Last updated: 29 June 2000

Introduction                

Summary - Awareness of CPIs/Usefulness of CPIs/Likelihood of Using CPIs

Main Findings - Spontaneous Awareness of Sources of Quality of Service Information/Awareness of Comparable Performance Indicators (spontaneous + prompted)/Respondents Aware of Comparable Performance Indicators/How Useful Respondents Found the Quality of Service Information/Respondents Finding Quality of Service Information Useful/Likelihood of Using Quality of Service Information/Respondent Likely to Use Quality of Service Information

Conclusion

Next Steps

Appendices - Appendix A - Table: Respondents Aware of CPIs - Demographics/Appendix B - Table: Respondents Finding Quality of Service Information Useful - Demographics/Appendix C - Table: Respondents Likely to Use Quality of Service Information - Demographics

Introduction

The objective of Comparable Performance Indicators (CPIs) is to enable consumers to make better informed purchasing decisions and gain greater benefit from emerging competition by ensuring the improved availability, accessibility and visibility of comparable quality of service information to consumers by encouraging and facilitating its collection and dissemination by the fixed link telecoms industry. The survey does not cover quality of service measures for mobile networks which are the subject of a separate initiative.

On behalf of Oftel and telecoms operators contributing to the CPIs, research agency IPSOS-RSL conducted a survey to measure awareness and use of CPIs among a sample of 2071 UK adults during April 2000. The survey covered the following areas:-

Awareness of Quality of Service Information

Awareness of Comparable Performance Indicators

Usefulness of Comparable Performance Indicators

Likelihood of Using Quality of Service Information.

 

The results of the survey will be used in the re-design of the CPIs, with a second survey, to track awareness and use of the Indicators following re-design and promotion, to be carried out later in the year.

Summary

Awareness of CPIs/Usefulness of CPIs/Likelihood of Using CPIs

Awareness of CPIs

Three-fifths of the respondents were unaware of any comparative quality of service information (including CPIs).

Some 10% of the respondents in total were aware of Comparable Performance Indicators, with 2% mentioning CPIs as a source of information without prompting and 8% aware of CPIs when prompted. Whilst CPIs have been publicised through a press release and the Consumers Association, an awareness level of 10% may appear overstated against the number of visitors to the CPI website (in the low 10,000s) and the 5,000 copies of the CPIs distributed. The survey, however, remains useful by identifying the groups amongst which awareness is notably higher or lower.

Awareness of CPIs was higher among middle-aged, well-off families, who were advanced/heavier telecoms users. A full list of groups with higher levels of awareness is given below:-

  In contrast, awareness of CPIs was noticeably lower among:-

Usefulness of CPIs

Half of the respondents aware of CPIs said that they had found the information useful against 21% that had not found the information useful and 26% that had not used it.

Respondents more likely to find CPIs useful included:-

Looking at awareness of CPIs and the respondents above who were more likely to have found the information useful, the groups that would seem to benefit from greater awareness of CPIs (where awareness was relatively low combined with higher usefulness ratings) included:-

• Social class C2
• The youngest respondents (15-24 years)
• Lower earners (earning under £9,500)
• Tabloid readers.

Likelihood of Using CPIs

Some 30% of the total sample said that they were likely to use CPIs in the future with 65% that said they were unlikely to use the information and 6% that did not know.

Respondents more likely to use CPIs included:-

Looking at awareness of and likelihood to use CPIs, respondents aged between 25-34 years would seem to benefit from greater awareness, being slightly less aware of CPIs though more likely to use the information.

Main Findings

Spontaneous Awareness of Sources of Quality of Service Information/Awareness of Comparable Performance Indicators (spontaneous + prompted)/Respondents Aware of Comparable Performance Indicators/How Useful Respondents Found the Quality of Service Information/Respondents Finding Quality of Service Information Useful/Likelihood of Using Quality of Service Information/Respondent Likely to Use Quality of Service Information

Spontaneous Awareness Of Sources Of Quality Of Service Information

Respondents were asked for the sources of information they were aware of for comparing the service offered by different telephone companies.

The most frequently mentioned source of information was advertising (14% of respondents) followed by word of mouth/recommendation (11%). Comparable Performance Indicators were mentioned spontaneously by 2% of the sample. Meanwhile, around three-fifths of the respondents (35% none and 25% don’t know) were unaware of any information of this type.

 

Spontaneous Awareness Of Quality Of Service Information

Weighted Base	2071
	%
Advertising	14
Word of mouth/friends, family recommendation	11
National press	9
Literature from telephone companies direct	8
Consumers Association/Which?	7
Advice/Literature from BT Shops	6
Advice/literature from other retail outlets	4
Citizens Advice Bureau	4
Internet	2
Industry Performance Comparisons – Comparable Performance Indicators (CPIs)	2
Oftel	1
TV (non-specified)	1
Junk mail/leaflets	1
Door to door salesman/people phoning up	*
None	35
Don’t know	25

 



 

Awareness of Comparable Performance Indicators (spontaneous & prompted)

Respondents who had not mentioned CPIs spontaneously were asked if they were aware of the Indicators. After this prompting, some 8% of these respondents said that they were aware of the Indicators, producing a total level of awareness (spontaneous plus prompted) of 10% of the sample.

 

Awareness of Comparable Performance Indicators

Weighted Base	2071
	%
Total awareness of CPIs (spontaneous + prompted)	10
Spontaneous awareness	2
Prompted awareness	8

 



 

Respondents Aware of Comparable Performance Indicators

The chart below compares the demographics of respondents aware of CPIs against the demographics of the respondent group as a whole (further details are shown in Appendix A). Briefly, those aware tended to be:-

• From the higher social classes (30% AB and 31 % C1 among the aware group; 22% AB and 27% C1 among the whole group)
• Middle-aged (25% 35-44 years and 19% 45-54 years among the aware group; 18 % 35-44 years and 16% 45-54 years among the whole group)
• Male (64% male among the aware group; 49% of the whole group)
• Higher earners (in particular, 21% of the aware group earned £25,000+ against 16% of the whole group)
• Respondents with children (38% of the aware; 34% of the whole group)
• Internet users (40% of the aware group; 25% of the whole group)
• Cable/satellite TV users (48% of the aware group; 39% of the whole group)

• Mobile phone users (69% of the aware group; 54% of the whole group)
• Broadsheet readers (21% of the aware group; 16% of the whole group)
• Living in the North (33% from the North among the aware group; 24% of the whole group), and to a lesser extent London (12% from London among the aware; 10% of the whole group).

How Useful Respondents Found The Quality of Service Information

Respondents who were aware of Comparable Performance Indicators were asked how useful they had found this information.

Half of the respondents had found the information useful, 17% very useful.  In contrast, 21% said that they had not found the Indicators useful and 26%, though aware it was available, had not used the information.

 

How Useful Respondents Found The Quality of Service Information

Weighted Base: Respondents Aware of CPIs	198
	%
Useful	50
Very useful	17
Fairly useful	32
Not useful	21
Not very useful	14
Not at all useful	7
Never used the information	26

 



 

Respondents Finding Quality of Service Information Useful

The chart below compares respondents who found the CPIs useful with the group aware of CPIs as a whole (further details - Appendix B). Respondents more likely to find the information useful included:-

• From social class C2 (25% of the group finding CPIs useful; 20% of the whole group)
• Aged 15-24 years (16% of the useful group; 12% of the whole group) and 45-54 years (24% of the useful group; 18% of the whole group)
• Working (69% of the useful group; 66% of the whole group)
• Lower earners (17% of the useful group earning under £9,500 and 20% earning £9,500-17,499 against 15% of the whole group earning under £9,500 and 16% earning £9,500-17,499)
• Respondents with children (42% of the useful group; 38% of the whole group)
• Internet users (49% of the useful group; 40% of the whole group)
• Cable/satellite users (53% of the useful group; 48% of the whole group)
• Mobile phone users (74% of the useful group; 68% of the whole group)
• Readers of mid-market and tabloid papers (17% of the useful group reading mid-market papers and 31% tabloids against 13% of the whole group reading mid-market papers and 27% reading tabloids).

Likelihood of Using Quality of Service Information

All respondents were asked how likely they would be to use quality of service information in the future. Some 30% of the group said that they would be likely to use the information with 65% not likely to use it and 6% who did not know.

 

Likelihood of using information enabling you to compare the quality of service provided by different telephone companies

Weighted Base: All Respondents	2071
	%
Likely	30
Very likely	9
Fairly likely	20
Not likely	65
Not very likely	28
Not at all likely	36
Don’t know	6

 



 

Respondents Likely to Use Quality of Service Information

The chart below compares respondents likely to use the CPI information against the group as a whole (further details – Appendix C), respondents more likely to use the information were:-

• From a higher social class (30% of those likely to use CPIs were ABs against 22% of the respondent group as a whole)
• Younger respondents up to 45 years (in particular, 25% of the likely group were aged 25-34 years and 24% were 35-44 years against 19% aged 25-34 years and 18% aged 35-44 years in the group as a whole)
• Male (54% among the likely group; 49% in the whole group)
• Working (67% among the likely group; 54% in the whole group)
• Higher earners (10% of the likely group earned £17,500-24,499 and 24% £25,000+ against 7% earning £17,500-24,499 and 16% £25,000+ as a whole)
• Respondents with children (44% among the likely group; 34% as a whole)
• Internet users (42% among the likely group; 27% among the whole group)
• Cable/satellite users (49% among the likely group; 39% among the whole group)
• Digital TV users (24% among the likely group; 20% among the whole group)
• Mobile phone users (68% among the likely group; 54% among the whole group)

• Readers of broadsheet papers (23% of the likely group; 16% of the whole group)
• From the South (30% among the likely group; 25% in the whole group) and London (14% among the likely group; 12% in the whole group).

Conclusion

The purpose of the research was to measure initial levels of awareness and usefulness of CPIs and use the findings in the re-design and promotion of the CPIs.

With the aim of raising awareness of CPIs, the survey found that 10% of the sample were aware of CPIs compared with a substantial three-fifths that were unaware of any comparative quality of service information. Groups where awareness of CPIs was lower included the lower social classes (C2DEs), non-working respondents, the lowest earners (under £9,500), respondents aged 15-24 and 65+ years, and females. By area, awareness of CPIs was lowest in the Midlands (in addition to being least likely to use CPIs).

Tabloid readers also tended to be less aware of CPIs and, together with C2s, the youngest respondents (15-24 years) and the lowest earners (earning under £9,500), could usefully be targeted, these groups being more likely to find CPIs useful when aware of them. Another group which might benefit from promotion of CPIs would be respondents aged 25-34 years who were slightly less aware of though more likely to use CPIs.

In the existing format, half of the respondents aware of CPIs had found the information useful against 47% that had either not found the information useful or had not used the information. According to the findings, groups that could be taken into account when redesigning the CPIs, where a lower proportion found the information useful, would include ABs, those aged 55+, and those without access to the Internet. Also to be considered would be the 65% unlikely to use CPIs in the future which contained a relatively higher proportion of DEs, the lowest earners (under £9,500), non-workers, those aged 65+, females and respondents without Internet access.

Next Steps

This research was funded and carried out at the request of the Telecommunications Industry Forum for Comparable Performance Indicators (CPIs).  The decision of how the results of this research are put into practice is therefore at the discretion of the Industry Forum.  However, the Industry Forum has stated that it intends to use the results to better target the publicity and take-up of the CPI publication.

Appendices

Appendix A - Table: Respondents Aware of CPIs - Demographics/Appendix B - Table: Respondents Finding Quality of Service Information Useful - Demographics/Appendix C - Table: Respondents Likely to Use Quality of Service Information - Demographics

Appendix A

Respondents Aware of CPIs

Appendix B

Respondents Finding Quality of Service Information Useful

Appendix C

Respondents Likely to Use Quality of Service Information