|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Consumers’ use of public payphones | |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Research conducted for Oftel by Ipsos-RSL, Ulster Marketing Surveys & Research Works November 2000 5 Awareness and opinion on payphone charges 6 What do consumers want from a payphone service? Appendix 1 Northern Ireland results Appendix 2 Survey questionnaire Appendix 3 Report of depth interviews Objectives 1.1 This study, conducted on behalf of Oftel, by Ipsos-RSL (GB), Ulster Marketing Surveys (Northern Ireland), and Research Works (GB), during November 2000, examined consumers’ use of public payphones. This research will contribute to a review and consultation exercise on the future regulation of payphones, being conducted by Oftel during the first half of 2001. Both surveys were conducted amongst a representative sample of adults in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, each respectively reflecting adult population profiles of sex, age, social grade, region and employment status. 1.2 This report has been prepared by Oftel, based on the results provided by the three research agencies. It focuses on frequency and reasons for payphone usage, perceptions of cost and value for money and addresses the following questions:
The report should not be seen as recommended best buys and should not therefore be relied upon when making purchase decisions. Oftel accepts no liability in respect of any of the results provided to it by the aforementioned research agencies or any decisions taken by any person in reliance on the report. The separate qualitative report in appendix 3 has been prepared by Research Works. Definitions 1.3 Public payphone - Consumers were given a clear definition of what, for the purposes of this study, was meant by ‘public payphone’. This included public phone boxes only, and not private payphones such as those found in hotels, bars, restaurants, or residential accommodation. 1.4 Regular users - Consumers were first asked how often they used public payphones, and ‘regular’ users, defined as those using public payphones at least once a month, then participated in the survey. The results of this survey are therefore based on ‘regular’ customers of public payphones. As this relates to just 221 and 185 consumers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively, these samples are not sufficiently robust to provide detailed demographic analysis and caution should be exercised in relation to conclusions based on subgroups of consumers. 1.5 Frequency of payphone usage varies by geographic region across the UK. This report examines average usage across Great Britain, with a separate appendix (1) on Northern Ireland, where a slightly shorter questionnaire was conducted via a separate survey. Survey methodology 1.6 Great Britain survey
1.7 Northern Ireland survey
Because the survey was conducted amongst a sample of adults, rather than the whole population, the data may be subject to a small margin of error. The error margin for the total GB sample of 1977 homes is about 1-2%, and about 4-6% amongst the sample of 221 regular payphones customers. The error margin for the total NI sample of 1151 homes is about 2-3%, and about 4-7% amongst the sample of 185 regular payphones customers. 1.8 Qualitative research A total of 30 face to face depth interview sessions, each with two or three respondents, were conducted across Great Britain by Research Works during November 2000, to supplement the quantitative findings, and to provide a more detailed understanding of consumers behaviour. The findings were in line with the survey results, but provide a more detailed understanding of consumers’ attitudes to and reasons for using payphones. These findings can be found in the separate report in appendix (3).
2.1 On average, 12% of adults in Great Britain claimed to use public payphones at least once a month, although this varied by region and was highest in Northern Ireland at 16%. 2.2 The depth interviews reported a high level of consumer confidence in the public payphone system. They considered them a vital service and an important part of community infrastructure. There was a strong preference for BT payphones, even where other choices were available. Most knew little about alternative payphone providers and there was a strong preference for ‘sticking to what you know’ and perceptions that BT payphones were a public service rather than a profit making section of their business. 2.3 The most regular users of public payphones were younger, lower income groups, and those living in rented accommodation and with no fixed line phone at home. However, two different types of payphone customer were identifiable by their frequency of use and the types of calls they make:
2.4 The majority of consumers felt they get value for money from public payphones, and whilst there appeared to be considerable confusion about various costs and fairly low awareness of the recent BT price changes, with the possible exception of directory enquiries few customers felt that these changes would affect their usage. 2.5 The most important aspects of payphones service for more than half of consumers were their reliability, number and location. Few were aware that some alternative providers offer different levels or types of services, and indeed the majority of customers were in favour of retaining the existing number of payphones offering different levels of service rather than reducing the number of payphones but standardising the range of services offered in all payphones.
3 Frequency of use of public payphones across the UK 3.1 Just over half of residential consumers in Great Britain said they never use a public payphone. Of the remainder, 12% said they use public payphones at least once a month, and a further 32% use payphones less frequently than this. For the purposes of this study we interviewed only those consumers who use payphones at least once a month (This equates to 221 consumers in GB and 185 in Northern Ireland. Because the survey was conducted amongst a sample of adults, rather than the whole population, the data may be subject to a small margin of error in the region of 6%, but will be higher amongst smaller subgroups). This section examines which consumers are the most and least frequent customers of public payphones, their use of different payphone providers, and the various locations in which they use public payphones. Who are regular payphone users? 3.2 Figure 3a shows frequency of payphone usage, in terms of those using a public payphone at least once a month, across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and amongst a range of subsections of the population. The most regular users of public payphones were:
3.3 Unsurprisingly the key factor in frequent payphone usage is necessity as a result of not having a fixed line phone at home. There is a correlation between housing tenure, with those in rented accommodation less likely than home owners to have a fixed phone. Younger consumers are more likely than average to live in rented accommodation, and hence are less likely to have a fixed phone (see Oftel reports on Homes without a fixed line phone, March 00, and Consumers’ use of fixed line phones, August 00). As a result they are more likely to be regular payphone users. 3.4 Perhaps surprisingly, mobile ownership was not found to be directly related to payphone usage. Consumers with mobile might have been expected to use payphones less frequently than those with mobiles which would enable them to make calls when out and about without having to find a public payphone. Consumers without mobiles on the other hand might be expected to be more reliant on payphones when away from their fixed phone. This was not found to be the case however. The depth interviews discovered that these customers with mobiles use payphones when their mobile credit or battery has run out, or when unable to get a signal etc. They tend to make more important calls from public payphones where they felt they were less likely to be cut off unexpectedly. 3.5 Older consumers, particularly those over the age of 55, were the least frequent customers of public payphones, as to a lesser extent, were home owners and those with fixed phones at homes. 3.6 Although less marked, other statistically significant differences between consumers in their use of public payphones indicated that men were more frequent users than females, and lower income groups were more frequent users than those on higher incomes. Figure 3a
% adults using public payphones at least once a month
Awareness and use of payphone providers 3.7 In some areas across the UK, predominantly major cities, a number of companies in addition to BT, offer public payphone services. Consumers were asked whether they were aware of other brands of payphones apart from BT, and which brand they use most often. 3.8 1 in 3 regular payphone users said they were aware of payphones provided by companies other than BT, but were largely unable to name any of these alternative providers. In light of this, it is unsurprising that the vast majority of consumers (95%) said they used BT payphones most often, and only 2% mentioned other suppliers. Awareness and usage is shown in figure 3b. Figure
3b Awareness and use of public payphone providers Awareness of payphone providers Brand of payphone used most often
Locations in which consumers use public payphones 3.9 By far the most popular location for payphone usage was on the street where 85% of regular users said they use public payphones. Around a quarter of consumers said they use public payphones in shopping centres, in train or bus stations, or at airports (figure 3c). Figure
3c Locations where consumers use public payphones
4 Reasons for using public payphones 4.1 This section examines the various circumstances in which consumers use payphones, they types of calls they make, and why in some circumstances, they prefer to use payphones rather than alternatives methods of calling. Types of calls made from public payphones 4.2 Consumers make a variety of calls from public payphones (figure 4a). Local calls were by far most popular made by almost 9 in 10 regular customers. Least frequent were international and long distance calls, made by fewer than 2 in 5 customers. About half of consumers said they use payphones to call mobile numbers and access directory enquiries services. Directory enquiries calls were most popular amongst the 15-24 age groups, both AB and DE social grades, and the low rather than high income groups. 4.3 A quarter said they use payphones at least sometimes, to receive incoming calls, although typically someone in the household had a mobile, and most incoming calls went to this. 4.4 As might be expected, low income groups and homes without a fixed line phone were most likely to use public payphones to receive incoming calls. Figure
4a Types of calls made from public payphones
Nature of calls made from public payphones 4.5 Consumers who regularly use public payphones do so for a variety of reasons. The most popular was to make arrangements for example asking to be picked up / ordering a taxi, or calling to say they’re on their way / have been delayed / or have arrived - 55% of regular customers said they made calls of this nature. 4.6 Other reasons for calls made from payphones included:
4.7 Almost 1 in 5 consumers who use payphones at least once a month said this was their main method of making calls. Although this was predominantly lower in come groups, not working, living in rented accommodation, without phones, perhaps surprisingly, almost a third of these said they had a fixed phone at home. Circumstances in which payphones are used instead of alternative methods 4.8 Consumers gave a variety of circumstances in which they use public payphones as opposed to other methods of calling, the most popular being ‘when out and about’ (62%). Other circumstances included when they’ve not got their mobile (24%), and to a lesser extent for budgeting the amount spent on calls (16%), for privacy (5%), or when the home phone is being used by someone else (2%). These are shown in figure 4b. 4.9 A significant minority of consumers (1 in 3) preferred payphones over alternative methods not just for convenience when out and about, but had actively worked out circumstances in which it was cheaper to use a payphone rather than their fixed or mobile phone. This was highest amongst younger customers (15-24), the lower income groups, and customers with mobiles. They were particularly making use of cheaper directory enquiries services. Figure
4b Reasons for using payphones rather than alternative methods
Email payphone services 4.10 Only 1% of regular payphone customers said they have used email facilities from a public payphone. A further 12% said they would likely to use this facility in future as an alternative to voice calls. Interest in this facility was higher amongst younger consumers, AB social grades, and homes without a fixed line phone. The most regular customers (using payphones at least once a week) were more interested than monthly customers. This seemingly low level of interest in email facilities may reflect the current limited availability of these facilities and subsequently consumers' lack of familiarity with them.
5 Awareness and perception of payphone charges 5.1 This section examines how much consumers’ spend on calls from public payphones, whether they are aware of the price of various calls, and in particular, the recent price changes in BT payphones and the effect this has had on their use of payphones. How much do consumers’ spend on their payphone usage? 5.2 Cash was the predominant payment method, used by 88% of regular payphone users compared with 15% using prepaid phone cards. The main reason cash was preferred to cards was that cash was considered more convenient. A small proportion of consumers (12%) felt that cash was better value for money than prepaid cards, and a similar proportion said they don’t always use a card payphone. Awareness and availability of prepaid cards would not appear to be a problem, mentioned by fewer than 1 in 10 as reasons for not using prepaid phone cards. 5.3 Cards were more popular amongst the middle to older age groups, AB social grades, home owners rather than renters, and less frequent customers using payphones monthly rather than weekly. 5.4 Weekly payphone customers were spending an average £2.50 each week, compared with the less frequent monthly customers, who spend on average £1.70 a month. Both however were inflated by a small number of high spenders and in fact half of weekly customers said they spent less than £1 per week, and two-thirds of monthly users said they spend less than £1 monthly (figure 5a). Figure 5a
Amount consumers spend in public payphones
5.5 Over half of payphone cash customers (57%) said they usually use a 20 pence coin first for their call, and a further 29% said they tended to use a 10 pence coin. Fewer than 1 in 10 customers said they would usually use anything larger than 20 pence. 5.6 65% of customers said they usually only spend 20 pence on all or most of their calls. This was higher (73%) amongst the less frequent monthly customers. Those who said they spent more than 20 pence on a considerably larger proportion of their calls tended to be lower income groups / DE social grades, homes without a fixed line phone, and weekly payphone customers. 5.7 Half of customers said they usually use all the money they put in the phone, and a fifth said what they didn’t use was usually refunded. Almost 3 in 10 customers however (29%) said that on the occasions they didn’t use all the money they put in, it wasn’t usually refunded. Given the high proportion of low cost calls (of up to 20 pence) the amount ‘un-refunded’ is likely equate to only a few pence for most customers. Indeed 70% of those who said their unused money was not refunded, said they spent only 20 pence on all or most of their calls. Do consumers know how much calls cost from payphones? Are they aware of recent BT payphone price changes and what impact have these had on usage patterns? 5.8 Consumers were asked what they thought the minimum charge was from a payphone. Encouragingly, only 5% of customers said they didn’t know, and just over half (55%) correctly said 20 pence. A significant minority said 10 pence which was indeed correct until recently and the remainder mentioned a range of costs up to 50 pence. This is shown in figure 5b. Obviously this may vary depending on the brand of payphone used, however separate analysis has not been provided by brand given that the vast majority of customers said they mostly use BT payphones 5.9 Awareness of the correct minimum charge of 20 pence was highest amongst the lower income groups and weekly rather than monthly payphone customers. Figure 5b
Awareness of payphone minimum call charge
Awareness of recent change in BT payphone minimum charge 5.10 Consumers were then told that the minimum charge from a BT payphone had recently changed from 10p to 20p but which provides double the amount of call time, and asked if they had been aware of this change. 5.11 42% said they were aware of the minimum charge change compared with 58% who were not aware. Awareness was again highest amongst the lower income groups and more frequent payphone customers and during the depth interviews these customers reported that they found out about these changes when they went to the payphone and noticed a sign. 5.12 Given that 55% of customers (para 5.8) thought the minimum charge was 20p, but a lower proportion were aware there had been a price change, this indicates that a significant minority of customers had in fact previously overestimated the minimum charge, not realising that it was previously 10 pence. Indeed, a third of those who said they were not aware of the recent change, had already thought that the minimum charge was 20 pence. 5.13 Of those aware of the recent change, the majority (75%) said it had not affected their payphone use in any way, and similarly, 85% of those not previously aware said it was unlikely to affect their usage in any way. 23% of customers aware of the changes said they now used payphones less as a result of the change in minimum charge but as this equates to only 22 people, further analysis of this group is not possible and caution should be applied to this result. The depth interviews reported that most customers considered the new charge reasonable as prices hadn’t increased for a long time. Opinion on price change for local and national calls 5.14 In addition to changes in the minimum charge, BT has introduced a flat rate of 11 pence per minute for both local and national calls which were previously charged at 9 pence and 14 pence respectively. Customers were asked whether they thought this change represented better or worse value for money. Results are shown in figure 5c. 5.15 60% of customers felt that the change offered better value for money or the same value for money as previously. A third of customers felt the new flat-rate charging structure was worse value for money. Customers who frequently made national calls were twice as likely than average to think the change offered better value for money, while those making frequent local calls were slightly less likely to consider the change better value. Figure 5c
Opinion on local and national call charge changes
Awareness of price change for directory enquiries calls 5.16 Perhaps the most notable change in BT’s payphone charges as far as consumers are concerned, is the introduction of a charge of 20 pence per minute for directory enquiries calls, which were previously free. 5.17 Customers were asked how much they thought it cost to call BT directory enquiries. 42% of customers said they thought it was free. This was higher amongst frequent DQ callers. Almost a quarter said 20 pence, and the remainder either didn’t know, or mentioned a range of costs of up to 50p. The majority of those who knew DQ calls were not now free thought that the charge was for the entire call, and only a third correctly identified that the charge was per minute. Only 7% of consumers knew the correct charge of 20 pence per minute. Clearly there is a lot of consumer misunderstanding about the cost of directory enquiry calls from BT payphones, even amongst those claiming to use this service regularly. 5.18 When told about the change in charging for directory enquiries calls, 80% said they had not been aware of this change. Awareness was slightly higher amongst weekly rather than monthly payphone customers but there was little difference by frequency of calling the DQ service. Of the 20% who said they were aware of the change, over half said they now call DQ less from a payphone although caution should be applied to this result as it is based on less than 50 people.
6 What do consumers want from a public payphone service? 6.1 This section examines what aspect of public payphones consumers consider most important and how highly they rate various aspects of the service. Rating of public payphone service 6.2 Customers were asked to rate public payphones on a number of measures including price of calls, value for money, number and location, range of services, and reliability and condition. Results are shown in figure 6a. 6.3 The highest ratings were received for the number and location of payphones, which just over half of customers said was excellent or good. Fewer than 1 in 5 customers considered payphones ‘poor’ on any of the measures including price of calls and value for money. Figure
6a Consumer rating of public payphones
Aspect of payphone service considered most important 6.4 When asked which aspect of payphone service they considered most important, reliability / working order / condition of payphones was most popular, mentioned by almost a third of customers. The depth interviews reported that while most customers had experienced problems with payphone cleanliness and vandalism, usually these were repaired or cleaned quite quickly. 6.5 Number and location, and price of calls were also popular, each considered most important by about a quarter of customers. Only a small proportion of customers (4%) considered the range of services eg ability to receive incoming calls, or directory enquiries services, most important. This can be seen in figure 6b. 6.6 Price was considered most important by a higher proportion of young customers, weekly rather than monthly customers, and those who used payphones as their main method for making calls. Monthly callers on the other hand were more likely to consider the number and location of payphones most important, suggesting their less frequent calling behaviour is more circumstantial rather than planned in advance. The higher income groups and those in rural areas were also more likely to consider the number and location of payphones most important. Figure 6b
Aspect of payphone service considered most important
6.7 It is unsurprising therefore that when given the option of retaining the existing number of public payphones offering different levels of service, or reducing the existing number but standardising them all to offer the same level of service, that the majority of customers (59%) were in favour in retaining the existing number and different levels of service. Indeed, only 39% of customers were aware that different payphones offered different levels of service, and only 6% said they had ever found themselves unable to call a particular number. 6.8 30% of customers were in favour of fewer payphones all offering the same level of service. 6.9 Given that reliability / working order / condition of payphones was considered most important by the largest proportion of customers, they were asked how often, if ever they found payphones that were not working. 81% of customers said there had been occasions on which they had found payphones not working. A quarter of customers said they encountered this problem frequently. This was most frequent in lower income housing areas (ACORN categories E & F) where up to 82% of residents said they found payphones not working frequently or sometimes, compared with an national average of 55%. It was a more common problem for weekly rather than monthly customers and in urban than rural areas. 6.10 Most consumers said in these instances they found another payphone (86%) although a small proportion said they just didn’t make the calls (11%) and a similar proportion said they used alternative methods such as a mobile or a friends’ phone.
7.1 Frequency of payphone usage (weekly and monthly) appears to quite neatly identify two different groups of ‘regular’ payphone customers: 7.2 The monthly customer – these customers are more likely than average to make use of payphones in a variety of locations including airports and stations rather than just on the street. Their payphone usage appears to be mainly convenience-driven eg when they’re out and about, or when they’re unable to use their mobile (two thirds of this group have mobiles), rather than for call savings or budgeting. The majority of their calls are short (up to 20 pence) eg saying they’re on their way / ordering a taxi / they’ve arrived / arranging appointments etc. As a result, the majority spend less than £1 per month in payphones. They would appear to be slightly older, higher income / higher social grade, are more likely than average to live in rural areas, and have a slightly higher propensity to use pre-paid phone cards. Because their usage is less frequent and takes place in a variety of locations, they are more likely than average to consider the number and location of public payphones most important. 7.3 The weekly customer – these more frequent users of public payphones tend to be lower income groups / DE social grades, living predominantly in urban areas and rented accommodation. There appeared to be two groups of weekly customers – (i) the arrangers - those who make short calls like group one saying they’re on their way / making arrangements etc, and (ii) the social users - those who make a considerably higher proportion and wider range of calls from payphones eg household business, calling for a chat etc. They appear to be driven more by necessity either because they don’t have a fixed or mobile phone at home, or to budget the amount they spend, or make cheaper calls at certain times of the day. For many, payphones are their main method for making calls, and hence as heavier users, they are more likely than average to consider price most important along with reliability. Despite their regular use, the majority had not been aware of the recent price changes. 7.4 Regardless of the type of payphone customer, their reasons for using payphones and the different types of calls they make, most customers were in favour of retaining the existing number of payphones rather than reducing them but standardising the services they offer. This is perhaps unsurprising given that the vast majority said they mostly use BT payphones, and that the number, location and reliability of payphones was considered more important than the range of services offered, probably because the most popular types of calls tended to be short local calls and few customers said they have experienced a situation where they were unable to call a particular number. 7.5 Whilst awareness of the recent BT payphone price changes was relatively low, and a significant proportion of customers appeared confused about the price of various calls, the vast majority said they were unlikely to change their use of payphones as a result of the changes. The changes were of most concern to consumers who rely on payphones as their main means of making calls, who tend to be on low incomes and hence particularly price sensitive.
Appendix 1 Northern Ireland results 8.1 Results from the slightly shorter Northern Ireland survey were largely similar to those in the rest of the UK. 8.2 Apart from a slightly higher proportion of regular payphone customers (16% vs 12% GB average) the profile of regular users, the circumstances in which they use payphones, and the types of calls they made were the same as elsewhere in the UK. 8.3 Awareness of the minimum charge and recent price change was slightly higher than elsewhere, while opinion on the changes to local and national charging, and awareness of changes to directory enquiries call charging were the same as elsewhere. 8.4 In line with the rest of UK, reliability / working order / condition was considered the most important aspect of public payphone service, although this along with the number and location, received slightly lower ratings than elsewhere. Preference for retaining the existing number of payphones offering different levels of service, rather than fewer payphones all offering the same services, was higher than in the rest of the UK (77% vs 59%). Frequency of using public payphones 8.5 The proportion of regular payphone customers was slightly higher at 16% compared with 12% in Great Britain. 8.6 Like elsewhere in the UK, the most frequent payphone customers were young, particularly the 16-24 age group, 38% of whom claimed to use payphones at least once a month. Large households were also more likely than average (33%) to use regularly, as were students. Types of calls made, and reasons for using public payphones 8.7 Local calls were again most popular, and similarly, about half of customers said they made calls to mobiles and directory enquiries. Long distance and international calls at 29% and 12% respectively were similar to elsewhere. 14% said they used payphones to receive incoming calls which was slightly lower than the GB average 25%. 8.8 Circumstances in which consumers used payphones were also similar to the rest of the UK, by far the most popular was when out and about, although other reasons included when consumers didn’t have their mobile, when they were out socialising and to make private calls. 8.9 In line with Great Britain, 18% of customers said payphones were their main method for making calls and 16% used them when they wanted to limit the amount they spent on a call, and similarly these tended to be lower income groups / not working. At 41%, the proportion using payphones for cost savings on certain calls or at certain times of the day, was similar to elsewhere. 8.10 Similar to the rest of the UK, 2 in 3 customers said that they spent only 20 pence on all or most of these calls. And those spending more than this on calls again tended to be lower income groups. Awareness of price of payphone calls 8.11 Awareness that 20 pence is the minimum charge for payphone calls was slightly higher at 70% in Northern Ireland compared with 55% in the rest of the UK. In line with this, a slightly higher proportion (51% vs 42%) said they were aware of the recent change in minimum call charge from 10 to 20 pence. 8.12 There was little difference however in awareness of the recent changes in the price of calls to directory enquiries – 2 in 5 thought it was free, and only 12% (vs 20% in GB) said they were aware of the recent introduction of 20 pence per minute charging. Also similar to the rest of the UK, the majority of customers said their use of payphones had not or were unlikely to change as a result of these recent price changes. Rating of public payphones 8.13 Ratings of various aspects of payphones are shown below, and were broadly similar the GB results, apart from number / location, and reliability / working order / condition of payphones which received slightly lower ratings than elsewhere.
Most important aspect of payphone service 8.14 In line with the rest of UK, reliability / working order / condition was most popular, considered the most important aspect of public payphones by 37% of customers.
8.15 Preference for retaining the existing number of payphones offering different levels of service, over fewer payphones offering the same services, was higher than elsewhere in the UK, at 77% (vs 59% in GB).
Appendix 2GB Questionnaire PP01 Continue if use payphone at least once a month (PP01 codes 1-3) others close PP2 PP03 PP04 PP05 PP06 PP07 Local
calls PP08 PP09 Ask if don’t use card payment PP10 Ask if use payphone at least weekly / daily PP11 Ask if use payphone monthly PP11b Ask all PP12 Ask if pay by cash PP13 PP14 Ask if pay by cash PP15 Ask all PP16 Ask if aware PP17a If not aware of min charge change PP17b Ask all PP18 If give an amount other than ‘free’ PP19 PP20 If aware of DQ change PP21a If not aware of DQ change PP21b Ask all PP22 PP23 If find payphone not working frequently, sometimes or rarely PP24 PP25 PP26 PP27 If not used Internet or email from payphone PP28 Ask all PP29 Price
of calls PP30 PP31
Oftel payphones qualitative research report Prepared for Oftel by Research Works Ltd December 2000 1 Background and research objectives 4 General findings – why no fixed phone? 5 Mobile phone usage and relationship with payphones 6 Payphones: general attitudes 7 Payphones, mobile phones and lifestyle issues 8 Payphone usage: the user environment – children 9 Payphone usage: the user environment – convenience 10 Payphone usage: the user environment – security 11 Payphone usage: the user environment – privacy 12 Payphone usage: the user environment – cleanliness 13 Payphone usage: the user environment – maintenance/reliability 14 Payphones – cost, value and recent price increases 15 Payphones – overall strengths/weaknesses and potential improvements 16 Other providers of payphones 17 Other providers of payphones – comparison with BT Appendix B – recruitment specification 1 Background and research objectives This qualitative research was intended to inform a quantitative research exercise, undertaken in November 2000, which examined residential users of payphones. The qualitative research was used to check important issues amongst payphone users, in order to include these accurately in the quantitative questionnaire. The objectives for the qualitative phase of research were to gain:
Method Previous experience of researching disadvantaged audiences suggested that many of the respondents might be suspicious of the research process and are typically unused to being asked to express their opinions. Therefore it was suggested that the research should be conducted using Friendship Pairs or Triads – in order to provide a more dynamic environment to stimulate debate about the broader issues involved, while also offering the reassurance of a `safe’ atmosphere. Friendship Pairs are basically Paired Depth Interviews where the two respondents are known to each other and are normally friends. Triads involve three respondents, who know each other, and this approaches constitutes an effective bridge between focus groups and a depth interview – there is sufficient dynamism to create debate, but also adequate opportunity to probe each respondent’s views in detail. Both types of interview lasted approximately one hour. Sample The sample reflected a mix of criteria:
Seventy-two respondents were interviewed in total. A detailed interview schedule can be found in Appendix B of this report.
It was clear that payphones are still a core telephony facility for many respondents – for some, they represent the only access to telephony, while others see payphones as complementary to current mobile phone usage The mobile phone has not simply replaced payphone usage – for less affluent respondents, in particular, the payphone remains the only practical option for longer, costly or more important calls In most cases, the phone option most likely to be replaced by a mobile was a fixed line – with payphones offering mobile users additional access to expensive long-distance and international calls For those with neither fixed lines nor mobile phones, payphones truly represent their only access to many services and social networks. This should not be underestimated A few respondents were generally uninterested in phones and made very limited use of payphones to satisfy very basic needs for occasional, brief, calls Most respondents felt strongly that payphones were a vital public service and that numbers should actually be increased (especially on busy estates) – although current provision was generally seen as adequate (except in some rural areas) Public and private payphones were clearly differentiated – the latter were recognised as much more expensive and only relevant for very brief functional calls. Respondents recognised that BT’s payphone charges are regulated, while private payphone charges are only constrained by the relative greed of the owner Payphones operated by other providers were generally seen as exotic and probably not relevant to the ordinary user. Respondents imagined that these would be focussed on credit card callers and may be complicated to operate. Most of the sample avoided these payphones if possible Interestingly, BT payphones were seen as the `real thing’ and many respondents viewed the service as the public service aspect of the company’s offering. Few respondents imagined that BT makes much money from payphones and most felt that provision of this service is part of a civic obligation, derived from a former public sector role A majority of the sample were happy with current payphone provision and service – their only criticisms concerned issues such as : Cleanliness, Vandalism and Reliability Security while using payphones was not specifically an issue for most respondents – although the remote locations of some payphones was criticised as unnecessarily worrying Suggested improvements to payphone service included: wider availability of cash facilities, provision of change and improvements to equipment and box environment (especially cleanliness and comfort) The recent minimum call charge increase had not been noticed by some respondents, while others had spotted the change - but saw this as reasonable, given that the charge has not increased for a long time Many respondents rarely used the minimum coinage – they generally many made an assessment of the likely duration of the call and started with the appropriate coins (often a £1 coin). For many mobile users, the payphone is used for longer, more costly, calls and they have not noticed the increase Overall, the minimum call charge increase seemed to have made little impact on current phone usage and behaviour Introduction of a fee for directory enquiries had greater impact and some respondents were considering other ways to access directory enquiries (through friends with a fixed line, for example). Mobile users were equally disaffected in relation to this issue, since they were unwilling to use their mobiles for directory information Charging for Directory information had made an impact and many respondents were annoyed that they now had to pay for basic access information – this change had clearly affected the relationship between mobile phones and payphone usage (making it less complementary)
4 General findings – why no fixed phone? 4.1 Overview The sample divided into a number of different attitudinal groups in relation to landlines. Those who had lost access to a fixed phone through debt tended to miss the facility very much and felt themselves to be deprived as a result of money problems. There were particular concerns regarding children and the lack of potential access to new technology such as the Internet. Some older respondents had made a conscious decision to remove fixed lines, often prompted by the gift of a mobile from children. They saw a standing charge, in particular, as a waste of money – especially given the convenience of a mobile and the number of calls already received through that medium. Younger respondents were increasingly choosing their mobiles as a primary telephone when setting up home. They believed, not unreasonably, that their mobile number was extensively known and would provide the most effective access for important callers. Most simply saw a fixed phone as a needless expense and a potential complication – in terms of having to give friends/family a new number to remember. Some respondents worked 'on the road’ and the mobile provided all the phone access that was required. Most felt that a fixed phone would get little use and simply generate extra mobile calls 'to check the answerphone’. Finally, there was a segment of the sample – typically younger male manual workers – who were plainly uninterested in telephones and viewed such services in a very function way. They typically made few calls, mainly to arrange social engagements, and were not concerned about being `in contact’. A handful of payphone calls each week satisfied their needs. Overall, it seemed that many of the sample could have a fixed line if they so desired. A majority had chosen not to do so – and this seems linked to the growing popularity of mobile telephones, as well as the increasingly mobile nature of many younger lifestyles. 4.2 Specific findings Many respondents had landlines in the past. These were given up because of a number of factors such as:
4.2.1 Debt Some had been unable to pay bills that were run up by the family or were affected by factors such as redundancy, disability or retirement – many had been disconnected with large, still unpaid, bills outstanding: "My sons ran up £300 on the phone and I couldn’t afford to pay it. I still haven’t" (Female, 26-59 years). For example, two arthritic women had to have phones disconnected because they could not afford them – although they needed to be in touch with the doctor constantly. BT wouldn’t offer suitable payment options, so they had to walk to the public phone, even in cold weather: "I’m on DLA and I can’t afford to run a phone at home… My arthritis is really bad, I can barely walk. BT wouldn’t even keep my phone on for emergency calls to my doctor" (Female, 26-59 years) Many of this group would actually like to have a land line. They have lost control of cost in the past and now feel unable to risk having a phone at home: "Most kids have got the Internet, we haven’t even got a phone." (Family, Female, 26-59 years) This group had lost the facility of a fixed line through circumstances beyond their control and many actively resented the loss. The impact on family members, especially children, was seen to be problematic – the Internet has become an essential medium for schoolwork and shared interests. If possible, most of this group would reconnect their fixed line. 4.2.2 Low usage of fixed lines Typically, someone in the household had acquired a mobile phone and calls gradually switched to that number. Therefore, the fixed line rental increasingly seemed pointless (many of the retired, more affluent, respondents were in this category). Line rental was seen as the most expensive aspect of fixed phone ownership: "My husband has had a mobile for a while. Since he left work he still gets all his calls to that number. All his friends know it. We were keeping the phone going just for me to speak to my daughter and a couple of friends. It wasn’t worth it." (Female, 60+ years) This sample segment were very happy to switch most of their phone traffic to a mobile – they recognised that their fixed line had gradually become redundant and had little interest in facilities such as the Internet. 4.2.3 Preference for a mobile phone Many younger respondents seemed to be beginning their `telephone career’ with mobiles and were unwilling to bother with fixed lines and a rental cost. Given the established nature of their use of mobiles, a fixed line was seen as irrelevant. Some mentioned access to the Internet as a reason for getting a fixed line, but others pointed to WAP technology as the relevant option in relation to this issue. "Everyone rings my mobile and it is always with me, so there is no need to have a landline" (Male, 18-25 years) Some had moved house and simply not bothered to get a phone connected. Of these, most felt they would not bother, either because their partner had a mobile or there was a phone box nearby (or they used the phone at work). "I moved about 2 months ago and the flat didn’t have a phone connected. My boyfriend is there nearly every night and he has a mobile and there is a phone box right across the road" (Female, 18-25 years) – "I was going to get connected, but there is a phone box literally 20 yards from the door. I started using that and haven’t bothered getting connected" (Female, 26-59 years) 4.2.4 Work factors Work, for some, meant travelling (i.e. lorry drivers or salespeople) so a mobile was always needed. Since so much time was spent away from home, it seemed pointless to take on the expense of a fixed phone. Some also felt that a fixed line simply generated more mobile calls, in order to check for messages on a home answer-phone. This group had spotted the advantages of a single number for all phone access. "I work 6 days a week, travelling and I need my mobile everyday. I’m not at home much so I haven’t been connected" (Male, 26-59 years) 4.2.5 Budget priorities Some respondents have never had a fixed phone. These respondents – typically less well-off – were not bothered about having a phone. They had made a pragmatic decision to keep control of phone costs and prioritise other household bills. Many in this group saw electricity, gas, water and food as the priorities, with telephone as a peripheral. Those with children felt that they were removing the temptation for children to spend excessive (and expensive) time on the phone to friends: "We have to watch the pennies….so long as we are fed and warm then I think we have everything we need….the phone would be nice but it really isn’t that important, most of the time I don’t notice that it isn’t there….it can be difficult if there’s an emergency, but I know that I can always go next door…" (Female, 26-59 years)
5 Mobile phone usage and relationship with payphones 5.1 Overview Most of the sample were using pay-as-you-go mobile packages. This suited the rather budget-conscious respondents in our sample. In many ways, mobile and payphone use were complementary – with payphones being chosen for longer, more obviously costly or more important calls. Mobiles were generally being used for social purposes. Equally, payphones substituted when mobiles were out of action for technical or cost reasons. Those with contract, monthly-billed, mobiles were extremely conscious of the `perks’ of monthly billing, such as free minutes. Some users had co-ordinated phone purchase with friends and family in order to maximise the value of these free minutes. Many of the respondents saw their mobiles as functional, practical, instruments – although younger men, in particular, saw a mobile as a vital part of their lifestyles. 5.2 Specific findings A range of mobile telephony providers were being used – with Vodafone and Orange most popular in this sample, Cellnet and 1-2-1 seemingly less so: "1-2-1 have bad coverage so you can’t always get a signal" (Female, 18-25 years), "I’m on Vodafone because it has the best coverage in Britain" (Female, 18-25 years) A majority were using Pay as you go (PAYG) phones because they wanted more control over spending, particularly when children might be using them. "You put in an amount and when it is gone it is gone" (Female, 26-59 years) "We got mobiles for the kids last Christmas and we give them £5 a month. The rest is up to them" (Male, 26-59 years) A minority of the sample were on monthly tariffs. These were popular amongst the more affluent who could afford to pay monthly – specifically attractive because of the free minutes of off peak calls: "£15 a month and I get 50 minutes free a day" (Male, 26-59 years), "I’m on a monthly charge because the calls then work out cheaper" (Female, 26-59 years) All users were aware of the high costs of phoning to and from mobiles – but this was not a major concern for most: "It costs a lot to phone during the day, but I don’t use it so much then" (Female, 18-25 years) "It’s my only phone and I don’t pay BT line rental so it doesn’t work out any different" (Male, 26-59 years) A small number had more than one mobile for use at different times of the day: "1-2-1 for daytime and Orange everyday 50 for off peak. Each works out cheaper for those times. They’ve both got the same number though" (Male, 26-59 years) Many mobile users, without a fixed line, were regular users of payphones – especially PAYG users, when credit has run out: "I still use phone boxes quite regularly. They are cheaper than my mobile during the day" (Male, 26-59 years) "I have an allowance of £15 a month top-up. When that is gone I use the phone box up the road" (Female, 18-25 years) "I use them both about 50/50 depending on the time of day" (Female, 26-59 years) Affluent younger, working, males saw a mobile as a necessity for their lifestyle – these respondents were very aware of choosing the right package and tariff: "I’m on a 1-2-1 tariff on Orange, cos it worked out better for the way I use the phone" (Male, 26-59 years) "I’m on a package were all my calls are charged at off peak rate, because I use it in the day for work" (Male, 18-25 years) Payphone use is complementary to mobile use for those relying solely on a mobile. Payphones fill the awkward gaps – when there is no signal, when the phone running out of credit or when a battery is running down. Consequently, important, 'official', calls are likely to be made from a phone box, where an unexpected loss of connection is less likely. There were instances of children giving their parents mobile phones in order to 'keep track of them’ and create a greater sense of security for both parties. "My mobile was bought as a present so that my son could always contact me. I didn’t like it at first but now it is with me all the time" (Female, 60+) There was some evidence of respondents choosing the same provider as close family members | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
