|
|
| Oftel › Publications › Research & Initiatives | |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
|
Oftel Price of Calls to Mobiles Qualitative Research Findings |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
||
|
|
|
|||||
|
Prepared for Oftel by Research Works Ltd, 42 Hendon Lane, Finchley, London, N3 1TT March 2001 Chapter 1 Background and Research Objectives Chapter 2 Research Methodology and Sample Appendix A Qualitative Topic Guide Chapter 1 - Background and Research Objectives This project was conducted as part of an Oftel review of the price of calls made to mobile phones, primarily from fixed line phones. The overall aim of the research was to examine whether consumers were aware of the price of calls to mobile phones, and whether they altered their behaviour in any way if they were calling a mobile rather than fixed phone. The key issues examined included:
The research was targeted at consumers both with and without mobile phones. Further, Oftel was also interested in the circumstances in which, and reasons why, consumers use their mobile instead of other methods of calling - for example, from fixed line phones.
Chapter 2 - Research Method and Sample The research comprised sixty qualitative individual depth interviews, which were conducted face-to-face with a range of respondent types. All the interviews lasted between thirty to forty-five minutes, and all respondents were asked to complete a pre-task diary or log of calls to mobiles in the week prior to attending research. These were used as a prompt for respondents during the interview situation and also as an additional source of information in the post interview analysis. Sample
The overall sample structure was as follows:
Urban/Suburban (Camden/Edgware) 1. 15-19 years; Male; BC1; Mobile User 2. 15-19 years; Female; C2DE; Non-Mobile User 3. 20-24 years; Male; C2DE; Non-Mobile User 4. 20-24 years; Female; BC1; Mobile User 5. 25-39 years; Male; BC1; Non-Mobile User 6. 25-39 years; Female; C2DE; Mobile User 7. 40-59 years; Male; C2DE; Mobile User 8. 40-59 years; Female; BC1; Non-Mobile User 9. 60+ years; Male; BC1; Mobile User 10. 60+ years; Female; C2DE; Mobile User London/S.East Rural (Kent Coast/Romney/Rye) 11. 15-19 years; Male; C2DE; Mobile User 12. 15-19 years; Female; BC1; Non-Mobile User 13. 20-24 years; Male; BC1; Mobile User 14. 20-24 years; Female; C2DE; Mobile User 15. 25-39 years; Male; C2DE; Non-Mobile User 16. 25-39 years; Female; BC1; Mobile User 17. 40-59 years; Male; BC1; Mobile User 18. 40-59 years; Female; C2DE; Non-Mobile User 19. 60+ years; Male; C2DE; Mobile User 20. 60+ years; Female; BC1; Non-Mobile User Midlands Rural (Oakham) 21. 15-19 years; Male; BC1; Non-Mobile User 22. 15-19 years; Female; C2DE; Mobile User 23. 20-24 years; Male; C2DE; Mobile User 24. 20-24 years; Female; BC1; Non-Mobile User 25. 25-39 years; Male; BC1; Mobile User 26. 25-39 years; Female; C2DE; Mobile User 27. 40-59 years; Male; C2DE; Non-Mobile User 28. 40-59 years; Female; BC1; Mobile User 29. 60+ years; Male; BC1; Non-Mobile User 30. 60+ years; Female; C2DE; Mobile User Scotland Urban (Glasgow) 31. 15-19 years; Male; C2DE; Non-Mobile User 32. 15-19 years; Female; BC1; Mobile User 33. 20-24 years; Male; BC1; Non-Mobile User 34. 20-24 years; Female; C2DE; Mobile User 35. 25-39 years; Male; C2DE; Mobile User 36. 25-39 years; Female; BC1; Non-Mobile User 37. 40-59 years; Male; BC1; Mobile User 38. 40-59 years; Female; C2DE; Mobile User 39. 60+ years; Male; C2DE; Non-Mobile User 40. 60+ years; Female; BC1; Mobile User Wales Urban/Suburban (Cardiff) 41. 15-19 years; Male; BC1; Mobile User 42. 15-19 years; Female; C2DE; Mobile User 43. 20-24 years; Male; C2DE; Non-Mobile User 44. 20-24 years; Female; BC1; Mobile User 45. 25-39 years; Male; BC1; Non-Mobile User 46. 25-39 years; Female; C2DE; Mobile User 47. 40-59 years; Male; C2DE; Mobile User 48. 40-59 years; Female; BC1; Non-Mobile User 49. 60+ years; Male; BC1; Non-Mobile User 50. 60+ years; Female; C2DE; Mobile User Northern Ireland Mixed Urban/Rural (Belfast/Carryduff) 51. 15-19 years; Male; C2DE; Mobile User 52. 15-19 years; Female; BC1; Non-Mobile User 53. 20-24 years; Male; BC1; Mobile User 54. 20-24 years; Female; C2DE; Mobile User 55. 25-39 years; Male; C2DE; Non-Mobile User 56. 25-39 years; Female; BC1; Mobile User 57. 40-59 years; Male; BC1; Mobile User 58. 40-59 years; Female; C2DE; Non-Mobile User 59. 60+ years; Male; C2DE; Mobile User 60. 60+ years; Female; BC1; Non-Mobile User
Chapter 3 - Management Summary Do respondents wait until off-peak times to call? Many of the family-stage and older respondents do typically wait until after six o’clock to make longer or more obviously costly calls from a fixed phone. Many mobile calls were seen as `necessity calls’ and were made as required. Younger respondents were much less likely to be conscious of peak/off-peak when choosing to make mobile (or any type of) calls. The mobile is `their’ phone. Do respondents keep calls to mobiles shorter than calls to fixed phones? Again, most of the older, adult, respondents did try to keep mobile calls as brief as possible. Younger respondents were not so conscious of this, but were actually constrained by budgetary factors. Do respondents use a mobile phone rather than fixed phone to call other mobile phones? A few respondents were taking advantage of beneficial rates within networks, but most tended to default to a fixed phone, where available, to make `expensive’ calls to mobiles. Younger respondents automatically use their mobiles. What are the circumstances in which, and reasons why, consumers use their mobile instead of other methods of calling? For younger respondents the mobile is their phone and the principle medium for all calls. Text messaging was also heavily used by younger respondents, on the basis of cost advantages, but also to comply with a specific text culture which exists in parallel to voice calling. More adult respondents tended to use their mobiles outside the home, while for a limited number of calls relating to social arrangements and personal safety. There was little evidence of chatting while mobile. More specifically: Motivations for owning and choosing a specific mobile package varied significantly. While some of the older respondents had chosen their mobile on the basis of advantageous tariffs and free call minutes, many of the younger respondents were attracted by the `coolness’ of the handset. Many of the respondents had received their mobiles as gifts and claimed only limited input to choice of package and network. Pre-pay was the most popular mobile choice and some previous contract mobile users had evidently switched to pre-pay in order to reduce costs. Few of the respondents were aware of call costs in relation to their mobiles – most had a vague notion that peak calls were `around fifty or sixty pence’, while off-peak costs were imagined to be either free or `about five pence’. While older respondents felt that they used their mobiles sparingly and kept calls as brief as possible, it was obvious that younger respondents used their phones in a very different manner. They saw the mobile as a private and personal medium for communication with friends. Many did not give friends their home fixed phone number – they felt `in control’ of their mobiles, which were seen as supporting fundamental aspects of their social lives. Text messaging was seen as a vital communication tool by younger respondents, although this facility was used very little by older respondents. Fax communication was seen as business-based and irrelevant, while letter writing was the sole preserve of the older respondents. Some respondents used e-mail, but this was seen as only suitable for communication with distant individuals. Respondents were not making use of SMS facilities on the Internet. A majority of the adult sample saw their fixed phone as the obvious and appropriate option for most calls, especially longer-distance and lengthy calls. When considering the cost of using their mobiles, most respondents used very broad, qualitative, parameters – peak time calls and calls made to another mobile were seen as `expensive’, but this category was loosely understood and estimated call costs varied from fifty pence to one pound. Calls made `off-peak’ (which was assumed to be after six o’clock) were felt to be quite cheap, although again there was only a vague understanding of what the actual call charges might be. By comparison with other product categories and service offerings, mobile phones were seen as offering reasonably good value for money. Initial purchase costs were seen as very low and pre-pay has delivered a very economical method of accessing the medium. The level of subsidy in relation to handsets was known to a few, but most approved of the fact that, consequently, replacing pre-pay phones would not be particularly expensive. Respondents felt that the convenience of mobility, the associated peace of mind which accompanies `being in touch’ and the apparently reasonable, controllable, costs made the mobile a `must-have’ social accessory. Calling mobiles was generally perceived as `expensive’. Calling a mobile from a mobile was seen as even more expensive and using a pay-phone to call a mobile was felt to be the most expensive of all the options (this was because the scale of call charges could be clearly seen). Interestingly, few respondents bothered to check their fixed line bills and therefore had no real idea of the cost of calling a mobile. Most assumed that calling after the six o’clock `watershed’ would keep costs at a reasonable level. Differences between the four networks in relation to cost were not well understood – many respondents felt that all four would probably offer much the same level of cost, even if this was distributed differently in terms of their product offering. Consumer mythology tends to indicate that Vodaphone and Cellnet will be most expensive, since they are the original market leaders and the later entrants were assumed to be more cost-competitive. Deciding between networks was problematic and many younger respondents have made their choice on the basis of handset desirability. Older respondents were sometimes confused between networks and handset manufacturers. There was some evidence of the formation of calling groups – but these were very limited in terms of group size, being confined to immediate family and close friends. Some compatibility was driven by gift purchasing of mobiles, with parents in particular buying mobiles on the same network as their own. Although calling groups do clearly exist, these are not purely driven by cost factors (free calls etc.), but are also motivated by familiarity with product, acceptability of handset type and access to services which are compatible with peers. Overall, mobile users were generally very satisfied with both service and handsets, which encouraged a general sense of value for money. Those without mobiles were largely impervious to the lure of the medium, generally feeling that they did not need either the call capacity or extra expense. Some actively disliked the `mobile culture’, while others were simple technophobes. Again, this group were unaware of the actual costs of calling mobiles, but expected that it would be `expensive’. Once more, there was an expectation that calling costs would be cheaper after six o’clock. Despite these perceptions, most of the respondents believed that they would call a mobile if necessary and would not be overly concerned about the price. Most respondents were conscious of when a mobile number was being called, recognising the 07 prefix. In general the fixed-line-only respondents tried to keep calls to a mobile very brief if the nature of the call was unexceptional. Most considered that calling mobiles could not be good value for money, unless extremes of convenience were involved. In summary, it seems that, while many respondents are aware that calling mobiles and calling between mobile networks is expensive, there is very little real knowledge of call costs. Equally, it was obvious that many of these `expensive’ calls were being routinely made. Some respondents made an effort to call at off-peak times, but there was little evidence of usage of alternative communication methods (except SMS, but this is really a standalone phenomenon). Calling groups do exist, but these are informal, limited in scope and largely unplanned. Mobile users seemed extremely happy with product and service and so were not so conscious of detailed cost structures.
4.1 Mobile Users 4.1.1 Background and Telephony History There were no significant differences in attitudes or behaviour between respondents in the regions covered by this research. Equally, there were few obvious gender differences or specific issues which related to rural locations, apart from quality of mobile coverage and availability of pay-phones. The length of mobile phone ownership varied widely across the sample. A number of respondents had been mobile phone owners for five years and more. At the other extreme some users, particularly older respondents, had only owned mobiles for a short period of time (two-three months). Typically these latter respondents had received mobiles as presents from children or partners. Lifestyle factors had sometimes driven mobile ownership – most typically, younger respondents saw the mobile as an essential social tool, but others had purchased a mobile in response to specific events,
"I broke down in my car quite a lot last year and I decided to get a mobile because you can’t always find a phone box" "Because I
had a girlfriend and I wanted to keep in touch…." "I left home and didn’t have a phone and it was cheaper to get one than have a normal phone."
By far the most popular package option was Pay As You Go (PAYG) with ‘top-up’ cards. These users were spread across the full range of mobile networks, but the top-up element was a consistently important factor in terms of package choice. Respondents highlighted a wide variety of options that were available within the top-up genre. These options included ‘all call’ type packages with no additional service charge (all networks), ‘step payments’ (Vodafone, 1-2-1/Virgin) and Vodafone’s original ‘pay-as-you-go’ with additional service charge. A small number of respondents had chosen a monthly contract package and had selected this option for a number of reasons. Firstly, some felt that call costs were cheaper than for pay-as-you-go and there was also the added attraction of free minutes as part of the package. Generally those who selected this option had tried pay-as-you-go packages before and found themselves topping up too regularly, "I was putting on about £50-60 per month, which was far too much. With this I pay £15 and get 600 free minutes"
All these respondents were aware that the free minutes on offer were off-peak and, consequently, were more knowledgeable about exactly when their off-peak period was. Nevertheless, these respondents still regularly used their phone throughout the day when calls were at their most expensive. Some of the contract mobile users also owned a pre-pay phone on another network, primarily in order to ensure that they could get a signal where possible – both phones were typically carried when travelling. A minority of respondents had used other networks in the past and there was evidence of a surprising amount of current brand loyalty – although this may have been driven by fear of changing to a network they knew nothing about. Those that had switched network had done so for a number of reasons, which included: poor coverage, cheaper calls, recommendation from friends or family or purchasing a phone second-hand from a friend. A small number of respondents had changed networks as they changed from contracted phones to pay-as-you-go, avoiding large monthly bills. Confidence in using mobile phones was generally inversely proportional to age. The younger-end of the sample were more technologically-literate through constant interaction with computers and electronic equipment. The middle-age segment of the sample (thirty-five to fifty years) were less technology-literate but found that they had become used to the mobile phone. These respondents found that a mobile could effectively fit their own requirements, "I only really want it for simple call making and receiving, the odd text massage, and that’s what it does." Thus, these respondents were generally comfortable with their phones. Overall, the older segment of the sample were the least confident. For many it was a tool that was used purely for dialling out and receiving calls - with there being little interest in further technical functions. Older respondents were often especially confused by text messaging. Regarding actual knowledge of tariffs, a majority of the sample had very limited knowledge. Some were able to recall their own call costs but, in relation to comparisons with other networks and alternative options on their own network, respondents were generally uninformed, "Mine is 35p a minute peak and 5p off-peak. Or I think it might be 2p at weekends"
Furthermore, most had not sought out a great deal of information before purchasing their mobile. Interest in tariff levels was marginal compared with interest in the handset and its facilities. The factors that respondents took into account when selecting their current mobile were diverse. These ranged from respondents who had been bought a phone as a gift – with no prior knowledge of mobile phones and therefore no particular purchasing criteria - to those with a small but significant number of section criteria. Those who had been given a phone as a present generally appeared to receive a handset on the same network as the purchaser, "My son bought me the phone. He is on Orange so he just got me one in a box. I guess he just knows what to expect from Orange". Interestingly those respondents who had made their own choice in purchasing a mobile chose recommendation as one of their main criteria, "My son and brother are on 1-2-1, so they suggested I get that as well". Although these respondents had no detailed knowledge of the reasons underlying this recommendation - when probed about inter-network call costs, respondents felt this would probably have been a key factor, "If that is the case (cheaper within networks) then that is probably why they told me to get that network. One of the reasons at least" Important elements were the cost of calls and SMS facilities (SMS was particularly important for younger respondents). Although a majority had not examined each network in any great detail, most were still confident that they had selected the phone with the cheapest calls. This assertion was, however, rarely able to be substantiated, "I looked at the poster they had on the wall in the shop but it was full of numbers. So much pence for this at that time. It was a bit confusing"
Furthermore, a majority did not know exactly the costs of calling fixed lines or other mobiles - which will be discussed in more detail later in this report. A vital factor that affected choice was the type of handset. Here there were clear distinctions between older and younger respondents. For younger respondents the handset style and type were seen as being part of fashion. Most had aspirations for small handsets and were able to talk of handsets in terms of makes and model numbers, "I’ve just got the Nokia 3210 and I’ve downloaded a new ringtone, Britney Spears." For many older respondents the reverse was true. These respondents wanted their handset to be simple and easy to use, "I wouldn’t understand what to do with the complex ones (handsets).",
"I’d probably lose a small one, and would not be able to see the screen anyway." The most common choice factor across the range of respondents was that their phone should be on a pre-pay package. For a large majority there was a reluctance to receive "… another monthly bill". There was also concern, particularly amongst the younger/middle-aged sections of the sample, that being on a monthly contract would lead to costs getting out of hand, "I’d definitely spend more on a monthly contract. I’ve got more control now" 4.1.2 Typical Mobile Calls and Alternatives to Mobile Calls When respondents were probed regarding typical calls made, a number of call types were consistently mentioned. These included:
Most respondents felt that their typical mobile calls were short and to the point. Some older respondents actively avoided conversations on their mobile, which they saw as a practical tool, with a fixed line being the first choice for longer telephone conversations. By comparison, respondents at the younger end of the sample used their mobiles in a completely different way. These respondents are involved in a mobile culture in which virtually everyone has a mobile and has to be seen to have one. As such, these respondents use their mobile as their main source of contact with each other. Conversations can be lengthy – although this depends upon the parent’s financial status. Mobile phones are used extremely regularly and respondents suggested a number of reasons why this was the case. The first was privacy. Respondents kept their mobiles with them at all times and so they were available in their bedrooms, away from parents ears where conversations could be freer. Parents were aware of this and those who assisted their children with top-up cards had no knowledge of the true extent of mobile use, "I give him £10 a month to put on the phone, but I’ve no idea how much he puts on himself"
A second reason was that many of the younger respondent’s parents had complained about large telephone bills on the fixed line, "We had a bill for about £250 pounds and I was banned from using the phone. I had to get a mobile"
Interestingly, many respondents in this younger age group did not give out their home phone numbers to friends, so calling a mobile is the only contact option. This enables these respondents to build up their social image - the more calls you receive is seen as an indicator that you are popular, whilst at the same time allowing you to show off your `trendy’ phone. Often the mobile would act as a complement to a fixed line – some respondents would make outgoing calls from home using their fixed line, but leave their mobiles switched on so that friends could call them. In many cases, especially amongst younger respondents, the mobile number was seen as the primary point of contact with fixed lines viewed as a secondary channel, "I don’t call my mate at home on his home phone – it’s not so personal, it’s not so direct…when I call I don’t want to speak to his mum – I figure that if his mobile’s switched off then he doesn’t want to be disturbed…" Substitution of one call type for another was also more common for younger respondents with SMS being the preferred option. `Texting’ was selected for a number of reasons including: general privacy, secrecy from parents, calls made in school/college time and when credit is running low. Text messages were seen as offering a low-cost way to communicate when the subject matter was superficial – jokes, gossip etc. – but it was apparent that the apparently low cost nature of the service was generating a large volume of calls, "I send text messages because they’re cheap, but last month I sent hundreds and actually it cost me a lot of money….I do think twice about sending them now…" Texting was also a tool employed by some respondents in the middle age category, although far less often. For these respondents texting was more likely to be used if: "… I thought someone might be busy or at work and couldn’t take a call"
However, these two groups did share a common reason for sending a text message instead of calling. This was, "… when I can’t be bothered to talk to anyone" The older segment of the sample were less confident in using SMS. Most had not learnt how to use the texting service and, because of their relatively small scale use of mobiles, felt that they would be unlikely to do so. Only older respondents even considered writing a letter – middle-aged and younger respondents seemed to feel that this was a `lost art’ and largely irrelevant in the modern world. None of the latter groups of respondents had written a letter in the recent past. Faxes were not considered a realistic way of making contact. Fax machines were not common in home - they were typically found at work. As a majority were work-based machines it was not considered appropriate to send personal information via fax to the workplace. Younger people found the idea of faxes amusing. If technology was to be used to contact people then it would be the phone first and in some cases e-mail. Faxes were seen as old fashioned. A small number of respondents used e-mail instead of calling from a mobile. Again, however, this was generally during work time when calls could not be taken or when contacting friends in different countries. Generally e-mailing did not take the place of mobile calls - instead it was used for different purposes (gossip to relieve boredom at work, sending pictures). Similarly only a small number of respondents had used free text messaging services from internet search engines (Lycos, u-boot). Generally, the majority of respondents had no knowledge of these facilities or did not have 24 hour access to the internet. A number did, however, express an interest in using this service in the future. Given the option of fixed line or mobile a majority of respondents in the medium to older age categories would elect to use the fixed line as their first option for all calls, "I always try to ring someone on their fixed line first. Then if they are not there I might try their mobile. Although I’d keep the conversation short then"
For the younger end of the age spectrum, the `pull’ of the mobile culture is very strong. This factor, mixed with the aspects such as privacy and large fixed line bills, means that the mobile is generally the first choice for all calls. 4.1.3 Perceptions of Cost There was recognition, across a majority of respondents, that calls from mobile phones were generally more expensive than from fixed lines. However, many were unsure where they had got this information, "You just kind of know they are more expensive" "My husband just told me they were more expensive"
Respondents who were moderate to heavy mobile users were sure that mobile calls were more expensive - although there was also recognition by many that calls within the same network were often cheaper. These respondents were also aware that calling between different networks did appear to be very expensive, "I am not sure of the exact cost but I think it is about 50p per minute"
Respondents were not able to suggest whether calling any particular networks were more expensive than others. There were no perceived `baddies’ in terms of specific network call costs. For respondents who did not use their mobile a great deal there was less conviction that there was any difference in call costs, "I don’t really use my mobile enough to know how much calls cost"
Confusion regarding cost tended to be focussed by the notion of peak and off-peak calls. Perhaps due to conditioning over many years, there was a general assumption that off-peak calls always begin after six in the evening. No respondents were entirely sure of this, and some even quoted their own actual off-peak/peak network times (seven or eight p.m.), yet still intuitively felt that their calls would be cheaper after six o’clock. In terms of pence per minute, respondents felt that the only really good value calls were those made off-peak (including weekends) to fixed-line and same network mobiles. All peak-time calls were considered poor value if they lasted any length of time (probably more than one or two minutes). This pence per minute value assessment, however, was affected by considerations relating to convenience and mobility (which are discussed below). 4.1.4 Perceptions of Value for Money Respondents found quantification of value very difficult. In comparison to other products and services such as running a car or owning satellite TV, only a few were able to calculate any comparison costs. Satellite TV was viewed as being good value for money purely on the basis of being a one-off monthly payment offering unlimited access, "I pay my £35 a month and have unlimited use of the channels. In those terms owning a mobile is not good value" Some respondents felt that the mobile product proposition was fairly cheap, uncomplicated and risk-free compared with other product sectors, "It’s good value and peace of mind, but if I don’t make any calls it doesn’t cost me anything. It’s better than running a car or TV in that respect. And I paid an admin fee so I can still receive calls when I have no credit left…"
"It’s cheaper than a TV. There are not so many problems or faults and the phone is guaranteed for 1 year anyway so if something goes wrong you can get a replacement…" Some respondents were aware that mobile packages are heavily subsidised, but many had not considered this and were largely uninterested in the issue. Most felt that competition had driven prices down and therefore replacement of a pre-pay mobile, in the event of loss or damage, was not problematic. Contract mobile users were more aware of the real costs of handsets, since some had experienced the real costs of replacement. However, respondents felt that, overall, mobile value for money could be measured by three criteria. The first two criteria were consistent amongst all respondents, whilst the third divided sample opinion. The first was the simple value of being able to use a phone whilst mobile – offering complete freedom and convenience, "It is of value because you are able to contact people at any time in any place."
The second measure of value was the peace of mind offered by a mobile phone, "I think it is good value because of the peace of mind of knowing that my wife and kids have theirs with them if they are out late on their own" The third factor was costs incurred by the user when using the phone. Those respondents who were low to moderate users expressed positive perceptions, "I use it very rarely. I see when the kids are home, if they need picking up. They can call if they need to."
"I only put about £10 a month on the phone. So after the initial layout of £40, you can’t complain" For these respondents it became apparent that their choice of pre-pay packages enhanced their perceptions of value for money by matching expected usage patterns. They had not found that spending on calls was greater than had been initially expected. For respondents who were heavy users of mobile phones, perceptions of value were diminished, "I spend about £25-30 a week on the mobile. I know it is my fault, but in terms of money per minute I guess it is not that good a value"
This group were driven by convenience factors and had sacrificed obvious value for unlimited access and convenience. Their usage needs had to be met – and so, although spending more than they wanted, some did feel that their mobile was delivering value for money. 4.1.5 Comparisons of Mobile Calls with other Telephony Options Fixed line calls were generally considered the cheapest option for any telephone calls. BT (and other providers such as cable and OneTel etc) were viewed as the best all-round calling option in terms of cost, with fixed line to fixed line seen as the cheapest option. When probed about fixed line to mobile costs, a majority of respondents were generally aware that these calls were more expensive, although once again there was an assumption that these calls would be cheaper after six p.m., "When I call by boyfriend’s mobile, my mum and dad say it is ok, but don’t touch the phone until after 6p.m."
However, a majority of these respondents did not know whether this perception was, in fact, true. Again, conditioning from years of fixed line usage was evidently influential. Interestingly, most respondents with their own fixed line at home did not generally check their phone bills. Thus, most were unable to actually quantify costs of calling either other fixed lines or mobiles. Specific differences in costs between mobile networks in relation to calls made from a fixed line were unknown and respondents assumed that they would be essentially similar, "I doubt that there would too much difference. Perhaps a penny here or there" Many respondents were aware of same network calls being cheaper at certain times of the day - however, some of these respondents still initially opted to use their fixed line phone, "It is just habit. When you are at home you tend to reach for the BT phone" In terms of other telephony options, the payphone was seen as the most expensive for calls to both fixed lines and mobiles. Many respondents were aware of recent increases in minimum pay-phone call charges to twenty pence. Pay-phones do, however, offer better connection quality and reliability than a mobile and would be considered for `important’ calls, if a fixed line were not available. Typically, respondents assessed the likely call cost in terms of the probable length and type of call, "If I’m making a quick call to get picked up it takes about 20 seconds. That would be 20 p in the payphone but only about 10 p on the mobile." A majority of respondents had made calls from payphones to mobiles and felt that these were the most expensive calls of all, "You put 20 p in and you are on for about 5 seconds"
"You can actually see the money tick away in the payphone" 4.1.6 Impressions of Other Networks As many respondents had limited knowledge of other networks, their impressions were extremely limited. Much information was derived from gossip and comments by friends. "Lots of my mates say that Cellnet is really expensive – we know someone who has a Cellnet phone and he makes the shortest calls ever….just hello and gone…" There was very limited specific knowledge of any differences between costs of calls across the networks. A majority of respondents felt that there was likely to be some difference between networks in relation to factors such as whether service was paid, the costs at different times of the day and the amount per minute, to both fixed and mobile lines. However, none were able to categorically state that any specific networks were more expensive than another, "I’ve heard that Vodafone is more expensive than 1-2-1, but I don’t know"
"I think Orange is more expensive, 50p a minute or something" In terms of typical consumer `mythology’, it seemed that the original `big two’ in the mobile marketplace – Vodaphone and Cellnet – were most commonly perceived as expensive. This, however, was not based on real knowledge, but more typically upon a feeling that the `newcomers’ – Orange and One-to-One – must be cheaper because they were the latest entrants and challengers in the marketplace. "Orange are definitely cheaper….they sell the service on value and they came in with a real price advantage over the others like Vodaphone…Orange is for young people like me, so it must be cheaper than Vodaphone – that’s for the businessmen…" Respondents held similar subjective feelings about SMS costs,
"I think that mine, BT Cellnet is cheaper for texting, I think it is 10p, but it is only what I’ve been told" Generally the consensus of opinion was that, "They will all even out in the end. One will offer a cheaper phone but the calls are more expensive. Others offer cheaper calls at the weekend but are more expensive the rest of the time"
"They are all in it to make money, so they are not going to give you anything for free"
In terms of coverage and reception opinions varied across the sample. Very few had experienced major difficulties in terms of poor reception. Again many had sought recommendations from friends as to which network was best in their area. Consequently, each respondent argued strongly that their coverage was best in that area. However, by contrast, many respondents had stories to tell of a ‘friend of theirs’ who had the same network but was unable to get a good reception despite living very close to each other. For a majority, coverage is becoming a `given’ factor. It was generally felt that coverage was fairly standard across all the networks, with very little difference. Any differences that did exist were because "… someone was just unlucky in their area" 4.1.7 How Easy is it to Decide Between Networks? For many respondents a decision regarding which network to select was taken out of their hands – since they had received mobiles as presents or been given them by family members who had decided to upgrade. These respondents had not looked any further into network or package selection and were generally unaware of different options. There was, however, some recognition from these respondents that there seemed to be: `a great amount of choice out there…’. This attitude appeared to be based on the number of models of mobile phones available rather than any specific knowledge of networks and options available. "I’ve walked past shops and you see all these phones in there. I wouldn’t have a clue where to start" This level of confusion was clearly expressed by respondents who had made the decision to purchase a new phone. Many older respondents were particularly confused regarding differences between mobile phone makers and networks, "I bought 1-2-1 and by brother is on Ericsson"
Some respondents who had examined the mobile market more deeply also expressed a similar view, "You go in and they blind you with science about this phone and that network, how much the calls are and all that. But when it came down to it, it seemed that the only difference, at least in the pay-as-you-go market is the phone itself"
Generally, even the more knowledgeable respondents felt that it was a confusing decision as to what mobile to buy - which phone and which network? In reality there was felt to be little real difference between what the networks offered. "They all seem to even out in the end" 4.18 Evidence for Informal Mobile `Calling Groups’ There was some evidence that some respondents – especially at the younger end of the sample – were forming `calling groups’ by purchasing mobiles on the same networks. This is partly a function of style factors – it was clear that only a few mobile phones are seen as `cool’ or desirable by younger respondents and this naturally drives similarities in terms of chosen network. "You must have what your mates think is OK, otherwise you wouldn’t want to get your phone out in public…" Where mobiles were being given as gifts (and this was very common), then the purchaser typically chose the same network as they used themselves. This was very evident when parents were buying for children or where friends were buying for each other. "I got my best mate a phone at Christmas and I got her the same as I’ve got – that’s obvious isn’t it? I mean, I’m going to be calling her more than anyone else, so it’s got to be best to get the same phone…" In some cases, gift purchasers had bought mobiles on the basis that they were `safe’ if they bought a phone on their own network, given the perceived complexity of the mobile marketplace. The only inhibiting factor might be the relative desirability of the handset, "I was looking at a mobile for my son and his father just told me that our son wouldn’t be seen dead with that particular phone…it had to be a special phone, a particular Virgin phone…’ It was obvious, however, that the relative size and scope of these `calling groups’ was limited. Circles of close friends and immediate family members were the typical extent of these groups – beyond these parameters, other external factors affected choice of network. In many cases, respondents were members of a number of different calling groups and their network choice was most strongly influenced by the closest group, either on the basis of friendship or family. Even calling groups operated by older respondents were formed in the same way – respondents typically made decisions on the basis of family preferences. " I got phones for my wife and my dad – I got them on the same network as I’ve already got, because I know that the coverage is good…" Some of the respondents were conscious of the benefits of being on the same network (free or discounted call rates) and cited these as being influential – but others were simply attracted by being able to access the same range of services as their friends or family, "You want the same stuff as the people you’re calling – otherwise you might find that your text message doesn’t get through or you can’t get a signal when everyone else can…’ Coverage was also an issue – many respondents felt that they could be confident regarding the quality of coverage of their own network, whereas choosing an alternative network might be risky, "My mate got into real trouble – he bought his daughter a One-to-One phone and the coverage was terrible. His wife’s got an Orange mobile and she gave him hell about it…in the end he had to get another one, an Orange phone like hers…" Overall, although calling groups do clearly exist, these are not purely driven by cost factors (free calls etc.), but are also motivated by familiarity with product, acceptability of handset type and access to comparable services. 4.1.9 Satisfaction with Current Mobile Costs and Services On the whole, in terms of service, a majority of respondents felt that they were satisfied with their mobile provider. Few respondents had, in fact, needed to contact their provider and those who had done so reported good service, "I broke my mobile at work. So I phoned them up and they replaced it the next day. Delivered to my door"
"The only problem I’ve had is that they doubled everything on my monthly bill one month. I rang them and they investigated. They found out it was their fault and they apologised and that was that"
In terms of costs, most respondents initially stated that they were fairly satisfied with their company. As mentioned earlier, respondents did recognise that costs of calling from mobiles were more expensive than fixed lines - but this was seen as the price to be paid for the convenience of mobile usage. However, when asked whether they would consider switching to other networks, a majority felt they would do so if the costs of calls were significantly cheaper and the level of service was not affected. A number of reasons were given for switching between networks. However, these were generally based on individual preferences, rather than common motivations. One respondent was about to travel abroad for a lengthy period of time and wanted to take a mobile with him to Europe. He felt he would switch if his current supplier was unable facilitate this. Another respondent was disappointed that Orange had phased out their £5 top-up cards, which she used. She was considering changing to Vodafone. Generally however, a key factor in switching would be lowered call costs. "If you said to me that I would get the same quality of cover and service at a lower price then I would have to seriously think about it – the trouble is that you don’t really know until you’ve made the decision and then it’s too late…" 4.2 Non-Mobile Users 4.2.1 Background and Telephony History Respondents in this group offered a explanations regarding their reasons for not having a mobile phone. For a small number this was an ethical issue, "I’m just sick to death of them ringing constantly and people shouting on them"
"I refuse to be dragged into this mobile hell that everyone seems to be in"
Some were concerned about the health risks associated with mobile phone use, "You read an awful lot about radio waves and cancers. I think I’ll try and avoid that thank you"
Some older respondents felt that they would not be able to understand how to work a mobile phone and were a little scared of the technology involved. However, a majority of the respondents without a mobile - who could not imagine themselves getting one in the future – made the decision because they did not feel they needed a mobile and were concerned about the expense, "I don’t have the urge to call anyone when I am out and if someone wants to ring me then they can call when I am at home"
"Those things just generate calls – you see people ringing up other people to tell them that they’ll be home in ten minutes…it’s a waste of money…"
There were a number of respondents, however, who felt that acquiring a mobile was only a matter of time, and that they would have to succumb sooner rather than later, "I think that they are becoming part of the establishment and everyone will have to have them soon"
Interestingly, a number of these latter respondents felt that payphones would gradually disappear, making the acquisition of a mobile even more imperative. The number of calls made to mobile phones varied greatly across the sample, including both respondents who called a mobile once a week only - these respondents tended to be at the older end of the age scale and generally called sons and daughters weekly – as well as respondents who called mobiles approximately four to ten times a day. Calls were made to a range of people: friends, partners and family members most commonly. The majority of calls were quick calls to make arrangements, pass on messages or reminders. As such these calls tended to be short (one to two minutes). However, for some respondents, close friends were only contactable by mobile phone and these respondents spent anything up to an hour on the phone chatting. All respondents were aware when they were calling mobile phones and recognised the 07 prefixes. Recognition was further enhanced because of the poorer sound quality of mobile phones, "Yes you can tell. They always seem like they are talking into a biscuit tin"
4.2.2 Perceptions of Cost Similar to those respondents with mobile phones, this group were not entirely sure of the exact costs of calling a mobile from a fixed line. Again a majority did not check their phone bills for exact figures. A majority did, however, imagine that these calls would be more expensive, "I’ve heard that they are expensive but I’m not sure how much"
When prompted to try to put a figure on the cost of calls to a mobile the range extended from, "About 10p a minute" through to, "I think it is about 50p a minute" The views of older respondents were generally derived from the media (newspapers, television) or from sons and daughters who had passed on a message to parents that, if they were to call their mobile, they should not stay on for long, "I ring my daughter on her mobile and she says ‘Ok dad, I’ll call you when I get home’"
Younger respondents who had more friends with mobiles, although still mostly unaware of the exact calling costs, tended to be more comfortable with the idea that calls to mobiles were more expensive, "It is just a recognised thing that calling to mobiles is not cheap"
Fixed line to fixed line calls were perceived, by a large majority, to be the cheapest calls. Again there was no recognition of actual cost per minute to make these calls, but - with mobiles removed from the situation - it was assumed that the call would be cheaper, "You just know that BT to BT is the cheapest call, especially after 6 p.m."
"I think that some of the cable calls are free in the evening…."
Differences in costs between different networks were not really understood. A number of younger respondents offered their opinions, but were not completely confident in their estimations, "Yeah it is more expensive to call Orange, 50p a minute"
"Vodafone is the most expensive to call from home. My mates are on Vodafone and I call them"
In reality, all four networks were mentioned in relation to expense by respondents - suggesting that differences in costs were not well understood. Older respondents were even less sure of any cost differences with the general answer being, "Oh, I couldn’t tell you. I’ve absolutely no idea"
As an indication of the lack of knowledge regarding network cost differences, respondents were generally unable to suggest reasons why any differences might exist. Those that were prepared to speculate, suggested that any differences were likely to be due to business practices, "… probably just to attract more people and make more money"
4.2.3 Behaviour Regarding Voice Calls to Mobiles In general respondents demonstrated three major behavioural changes when calling to a mobile phone. These were:
Regarding length of call, a majority of respondents kept their calls to a maximum of one or two minutes, "They are generally quick information calls or for arrangements"
Chatting at length to someone on a mobile seemingly only occurred as a result of real necessity - for example, if a friend did not have a fixed line. For these respondents there was no option and allowance was made for the length of the call, "If I know I’m calling my friend on their mobile and it is for a chat, I set myself a 15 minute limit"
In comparison to fixed line call behaviour, respondents were more aware of time spent on the phone. Fixed line calls were not monitored as closely, with many respondents remarking that they did not consider the call time involved - some had eventually realised they had been on the line for an hour and a half, "That is how I treat it. Mobiles, quick calls. Fixed line and I feel I can chat if I want"
For those with no option but to call a mobile, there was an inclination to wait until after six in the evening to call, particularly if it is not an urgent call, "If I’m calling to arrange something for a couple of days time then I’ll wait until the evening. But if it is a need to know now call, then you have to call"
Again respondents assumed that calling mobiles from a fixed line would be cheaper after six p.m. Respondents did not know whether this was indeed true, but the general assumption about off-peak call charges held firm. There was very little mention of ‘getting someone to call them back’. Generally respondents were aware that it was not particularly cheap to call from a mobile either. So, instead, calls were kept short and `chats’ were only made via a fixed line where possible. For younger respondents who were still at school, there was an awareness that their friends with mobiles would not be able to afford to ring them back, "My friends can’t afford to call back and anyway my parents can afford for me to use the fixed line"
Regarding other methods of contacting people, the first choice for a majority was to phone a fixed line, "I always phone the fixed line first to see if someone was in" If there was no response on the fixed line then mobiles were called if the call was considered important enough. "If you know someone is at work or not at home for the day, and you need to speak to them then you have to phone the mobile" There was very little or no knowledge of web-to-mobile SMS availability. Older respondents in particular did not have access to the internet and did not know how to operate text messaging, even from a handset. Those who had access to the internet were often not aware of the free SMS services on offer. Those with internet at work were users of e-mail for contacting friends during work time and those that lived abroad. E-mail access at home was not widespread and was not considered a way of staying in touch - except with people who lived some distance away. Where respondents were living close to each other, then calls were made to mobiles to make arrangements to meet (particularly in the medium age group, 20-35 years, meeting in pubs and bars). Conversations were then conducted face-to-face rather than on a mobile or fixed phone. For these respondents who did not have a mobile phone there was little knowledge of which networks their friends and families were on. Those younger respondents with a large network of friends were aware that the range of networks were covered, "I know people on all the networks, Orange, Vodafone, 1-2-1, Virgin, Cellnet" Older respondents had even less knowledge regarding the networks that their friends and family used. The general comment being that, "I think they are on ….sorry I don’t know…" Further, there was no awareness from these respondents as to whether their friends had selected networks using any specific criteria,. "I don’t know why they are on Vodafone. Maybe it is cheaper"
"My other son has a 1-2-1 I think. So possibly my daughter got the same because he recommended it" Overall, there was a general perception that calls to mobile phones were more expensive. This did have some effect on calling behaviour in terms of length of call, perceived importance of call and, for some, the time of day the call was made. Generally, calling mobiles was only seen as being value for money if extremes of convenience or necessity were involved, "If it saved someone a long journey or meant that my children were safer then it would certainly be good value – but I would be sceptical about the value of just calling up for a chat on a mobile…"
Appendix A - Qualitative Topic Guide Background/Telephony History:
MOBILE-OWNING RESPONDENTS ONLY Specifically: How did they select their current mobile – what factors were taken into account - e.g.:
Which were most important and why?
Why is their impression of the various networks, in terms of:
What are the key differences between the networks?
Current satisfaction with their mobile costs and quality of service
Perceptions of mobile costs (on range of calls)
How do they think these compare to other telephony options – are these good value for money?
What types of calls are typically made from their mobile – e.g. text messaging vs. voice, on-net calls, emergency vs. social vs. all calls etc.
Do they ever substitute one type of call for another (e.g. text messaging for voice, off-peak for peak, on-net for off-net)?
Do you ever choose to use your mobile instead of a fixed phone when both are available?
Do you ever choose to use a fixed phone instead of your mobile when both are available?
What are the influential factors? How did you make these calls before you had a mobile?
What do you do if your mobile is not working or you forget to take it with you?
How do you typically use your mobile:
MOBILE AND FIXED LINE-ONLY RESPONDENTS Perceptions of the cost of calling mobiles from fixed phones:
Awareness of costs of calling different networks?
Behaviour regarding voice calls to mobiles from fixed line phones:
Do you ever choose to phone a fixed phone rather than a mobile, when you are trying to contact someone who has both?
Have you ever done any of the following instead of calling a mobile?
Are you and the people you call from your mobile(or who call you most) on the same mobile network?
Why are they all on the same network ? (e.g. cheaper for you, cheaper for them?) How did you organise using the same network?
Summing-up – perceptions of value for money in relation to calling mobiles and assessment of actual impact on calling behaviour
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||
 |
|
||||||
