retail banking and extra-urban transport services. In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with fixed phone and extra-urban transport.
| 157
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. OVERALL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Consumers overall satisfaction

1.1. AVERAGE SCORE
Overall, European consumers appear to be fairly satisfied with their services of general interest. The average satisfaction scores for the EU25 for each of the sectors surveyed are listed in the following table (on a scale from 1 to 10).
Average score Air Transport Mobile Telephony Insurance services Retail Banking Water Distribution Gas supply Electricity supply Postal Services Fixed Telephony Extra Urban Transport Urban Transport 7.96 7.91 7.92 7.82 7.73 7.64 7.61 7.42 7.30 7.05 7.04
The average satisfaction score ranges from 7.04 for Urban Transport to 7.96 for Air transport. Given the general observation that a score of 8 (on a scale from 1 to 10) is an indication of a high level of satisfaction, it is reasonable to say that: EU consumers are particularly satisfied with air transport, mobile phone, insurance and retail banking services; EU consumers are less satisfied (or are more neutral in their opinion) with utility services (gas, electricity, water); EU consumers are more concerned about sectors such as postal services and fixed telephony. EU consumers are least satisfied with their extra-urban and urban transport services.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2. PERCENTAGES OF SATISFIED AND DISSATISFIED CONSUMERS

Another way of looking at overall satisfaction is to calculate the percentages of satisfied consumers and dissatisfied consumers. Satisfied consumers are defined as people who give a service a rating of 8, 9 or 10 while dissatisfied consumers are defined as people who give a service a score of 4 or less. The percentages of satisfied consumers are shown in the following graph:

% satisfied customers - EU25
66.1
65.9
64.4
63.1 60.2 57.9 57.6 52.9 52 45.6 44.5
Air transport
Mobile phone
Insurances
Banking retail
Water
Gas
Electricity
Postal services
Fixed phone Extra-urban transport
Urban transport
This way of presenting the information is somewhat more precise than when average values are used but the order of the sectors remains the same. For all sectors, except urban transport and extra-urban Transport, it can be seen that at least one EU citizen in two claims to be a satisfied consumer. For air transport, mobile phone, insurance and retail banking services, this figure rises to 2 out of 3.
| 159
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A third way of looking at overall satisfaction is to show the percentage of dissatisfied consumers:

% dissatisfied customers - EU25
10.3 9.4 8.4
6.9 5.4
5.3 4.6 4.4 4.1 3.5 3
Extra-urban transport
Urban transport
Fixed phone
Postal services
Water
Electricity
Banking retail
Gas
Mobile phone
Air transport Insurances
In 5 out of the 11 sectors surveyed, fewer than 5% of EU consumers state that they are dissatisfied. Not surprisingly, these are the same 5 sectors in which average satisfaction is highest. In 4 sectors, the percentage of dissatisfied consumers in the EU25 ranges from 7% to 10%. For extra-urban transport, 1 EU consumer in 10 claims to be dissatisfied. Care should be taken in seeking to find the reasons for these differences across sectors, but the following assumptions can be put forward and are worth further investigation: there seems to be a relationship between the extent to which a sector has been liberalised (or at least there is a market situation where consumers have the choice between several suppliers) and the satisfaction of consumers. Further work to correlate the degree of liberalisation with satisfaction is needed, however; EU consumers neutral positive attitude towards utility services (electricity, water, gas) could be explained by the long-standing quality and reliability of these services, which consumers take for granted; EU consumers negative attitude towards postal services, urban and extra-urban transport could be explained by their reputation for providing services that are not consumer-friendly.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Criteria that contribute to consumers overall satisfaction

2.1. CONSUMERS SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY, PRICING AND IMAGE
In addition to consumers overall satisfaction, the survey was intended to measure consumers satisfaction with different criteria related to the SGI surveyed. Some of them have been summarised in the following three categories: quality, pricing and image. The table below sets out the average satisfaction score give by consumers for each of these aspects:
Service Mobile Telephony Retail Banking Air Transport Insurance Gas Supply Postal Services Water Distribution Fixed Telephony Electricity Supply Extra Urban Transport Urban Transport
Quality 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.8 7.3 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.0 7.0
Pricing 7.5 7.3 7.6 7.4 6.4 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.6
Image 8.0 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.4 6.8 6.9
Overall Satisfaction 7.91 7.82 7.96 7.92 7.64 7.42 7.73 7.30 7.61 7.05 7.04
The table shows that consumers tend to be more satisfied with quality than pricing in most of the SGI surveyed. The consumers average satisfaction score with image-type elements often falls between that for pricing and quality.
2.2. THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY, PRICING AND IMAGE IN CONSUMERS OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH SGIS
As noted at the beginning of this report, it is important to determine the criteria or elements that influence and explain consumers overall satisfaction before taking any action to improve consumers overall satisfaction. These criteria are quality, pricing and image. This contribution to consumers overall satisfaction is calculated through a regression analysis that determines the relative weighting of quality, pricing and image in overall satisfaction.
| 161
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The weighting of each of these criteria (regression coefficient4) calculated for all the SGIs surveyed is shown in the following table: Services Insurance Services Electricity Supply Retail Banking Fixed Telephony Mobile Telephony Water Distribution Postal Services Urban Transport Extra Urban Transport Air Transport Gas Supply Quality 0.24 0.30 0.22 0.24 0.28 0.34 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.37 0.49 Pricing 0.52 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.44 0.43 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.36 0.20 Image 0.32 0.32 0.38 0.43 0.34 0.37 0.48 0.52 0.53 0.35 0.28
Pricing is the main criterion influencing consumers overall satisfaction in 6 out of 11 services: insurance, electricity supply, retail banking, fixed telephone (where image is also very important), mobile telephone and water distribution. In other words, in these sectors, people have high expectations regarding pricing issues. This result implies that, more than in other sectors, changes in prices or price-related items will influence consumer satisfaction. The impact of changes in other areas will be less significant. In 3 sectors, image is the criterion that has the greatest impact on consumers overall satisfaction: postal services, urban transport and extra-urban transport three sectors where average satisfaction is relatively low. On the other hand, consumers expectations regarding image are higher than the other criteria as far as fixed telephone services are concerned. Therefore enjoying a good reputation or, alternatively, suffering from a bad image is closely related to consumers overall satisfaction. In two SGIs, the survey shows interesting results: air transport: the three criteria (quality, pricing and image) are almost as important as each other for consumers (0.37 for quality, 0.36 for pricing and 0.35 for image) the impact of these criteria balance each other out; i.e. lower quality (= lower scores on quality) can be compensated by lower prices (= higher scores on pricing); gas supply is the only sector where quality appears to be the main driver of satisfaction. This is probably due to reliability and safety concerns with regard to this service.
These weightings can have a value ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 meaning that the criteria has no influence on overall satisfaction and 1 meaning that it has a major influence on overall satisfaction.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Differences between EU Member States

3.1. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EU15 AND NMS10 COUNTRIES
The following table displays, for each service, the percentage of satisfied and dissatisfied consumers in both EU15 and NMS10 countries.
Service Air transport Mobile Phone Insurance Retail banking Water Gas Electricity Postal services Fixed phone Extra-urban transport Urban transport EU15 NMS-10 EU15 NMS-10 EU15 NMS-10 EU15 NMS-10 EU15 NMS-10 EU15 NMS-10 EU15 NMS-10 EU15 NMS-10 EU15 NMS-10 EU15 NMS-10 EU15 NMS-10 % Satisfied 65.5 72.6 64.4 72.8 64.6 62.9 62.1 67.9 60.5 59.1 57.2 60.9 56.5 62.3 50.5 62.7 52.1 51.4 45.3 47.1 45.2 40.3 % Dissatisfied 3.6 3.1 4.2 3.9 2.6 5.3 4.5 4.7 4.8 7.9 4.0 6.6 4.9 6.7 6.8 7.5 7.6 12.6 9.9 12.0 8.4 14.7
When it comes to (overall) differences in consumer satisfaction between EU15 and NMS10 countries, a distinction can be made between three groups of services: o for air transport and mobile phone services, consumers in the new member states are more satisfied and less dissatisfied than those in the EU15; o for insurance services, water distribution, fixed telephone and urban transport, the NMS10 consumers are less satisfied and more dissatisfied than the EU15 citizens; o for retail banking, gas supply, electricity supply and extra-urban transport, the percentages of both satisfied and dissatisfied consumers in the NMS10 countries overall are higher than in the EU15 countries. For the third group of services the following possible explanations may be considered: (1) there are considerable disparities in the delivery of services within these countries (which would also explain the greater differences in consumer satisfaction levels) and/or (2) consumers in these countries tend to have a less neutral attitude than those in the EU15.
| 163
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.2. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER STATES

A majority of EU25 consumers (more than 50%) are satisfied with 9 out of the 11 SGIs assessed, especially air transport, mobile phone, insurance, retail banking and water distribution services. Consumers are least satisfied with extra-urban (45.6%) and urban transport (44.5%) services. Results diverging from the EU average are found below: Austria Austrians tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all 11 services evaluated. They tend also to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with all these services. Belgium Consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with retail banking, mobile phone, insurance, electricity, gas, water, fixed phone and urban and extra-urban transport and less satisfied with air transport and postal services. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with all the 11 services. Cyprus Consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all the services, except urban transport (23% of satisfied against 44.5% at the EU level). They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with urban transport (53.8% of dissatisfied against 9.4% at the EU level). Czech Republic Consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with air transport, mobile phone, retail banking and gas distribution and less satisfied with fixed phone. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with all the services except mobile phone. Denmark Danes tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with the three utilities (water, electricity and gas), insurance, retail banking, mobile phone and fixed phone and less satisfied with extra-urban services. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services, urban and extra-urban transport. Estonia Consumers in Estonia tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with retail banking, mobile phone, electricity, postal services, fixed phone, insurance, gas distribution, urban and extra-urban transport and less satisfied with water distribution. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution and less dissatisfied with extraurban transport.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Germany German consumers are most satisfied than the EU average with all the services except extra-urban transport. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average extra-urban transport and less dissatisfied with fixed phone. Greece In Greece, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with gas distribution, air transport, mobile phone, postal services, insurance and extra-urban transport and less satisfied with electricity and fixed phone. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with water and electricity distribution and less dissatisfied with postal services and extra-urban transport. Finland Finns tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all SGIs. In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with urban and extra-urban transport and fixed phone. France French consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with extra-urban transport and less satisfied air transport, retail banking, mobile phone, water distribution and postal services. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with extra-urban transport. Hungary Hungarians tend to be more satisfied than the EU25 average with almost all SGIs except with urban transport (37.7% against a EU25 average of 44.5%). However, they tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with electricity, insurance, gas, urban and extraurban transport. Ireland Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with Air transport (where the proportion of satisfied is equal to the EU average). They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services, fixed phone, urban and extraurban transport.
| 165
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Italy Italians tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs. They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with urban and extra-urban transport, postal services and fixed phone. Latvia Latvians tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs, except with water distribution (50.5% are satisfied against 60.2% at the EU level). They tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution and less dissatisfied with urban and extra-urban transport and fixed phone. Lithuania Lithuanians are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with water distribution (where the proportion of satisfied is equal to the EU average). They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with gas and electricity distribution, retail banking, postal services, air transport, insurance, fixed phone and extra-urban transport but are more dissatisfied with water distribution. Luxembourg Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with mobile phone and air transport (where the proportions of satisfied are in line with the EU average). They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water, electricity and gas distribution, fixed phone, postal services and extra-urban transport. Malta Consumers in Malta tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with mobile phone, retail banking, fixed phone, insurance and postal services and tend to be less satisfied with water and electricity distribution and urban transport. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with fixed phone and more dissatisfied with insurance, water and electricity distribution and urban transport. Netherlands Just as with Italy, Dutch consumers tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs. However, they also tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water distribution, air transport, postal services, insurance, fixed phone, urban and extra-urban transport. Poland In Poland, consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with postal services and insurance and tend to be less satisfied with fixed phone and urban transport. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with air transport and tend to be more dissatisfied with fixed phone.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Portugal Portuguese consumers tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with postal services and extra-urban transport and tend to be less satisfied with water, gas and electricity distribution, insurance and fixed phone. They tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services, retail banking, air transport and urban/extra-urban transport and they tend to be more dissatisfied with water and electricity distribution and fixed phone. Slovakia Slovaks tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with mobile phone and postal services and tend to be less satisfied with insurance, water, electricity and gas distribution, urban and extra-urban transport. In addition, they tend to be more dissatisfied than the EU average with air transport, insurance, water, electricity and gas distribution and urban and extra-urban transport. Slovenia Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with all the SGIs surveyed, except with urban transport (where the proportion of satisfied is in line with the EU average). In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with electricity and gas distribution and postal services. Spain Spaniards tend to be less satisfied than the EU average with insurance, retail banking, postal, gas, water and electricity distribution, air transport, mobile phone, fixed phone and urban transport. In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with postal services and extra-urban transport but tend to be more dissatisfied with air transport and mobile phone. Sweden Consumers are more satisfied than the EU average with water distribution, retail banking, gas, mobile phone, fixed phone and extra-urban transport and tend to be less satisfied with air transport and postal services. They also tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with water and gas distribution and retail banking but tend to be more dissatisfied electricity, postal services and urban transport. United Kingdom Consumers in the UK tend to be more satisfied than the EU average with fixed phone, retail banking and extra-urban transport services. In addition, they tend to be less dissatisfied than the EU average with fixed phone and extra-urban transport.
| 167
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Other key findings

4.1. THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CONSUMERS
In the survey, a number of socio-economic characteristics of respondents were identified. These reveal some interesting findings: 1. The lowest percentages of satisfied consumers are to be found in the 18-34 age group. They are the most critical consumers. The older people become, the more easily they are satisfied. 2. In terms of education levels, those who have completed secondary school are the most satisfied consumers. Those who left before completing secondary school and those who are still studying are often less satisfied. 3. Amongst professional groups, it is not surprising to find that retired people represent the highest number of satisfied consumers (since these are also the older people). Blue collar workers are often also relatively more satisfied with services of general interest than most other professional groups. Students and self-employed people have the lowest percentages of satisfied consumers. The other professional groups managers, white collar workers, unemployed people and people working in the home - tend to be close to the average. 4. In all services except one (retail banking) there are almost exactly the same percentages of women and men who are satisfied consumers. Women seem to be more satisfied than men with retail banking.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.2. MARKET ISSUES

In the survey, respondents were asked a number of Yes/No questions in relation to the service provider they used and the market context. The main outcomes are summarised in the following table5:
This year I will still use this supplier 85 % 87 % 91 % 77 % 84 % 89 % 88 % 76 % 94 % 90 % 87% It is easy to change supplier 54 % 42 % 8% 67 % 78 % 32 % 48 % 87 % 51 % 80 % 77 % Buying in another country is possible and interesting 23 % 21 % 14 % 28 % 41 % 15 % 30 % 81 % 29 % 48 % 37 % I prefer to deal with a national supplier 81 % 78 % 84 % 80 % 79 % 77 % 75 % 61 % 83 % 83 % 83 %
Service Electricity Supply Gas Supply Water distribution Fixed Telephony Mobile Telephony Urban Transport Extra-Urban Transport Air Transport Postal Services Retail Banking Insurance
Please note that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th questions were only asked in countries where consumers had the choice between several suppliers. The main patterns that emerge from this table are: a very large number of consumers (more than 5 out 6 in all but two sectors) think that they will stay with their current provider for the next 12 months. This reflects a high level of commitment, either because of the existing monopolistic situation, because consumers think that the barriers to changing suppliers are too high (see next point) or because consumers are satisfied with their current provider. Even for air transport and fixed telephony, 3 out 4 consumers intend to stay with their current provider; even in markets where there is more than one provider, changing from one supplier to another is very difficult in the water distribution and urban transport sectors. Only about half of those who have a choice say that this is easy for electricity supply, gas supply, extra urban transport and postal services. Only in the case of fixed telephony, mobile telephony, retail banking, insurance services and especially air transport, at least 2 EU consumers out of 3 who have a choice say that it is easy to change;
The headers in the table are shortcuts for the questions which the interviewer asked and which were: (1) 12 months from now, how likely are you to still be using a (SERVICE) service? (2) You would find it easy to change from one (SERVICE) (SUPPLIER) to another; there are no barriers. (3) Buying (SERVICE) services from an (SUPPLIER), outside of (YOUR COUNTRY) is perfectly possible and can even be interesting. (4) I prefer dealing with a (YOUR NATIONALITY) (SERVICE) (SUPPLIER). FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO
| 169
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
buying services from another country is only considered possible and of interest in the case of air transport (4 consumers out 5), and, to a lesser extent, retail banking and mobile telephone services (48% and 41% respectively). In the other sectors, this possibility is only taken seriously by between 14% and 29% of consumers; a very large majority of users prefer to deal with a national supplier. The lowest figure but still higher than 60% - is for air transport.
4.3. OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRIORITY ACTIONS

Another advanced analysis, called the two-dimensional analysis, was carried out so as to define precise and concrete action to improve consumers satisfaction with SGIs, The aim was to determine: the areas where the SGI does not perform well and where actions to change the situation are needed to improve consumers satisfaction; the areas where the SGI performs well and where no action is needed.
This is done via a diagram that takes into account the following information: the average satisfaction score given by consumers to each criterion related to quality, pricing and image (marked as Satisfaction on the X-axis of the map) the weighting or contribution of each criterion (quality, pricing and image) to consumers satisfaction - this weighting represents how far each criterion is important to consumers (marked as Importance on the Y-axis of the map).
From the analysis of each diagram for each sector, the following main opportunities for action can be highlighted: Pricing As noted earlier, pricing issues are major factors determining consumer satisfaction for most of the services surveyed. Among these components, price levels are identified as the main issue in all the services. Consumers tend to think that they pay too much for services of general interest. In addition, EU25 consumers tend to think that suppliers do not offer enough by way of special tariffs for specific target groups or specific usage. Actions designed to increase consumer satisfaction should therefore focus on these price components for maximum effect.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Image Consumer satisfaction with urban transport, extra-urban transport and postal services is mostly influenced by the image that their supplier has on the market. More specifically, in these sectors, elements such as the reputation of the supplier, its willingness to put the client first and its flexibility are of great importance for consumers. Quality Quality of service is the element that has the least influence on overall consumer satisfaction and yet people are most satisfied with this element when assessing SGIs. This statement tends to prove that consumers take quality of service for granted. Consequently, long-term actions are appropriate in this area. Making the consumers aware of the quality of the services that they are using could improve satisfaction with these services in the long term. Urban and extra-urban transport Urban and extra-urban transport are clearly the services with which consumers are least satisfied. Moreover, this observation applies to almost all the countries. Actions therefore need to be prioritised for these two services. Actions to improve satisfaction could target the maintenance of transport networks and vehicles, reliability of the services (frequency of service, punctuality, etc.) and the way in which problems and questions raised by consumers are handled.
| 171
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Recommendations
5.1. QUESTIONNAIRE AND SURVEY DESIGN
Overall, the questionnaire and survey design used for this survey appear to be robust. The questionnaire survey and the underlying model and methodology could be used for future surveys without major changes. Nevertheless, from a methodological point of view, some small improvements might be made: some questions might benefit from being rephrased, in particular to avoid negative formulations; during the interview it is important to establish whether respondents are actually aware of the degree of liberalisation of the sector in their country. This would allow for a more accurate interpretation of their answers to certain questions.
A possible conclusion that emerges from the results of this survey is that consumer satisfaction in certain services e.g. air transport and retail banking - is affected by how far people are familiar with the internet (since those who are may take more advantage of certain services). In order to test this hypothesis, a question on this topic might be included in future surveys. With the current survey approach, it is extremely difficult to carry out an analysis of complaints because of the low number of complaints made by the respondents. Since the option of much larger sample sizes is likely to be rejected due to cost implications, this issue may have to be dealt with in another way, e.g. by asking other types of related questions for which the response rates are likely to be higher. We also recommend that, for future surveys, the timeframe in which the survey processing, quality control, data analysis and advanced statistical processing is to take place, should be sufficiently long. At least 3 months should be available for analysis and reporting allowing more interaction with the Commission about the more advanced analyses that should be pursued in the light of the actual findings.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.2. AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

There are a number of areas where we think that further research might be of value, both for a better understanding of the findings to date and in order to improve the interpretation of the results of future surveys. These areas are as follows: further investigation would need to be done to see whether there is a link between consumer satisfaction and the extent to which a sector has been liberalised. in many services, there are several countries where there are relatively high percentages of both satisfied and dissatisfied consumers (compared to the EU average). This phenomenon often holds true for the NMS10 when considered as a group. It would be useful to investigate whether this finding results from cultural factors (e.g. certain cultures being more critical and others more neutral and still others more extreme in their opinions) or whether it reflects considerable disparities across the countries in terms of the quality of the service delivery or whether it merely has to do with the maturity of the market. there appears to be a link between a low degree of consumer satisfaction and the strong weighting of the image driver, limited competition in the sector and frequent use of the service. It would be useful to examine this relationship and to ascertain whether it is just a coincidence or rather the result of a more deepseated relationship. although the differences across socio-economic groups are not always very large, they nevertheless exist and are statistically significant in many cases. Several assumptions could be formulated about certain general trends (e.g. why older people tend to be more satisfied or why students and self-employed people are systematically more critical), but it would be interesting to have a fuller understanding of the factors underlying these differences in behaviour. an interesting exercise would also be to examine whether any form of statistical clustering of countries and/or services makes sense. This would allow the Commission to answer questions where particular consumers have similar attitudes across sectors and countries. It might even lead to the definition of a typology for EU consumers. This could help in predicting consumer behaviour towards changes in market structures and service offerings.
A final thought is that the way the survey and model has been constructed allows for its extension into other services and also the retailing of consumer goods. If the Commission were to consider the inclusion of new service categories in the future, a small preliminary study and small pilot survey could be undertaken in order to design and test the survey questions that should be included in the questionnaire.
| 173

Consumer Service Finrep en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Service Finrep en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSUMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

| FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

| FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

| FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

| FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

EUROPEAN CONSUMERS ARE FAIRLY SATISFIED WITH SERVICES OF GENERAL INTEREST

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your supplier?

63.1 60.2 57.9 57.6 52.9 52 45.6 44.5

Fixed phone Extra-urban transport

10 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with your supplier?

10.3 9.4 8.4

5.3 4.6 4.4 4.1 3.5 3

Air transport Insurances

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

PRICE IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR EU CONSUMERS

12 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

COMPARISON OF COUNTRY RESULTS

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

14 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

16 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

EU CONSUMERS FACE DIFFICULTIES WHEN IT COMES TO CHANGING SERVICE PROVIDER

PRIORITY ACTIONS SHOULD FOCUS ON PRICING

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

18 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

A. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1. Context and objectives of the consumer satisfaction survey

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

20 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

22 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

Average Satisfaction = 7,7

B) ADDED VALUE INDICATORS

24 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

26 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

Low importance area Points of sale (6.0)

Long-term actions Staff professionalism (7.5)

28 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

STRUCTURE OF THE FINAL REPORT

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

B. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY RESULTS 1. Electricity supply

Satisfied Dissatisfied EU15 56.5 4.9

30 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EU MEMBER STATES

LT AT DK SI IE LV DE HU EE LU CY BE FI NMS10 FR PL CZ UK EU25 EU15 SE SK EL MT ES NL PT IT 0

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

32 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

DIFFERENCES BY SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP

Other white collars

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

OTHER KEY OBSERVATIONS ARISING FROM THE SURVEY

34 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

E) MARKET AND PERSONAL FACTORS

A) CRITERIA THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CONSUMERS OVERALL SATISFACTION

B) OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

36 | FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO

Low importance area Points of sale (6.64) Information (6.56)

FINAL REPORT CONSUMER SATISFACTION DG SANCO