08 custsatisfaction report final

8/8/2019 08 CustSatisfaction Report FINAL

1/20

High Perormance in theAge o Customer Centricity

Tuning in to todays consumerAccenture 2008 Global Customer Satisaction Report


2/20

3 Hearing Today's Consumer

Customer

Centricity


3/20

Accenture 2008 Global Customer Satisfaction Report 3

For the past our years, Accenture has

surveyed consumers about their current

perceptions o and recent experiences

with customer service. This research

provides an annual reading on how well

companies are meeting the expectations

o consumers around the world.

We began by surveying consumers in

the United States and United Kingdom,

in both 2005 and 2006. By 2008, we

had expanded our research to include

4,189 consumers in Australia, Brazil,

Canada, China, France, Germany, India,

the United States and United Kingdom.

One o the key insights gleaned rom this

research over time has been the steadyincrease in what consumers expect rom

customer service. In this years survey,

our respondents again reported their

expectations are higher now than they

were ive years ago, and higher than

they were just 12 months ago.

Nowhere has this phenomenon

been more evident than in emerging

markets, and in 2008, the trend was

more pronounced than ever: 84 percent

o survey respondents in China, Indiaand Brazil reported their expectations

are higher now than they were ive

years ago. Sixty percent said their

expectations are higher today than just

12 months ago.

One positive sign: this year 58 percent

o our respondents described the

quality o customer service as good

or excellent. However, a closer look

suggests all is not well: ully hal o

respondents in the important emerging

markets described the service they have

experienced as air, poor or terrible.

Moreover, when asked how oten their

expectations were met in the pastyear, more than hal (55 percent) o all

respondents chose never, rarely or only

sometimesa signiicant increase rom

47 percent in the prior year. Several

countriesCanada, France, China and

Brazilalso reported a notable decrease

in how oten their expectations are met,

and in the emerging markets, 64 percent

reported their expectations were met

only sometimes, rarely or never.

The most startling inding rom this

years survey: two o every three

respondents globally67 percent

switched companies in at least one

industry sector at least once in the

past year due to a poor customer

service experience.

This is the highest level o switching

reported in all our years we have

conducted this survey.

Underscoring this sharp rise in

switching is the overall erosion in

customer loyalty: ully hal o the

consumers reported that they switched

providers in multiple industry sectors

during the year, taking an average o

$4,000 worth o business with them,

by their own estimate, each time they

switched providers.

The disparity is striking between

how respondents described customer

service quality and how oten they

let because o it. Even consumers

who described the quality o customer

service as above average did not appear

to be more loyal to their providers.

Our analysis suggests that how oten

consumers elt their real expectations

were met appears to be a better

indicator o their likelihood o leaving

or remaining loyal.

In addition, while most respondents

described overall service quality as

above average, we ound a signiicant

gap between the speciic service

eatures they said were most importantto them and how satisied they were

with those eatures. Similarly, we ound

that many o the service experiences

they ind most rustrating happened to

them quite oten.

Our conclusion: it takes very little

today to persuade a customer to

leave, even one who views customer

service as above average. Increasingly,

it seems, what some providers may

consider good enough when it comesto customer service is not nearly good

enoughand these organizations

may need to develop more sensitive

antennae or tuning into what todays

consumers expect and value, and

learning what it takes to reach and

retain them.

Executive Summary


4/20

4 High Performance in the Age of Customer Centricity4 High Performance in the Age of Customer Centricity

In this period o rapid commoditization

and globalization, customer loyalty is

under siege. Increasingly, organizations

ind that competitive advantages

based on price or innovation have a ar

shorter liespan, and can be challengedby providers rom virtually anywhere in

the global market.

The economic uncertainty that now

permeates the business environment

provides urther incentives or

recalibrating competitive strategies,

to ward o threats to proitable

relationships and minimize the cost

o developing new ones. In act,

our research suggests that even

in challenging economic times, a

customer-centric experience remains a

powerul orce or retaining and even

attracting customersin some markets,

stronger even than price.

Accentures high perormance business

research has ound that leading

organizations enhance customer loyalty

by mastering speciic activities. O

these activities, our research shows,

providing a consistent, dierentiated

customer experience has the most

impact on customer loyalty, which in

turn contributes to growth, proitability

and shareholder value.

Behind the Research:Why Customer Centricity Matters

Using the customer experience as

a springboard to high perormance,

however, is ar rom simple. With

their heightened expectations,

expanded choices and lowered

tolerance or inconvenience,consumers are inherently less loyal.

They are also becoming more diverse,

demographically and behaviorally, and

they expect providers to recognize and

cater to these dierences.

To locate new sources o growth and

sustain business perormanceat

any phase o the economic cycle

organizations must become more in

tune with todays consumerswho

they are, how to reach them and whatkind o experience they expect.


5/20


Respondents rated servicequality less avorably in2008 compared to 2007.With the exception o Brazil and France,

respondents in all countries sampled

perceived service quality less avorably

in 2008 compared to 2007. In 2008,

42 percent o our global respondents

described the quality o customer service

as terrible, poor or air, compared to just

39 percent in 2007.

Despite the perceived decline in service

quality, the majority o respondents

perceived the quality o customer service

overall as good. Respondents in the

United States rated service quality the

highest; respondents in China, Brazil

and Germany rated it the lowest (Figure

1). In general, respondents in emerging

markets were less positive about service

quality than those in mature markets.

The perceived quality o service variedwidely by type o provider. Banks

were seen most oten as providing

satisactory serviceaccording to 51

percentand were the only sector

that received a majority o positiveevaluations. The industries delivering

the least satisying service were hotels,

airlines and lie insurers (Figure 2).

Consumers in India and Canada were

the most likely to view all types o

companies as providing satisactory

service while those in Brazil and the

United Kingdom were least likely.

These results also closely matched our

2007 indings. Year over year, wireless

phone service providers were the

one category that posted a notable

improvement in perceived served quality.

Furthermore, consumers rom most

countries believed that companies in

most industries became more ocused

on customer service during the past

two yearswith banks making the most

improvement in service quality. Hotels

also made signiicant strides, with 43

percent reporting that this industryhad become more ocused on service

compared with only 7 percent reporting

it had become less ocused (Figure 3).

Most customers do notbelieve their expectationsare met most o the time.While respondents ound the quality

o service to be reasonably high, the

majority o respondentsparticularly

those in Brazil and Chinaalso said

companies were alling short o their

expectations. In act, more than hal

globally said their expectations were

met never, rarely or only sometimes.

Indeed, ewer consumers in 2008 thanin 2007 reported their expectations

were requently or always met: 45

percent versus 53 percent, respectively

(Figure 4).

Once again, the most positive responses

came rom Anglophone countries:

United States, India, Canada, Australia

and the United Kingdom. Yet even in

the United States, the country with

the most positive results, expectations

were satisied requently or no more

than 50 percent o respondents.

Key Findings rom 2008Research


6/20

6 High Performance in the Age of Customer Centricity

Figure 1.Overall, how would you rate the quality of service youve received from most companies?

Global Overall

Consumers in France and Germany

were slightly below the global average,while consumers in China and Brazil

delivered the lowest average ratings o

all countries polled. In act, these two

countries had the highest percentage o

consumers indicating their expectations

were rarely or never met. And in China,

there was an especially large change in

consumers perceptions: The percentage

o consumers in China believing their

expectations were requently or always

met dropped rom 70 percent in 2007to just 32 percent in 2008.

Consumer expectationsare rising every year.Also concerning is the act that

consumer expectations or service

continues to rise. Nowhere is this

more evident than in the emerging

economies we surveyed, suggesting

that companies looking to make

inroads in those markets may have towork even harder to ensure consumers

eel their expectations are being met.

One-third o our respondents globally

indicated their service expectations arehigher today than they were one year

ago. Even more dramatic is the change

over the past hal-decade, with 52

percent o respondents reporting higher

service expectations today compared

with ive years ago.

The most precipitous increase during

the past 12 months occurred among

consumers in China and India, while

the biggest jump in the past ive

years was seen among those in India

and Brazil. Even mature markets,

though, are clearly experiencing higher

expectations, i less dramatically than

the emerging markets (Figure 5).

We also ound that consumers overall

expect the quality o service they

receive to be commensurate with their

spending with a particular company.

In act, 73 percent o our global

sample in 2008 indicated they expectbetter service rom a company when

they increase their spending with or

purchase more requently rom that

company. This sentiment was most

prevalent in China, India and Brazil,and least pronounced in the United

States and United Kingdom.

What kinds o improvement do

consumers expect? Seventy-six

percent o consumers globally said

they expected some type o reward

or being a good customerup rom

approximately 50 percent in 2007.

Fity-nine percent desired aster service

or quicker responses to their inquiries,

while just under hal (47 percent) said

they wanted service agents to know

more about them and be able to cater

to their individual preerences.

Consumers in Brazil, India and China

were ar more likely than counterparts

in other countries to say they expect

aster service and to want services not

available to other consumers. Also,

consumers in these countries tended to

be more interested than those in Europeand North America in having direct

access to more experienced and skilled

customer service agents.

US 3.7463% 7%27%3%

India 3.667%3% 34% 56%

Canada 3.634%5% 31% 60%

UK 3.604%4% 37% 55%

Australia 3.595%5% 37% 53%

France 3.571%3% 43% 53%

China 3.513%3% 58% 36%

Brazil 3.383%14% 36% 47%

Germany*

Scale: 1 5

3.292%9% 55% 34%

Poor/Terrible Fair Good Excellent

GlobalAverage

Averages

* Not included in 2007 sample

3.6255% 6%35%4%

3.575% 37% 54% 4%

Averages

2007

2008*

Poor/Terrible

Fair

Good

Excellent

* Includes India and Germany

Scale: 1 5

By Country


7/20


Figure 2.In the past year, which of the following types of service providers, if any, have companies that you switched away from

because of poor customer service? (Multiple mention)

Figure 3.

Do you believe these industries have become more focused or less focused on customer service over the past two years?

Global

2008

Global

2007

India Canada US China Australia France Germany Brazil UK

Banks 51% 50% 56% 59% 59% 46% 54% 48% 50% 37% 46%

Internet service providers 39% 37% 37% 51% 43% 28% 48% 41% 28% 32% 39%

Retailers 37% 34% 27% 45% 44% 19% 40% 26% 31% 32% 44%

Wireless/cell phone 29% 23% 38% 33% 39% 31% 23% 31% 31% 20% 19%

Home telephone 29% 26% 33% 44% 31% 21% 36% 22% 33% 19% 28%

Cable/satellite television 28% 26% 31% 42% 42% 11% 17% 13% 11% 24% 29%

Utility companies 27% 23% 29% 35% 33% 15% 28% 28% 15% 25% 24%

Hotels 24% 20% 27% 25% 24% 27% 26% 14% 24% 34% 22%

Airlines 22% 21% 33% 25% 18% 31% 33% 12% 20% 22% 20%

Life insurance providers 15% 12% 36% 21% 15% 14% 13% 12% 11% 11% 10%

Utilitycompanies

Airlines

30%

41%

-15%

Home telephoneservice providers

36%

44%

-15%

Banks

37%

47%

-11%

Wireless/cellphone companies

49%

36%

-7%

Retailers

43%

25%

Internet serviceproviders

-17%

-21%

Cable/satellitetelevision service providers

-16%

-21%

Life insuranceproviders

Hotels

-15%

-18%

Become more focusedBecome less focused


8/20


Are companies allingshort where it mattersmost?Many actors contribute to the customer

service experiencerom the channel

to the service agent to the time it

takes the customer to resolve his or her

issue. Based on input rom consumers

surveyed, it appears that companies

in general are not perorming at a

consistently high level in the areas that

matter most to consumers.

For example, consumers clearly told us

which customer service channels they

preer to useand where they believe

providers are alling short. As was the

case in 2007, calling or assistance is

ar and away the channel preerred by

the largest percentage o consumers

globally in 2008 (approximately 85

percent both years). However, most

consumers did not ind the service they

experienced by phone to be especially

satisying. Only about one-third o

consumers in Germany, Australia andthe United Kingdom, only one-ourth o

those in Brazil, and about 20 percent

in France said they are satisied or very

satisied with the service they receive

over the telephone.

We also presented participants with a

list o speciic service characteristics

and asked them to indicate how

important each characteristic was to

them, and how satisied they were with

each. The results showed a signiicant

gap between the level o importance

and the level o satisaction or every

characteristic (Figure 6).

For instance, the characteristic seen

by consumers as most important

was having employees who are

knowledgeable and well-inormed,

which received an average rating

o 4.67 (on a scale o 1=not at all

important to 5=extremely important).However, consumers rated their

satisaction with this characteristic

a 3.26 (using a scale o 1=not at allsatisied to 5=extremely satisied)a

gap o 1.42.

Similarly, the amount o time

consumers have to wait to be served

received an average importance score

o 4.48, but an average provider

perormance score o 2.68a gap o

1.8. We saw this pattern across all 11

characteristics, indicating companies

at least in consumers eyeshave

much work to do to improve their

perormance in the areas that count.

As was the case with other questions,

there were some distinct dierences

among consumers in various countries

in their perspectives on the 11 service

characteristics covered in the survey

in some countries, major gaps exist

between importance and perormance

or virtually every service characteristic

(Figure 7).

Figure 4.How often do companies meet your customer service expectations?

By CountryGlobal Overall

US

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2008

2008

53% 5%37%5%

India*

3%6% 41% 50%

Canada

5%7% 45% 43%

Australia

2%5% 36% 57%

UK

2%8% 40% 50%

Germany*

3%7% 45% 45%

France

1%6% 46% 47%

China

2%7% 45% 46%

44% 1%48%7%

2%9% 48% 41%

3%6% 46% 45%

2%9% 56% 33%

4%3% 28% 65%

3%12% 56% 29%

4%13% 54% 29%

3%14% 58% 25%

Brazil

Never/Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

Movement: Good/Excellent

* Not included in 2007 sample

Scale: 1 5

3.3949% 4%42%5%

3.508% 47% 43% 2%

Averages

2007

2008*

Never/Rarely

Sometimes

Frequently

Always

* Includes India and Germany

Scale: 1 5


9/20


3.4434% 19%28%20%

3.2022% 26% 34% 18%

2007

2008*

3.2527% 6%56%12%

3.4113% 56% 26% 5%

Average

2007

2008*

Scale: 1 5

18%

22%

22%

23%

24%

25%

44%

67%

68%

23%

31%

34%

21%

27%

48%

75%

US**

Australia**

France**

Germany*

Germany

Canada

UK

Brazil

India*

China**

35%

41%

48%

51%

44%

48%

76%

85%

89%

44%

54%

59%

45%

49%

48%

93%

US **

Australia**

France**

Canada

UK

Brazil**

India*

China

*Not included in 2007 **Where shift of Higher (Much + Slightly Higher)between 2007 & 2008 is > 5%

Movement: 2007/2008

2007 2008

Figure 5.How have your customer service expectations changed as compared to 12 months and 5 years ago?

Global Overall

Compared to 12

Months Ago:

Compared to 5

Years Ago:

By Country [Higher (net)]


10/20


Figure 6.Importance of service dimensions vs. satisfaction with quality of service received: All respondents

4.48

2.68

4.44

3.29

4.44

2.97

4.17

3.33

4.05

3.18

3.78

3.02

4.67

2.86

4.26

3.00

4.41

2.94

4.49

3.51

4.57

3.25

Importance

The amount of time I have to waitto be served

Low High

Having customer service availableat convenient times

The amount of time it takes tocompletely resolve my issue orproblem

Being able to access customerservice using multiple channels

The amount of time it takes toread and understand information

the company sends me

Being able to resolve questions/issues on my own, without speakingto a service agent

Having employees who areknowledgeable and well-informed

Having employees who are politeand friendly

Having service people who take

ownership of my issue and see itthrough to resolution

Having customer service people whocan deal with my issue without havingto refer it to another person

Having customer service people whoknow me and my history based oninformation I have previously providedso I dont have to repeat myself eachtime I talk to someone

Mean Scores

Satisfaction

0 1 2 3 4 50 1 2 3 4 5

General

Characteristics

CompanyRepresentatives


11/20


Figure 7.Gap between Importance and Satisfaction: By country

In addition to asking consumers about

service characteristics, we exploredhow consumers elt about various

customer service shortcomings. We

presented participants with a list

o shortcomings and asked them to

indicate how rustrating they ound

each (using a scale o 1=not rustrating

at all to 5=extremely rustrating) as

well as how requently they experience

each (on a scale o 1=never to

5=requently).

Ten o the 12 shortcomings were seen

by consumers as rustrating. The most

rustrating was being kept on hold or

a long time while contacting service

(an average rating o 4.47), ollowed

by having to contact customer service

multiple times or the same reason

(4.44), having to repeat the same

inormation to multiple service agents

(4.40), and dealing with customer

service agents who cannot answer

customers questions (4.37). The least

rustrating or consumers were havingto complete a lot o paperwork or

electronic orms (3.79) and not being

able to understand inormation the

company sends customers (3.69).

Unortunately or companies,

consumers also told us that they tend

to encounter the most rustrating

shortcomings airly requently (Figure

8). In act, o the our most commonly

encountered shortcomings, three

were seen by consumers as the most

rustrating: being kept on hold or a

long time while contacting service,

having to contact customer service

multiple times or the same reason and

having to repeat the same inormation

to multiple service agents.

Once again, country dierences are

evident in this set o data, and illustrate

where companies appear to be having

the most trouble avoiding placing

consumers in rustrating servicesituations. The biggest challenge

seems to be in Brazil, where consumers

reported they requently encounter

shortcomings the vast majority o

them ind rustratingespecially being

kept on hold or a long time, having to

repeat the same inormation to multiple

agents, having to talk to multiple

agents to resolve a single issue, and

having to contact customer service

multiple times or the same reason.

In both analyses, the results point

out a prevailing lack o customer

centricityservice designed

around what truly matters most to

consumersthe economic impact

o which is considerable.

Total US Canada Australia India China Brazil France Germany UK

Total US Canada Australia India China Brazil France Germany UK

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Having customer service availableat convenient times

The amount of time I have to waitto be served

Being able to resolve questions/issues on my own, withoutspeaking to a service agent

Being able to access customerservice using multiple channels

The amount of time it takes toread and understand informationthe company sends me

The amount of time it takes tocompletely resolve my issueor problem

Having employees who arepolite and friendly

Having employees who are

knowledgeable and well-informedHaving customer service peoplewho can deal with my issuewithout having to refer me toanother person

Having customer service peoplewho know me and my historybased on information I havepreviously provided

Having service people who takeownership of my issue and see itthrough to resolution

0

5

0

5

0

5

General Characteristics

Company Representatives


12/20


Figure 8.Customer service frustrations vs. frequency with which they are encountered overall

Figure 9.Percentage of respondents who switched due to poor customer service

3.79

4.47

3.60

4.40

4.10

3.47

4.29

3.44

3.44

4.44

3.33

4.37

3.00

4.18

2.86

3.69

2.74

4.26

2.75

4.08

2.77

3.79

2.78

4.19

EncounterFrequency

Being on hold for a long timewhen contacting customer service

Low High

Having to repeat the same information

to multiple customer service agents

Having to talk to multiple customerservice agents while trying to resolvea single question/issue

Having to contact customer servicemultiple times for the same reason

Having to wait for a response afterIve requested customer service

Dealing with customer service agentswho cannot answer my questions

Running into technology issues

that get in the way of my goals

Running into business policies thatget in the way of my goals

Having to complete a lot of paperworkor electronic forms

Being sold other products when Icontact customer service

Dealing with customer service agentswho are unfriendly or impolite

Not being able to understandinformation the company sends me

Global Customer Service Survey: Q14 and Q15

Mean Scores

Frustration

0 1 2 3 4 5

46%

42%

37%

36%

33%

24%

21%

17%

14%

13%

9%

Retailers (e.g. grocery stores,department stores)

BanksInternet service providers (e.g.dial-up and broadband services)

Home telephone serviceproviders

Wireless/cell phone companies

Cable/Satellite televisionservice providers

Utility companies (e.g.electricity, gas, water-related)

Hotels

Airlines

Life insurance providers

Other

* Analysis excludes Prefer not to say responses (n=101)

By Service Provider By Country

US

India

95%

Canada

90%

Australia

86%

UK 64%

Germany

64%

France

64%

China

63%

55%

52%

Brazil


13/20


Consumers let companiesin a larger proportionthan ever as a result opoor customer service.The overall lack o customer centricity in

customer service appears to be havingsigniicant consequences: in 2008, survey

respondents abandoned companies due

to poor service at a higher rate than

ever reported in the our years we have

conducted this survey.

In act, 67 percent o all consumers

surveyed in 2008 said they have

switched at least one provider in

any industry in the past year due to

poor customer service. This igure

is substantially higher than the 59percent recorded in 2007 and the 52

percent cited in 2006.

Consumers in China, Brazil and India

appear to be the most disaected, with

95 percent, 90 percent and 86 percent

o consumers, respectively, indicating

they have let at least one company

due to bad service. Conversely, those in

France and the United States exhibited

the most loyalty in our sample, with

only 52 percent and 55 percent,

respectively, saying they had made a

switch. Still, even at the bottom o the

list, the act that more than hal o the

consumers polled said a bad serviceexperience had driven them away

should be concerning to businesses

everywhere.

The types o companies most requently

let by consumers globally are retailers

(likely because o the ease o switching

and the myriad o alternatives rom

which to choose), ollowed by banks,

Internet service providers and home

telephone service companiesdespite

those enterprises being atop the list

o companies most requently cited by

consumers as providing satisactory

service (Figure 9).

The least-requently switched

companies, according to survey

participants, are hotels, airlines and

lie insurance providers. Its interesting

to note that lie insurance providers

were cited least oten as the type o

company consumers have switched

in the past year, despite the act that

such companies were seen by just 15

percent o consumers as providing

satisactory customer service. This,again, supports the notion that even

when consumers believe the service

quality is good, it will not help win

their loyalty i its not meaningul and

relevant to their expectations.

The total value o the business that

consumers in our sample switched

due to poor service over the prior year

exceeded, by their estimate, $31 million.

Respondents estimated the average value

o the business they took with them each

time they switched at $4,000; with a

total per-consumer average o $11,600

switched or the year.


14/20


Figure 10.Globally, respondents who switched providers did so more often due to the poor quality of the customer experience than

because they found a better price somewhere else. This trend varied somewhat by country.

Customer service representatives lack

of knowledge

Customer-service technologies that

delay or stop service

Company policies that create bureaucracy

Lack of customized solutions

Overall poor quality of the customer

experience

Get a lower price elsewhere

68%

53%

45%

40%

39%

38%

Global Overall

Germany Australia UK France* Brazil Canada US China India

Get a lower price elsewhere 59% 59% 58% 57% 56% 56% 47% 45% 45%

Overall poor quality of the

customer experience49% 75% 73% 44% 62% 74% 74% 66% 71%

Customer service representatives'

lack of knowledge44% 42% 41% 39% 58% 47% 43% 43% 59%

Company policies that create

bureaucracy35% 37% 29% 28% 72% 43% 35% 56% 39%

Lack of customized solutions 45% 34% 24% 46% 55% 29% 30% 67% 50%

Customer-service technologies

that delay or stop service48% 31% 27% 41% 51% 30% 30% 55% 51%

* Switched more oten due to price than due to poor customer experience

Least price sensitiveMost price sensitive


15/20


While price-sensitivityincreased, the quality othe customer experienceremained key to attractingand keeping customers.

For respondents who switchedproviders in the past year, a poor

customer experience was the most

common reason or leaving, identiied

by 68 percent. Presented with other

possible reasons, 45 percent blamed

service representatives lacking

knowledge; 40 percent pointed to

company bureaucracy; 39 percent

cited the lack o customized solutions;

and 38 percent pointed to service

delays or outages.

Interestingly, only 53 percent globally

reported leaving because they ound

a better price elsewheresigniicantly

ewer than the 68 percent who

let because o a poor customer

experience. In two surveyed markets

France and Germanyprice carried

more weight as a actor motivating

consumers to leave, and in Brazil,

more consumers let as a result

o being rustrated by corporatebureaucracy (Figure 10).

More eye-opening still, when asked

about their reasons or choosing

a new provider, 66 percent chose

customer serviceonly marginally

ewer than the 68 percent who

selected their new providers based

on price. In China, Canada and India,

customer service ranked higher than

price when it came to the choice

o new providers, and in the United

States, customer service and price

carried equal weight.

When economic concerns increase,

companies may turn to price-cutting as

a strategy or retaining customers who

are increasingly price-sensitive. When

it comes to customer loyalty, however,

providers would do well to remember

the powerul role played by a satisying,

customer-centric experience.

Several service-relatedactors appear to havea stronger inluence onconsumers decision toleave a provider.

We ound a strong correlation betweenseveral actors and consumers proclivity

to switch vendors.

O the 8 percent o respondents whose

service expectations were met only

rarely or never, only 3 percent indicated

they had not let any company in the

past year because o poor customer

service. However, ully 58 percent o the

respondents whose expectations were

met always or requently indicated they

had not let any company in the past

year because o poor customer service.

This comparison shows that consumers

who did not believe the customer service

experiences were usually relevant and

meaningul to their expectations were

three times as likely to change providers

as consumers who believed their service

experiences met their expectations.

The extent to which a company meets aconsumers service expectations is clearly

a actor associated with consumer loyalty.

Another actor is how satisied consumers

are with the speciic aspects o customer

service that matter most to them.

Across the 11 aspects o customer

service we tested, consumers expressing

satisaction with their providers

perormance in these areas were less

likely to have switched providers in the

past year. Furthermore, a regressionanalysis (Figure 11) revealed the

respondents who switched had a lower

level o satisaction with our actors

they rated as highly important:

Polite and friendly employees.

The amount of time taken to resolve

customer issues.

Service people taking ownership of

the issue at hand.

Convenient availability of customer

services.

Similarly, how oten respondents

encountered speciic sources o

rustration appeared to inluence

whether they stayed or switched. We

examined the relationship between

how oten respondents encountered

12 common rustrations and whether

these respondents switched a vendor.Again, we ound a clear and consistent

pattern (Figure 12).

The more requently consumers

encountered these rustrations; the

more likely they were to have switched

vendors. The two rustrations that

appear to have the greatest impact

on consumers decisions to switch are,

in order:

Having to wait for a response afterrequesting customer service.

Encountering vendor business policies

that get in the way o a consumer's

ability to have their issues addressed.

Its important to note that these

patterns apply to the global sample o

consumers surveyed. Within speciic

geographic regions, somewhat dierent

patterns might emerge. What holds

true, however, across countries in this

sample is that consumers who do not

eel they're satisied in the areas that

matter most to them, or who requently

encounter experiences that are most

rustrating to them, are more likely to

leave, regardless o whether they eel

the overall quality o customer service

is good.


16/20


Figure 11.Influence of customer satisfaction factors on switching

Satisfaction: did not switch

Satisfaction: switched

4.46

4.46

4.46

4.46

4.66

4.68

4.56

4.58

4.50

2.87

4.44

4.41

4.10

4.21

2.89

3.32

3.47

3.47

4.014.07

3.16

3.19

3.76

3.79

3.48

4.27

4.23

2.76

3.74

4.43

4.39

4.52

The amount of time I have to wait to be served

Low High

*Having customer service available at convenient times

*The amount of time it takes to completely resolvemy issue or problem

Being able to access customer service usingmultiple channels

The amount of time it takes to read and understandinformation the company sends me

Being able to resolve questions/issues on my own,without speaking to a service agent

Having employees who are knowledgeable andwell-informed

*Having employees who are polite and friendly

*Having service people who take ownership of myissue and see it through to resolution

Having customer service people who can deal withmy issue without having to refer it to another person

Having customer service people who know me andmy history based on information I have previouslyprovided so I dont have to repeat myself each time Italk to someone

Mean Scores0 1 2 3 4 5

General

Characteristics

CompanyRepresentatives

Importance: did not switch

Importance: switched

* Customer service factors with strongest influence on

switching behavior. For our respondents, these performancefactors had the strongest influence on switching behavior.Those with higher levels of satisfaction in these areasswitched less often. Those with lower satisfaction in theseareas were more likely to switch.

2.58

2.87

2.89

3.32

3.47

3.47

3.11

3.14

3.16

3.19

3.18

3.19

3.48

2.81

2.76

3.74

3.40

2.94

2.85

3.21

3.05

3.25


17/20


Figure 12.Influence of customer frustration factors on switching

Encounter frequency: did not switch

Encounter frequency: switched

4.44

4.32

3.74

4.32

4.13

4.21

4.09

4.25

4.49

4.44

4.23

4.38

4.48

3.964.17

4.32

4.40

3.73

3.60

4.09

4.07

4.28

4.23

3.81

Being on-hold for a long time when contacting

customer service

LowFrequency/Frustration

HighFrequency/Frustration

Having to repeat the same information to multiplecustomer service agents

Having to talk to multiple customer sevice agentswhile trying to resolve a single question/issue

*Having to wait for a response after Iverequested customer service

Having to contact customer service multipletimes for the same reason

Dealing with customer service agents who cannotanswer my questions

Running into technology issues that get in the wayof my goals

*Running into business policies that get in theway of my goals

Having to complete a lot of paperwork orelectronic forms

Being sold other products or services when I contactcustomer service

Dealing with customer service agents who areunfriendly or impolite

Not being able to understand information thecompany sends me

Mean Scores0 1 2 3 4 5

Frustration: did not switch

Frustration: switched

3.91

3.58

3.59

3.76

3.14

3.28

3.63

3.63

3.01

3.16

3.07

3.49

3.14

2.92

2.49

3.03

2.72

2.50

2.48

2.88

2.44

2.92

2.39

2.92

* Customer service factors with strongest influence onswitching behavior. For our respondents, these performancefactors had the strongest influence on switching behavior.Those with higher levels of satisfaction in these areasswitched less often. Those with lower satisfaction in theseareas were more likely to switch.


18/20


Through our experience working with

clients across various industries we

have determined that customer-centric

organizations excel in three key areas.

Knowing the customer. They conduct

customer segmentation and analysisthat both reveals customer preerences

and predicts customer behavior, and

they translate this analysis into a

complete view o the customer and

segment-based blueprints or managing

customer interaction.

Reaching the customer. They develop

strategies based on segment preerences

and behaviors, addressing both direct

and indirect channels as well as socialnetworking channels that inluence

customer attitude and behavior. In

addition to using channels to stimulate

demand, they use channel interactions

to set customer expectations and

monitor how well expectations are met.

Rather than ocusing exclusively on

meeting sales quotas or ixing customer

problems, they give equal weight to

strengthening relationships in sales

and service interactions.

Delivering the customer experience.

They deliver consistent experiences

relevant to customer intentions and

expectations, and they synchronize this

experience seamlessly across marketing,

sales and customer service channels.

They create adaptable supply chain

operations that enable them to respond

readily to changing market conditions

and customer opportunities. And they

empower rontline employees, at everycustomer touch point, to recognize and

meet the needs o customers.

Although our respondents were

generally positive about the quality

o the service they receive, their

behavior indicated that retaining

their business ultimately rested on

delivering a service experience directly

relevant to their speciic preerences

and which were designed to meet

their speciic expectationsin other

words, an experience that was truly

customer-centric. Providers that

ailed to satisy these criteria were

more likely to lose customers, and it

appears many companies are ailing

in this regard, given the high rate o

switching demonstrated across the

markets we surveyed.

We also ound that consumer needs

and preerences dier signiicantly rom

market to market, and providers must

understand these dierences in order

to deliver dierentiated experiences

that resonate with speciic customer

segments. The preerences and attitudes

o consumers in mature economies and

those in emerging economies oten

varied widelya inding with important

implications or companies serving a

geographically diverse customer base,

and or companies looking to emerging

markets or growth. Without tailoring

the customer experience to the

distinct attributes o speciic consumer

segments, organizations run the risk o

alienating the consumers they wish to

attract as well as undermining current

relationships.

Mastering these areas may require

companies to make undamental

changes to many key business

unctions: product and oer

development; pricing; campaign

development and execution; sales and

post-sales service and support; supply

chain operations, inance operations

even merger and acquisition strategies

and integration. Further, these

changes must be operationalized

without increasing complexity,

while retaining the lexibility to

adapt readily to changing customer

expectations and market conditions.

In summary, the results o our 2008

customer satisaction survey illustratethe essential role that delivering

customer-centric experience plays

in retaining customers and the key

role it can play in attracting new

customers. As companies grapple

with current economic realities, and

seek to sustain business perormance

in the ace o intensiying global

competition, customer centricity must

be a cornerstone o any strategy

or preserving the value o existing

relationships, growing the customer

base or expanding market share.

Conclusion


19/20


Contact UsLearn more about the Accenture 2008Global Customer Satisaction researchat accenture.com/centricity. To discusshow we can help your organization,call us toll-ree at +1 877 889 9009.Outside the United States and Canadaplease dial +1 312 737 8842.

About AccentureAccenture is a global management

consulting, technology services

and outsourcing company.

Combining unparalleled experience,

comprehensive capabilities across

all industries and business unctions,

and extensive research on the worlds

most successul companies, Accenture

collaborates with clients to help them

become high-perormance businesses

and governments. With more than

186,000 people serving clients in over120 countries, the company generated

net revenues o US$23.39 billion or

the fscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008. Its

home page is www.accenture.com.

Accentures Customer Relationship

Management service line helpsorganizations achieve high perormance

by transorming their marketing, sales

and customer service unctions to

support accelerated growth, increased

proitability and greater operating

eiciency. Our research, insight and

innovation, global reach and delivery

experience have made us a worldwide

leader, serving thousands o clients

every year, including most FORTUNE 100

companies, across virtually all industries.

08 custsatisfaction report final

Documents