[this page intentionally left blank] - rpmg research

[This page intentionally left blank]

2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results

The Issuer’s Role in Travel Card Program Success

Richard J. Palmer Professor of Accounting

Southeast Missouri State University

Mahendra Gupta Professor of Accounting and Management

Washington University in St. Louis

July 2016

© 2016, RPMG Research Corporation. No part of this manuscript may be duplicated, reproduced, or quoted without the

express written permission of Richard J. Palmer and Mahendra Gupta. To request permission, contact Richard Palmer by

phone (618.559.5137) or e-mail ([email protected]).

2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Preface | 4

PREFACE

We are pleased to present the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results. The report is based

on data and analysis from over 1,300 travel card-using organizations across the U.S. and Canada, and our

intent is to identify and understand market trends and the factors that influence the use of and benefits

associated with travel cards. Our analysis of the survey data is divided into three documents to assist the

reader in finding the desired information in the most convenient manner, as follows:

► Market Trends and Best Practices (the “Main” report)

o Analyses of current trends in travel card use,

o In-depth examination of factors critical to the success of travel cards, and

o Identification of future trends and growth opportunities for travel card use.

► Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size

o Benchmark data to evaluate travel card programs, broken down within corporate (by size and

industry) and government and not-for-profit sectors (states and state agencies, city and county

governments, colleges and universities, schools, and not-for-profit organizations).

► The Issuer’s Role in Travel Card Program Success (this report)

o An examination of customer satisfaction with and importance of travel card features and services

(across economic, data transmission, service and support, reporting, integration, and card

management factors) and how they affect travel card program performance.

A Table of Contents for the current report, as well as a Quick Guide to Other Reports, which provides chapter

content for the other two reports, can be found on the next two pages.

We want to express our sincere thanks to the organizations and providers that participated in the Survey and

offered their valuable input. We hope that the unselfish commitment of their time results in more efficient

means to pay for travel.

Richard J. Palmer Mahendra Gupta

Southeast Missouri State University Washington University in St. Louis

2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Table of Contents | 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Below is a listing of the chapters included in this Report. Click on a chapter title to jump to that page.

To return to the Table of Contents, click the link in the lower left corner of any page.

Chapter Title Page #

i Preface ............................................................................................................................. 4

ii Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. 5

iii A Quick Guide to Other Reports ........................................................................................ 6

iv Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 7

CONTENT

01 Introduction to Customer Satisfaction Analysis ............................................................... 11

02 Use and Value of Travel Card Features .......................................................................... 13

03 Importance of and Satisfaction with Card Economics, Service, and Support ................... 17

04 Importance of and Satisfaction with Card Technology and Reporting.............................. 21

05 Critical Dimensions of Customer Satisfaction .................................................................. 28

06 Customer Satisfaction and Travel Card Program Performance ....................................... 32

07 Customer Rationale for Intent to Switch Card Issuers ..................................................... 39

08 Other Reports of Interest ................................................................................................. 42

CONCLUSION, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, AND APPENDICES

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 43

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 44

About the Authors ........................................................................................................... 45

Sample Description and Outline to Appendices .............................................................. 46

Appendix A: Historical Review of Customer Satisfaction with Travel Cards.................... 49

Appendix B: Importance and Satisfaction Ratings by Market Segment .......................... 58

A Quick Guide 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results to Other Reports | 6

A QUICK GUIDE TO OTHER REPORTS

The analysis of the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey is broken into three reports to help the

reader find desired information in the most expeditious manner. The three reports are entitled:

► Main Report: Market Trends and Best Practices

► Report #2: Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size

► Report #3: The Issuer’s Role in Travel Card Program Success

The content of Report #3 is the subject of this document. Information on where analyses may be found in the

other two reports is identified below.

Main Report: Market Trends and Best Practices

Section Title Chapter

An Introduction to Corporate Travel Cards and the Survey Sample 1-2

Organizational Goals for the Travel Card Program and Travel Budget 3

Travel Card Spending Norms 4

Travel Card Spending Growth Trends 5

Travel Card Purchases and Areas of Potential Growth 6

Mobile Technology and the Sharing Economy 7

Travel Policy: Objectives and Trends 8

Changes in Booking Practices 9

Expense Reporting and Expense Management Software 10

Virtual Card Use for Travel 11

Best Practices 12-16

Global Travel Card Programs 17

Liability Regimes 18

Direct Billing 19

Meeting and Prepaid Cards 20

Trends in Control and Compliance 21

Fraud and Travel Card Misuse 22

Summary: The Advantages of Travel Cards and Best Practices 23

Report #2: Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size

Section Title Chapter

Benchmarks and Opportunities: An Introduction 1

Corporations (Fortune 500-Size, Large, Middle, and Small Market) 2-5

Government Agencies (Federal, State, City, and County) 6-8

Educational Institutions (Colleges, Universities, and School Districts) 9-10

Not-for-Profit Organizations 11

Other Government and Not-for-Profit Information and Opportunity 12

Benchmark Statistics by Organization Type App. A

Benchmark Statistics by Corporate Industry App. B

2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Executive Summary | 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In December 2015, the “2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey” was

released to 6,013 travel card program administrators at organizations that were

either customers of one of thirteen major card issuers (including Bank of America

Merrill Lynch, BMO Harris Bank, Citibank, Comdata, Elan Financial Services, HSBC,

JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, Scotiabank, SunTrust Bank, US Bank, US Bank

Canada, and Wells Fargo) or members of the National Association of Purchasing

Card Professionals or the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. One

thousand three hundred eleven responses were received by March 9, 2016 for a

response rate of 21.8%. All major travel card-issuing brands (American Express,

Diner’s Club, MasterCard, and Visa) are represented in the survey response.

The 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results provide a

comprehensive examination of organizational use of travel cards. The benchmarks

and analyses in this Report are designed to provide readers with facts and tools to

help them evaluate and grow their travel card programs and maximize the benefits

they derive from travel card technology.

A broad spectrum of organizations is represented in the final sample, allowing

analysis of travel card practices in both Corporate and Not-for-Profit sectors.

Spending on travel cards is analyzed in this Report with respect to past, present,

and projected spending patterns.

On the whole, the survey results present a positive portrait of ongoing improvement

in travel card value and technology in the marketplace. The major findings of the

survey by chapter are as follows:

Use and Value of Travel Card Features

► Travel card-using organizations most frequently use and more highly value

card features such as fraud protection, cash back rebate given to the

company, travel-related insurance, and the higher spending limits sometimes

needed to support heavy travelers.

► Mobile applications supporting travel card use are used less frequently, but

are rated as highly valued and likely to be used more in the near future.

Travel card-using organizations more frequently use and more highly value features such as fraud protection, rebates, travel-related insurance, and higher spending limits to support heavy travelers


► Some valued features of travel cards are less frequently used, including

loyalty points/awards given to company, loyalty points/awards given to

employees, global services, airline club membership, concierge services,

travel upgrades, and international companion travel.

► Compared to those who only travel domestically, organizations engaged in

international travel are more likely to use and place greater value on higher

spending limits, medical and legal services, mobile applications to support

travel card use, and extended deadlines before a late fee is assessed.

Importance of and Satisfaction with Card Economics, Service, and

Support

► Customer satisfaction with economic aspects of the travel card and

elements of customer service and support has risen steadily over the past

decade.

► Customer satisfaction ratings increased on most elements relating to

economic aspects of travel card use between 2013 and 2016.

► Customer satisfaction ratings held steady or increased for customer

service and support associated with travel card use between 2013 and

2016.

► The greatest positive satisfaction gaps (where satisfaction is greater than

importance) are for cash advance fees, loyalty awards/rewards, late

payment fees, and foreign exchange fees. Customers continue to report

significant negative satisfaction gaps for rebates/incentives tied to travel

card spending.

► Notable positive importance-satisfaction gaps are noted for travel

management services, expense management services, sponsorship of

commercial card user conferences or other training programs, and the

handling of delinquent accounts. Conversely, notable negative gaps

remain for the speed of lost/stolen card replacement and the handling of

disputed transactions.

Customer satisfaction with the majority of both the economic aspects of the travel card and elements of customer service and support has risen steadily over the past

decade


Importance of and Satisfaction with Card Technology and Reporting

► A variety of data elements captured in travel card transactions have a

satisfaction score that is significantly higher than the corresponding

importance rating, including: carbon emission data related to travel

purchases, taxpayer identification number, VAT tax information, airline data

(travel leg), airline data (city pairs), hotel street address, and fare basis code.

► Customer satisfaction for most aspects of data integration increased between

2013 and 2016.

► There are no notable positive or negative satisfaction gaps associated with

travel card program management capabilities (e.g., real-time ability to modify

spending limits). Further, the level of customer satisfaction for all survey

items relating to travel card program management software features and

capabilities increased between 2013 and 2016.

► Travel card spend reporting appears to be a “pain point” for users, with

significant negative gaps between importance and satisfaction reported for

items of higher importance, including the ability to customize reports, ability

to track disputed transactions, readability of reports, overall reporting

package, integrity of data contained in reports, and access to past/present

cardholder statements. On a positive note, customer satisfaction improved

on many key reporting features and items between 2013 and 2016.

Critical Dimensions of Customer Satisfaction

► The ability of bank technology to support travel card program management,

the reporting package, and customer service and support are the three most

important “overall” issues for customers.

► There are three particular service categories of highest importance to travel

card-using organizations: (1) “real-time” program management capabilities,

(2) reporting (including the readability of reports, and access to past/present

cardholder statements), and (3) risk management (including liability

protection for lost/stolen cards, speed of lost/stolen card replacement, and

the handling of disputed transactions) are of highest importance to

customers.

There are three particular service categories of highest importance to travel card-using organizations: real-time program management capabilities, reporting, and risk management


► The largest gaps between customer ratings of importance and their

satisfaction primarily relate to travel card spend reporting. Other gaps

are noted in the integration of data into the organization’s accounting and

other systems, rebates and incentives tied to card spending, speed of

lost/stolen card replacement, and handling of disputed transactions.

Customer Satisfaction and Travel Card Program Performance

► “Best practice” (BP) travel card programs assign greater importance to the

economic outcomes and data received from travel card use than “needs

improvement” counterparts. Further, BP programs report higher satisfaction with

card issuer performance, in particular as it relates to the integration of travel card

data into the organization’s accounting/information systems, customer service

and support, and the economic outcomes associated with travel card use.

► High aggregate satisfaction with travel card issuer performance is

associated with better travel card program structure and performance

(higher card distribution, higher travel card spending, card-promotive

mandates, and greater activities to maintain control over travel card

activities). A significantly important outcome of high satisfaction is a

multifold reduction in organization’s interest in considering switching

card issuers, an activity that is costly for both user and issuer.

Customer Rationale for Intent to Switch Card Issuers

► About 13% of survey respondents indicate that they are currently considering

switching their card issuer, down from 14% in 2013.

► Inadequate revenue sharing with rebates, up-front financial incentive

provided by another issuer, and benefits from consolidation of banking

business are the most important reasons the consideration for switching

travel card issuers.

13% of respondents are considering switching card issuers, down

from 14% in 2013

Higher satisfaction with travel card issuer performance is associated with better travel card program structure and performance, as well as reducing the organization’s interest in considering switching card issuers

Introduction to Customer 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Satisfaction Analysis | 11

CHAPTER 01

INTRODUCTION TO CUSTOMER

SATISFACTION ANALYSIS

Customer Satisfaction with the Travel Card Issuer Relationship

This Report is designed to examine trends in customer satisfaction with their travel card

program and highlight opportunities for card users and issuers to strengthen the value of

their travel card product and related technologies. Our analyses are based on responses

to the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey, the details of which are included

in the Addendum at the end of this report.

This report is unique inasmuch as its purpose is to provide the card users and issuer with

information that will enable them to improve upon the suite of features that are imbedded

in travel card technology, the economics of the travel card relationship, the data

transmitted about travel card purchases, the level of customer service and support, and

(in broad terms) card technology itself (e.g., the reporting package, integration with other

software, the ability to self-manage the travel card program). Further, the report

documents the connection between card issuer performance (along a variety of

dimensions) and travel card program performance customer retention.

Introduction to the Satisfaction Analysis

Across six sections of the survey were embedded several questions related to card-

issuer performance that consisted of two parts. The first part asked respondents to rate

the importance of and the second part asked about their satisfaction with (1) economic

elements associated with the card product, (2) card issuer service and support of the

card product, (3) data capture, (4) integration of card data with business information

systems, (5) capabilities of travel card software technology, and (6) travel card reporting.

The ratings are made on a seven-point Likert-type scale, where “1” means not important

or very dissatisfied and “7” means very important or very satisfied. The value of the

importance/satisfaction component of the survey is that it reveals strengths to build upon

and opportunities to make improvements for both card issuers and users in current travel

card programs.

Introduction to Customer 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Satisfaction Analysis | 12

When the level of importance is significantly higher than the level of satisfaction, the

resulting satisfaction dissonance could be addressed by redeploying resources to raise

the level of user satisfaction. Card users can benefit from this analysis by recognizing

satisfaction gaps specific to their organization and working within their organization and

with their card issuer to address those issues. The card issuer can benefit by proactively

addressing and managing these gaps for their users’ benefit.

Caution is warranted in interpreting some importance-satisfaction gaps discussed in this

Report as they may not be exclusively related to the travel card program. Some gaps

may be affected by factors other than the travel card program, such as external economic

events or customer experience with their internal information, expense management, or

travel booking systems. It is also important to note that any gap or year-over-year

difference in any importance-satisfaction metric of less than +/- 0.5 is not statistically

significant.

Analysis Parameters and Historical Context

Occasionally, one or more survey respondent may have given an incomplete response

resulting in a different number of responses for different questions. Throughout this

Report, our analysis of any given question will be based on usable responses to each

question. In addition, we have purged unusual outlier responses to specific questionnaire

items when appropriate to facilitate a meaningful understanding of the data.

Furthermore, unless otherwise specified, information provided in any exhibit represents

the average of the responses to a question (whether by all respondents or a subset of

respondents). Finally, as with other analysis in the 2016 Results, Small Market

Corporations (with annual revenue of less than $25 million) are excluded from the

importance-satisfaction analyses, but are discussed separately in summary fashion in

Chapter 5 of the companion report entitled, “Program Profiles by Organization Type and

Size.”

Finally, throughout this Report we make comparisons to our previously released Travel

Card Reports released in 2009, 2011, and 2013. Those reports reflect responses

collected in December (of the year prior to the report’s release) through March of the

report release year. Previously, we labeled data as being from the year preceding the

report release. To simplify comparisons and maintain a proper understanding of the time

interval between data collection points, we will refer to current and previous years’ data

based on the year of the survey closing date. Thus, this report will make comparisons of

the current “2016” responses to “2009," “2011,” and “2013” survey results where

appropriate. Because of continuously changing global economic climate over the 2009-

2016 time-period, we encourage readers to consider the timing of the responses in the

interpretation of the Report’s findings and historical comparisons.

Use and Value of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Travel Card Features | 13

CHAPTER 02

USE AND VALUE OF

TRAVEL CARD FEATURES

In addition to their role as payment facilitator, travel cards have other value-

adding features for the organization. The purpose of this chapter is to

understand the extent to which various commercial card features are used and

valued by the customer base.

Travel Card Feature Use

Along the horizontal axis, Exhibit 1 on the next page provides a visual image reflecting

the percentage of respondents using particular travel card features. Thus, one can see

that fraud protection (used by 86% of respondents), cash back rebate given to the

company (64%), travel-related insurance services (62%), emergency services (56%),

higher spending limits (sometimes needed to support heavy travel, 35%) are frequent

features of travel card programs. Less common features of travel card programs include

medical and legal services (27%), mobile applications supporting travel card use (21%),

extended deadlines before late fee is assessed (19%), loyalty points/awards given to

company (18%), loyalty points/awards given to employees (17%), global services (13%),

airline club membership (12%), concierge services (12%), travel upgrades (10%) and

international companion travel (6%).

The vertical axis of Exhibit 1 reflects the overall value of the feature (on a 7-point scale,

where 1=little or no value and 7=very significant value) to the respondent organization.

Generally, the more frequently used features are those most highly valued by

respondents. Thus, fraud protection (6.3), cash back rebate given to the company (5.7),

higher spending limits (4.4), and travel-related insurance services (4.3) are most highly-

valued. In a deviation from the general rule, mobile applications supporting travel card

use (4.0) and extended deadlines before late fee is assessed (3.8) are more highly

valued than emergency services (3.7). Lesser used features are apprised of lower value

to customers, including loyalty points/awards given to company (3.7), medical and legal

services (2.9), loyalty points/awards given to employees (2.8), global services (2.8), travel

upgrades (2.8), airline club membership (2.5), concierge services (2.4), and international

companion travel (2.1).


Exhibit 1: Percentage of Organizations with Travel Card Features and the Overall Value of Those Features (where 1=little or no value and 7=very significant value)

Not all travel card features will be of equal value to different type of organizations.

Exhibit 2 on the next page examines the use and value for features broken down by

whether or not the organization’s employees engage in international travel on a regular

basis.1 The Exhibit shows that organizations that engage in international travel on a

regular basis:

► are more likely to use and place significantly greater value on higher spending

limits, medical and legal services, mobile applications to support travel card use

and extended deadlines before a late fee is assessed,2

► are more likely to use and place moderately greater value on cash back to the

company and emergency services, and

► are more likely to use but place no greater value on global services and travel-

related insurance services.

1 An organization is identified as conducting “regular international travel” if it identified as “A multinational company with significant operations and sales in multiple continents around the globe” or answered affirmatively to the question “Does your organization conduct any travel card spending outside of the U.S. and Canada?” Organizations identified as not conducting regular international travel are not multinationals or answer “no” to the aforementioned question.

2 As is our convention throughout this Report, the customer ratings of importance, satisfaction, or value (all measured on 7-point scales) of any group is considered “significantly different” from another group if the mean difference exceeds 0.50. In Exhibit 1 we also highlight areas of moderate difference (0.30 or greater).


Exhibit 2: Percentage of Organizations Using Travel Card Features and the Value Generated by Those Features

Percentage of Organizations

Conducting Regular

International Travel with

Feature

Percentage of Organizations With Little or

No International

Travel with Feature

Difference in Use

Value of Feature to

Organizations Conducting

Regular International

Travel

Value of Feature to

Organizations With Little or

No International

Travel

Difference in Value

Features More Often Used and More Highly Valued by Organizations with Regular Global Travel

Higher spending limits 43% 23% 20% 4.7 3.9 0.8

Medical and legal services 32% 21% 11% 3.1 2.6 0.5

Mobile applications supporting travel card use 25% 15% 10% 4.1 3.6 0.5

Extended deadlines before late fee is assessed 22% 15% 7% 4.0 3.5 0.5

Cash back (rebate) given to company 72% 53% 19% 5.8 5.5 0.3

Emergency services 64% 45% 19% 3.8 3.4 0.4

Features More Often Used by Organizations with Regular Global Travel, But No More nor Less Valued

Global services 16% 8% 8% 2.9 2.7 0.2

Travel-related insurance services 69% 51% 18% 4.3 4.3 0.0

Features Used and Valued Similarly by Organizations with and without Regular Global Travel

Fraud protection 88% 83% 5% 6.2 6.4 -0.2

Loyalty points/awards given to employees 17% 18% -1% 2.3 3.4 -1.1

Features Used Similarly by Those Organizations with and without Regular Global Travel, but Moderately More Valued by Those without Regular Global Travel

Concierge services 14% 10% 4% 2.3 2.7 -0.4

Airline club membership 14% 11% 3% 2.4 2.7 -0.3

Cash back (rebate) given to employees 6% 7% -1% 1.6 2.5 -0.9

Travel upgrades 11% 10% 1% 2.5 3.1 -0.6

International companion travel 6% 7% -1% 1.9 2.5 -0.6

Features More Often Used and More Highly Valued by Organizations without Global Operations

Loyalty points/awards given to company 15% 24% -9% 3.5 4.0 -0.5


Conclusion

Travel card-using organizations most frequently use and more highly value card features

such as fraud protection, cash back rebate given to the company, travel-related

insurance services, and the higher spending limits sometimes needed to support heavy

travel. Some items that are highly valued but less frequently used include mobile

applications supporting travel card use and extended deadlines before a late fee is

assessed. Emergency services are frequently a part of the travel card suite of features

but are rated of moderate value by respondents. Other features of travel cards are both

less frequently used and rated of less value, including loyalty points/awards given to

company, loyalty points/awards given to employees, global services, airline club

membership, concierge services, travel upgrades, and international companion travel.

Organizations engaged in international travel are more likely to use and place greater

value on higher spending limits, medical and legal services, mobile applications to

support travel card use, and extended deadlines before a late fee is assessed. These

same organizations are more likely to use emergency services (global travel services),

assessing the same high (low) value to these features as organizations that do not

conduct regular international travel.

What features would you like to see that do not currently

exist for your travel card program?

Mobile (text) fraud notification.

Director, Global Travel Services, Fortune 500-Size corporation

Integration of travel plans into fraud detection systems to avoid false positives and transactions being declined while employees are traveling.

Procurement Analyst, Fortune 500-Size corporation

Mobile applications for card users with real time verification of suspect transactions.

Manager of Accounts Payable, Large Market corporation

Ability to utilize digital pay app.

Assistant Controller, Middle Market corporation

Mobile application where the card resides on the smart phone for use.

Business Services Supervisor, Government and Not-for-Profit organization

Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Economics, Service, and Support | 17

CHAPTER 03

IMPORTANCE OF AND SATISFACTION WITH

CARD ECONOMICS, SERVICE, AND SUPPORT

This chapter will deal with the first two of the six satisfaction sections. The rest

will be discussed in the following chapter. A historical review of customer

satisfaction responses between 2007 and 2016 is presented in Appendix A of

this report.

Economic Aspects of Travel Cards

Exhibit 3 shows respondent ratings regarding the importance of and satisfaction with ten

factors associated with the economics of travel cards, in descending order of importance.

As shown in the Exhibit, the largest and only significant negative satisfaction gap (-0.59)

relates to rebates/incentives tied to travel card spending.

On the other hand, customer satisfaction with six of the ten financial aspects outweighs

the perceived importance of those factors. The greatest positive satisfaction gaps (where

satisfaction is 0.50 or more greater than importance) are for cash advance fees, loyalty

awards/rewards, late payment fees, and foreign exchange fees.

Exhibit 3: Importance of and Satisfaction with Economic Aspects of Travel Cards (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)

Importance Satisfaction Difference

Economic Item

Liability protection for lost/stolen cards 6.32 6.01 -0.31

Liability protection from card misuse 6.14 5.84 -0.30

Rebates/incentives tied to card spending 5.92 5.33 -0.59

Overall economic relationship with card issuer in relation to travel cards 5.84 5.52 -0.32

Cost of lost/stolen card replacement 5.59 5.86 0.27

Bank fees to obtain travel cards 5.41 5.68 0.27

Late payment fees 4.15 5.10 0.95

Foreign exchange fees 4.01 4.74 0.73

Loyalty awards/rewards 3.57 4.68 1.11

Cash advance fees 2.77 4.84 2.07


Customer Service and Support

Exhibit 4 shows respondent ratings regarding the importance of and satisfaction with

seventeen different aspects of travel card customer service and support, in descending

order of importance. As shown in the Exhibit, notable negative gaps exist in speed of

lost/stolen card replacement (-0.57) and the handling of disputed transactions (-0.53).

Customer ratings of satisfaction significantly exceed importance with regard to several

items of lower importance, including travel management services (1.31), expense

management services (0.76), sponsorship of commercial card "user conferences” or

other training programs (0.74), and the handling of delinquent accounts (0.50).

Exhibit 4: Importance of and Satisfaction with Travel Card Customer Service and Support

(where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)


Customer Service and Support Item

Speed of lost/stolen card replacement 6.20 5.63 -0.57

Handling of disputed transactions 6.14 5.61 -0.53

Friendliness and respect shown by card issuer personnel 5.94 5.80 -0.14

Service and support in travel card program implementation 5.93 5.48 -0.45

Quality of help from "help desk" 5.93 5.45 -0.48

Overall customer service and support 5.88 5.40 -0.48

Average time elapsed for "help desk" to resolve a problem 5.85 5.36 -0.49

Hours of "help desk" availability 5.72 5.54 -0.18

Training materials and support 5.26 4.89 -0.37

Level of assistance in identifying best applications for travel card 5.21 5.03 -0.18

Knowledge of the organization's information systems technology and expense reporting process 5.11 4.85 -0.26

Work with suppliers to ensure quality or suitability of data passed through system 4.81 4.75 -0.06

Assistance in obtaining supplier travel card acceptance 4.72 5.07 0.35

Handling of delinquent accounts 4.65 5.15 0.50

Sponsorship of commercial card "User Conferences" or other training programs 4.04 4.78 0.74

Expense management services 4.00 4.76 0.76

Travel management services 3.29 4.60 1.31


A Historical Perspective

As noted above, Appendix A of this Report provides the reader with a history of customer

satisfaction responses for both economic items and customer service and support items

for the years 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2016. A review of those figures shows that

customer satisfaction ratings:

► increased for 9 of the 10 items relating to economic aspects of the travel card

(shown in Exhibit 3) and stayed the same for another item between 2013 and 2016,

and

► held steady or increased for 16 of the 17 aspects of customer service and support

(shown in Exhibit 4) that were previously reported between 2013 and 2016.

Taken together, it appears that card issuers are making ongoing efforts to maintain a

viable economic proposition with travel cards and are investing in their operations to

maintain customer satisfaction.

Importance and Satisfaction by Market Segment

Appendix B of this Report provides the reader with respondent evaluations of importance

and satisfaction with economic and customer service and support items for Fortune 500-

Size Corporations, Large Market Corporations, Middle Market Corporations, and

Government and Not-for-Profit Organizations.

Conclusion

Customer satisfaction with the economic aspects of the travel card and elements of

customer service and support has risen steadily over the past decade.

In terms of the economic relationship with the card issuer, the greatest positive

satisfaction gaps (where satisfaction is greater than importance) are for cash advance

fees, loyalty awards/rewards, late payment fees, and foreign exchange fees. Customers

continue to report significant negative importance-satisfaction gaps for rebates/incentives

tied to travel card spending.

In terms of customer service, we report notable positive importance-satisfaction gaps for

travel management services, expense management services, sponsorship of commercial

card “user conferences” or other training programs, and the handling of delinquent

accounts. Conversely, notable negative gaps remain for the speed of lost/stolen card

replacement and the handling of disputed transactions.


What aspects of your relationship with your card issuer

(product, features, service) have been particularly

appreciated by or valuable to your organization?

The service has been outstanding. Help with reporting and other issues has been quick, clear and effective. We have received more value from the reporting that anticipated.

Controller, Middle Market corporation

Rebate, global acceptance of brand, extended grace period for before late fees are assessed; consideration of late fee reversal.

Business Process Manager, Large Market corporation

The management of our card issuer understands our systems and needs. We have a great rapport with them.

Travel Management Supervisor, Fortune 500-Size corporation

The cardholder conferences have been very valuable.

Manager AP, Large Market corporation

Great customer service and customizable programming without cost to our company.

Card Administrator, Fortune 500-Size corporation

We really appreciate the service level that is provided around administration of the program.

Accounts Payable Team, Fortune 500-Size corporation

Customer service for the cardholder and the administrators the most valued.

Commercial Card Administrator, Fortune 500-Size corporation

The customer service is phenomenal. The technical support team is always ready to help us and can get us any data we need within a few hours.

Manager, Accounting Operations and Systems, Government and Not-for-Profit organization

Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Technology and Reporting | 21

CHAPTER 04

IMPORTANCE OF AND SATISFACTION WITH

CARD TECHNOLOGY AND REPORTING

Capturing relevant transaction data and integrating that data into existing

organizational information systems is of significant value to travel card-using

organizations. The challenge of integration continues to grow as card-supportive

software packages evolve and improve. For example, with appropriate software

and systems, card data can now be expected to integrate with general

accounting software packages, travel booking software, Enterprise Resource

Planning (ERP) software, data mining/audit software, tax estimation software,

and expense management software. In addition, the technology that enables the

program administrator to manage the travel card program and create the reports

that allow the organization to analyze, understand, control, and leverage travel

card spending is a very important aspect of the travel card value proposition. This

chapter will review all of the items related to travel card information technology as

well as the reporting process.

Data Capture

Exhibit 5 on the next page shows fifteen data elements often associated with travel card

transactions, including one overall measure of customer satisfaction with the capture of

transaction data. It is important to recognize that the description of the item rated as most

important (the overall capture of transaction-related information) indicates that customers

are looking for a portfolio of data elements and that no one particular data point dominates

in importance with regard to data capture. A variety of data elements have a satisfaction

score that is significantly higher than the corresponding rating of importance, including

carbon emission data related to travel purchases (1.59), taxpayer identification number

(1.07), VAT tax information (1.07), airline data (travel leg) (0.74), airline data (city pairs)

(0.74), hotel street address (0.73), and fare basis code (0.56). The item “overall capture of

transaction-related information” has the largest negative importance-satisfaction gap

(-0.39) in the group. Hotel folio information was the only data element about which

respondent satisfaction rated below the importance of the data point itself (-0.30).


Exhibit 5: Importance of and Satisfaction with Travel Card Data Capture (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)


Data Capture Item

Overall capture of transaction-related information 4.92 4.53 -0.39

Hotel folio data 4.32 4.02 -0.30

Airline data (itinerary) 4.23 4.41 0.18

Airline data (seats purchased by service class) 4.07 4.20 0.13

Airline data (seat upgrade data) 3.98 4.04 0.06

Sales tax information 3.87 4.17 0.30

Airline data (city pairs) 3.82 4.56 0.74

Enhanced auto rental data 3.80 3.98 0.18

Airline data (travel leg) 3.71 4.45 0.74

Information to support discount negotiations with travel service providers 3.64 3.93 0.29

Fare basis code 3.63 4.19 0.56

Hotel street address 3.49 4.22 0.73

VAT tax information 3.12 4.19 1.07

Taxpayer identification number 3.09 4.16 1.07

Carbon emission data related to travel purchases 2.10 3.69 1.59

Data Integration

Exhibit 6 on the next page shows respondent ratings of the importance and satisfaction with

eight items associated with data integration, in descending order of importance. As shown

in the Exhibit, customers report significant negative gaps between importance and

satisfaction relating to ability to integrate travel card data into resource planning, general

ledger, or AP applications (-0.57), and overall integration of travel card data with

organizational information systems (-0.56). Customer ratings of satisfaction significantly

exceed importance with regard to the ability to consolidate multiple North American site

spending into one report (0.66).

It is important to note that, as shown in Appendix A, customer satisfaction for five out of the

six data integration items tracked over the past decade increased between 2013 and 2016

(including the ability to transfer travel card data to expense reporting system, the overall

integration of travel card data with organizational information systems, the ability to integrate

travel card data into resource planning, general ledger, or AP applications, the ease with

which travel card spending is allocated to appropriate cost center, the ease with which travel

card spending can be reconciled with other organizational data about travel card purchases,

and the ability to transfer travel information to expense reporting system. Only for the ability

to transfer travel spending data to expense reports was there a slight decline in customer

satisfaction. Further, for all six repeated questions on data integration we found an

improvement in the gap between importance and satisfaction.


Exhibit 6: Importance of and Satisfaction with Aspects of Travel Card Data Integration



Data Integration Item

Ability to transfer travel card data to expense reporting system 5.63 5.19 -0.44

Overall integration of travel card data with organizational information systems 5.61 5.05 -0.56

Ability to integrate travel card data into resource planning, general ledger, or AP applications 5.52 4.95 -0.57

Ease with which travel card spending is allocated to appropriate cost center 5.47 5.20 -0.27

Ease with which travel card spending can be reconciled with other organizational data about travel card purchases 5.29 4.90 -0.39

Ability to transfer travel information (other than from travel card) to expense reporting system 5.05 4.79 -0.26

Ability to consolidate multiple global site spending into one report 4.31 4.71 0.40

Ability to consolidate multiple North American site spending into one report 4.19 4.84 0.65

Card Program Management

Exhibit 7 on the next page shows respondent ratings of the importance of and

satisfaction with eleven travel card-related program management capabilities, in

descending order of importance. Generally, respondents place greatest importance on

card program management capabilities that enable them to self-manage their card

programs in real-time. Specifically, respondents place the highest importance on the

card program administrator’s real-time ability to (1) modify spending limits (2)

terminate/order travel cards (3) obtain access to information on card spending

approvals/declines (4) perform cardholder data maintenance.

There are no notable positive or negative satisfaction gaps associated with travel card

program management capabilities. However, it should be noted that the level of

customer satisfaction for all eleven items increased between 2013 and 2016 (see

Appendix A).


Exhibit 7: Importance of and Satisfaction with Software Technology Features Related to Travel Card Program Management (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)


Ability of the Card Administrator to:

Modify spending limits in real time 6.46 6.11 -0.35

Terminate/order travel cards in real time 6.39 6.13 -0.26

Obtain real-time access to information on card spending approvals/declines 6.34 5.84 -0.50

Perform cardholder data maintenance in real time 6.15 5.99 -0.16

Overall ability of card issuer technology to support travel card program management 5.97 5.59 -0.38

Self-manage the travel card program 5.72 5.46 -0.26

Monitor card program metrics 5.38 5.17 -0.21

Automate workflow processing for expenditure approval 5.14 5.22 0.08

Use technology to validate account codes 4.86 4.93 0.07

Allocate travel card spending to separate accounts on an ad hoc basis 4.81 5.26 0.45

Access administrative tools via mobile or tablet device 4.53 4.66 0.13

Reporting Technology

Card issuer reports related to travel card activity are basic tools that enable card administrators to better

manage and evaluate the success of their card programs. Exhibit 8 on the next page displays

respondent ratings of the importance of and satisfaction with fifteen aspects of travel card reporting, in

descending order of importance.

Card issuer reporting of travel card spending continues to be a major area of improvement potential, given

that there are significant negative gaps between the importance and satisfaction for six of the fifteen

elements of reporting presented in the Exhibit, including the five most important items. However, this a

marked improvement over 2013, where 10 items had notable negative gaps (see Appendix A).

The largest negative gaps occur between the ratings of importance and satisfaction for the ability to

customize reports (-0.83), the ability to track disputed transactions (-0.74), the readability of reports (-0.64),

the overall reporting package (-0.64), the integrity of data contained in reports (-0.54), and access to

past/present cardholder statements (-0.52).

On a positive note, Appendix A reports that customer satisfaction has improved on four of the six items

with notable negative satisfaction gaps and nine out of the fifteen items in total between 2013 and 2016.

Customer satisfaction related to the other six items (readability of reports, the ability to track disputed

transactions, the ability of cardholders to obtain statements by e-mail or from internet/intranet, the support

provided in development and/or interpretation of reports, the ability to analyze spending patterns, and the

ability to track payment delinquencies) did not change between 2013 and 2016.


Exhibit 8: Importance of and Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Reporting Technology (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)


Reporting Item

Readability of reports 6.09 5.44 -0.65

Access to past/present cardholder statements 6.06 5.54 -0.52

Integrity of data contained in reports 6.05 5.51 -0.54

Overall reporting package 5.90 5.26 -0.64

Ability to customize reports 5.79 4.96 -0.83

Length of transaction history 5.76 5.56 -0.20

Ability to track disputed transactions 5.74 5.00 -0.74

Ability of cardholders to obtain statements by e-mail or from internet/intranet 5.49 5.41 -0.08

Support provided in development and/or interpretation of reports 5.46 4.98 -0.48

Ability to analyze spending patterns 5.44 4.98 -0.46

Ease of submitting expense reports to proper person for approval 5.40 5.26 -0.14

Card misuse analytics 5.25 4.79 -0.46

Ability to track payment delinquencies 4.53 4.94 0.41

Ability to access travel card reports on mobile or tablet devices 4.53 4.60 0.07

Ability to locate a traveler in an emergency 4.47 4.68 0.21

A Historical Perspective

Appendix A of this Report provides the reader with a history of customer satisfaction responses

for data capture, data integration, program management, and travel card reporting for the years

2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2016. A review of those figures shows that customer satisfaction

ratings on:

► all 15 items relating to data capture (shown in Exhibit 5) that have been tracked for more

than one survey iteration slightly decreased or stayed the same between 2013 and 2016,

► five of the six items related to data integration (shown in Exhibit 6) that have been tracked

for more than one survey iteration increased between 2013 and 2016,

► all 11 survey items relating to travel card program management software features and

capabilities (shown in Exhibit 7) increased between 2013 and 2016, and

► all 15 survey items relating to travel card reporting (shown in Exhibit 8) stayed the same or

increased between 2013 and 2016.


Importance and Satisfaction by Market Segment

Appendix B of this Report provides the reader with respondent evaluations of importance

and satisfaction with data capture, data integration, card program management features,

and reporting technology items for Fortune 500-Size corporations, Large Market

corporations, Middle Market corporations and Government and Not-for-Profit

organizations.

Conclusion

Capturing relevant transactional data and integrating that data into existing organizational

information systems is of significant value to travel card-using organizations. In addition,

being able to extract and manage key information about travel card program performance

from reports is a major factor in travel card value.

For data capture, the most important item is the “overall capture of transaction-related

data” signifying that users are looking for a breadth of information, and not solely one

specific item. A variety of data elements captured in travel card transactions have a

satisfaction score that is significantly higher than the corresponding rating of importance,

including carbon emission data related to travel purchases, taxpayer identification

number, VAT tax information, airline data (travel leg), airline data (city pairs), hotel street

address, and fare basis code.

Regarding the integration of travel card data into accounting and ERP systems,

we find that customer satisfaction for most aspects of data integration increased

between 2013 and 2016.

For program management technology, the most important items relate to the ability of the

user to self-manage and control travel card program spending on a real-time basis.

There are no notable positive or negative satisfaction gaps associated with travel card

program management capabilities. Further, the level of customer satisfaction for all

survey items relating to travel card program management software features and

capabilities increased between 2013 and 2016.

Travel card spend reporting appears to be a “pain point” for users, with significant

negative gaps between importance and satisfaction reported for items of higher

importance, including the ability to customize reports, the ability to track disputed

transactions, the readability of reports, the overall reporting package, the integrity of data

contained in reports, and access to past/present cardholder statements. On a positive

note, customer satisfaction improved on many reporting features and items between

2013 and 2016.


What aspects of your relationship with your card issuer

(product, features, service) have been particularly

appreciated by or valuable to your organization?

The card management system works great. Changes are fairly simple to make.

Card Administrator, Middle Market corporation

Travel card data is easy to retrieve and self-manage. High level of acceptability by merchants globally.

Administrator, Fortune 500-Size corporation

Account maintenance using web portal.

T&E Manager, Fortune 500-Size corporation

Real time data management for day-to-day administrative duties (i.e. via card issuer web-based platform), reporting functionality, and cardholder support.

Global Card Manager, Fortune 500-Size corporation

Product team meets with us on a regular basis to discuss possible feature enhancements and issues.

Procurement Analyst, Fortune 500-Size corporation

Ability to transfer data to our ERP.

Business Services Supervisor, Government and Not-for-Profit organization

The ability to change cost centers and general ledger codes real time before integrating charges into our system.

T&E Administrator, Large Market corporation

Being able to do transactions in real time is excellent. The monthly training sessions about the new software upgrades are appreciated. Fraud protection and notifications to card holders is quick, efficient and valuable.

Assistant Director of University Payables, Government and Not-for-Profit organization

The ease of online capabilities to make real-time updates is very much appreciated.

Human Resources, Middle Market corporation

Critical Dimensions of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction | 28

CHAPTER 05

CRITICAL DIMENSIONS OF

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the importance of and

customer satisfaction with key areas of travel card program value, examine areas

of the travel card program that are most important to respondents, and review the

biggest gaps (and opportunities for improvement) in current card issuer

performance.

A Comprehensive Look at the Importance of and Satisfaction with

Key Areas of Travel Card Program Value

Exhibit 9 on the next page summarizes the six comprehensive “overall” importance and

satisfaction questions in the areas of travel card (1) economics, (2) customer service,

(3) data capture, (4) data integration, (5) program management technology, and

(6) reporting, in descending order of importance. The Exhibit reveals that the ability of

bank technology to support travel card program management (5.97), the reporting

package (5.90), and customer service and support (5.88) are the three most important

“overall” issues for customers. Please note that the importance of a specific sub-element

within these categories may have a higher importance rating than the overall rating. The

largest overall gaps between importance and customer satisfaction involve the reporting

package (-0.64) and the integration of travel card data with the organizational information

system (-0.56).

The comprehensive overall gap analysis reflects ongoing improvement in the travel card

product offering. In comparison to 2013, all of the gaps between importance and

satisfaction have grown smaller, most notably for the overall ability of bank technology to

support travel card program management (with a gap of -0.62 in 2013), the overall

reporting package (with a gap of -0.81 in 2013), customer service and support (with a gap

of -0.60 in 2013), and the overall integration of travel card data with the organizational

information system (with a gap of -0.80 in 2013).


Exhibit 9: Summary of “Overall” Gap Analysis (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)


Card Issuer Satisfaction Item

Overall ability of card issuer technology to support travel card program management 5.97 5.59 -0.38


Overall customer service and support 5.88 5.40 -0.48

Overall economic relationship with card issuer in relation to travel cards 5.84 5.52 -0.32


Overall capture of transaction-related information 4.92 4.53 -0.39

Items of Greatest Importance

Exhibit 10 on the next page identifies the ten items with the highest ratings of importance out of the

76 questions presented in the previous two chapters, the customers’ satisfaction ratings for those items,

and the gaps between importance and satisfaction. Within these ten items, three major themes of

emerge:

► “real-time” program management (modify spending limits in real time, terminate/order travel cards

in real time, obtain real-time access to information on card spending approvals/declines, and

perform cardholder data maintenance in real time),

► reporting technology (including the readability of reports, and access to past/present cardholder

statements), and

► governance and risk management (including liability protection for lost/stolen cards, speed of

lost/stolen card replacement, and the handling of disputed transactions).

The Exhibit also communicates key areas of improvement potential that would enable card-using

organizations to further advance their travel card product. Specifically, the Exhibit indicates that card-

using customers would benefit the most from improvements related to real-time travel card program

management, improvements in the handling of lost/stolen cards, more readable reports, better handling

of disputed transactions, and easier access to past/present cardholder statements.

In comparison to 2013, customer satisfaction has increased for seven of the ten most important items,

including the top three most important elements (modifying spending limits in real time,

terminating/ordering travel cards in real time, and obtaining real-time access to information on card

spending approvals/declines). However, customer satisfaction with the readability of reports did not

change in comparison to 2013, and two items report slight declines in customer satisfaction since then

(liability protection for lost/stolen cards and the speed of lost/stolen card replacement).


Exhibit 10: Importance/Satisfaction Gaps of the Ten Most Important Travel Card Aspects




Modify spending limits in real time 6.46 6.11 -0.35

Terminate/order travel cards in real time 6.39 6.13 -0.26

Obtain real-time access to information on card spending approvals/declines 6.34 5.85 -0.49

Liability protection for lost/stolen cards 6.32 6.01 -0.31


Perform cardholder data maintenance in real time 6.15 5.99 -0.16

Liability protection from card misuse 6.14 5.84 -0.30



Access to past/present cardholder statements 6.06 5.54 -0.52

Ten Largest Gaps between Importance and Customer Satisfaction

Exhibit 11 on the next page presents the ten items with the largest importance-satisfaction gaps out of the

76 questions presented in the previous two chapters. The top ten gap items convey several important points.

First, only three items with large importance-satisfaction gaps rank in the top ten of the most important items

in the survey (the readability of reports, the speed of lost/stolen card replacement, and the handling of

disputed transactions as shown in Exhibit 10). Second, travel card spend reporting, analysis, and control

appears to be the major theme in seven of the ten items with the largest importance-satisfaction gaps.

► Travel card spend reporting, including:

o the ability to customize reports,

o the ability to track disputed transactions,

o the overall reporting package.

o the readability of reports,

o the integrity of data contained in reports,

► The second theme that arises in examining the largest gaps between customer satisfaction and

importance relates to the integration of travel card data with organizational systems as shown in

responses such as:

o the ability to integrate travel card data into resource planning, general ledger, or AP applications,

and

o the overall integration of travel card data with organizational information systems,

► Other major gaps of significance between importance and satisfaction include:

o rebates and incentives tied to card spending,

o speed of lost/stolen card replacement, and

o handling of disputed transactions.


Exhibit 11: Ten Largest Negative Gaps between Importance and Customer Satisfaction (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)



Ability to customize reports 5.79 4.96 -0.83

Ability to track disputed transactions 5.74 5.00 -0.74



Rebates/incentives tied to card spending 5.92 5.33 -0.59


Ability to integrate travel card data into resource planning, general ledger, or AP applications 5.52 4.95 -0.57


Integrity of data contained in reports 6.05 5.51 -0.54


Conclusion

The chapter summarizes customer ratings of the “overall” importance of and satisfaction

with travel card economics, customer service and support, data integration, data capture,

program management technology, and reporting. The results indicate that the ability of

bank technology to support travel card program management, the reporting package, and

customer service and support are the three most important “overall” issues for customers.

At a more detailed level, there are three particular service categories of highest

importance to travel card-using organizations: (1) “real-time” program management

capabilities, (2) reporting technology (including the readability of reports, and access to

past/present cardholder statements), and (3) risk management (including liability

protection for lost/stolen cards, speed of lost/stolen card replacement, and the handling of

disputed transactions) are of highest importance to customers.

The largest gaps between customer ratings of importance and their satisfaction primarily

relate to travel card spend reporting. Other gaps are noted in the integration of data into

the organization’s accounting and other systems, rebates and incentives tied to card

spending, speed of lost/stolen card replacement, and handling of disputed transactions.

Customer Satisfaction and Travel 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Program Performance | 32

CHAPTER 06

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND

TRAVEL CARD PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize and evaluate the customer ratings of

the importance of and satisfaction with travel card economics, customer service

and support, data integration, data capture, program management technology,

and reporting. More specifically, we provide an overview of the importance of

and customer satisfaction with key areas of travel card program value, examine

areas of the travel card program that are most important to respondents, and

review the biggest gaps (and opportunities for improvement) in current card

issuer performance.

“Best Practice” Satisfaction with Card Issuer

“Best Practice” (BP) and “Needs Improvement” (NI) travel card programs (as constructed

in Chapter 12 of the main report entitled, “Best Practice: Key Program Performance

Measures” of the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results) have different

relationships with their card issuers, with some of those differences reflecting company

priorities and requirements about travel cards. Further the main report showed large

program performance differences between BP and NI travel card programs, including

over 4 times higher average monthly spending on the travel card ($2,267,083 versus

$516,813), over 4 times higher monthly travel card spending per employee ($305 versus

$70), a significantly higher percentage of travel spending paid by travel cards (88%

versus 64%), and about 5 times the annual travel card spending as a percent of sales

revenue (2.5% versus 0.5%).

Given the large differences in spending and card capture statistics between BP and NI

travel card programs, one might expect to find differences in travel card program priorities

and card issuer service levels being experienced by these two groups. To address this

point, Exhibit 12 on the next page shows the importance and satisfaction ratings of BP

and NI card-using organizations across six overall aspects of card use.


The Exhibit indicates that, in comparison to NI travel card programs, BP programs report:

► notable differences in how important the overall economic relationship with their

card issuer is in relation to travel cards (6.13 versus 5.61) and the capture of travel

card data (5.25 versus 4.73),

► notable differences in their level of satisfaction with overall customer service and

support (5.77 versus 5.19) and overall integration of travel card data with

organizational information systems (5.38 versus 4.75). There are also large

differences in the overall economic relationship with card issuer in relation to

corporate travel cards (5.83 versus 5.35) and the overall ability of bank technology

to support travel card program management (5.86 versus 5.42).

In summary, it appears that organizations with BP travel card programs assign greater

importance to the economic outcomes and data received from travel card use than NI

counterparts. Further, there is a pattern of higher satisfaction with card issuer

performance, in particular as it relates to the integration of travel card data into the

organization’s accounting/information systems, customer service and support, and the

economic outcomes associated with travel card use.

Exhibit 12: Importance of and Satisfaction with Card Issuer Deliverables, by “Best Practice” and “Needs Improvement” Travel Card Programs (where 1=not very important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)

Best Practice Needs Improvement

Import-

ance Satis-

faction Gap

Import-ance

Satis-faction

Gap


Overall economic relationship with card issuer in relation to corporate travel cards 6.13 5.83 -0.30 5.61 5.35 -0.26

Overall customer service and support 5.88 5.77 -0.11 5.84 5.19 -0.65

Overall capture of transaction-related information 5.25 4.55 -0.70 4.73 4.42 -0.31

Overall integration of travel card data with organizational information systems 5.85 5.38 -0.47 5.47 4.75 -0.72

Overall ability of bank technology to support travel card program management 6.01 5.86 -0.15 5.90 5.42 -0.48

Overall reporting package 5.97 5.41 -0.56 5.80 5.15 -0.65


Expanded View of Satisfaction and Travel Card Program Performance

To expand upon the relationship of satisfaction and program performance, we performed

a simple analysis. First, we added the satisfaction scores (ranging from 1 to 7) of the 76

attributes relating to travel cards as shown in the last two chapters. Then, we divided the

summed satisfaction score for these items by the total number of questions (76) to get a

composite satisfaction score that ranged from 1 to 7. We then placed respondents in one

of two groups—those that had a composite satisfaction score that was either in the top or

bottom quartile of all survey responses within three size categories (less than 3,000

employees, 3,000 to 9,999 employees, and 10,000 or more employees). We then made

one high satisfaction (low satisfaction) group by combining the customers with

satisfaction in the top (bottom) quartile across the three size categories. Respondents

with top quartile composite satisfaction scores are labeled the “High Satisfaction” group

while those with a bottom quartile composite satisfaction score are labeled the “Low

Satisfaction” group.

Exhibit 13 on the following page shows the key organizational and card program

performance statistics of the High Satisfaction and Low Satisfaction groups. The Exhibit

reveals that the High and Low Satisfaction group have a similar percentage of employees

that travel on business more than twice per year (around 31%), yet the High Satisfaction

group provides a significantly higher percentage of its employees with travel cards

(19.5% versus 12.3%). Furthermore, in comparison to Low Satisfaction organizations,

organizations in the High Satisfaction group have:

► 26% higher average monthly travel card spending ($990,523 versus $785,588) and

25% higher monthly travel card spending per employee ($166 versus $133),

► a higher percentage of travel spending paid with travel cards (78% versus 70%),

and

► a significantly lower percentage of respondents that are currently considering

switching card issuers (4% versus 21%).

In addition to policies about the level of card distribution, another key difference between

the High and Low Satisfaction group relates to a mandate requiring employees to use the

organization’s travel card. As shown in the Exhibit, the High Satisfaction group is

significantly more likely mandate use of the travel card (78% versus 44%).


Further, Exhibit 13 shows that, in comparison to the Low Satisfaction group, the High

Satisfaction group members are more likely to require mandatory initial training for new

cardholders (65% versus 52%) and approving supervisors (48% versus 36%), require a

credit check of employees prior to giving them a travel card (15% versus 9%),

review/investigate declined transactions (87% versus 71%), conduct data mining of travel

card transactions (72% versus 53%), evaluate spending patterns of cardholders with a

high number of disputed transactions (56% versus 36%), and have Internal Audit or other

authority evaluate and report on the adequacy of key travel card program controls (78%

versus 69%).

There is one item conducted more commonly by Low Satisfaction group members which

may speak to a degree of trepidation about driving travel spending to their travel card, to

wit: they are more likely to cancel the travel cards of infrequent travelers (50% versus

31%).

In summary, it appears high satisfaction with travel card issuer performance across a

spectrum of deliverable (economic, service and support, data capture, integration of card

data with business information systems, capabilities of travel card software, and

reporting) is associated with higher card distribution, higher travel card spending, card-

promotive mandates, and greater activities to maintain control over travel card activities.

A significantly important outcome of high satisfaction is that it reduces the organization’s

interest in considering switching card issuers, an activity that is costly for both user and

issuer.


Exhibit 13: Organization Statistics and Travel Card Program Performance of Similar-Size

Organizations with High and Low Overall Satisfaction

High

Satisfaction Low

Satisfaction Percentage Difference

Organization Statistics

Number of employees 5,978 5,895 1%

Age of travel card program (in years) 9.80 10.44 -6%

Percentage of employees that travel on business more than twice per year 31.9% 30.3% 5%

Program Performance Measures

Number of travel cards 1,166 739 58%

Travel card-to-employee ratio 19.5% 12.3% 59%

Average monthly travel card spending $990,523 $785,588 26%

Monthly travel card spending per employee $166 $133 25%

Percentage of travel spending captured on travel cards (including plastic, ghost, and EAP) 78% 70% 11%

Management Policy

Percentage of organizations that mandate use of travel card for travel-related expenditures 78% 44% 77%

Training Percentage of organizations that have…

Mandatory initial training requirements for new cardholders 65% 52% 25%

Mandatory initial training requirements for individuals who approve card spending 48% 36% 33%

Control and Compliance Percentage of organizations that…

Require a credit check of employees prior to giving them a travel card 15% 9% 67%

Cancel travel cards of infrequent travelers 31% 50% -38%

Review/investigate declined transactions 87% 71% 23%

Conduct data mining of travel card transactions 72% 53% 36%

Evaluate spending patterns of cardholders with a high number of disputed transactions 56% 36% 56%

Have Internal Audit or other authority evaluate and report on the adequacy of key travel card program controls 78% 69% 13%

Intent to Switch

Percentage of organizations that are currently considering switching travel card issuers 4% 21% -81%


Satisfaction with Financial Incentives and Travel Card Program

Performance: Does a Connection Exist?

Card issuers often provide financial incentives (i.e., rebates based on spending levels) to

encourage greater use of the travel card. To better understand the relationship between

those incentives and travel card spending performance, Exhibit 14 shows that average

monthly travel card spending per employee for Fortune 500-Size and Large Market

corporations is positively associated with improvements in their level of satisfaction with

rebates/incentives tied to card spending.3 Companies with lower satisfaction with rebates

(1 to 4 on a 7-point scale) report monthly travel card spending per employee of $163,

while companies reporting the highest level of satisfaction (7) report average monthly

travel card spending that is over twice that amount ($338).

There is a “chicken or the egg” quality to this relationship and the reader should be

cautioned regarding the inferences that may be drawn. While it may be true that

satisfaction with rebates or incentives drives travel card spending, it is equally plausible

that higher travel card spending itself results in higher rebates which, in turn, are

generating greater organizational satisfaction with incentives.

Exhibit 14: Monthly Travel Card Spending per Employee among Fortune 500-Size and Large Market Corporations, by Level of Satisfaction with Rebates/Incentives Tied to Card Spending (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied with rebates/incentives tied to card spending)

3 We limit our analysis to Fortune 500-Size and Large Market corporations to minimize the impact of organizational size as it relates to incentives. Among the different levels of satisfaction, there is no pattern to suggest that one group or the other (Fortune 500-Size or Large Market) is more or less satisfied.


Conclusion

This chapter examined the relationship between customer satisfaction and travel card

program performance from three different angles. First, we report that high-performing

BP travel card programs assign greater importance to the economic outcomes and data

received from travel card use than NI counterparts. Further, BP programs display a

pattern of higher satisfaction with card issuer performance, in particular as it relates to the

integration of travel card data into the organization’s accounting/information systems,

customer service and support, and the economic outcomes associated with travel card

use.

Second, we report that high aggregate satisfaction with travel card issuer performance is

associated with higher card distribution, higher travel card spending, card-promotive

mandates, and greater activities to maintain control over travel card activities. A

significantly important outcome of high satisfaction is a multifold reduction in the

organization’s interest in considering switching card issuers, an activity that is costly for

both user and issuer.

Third, we looked more closely at one component of customer satisfaction— financial

incentives tied to card spending—and its relation to travel card program spending. We

found that that average monthly travel card spending per employee for Fortune 500-Size

and Large Market corporations is positively associated with improvements in the level of

satisfaction with rebates/incentives tied to card spending. It should be noted that, while

satisfaction with financial incentives drives travel card spending, higher travel card

spending itself results in higher incentives, which in turn, drive greater organizational

satisfaction with incentives.

Customer Rationale for 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Intent to Switch Card Issuers | 39

CHAPTER 07

CUSTOMER RATIONALE FOR

INTENT TO SWITCH CARD ISSUERS

Switching card issuers is a business decision that can be costly for both the

customer and the card issuer. The purpose of this chapter is to determine the

extent to which organizations are considering switching card issuers and to

understand the reasons for those intentions.

Consideration of Switching Norms

As shown in Exhibit 15(a), currently 13% of respondents indicate that they are

considering switching card issuers. This figure is part of a continued decline since 2009

and a drop of 1 percentage point from the 2013 figure.

Exhibit 15(a): Percentage of Respondents Considering Switching Card

Issuers, 2007-2016


Exhibit 15(b) reveals that the intent to switch varies by category of respondent.

Specifically, the intent to switch card issuers has decreased among Fortune 500-Size

corporations (going from 21% in 2013 to 16% in 2016). The Large Market group had a

small decrease from 17% in 2013 to 15% in 2016, while the Middle Market group

experienced a modest increase from 8% in 2013 to 10% in 2016. The Government and

Not-for-Profit Organizations remained the same, with 12% considering switching card

issuers.

Exhibit 15(b): Percentage of Respondents Considering Switching Card Issuers, by Corporations and Government and Not-for-Profit Organizations,

2007-2016

Exhibit 16 on the next page provides importance of various reasons for switching card

issuers as rated by those who have switched card issuers in the past three years. The

Exhibit indicates that inadequate revenue sharing with rebates, up-front financial

incentive provided by another issuer, drawing near or at the end of current contract term

with issuer, customer service and support, and limited ability to gain insights from card

data and reporting tools are some of the most important factors prompting the switching

decision.


Exhibit 16: Importance of Reasons for Currently Considering Switching Card Issuers (where 1=not important and 7=very important)

Conclusion

Switching card issuers is a costly activity for both the card issuer and the card-using

organization. About 13% of survey respondents indicate that they are currently

considering switching their card issuer, down from 14% in 2013. Inadequate revenue

sharing with rebates, up-front financial incentives provided by another issuer, and

benefits from consolidation of banking business are the most important reasons the

consideration for switching travel card issuers.

2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Other Reports of Interest | 42

CHAPTER 08

OTHER REPORTS OF INTEREST

There are two other reports to the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark

Survey Results that may be of interest to the reader described below:

Market Trends and Best Practices

This “main report” of the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results

provides a comprehensive independent examination of the organizational use of travel

cards, travel card spending growth trends and areas of potential growth, customer goals

for travel card use, travel card policies and objectives, the impact of mobile technology

and the sharing economy on travel management and payment practices, travel card

program control and compliance trends, travel expense reporting and management

technology trends, global aspects of travel card use, “best practices” relating to travel

card utilization, liability trends, and issues relating to card misuse. There are two other

companion reports that are part of the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Results.

Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size

In “Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size,” we provide benchmark data to

evaluate travel card programs, broken down within corporate (by size and industry) and

government and not-for-profit sectors (states and state agencies, city and county

governments, colleges and universities, school districts, and not-for-profit organizations).

2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Conclusion | 43

CONCLUSION

Throughout all three reports in the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey, we

focus on enabling organizations to assess their travel card program performance and

identify specific ways the program can be improved. It should be noted that travel card

spending tends to move in harmony with larger economic events. As shown in our

survey responses and widely known throughout the marketplace, most organizations

remain vigilant in their efforts to control costs wherever possible. Right or wrong, at or

near the top of the discretionary cost lists for most organizations is travel spending.

Consequently, comparisons of results reported in this document with our previous survey

results must be considered in the light of changing contemporary economic

circumstances.

We hope the data and analyses presented in this report will enable card users and

issuers to focus their efforts to improve travel card program performance and sustain

controlled growth of travel card spending. We urge organizations to consider the various

activities associated with “best practice” identified in this and in Chapter 23 of the “main

report,” including (but not limited to) expanded card distribution with appropriate line of

credit, a travel policy that mandates card use for travel expenditures, appropriate

governance and control activities, investment in technologies that integrate with and

enhance the benefits delivered by the travel card program, measurement of travel

expense management process performance, and use of travel card data to improve

employee compliance with policies and drive further cost savings.

2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Acknowledgements | 44

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to Visa, MasterCard

Worldwide, and their travel card issuers—including Bank of America Merrill Lynch, BMO

Harris Bank, Citibank, Comdata, Elan Financial Services, HSBC, J.P. Morgan Chase,

PNC Bank, Scotiabank, SunTrust Bank, U.S. Bank, U.S. Bank Canada, and Wells

Fargo—for their participation in the survey. Additionally, they would like to thank the

National Association of Purchasing Card Professionals and the National Institute of

Governmental Purchasing for apprising their members of survey availability. Finally, a

hearty thanks goes out to the over 1,300 participant organizations who took valuable time

out of their schedules to make this study a reality.

The authors would also like to particularly acknowledge the support and insight of James

Brandt and Nathan Palmer whose diligent assistance was critical to the success of the

project. In addition, the authors express their gratitude to Natalie Reinhart and Sandra

Brandt for their contribution to the analysis and representation of information. In addition,

the authors thank Tina Raynes of Washington University in St. Louis and Amit Khetan of

Sumirama Technosoft Ltd. for their assistance in the administration of the study. Last,

but not least, the authors would like to thank their family members for enduring the many

long hours needed to bring these results to the marketplace in a timely manner.

2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results About the Authors | 45

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Richard J. Palmer, Ph.D., C.P.A., C.M.A.

is a Professor of Accounting and Copper Dome Faculty Fellow in the Harrison College of

Business at Southeast Missouri State University. Previously, he held positions at

Washington University in St. Louis, Eastern Illinois University, and the University of

Tennessee, he held management positions in both public accounting and the banking

industry. Richard is a frequent speaker at commercial card conferences and is the author

of over 60 professional and academic publications, including award-winning articles

about industry use of e-procurement tools and bank commercial cards. His e-commerce

and commercial card insights have been quoted in U.S. Senate hearings, the Wall Street

Journal, ABC News Good Morning America, CNN Money, CBS News MarketWatch,

American Banker, Business Finance, Purchasing, CFO, Cost Management, Treasury and

Risk Management, Financial Executive, Credit Card News, Cards International, Credit

Card Management, Federal Times, Journal of Payments Strategy and Systems,

Government Procurement, and Business Integration.

Mahendra Gupta, Ph.D.

is a Virgil Professor of Accounting and Management at the Olin School of Business at

Washington University in St. Louis. He received his Ph.D. from Stanford University and

M.S. from Carnegie Mellon University. Mahendra has been a consultant to various

financial service and manufacturing firms, as well as government agencies. His writings

have appeared in top accounting and management journals. Professor Gupta also

served on the editorial board of several top journals in the accounting profession and

currently serves on the board of several organizations. He has written extensively and

speaks frequently on e-commerce, performance measurement, and commercial card

products.

Sample Description and 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Outline to Appendices | 46

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND

OUTLINE TO APPENDICES

Sample Description

In December 2015, the “2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark

Survey” was released to 6,013 travel card program administrators

at organizations that were either customers of one of thirteen major

card issuers (including Bank of America Merrill Lynch, BMO Harris

Bank, Citibank, Comdata, Elan Financial Services, HSBC, JPMorgan

Chase, PNC Bank, Scotiabank, SunTrust Bank, US Bank, US Bank

Canada, and Wells Fargo) or members of the National Association

of Purchasing Card Professionals or the National Institute of

Governmental Purchasing. One thousand three hundred eleven

responses were received by March 9, 2016 for a response rate of

21.8%. All major travel card-issuing brands (American Express,

Diner’s Club, MasterCard, and Visa) are represented in the survey

response.

Exhibit 17 breaks down survey respondents by organizational type:

38% are privately-owned corporations, 28% are public corporations,

11% are not-for-profit organizations, 8% are city and county

government agencies, 7% are colleges and universities, 4% are

federal and state government agencies, and 4% are school districts.

Exhibit 18 on the next page separates the public and private corporations

into four size categories: 29% are “Fortune 500-Size” companies (annual

revenue of $2 billion or more), 24% are “Large Market” (annual revenue

greater than or equal to $500 million, but less than $2 billion), 37% are

“Middle Market” (annual revenue greater than or equal to $25 million, but

less than $500 million), and 10% are “Small Market” corporations (annual

revenue of less than $25 million).

Exhibit 17: Respondents by

Organizational Type


Exhibit 18: Corporate Respondents by Size

Exhibit 19 separates the corporate respondents into groups using Standard Industrial Classifications (SICs).

The Exhibit shows that the response pool is well-distributed across the different industry segments, with

Manufacturing being the largest (31%).

Exhibit 19: Corporate Respondents by Industry

Age of Program and Length of Tenure with Provider

The sample also contains diverse levels of travel card program experience. Exhibit 20 on the next page

distributes the sample by the length of time that an organization has had a travel card program. It shows that

5% of programs are less than one-year-old, 14% are 1 to 3 years old, 25% are 4 to 7 years old, 22% are 8 to

11 years old, 16% are 12 to 16 years old, 8% are 17 to 20 years old, and 10% are more than 20 years old.

Exhibit 21 on the next page breaks down the sample by the length of time that an organization has been with

their current travel card provider. It shows that 8% of respondent programs have been with their current

provider less than one year, 25% are 1 to 3 years old, 33% are 4 to 7 years old, 17% are 8 to 11 years old,

12% are 12 to 16 years old, 3% are 17 to 20 years old, and 2% have been with their current issuer for greater

than 20 years.


Outline to the Appendices

Appendix A presents a historical review of customer satisfaction for the six aspects of the travel card issuer-

organization relationship from 2007 to 2016. The exhibits will showcase the trends in satisfaction for (a) card

economics, (b) customer service and support, (c) capture of transaction data, (d) data integration, (e) card

program management capabilities, and (f) reporting software. Please note that some data items were not

present in previous surveys, resulting in a missing data point in those cases.

Appendix B presents the current importance and satisfaction ratings for the four major market segments of

our analysis, including: (a) Fortune 500-Size corporations, (b) Large Market corporations, (c) Middle Market

corporations, and (d) Governmental and Not-for-Profit organizations.

Exhibit 20: Age of Travel

Card Program

Exhibit 21: Length of Time

with Current Card Provider

Appendix A: Historical Review of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction with Travel Cards | 49

APPENDIX A

HISTORICAL REVIEW OF CUSTOMER

SATISFACTION WITH TRAVEL CARDS

Information about the current respondent ratings of importance and satisfaction with a particular

card issuer activity or service is provided in Chapters 3 and 4 of this Report. This Appendix

examines the historical trends in customer satisfaction responses to the Corporate Travel Card

Benchmark Survey since 2007. Please note that some questions were not asked in previous

surveys, resulting in a missing data point in those cases.

Historical Perspective: Travel Card Economics

Exhibit A-1(a) and Exhibit A-1(b) on the next page display a historical perspective of customer satisfaction

ratings of the ten economic variables discussed in Chapter 3 of this Report. The Exhibits add satisfaction

ratings from our earlier surveys (in 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013) to this current edition and present them in

descending order of importance as indicated by respondents in their 2016 ratings. The Exhibits show that

satisfaction in 2016 increased from 2013 in 9 of the 10 items presented and stayed the same on another item.

Exhibit A-1(a): Satisfaction with Economic Aspects of Travel Cards in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016

(where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)


Exhibit A-1(b): Satisfaction with Economic Aspects of Travel Cards in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)

Historical Perspective: Customer Service and Support

Exhibit A-2(a) and Exhibit A-2(b) on the next page and Exhibit A-2(c) on the following page

display a historical perspective of customer satisfaction ratings of the seventeen customer service

and support variables discussed in Chapter 3 of this Report. The Exhibits add satisfaction ratings

from our earlier surveys (in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013) to this current edition and present them in

descending order of importance as indicated by respondents in their 2016 ratings. The Exhibits

show that satisfaction in 2016 has stayed the same or increased from 2013 in 16 of the 17 aspects

of customer service and support that were previously reported. And, where a decrease occurred

(speed of lost/stolen card replacement), the decline was minimal.


Exhibit A-2(a): Satisfaction with Aspects of Customer Service and Support in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)

Exhibit A-2(b): Satisfaction with Aspects of Customer Service and Support in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016



Exhibit A-2(c): Satisfaction with Aspects of Customer Service and Support in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)

Historical Perspective: Capture of Travel Card Transaction Data

Exhibit A-3(a) and Exhibit A-3(b) and Exhibit A-3(c) on the next page display a historical perspective of

customer satisfaction ratings of fifteen data capture variables discussed in Chapter 4 of this Report. The

Exhibits add satisfaction ratings from our earlier surveys (in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013) to this current

edition and present them in descending order of importance as indicated by 2016 ratings. The Exhibit shows

that satisfaction decreased or stayed the same on all of the data capture items that were previously reported.

Exhibit A-3(a): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Data Capture in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016



Exhibit A-3(b): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Data Capture in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)

Exhibit A-3(c): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Data Capture in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)


Historical Perspective: Data Integration

Exhibit A-4(a) and Exhibit A-4(b) provide a historical perspective on the customer satisfaction ratings of

eight data integration variables discussed in Chapter 4 of this Report. The Exhibits add satisfaction ratings

from our earlier surveys (in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013) to this current edition and present them in

descending order of importance as indicated by respondents in their 2016 ratings. The Exhibits show that

customer satisfaction on five of the six items that were previously reported relating to data integration

increased between 2013 and 2016.

Exhibit A-4(a): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Data Integration in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016


Exhibit A-4(b): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Data Integration in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)


Historical Perspective: Travel Card Program Management Capabilities

Exhibit A-5(a) and Exhibit A-5(b) give a historical perspective of customer satisfaction ratings of eleven

travel card program management software features discussed in Chapter 4 of this Report. The Exhibits add

satisfaction ratings from our earlier surveys (in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013) to this current edition and

present them in descending order of importance as indicated by respondents in their 2016 ratings. The

Exhibits show that all eleven items relating to travel card program management increased between 2013 and

2016.

Exhibit A-5(a): Satisfaction with Software Technology Features Related to Travel Card Program Management in Descending Order or Importance, 2007-2016


Exhibit A-5(b): Satisfaction with Software Technology Features Related to Travel Card Program Management in Descending Order or Importance, 2007-2016



Historical Perspective: Travel Card Reporting

Exhibit A-6(a) and Exhibit A-6(b) and Exhibit A-6(c) on the next page provide a historical perspective of

customer satisfaction ratings of fifteen travel card spend reporting features discussed in Chapter 3 of this

Report. The Exhibits add satisfaction ratings from our earlier surveys (in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013) to this

current edition and present them in descending order of importance as indicated by respondents in their 2016

ratings. The Exhibits reveal that all of the 15 items relating to travel card reporting have increased or stayed

the same between 2013 and 2016.

Exhibit A-6(a): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Reporting in Descending Order or Importance, 2007-2016



Exhibit A-6(b): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Reporting in Descending Order or Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)

Exhibit A-6(c): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Reporting in Descending Order or Importance, 2007-2016


Appendix B: Importance and 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Satisfaction Ratings by Market Segment | 58

APPENDIX B

IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION

RATINGS BY MARKET SEGMENT

This chapter is meant to inform the reader on the current ratings of importance and satisfaction for

travel card issuer activities and services for the four major market segments in our Report,

including: (a) Fortune 500-Size corporations, (b) Large Market corporations, (c) Middle Market

corporations, and (d) Governmental and Not-for-Profit organizations.

A Market Segment Review of the Travel Card Issuer Relationship

Exhibit B-1 through Exhibit B-6 on the following pages display the importance and satisfaction ratings, by

market segment, for six aspects of the travel card issuer-organization relationship, including: (1) travel card

economics, (2) customer service and support, (3) capture of transaction data, (4) data integration, (5) card

technology for travel card program management, and (6) card reporting software.

Unless you reach 100% customer satisfaction, there is room for

improvement.

Horst Schulze ‘’


Exhibit B-1: Importance of and Satisfaction with Economic Aspects of Travel Cards (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)

Importance Satisfaction

Fortune 500-Size Large Market Middle Market

Government and Not-for-

Profit

Fortune 500-Size

Large Market

Middle Market


Profit

Economic Item

Bank fees to obtain travel cards 5.25 5.40 5.52 5.43 5.58 5.78 5.36 5.93

Rebates/incentives tied to card spending 6.57 6.08 5.42 5.86 5.58 5.51 4.81 5.47

Cost of lost/stolen card replacement 5.50 5.62 5.22 5.94 5.67 5.95 5.59 6.12

Liability protection for lost/stolen cards 6.35 6.15 6.04 6.59 5.83 6.03 5.83 6.23

Liability protection from card misuse 6.29 5.96 5.87 6.37 5.54 5.92 5.70 6.08

Cash advance fees 3.37 2.98 2.43 2.70 4.86 4.67 4.84 4.94

Foreign exchange fees 4.92 4.56 3.50 3.71 4.96 4.34 4.63 4.90

Late payment fees 5.08 4.75 3.76 3.78 4.98 5.20 4.87 5.36

Loyalty awards/rewards 3.11 3.95 3.95 3.31 4.61 4.89 4.64 4.68

Overall economic relationship with card issuer in relation to travel cards 6.18 5.79 5.55 5.91 5.62 5.74 5.18 5.63


Exhibit B-2: Importance of and Satisfaction with Travel Card Customer Service and Support (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)


Fortune 500-Size

Large Market

Middle Market


Profit

Fortune 500-Size

Large Market

Middle Market


Profit

Customer Service and Support Item

Training materials and support 5.49 5.20 4.83 5.53 4.75 5.14 4.92 4.86

Knowledge of the organization's information systems technology and expense reporting process 5.53 5.27 4.69 5.19 4.88 4.79 4.74 4.94

Friendliness and respect shown by card issuer personnel 6.27 5.72 5.69 6.04 5.94 5.86 5.54 5.88

Service and support in travel card program implementation 6.39 5.93 5.62 5.92 5.55 5.63 5.29 5.53

Level of assistance in identifying best applications for travel card 5.72 5.30 4.93 5.11 5.20 5.15 4.85 5.03

Assistance in obtaining supplier travel card acceptance 5.14 4.72 4.59 4.55 4.96 5.24 5.19 4.93

Work with suppliers to ensure quality or suitability of data passed through system 5.18 4.71 4.54 4.91 4.74 5.08 4.69 4.63

Quality of help from "help desk" 6.22 5.91 5.61 6.04 5.33 5.82 5.39 5.40

Hours of "help desk" availability 6.11 5.71 5.26 5.90 5.58 5.70 5.34 5.57

Average time elapsed for "help desk" to resolve a problem 6.17 5.66 5.52 6.05 5.18 5.49 5.30 5.43

Speed of lost/stolen card replacement 6.31 6.18 5.94 6.38 5.59 5.44 5.35 5.94

Handling of disputed transactions 6.19 6.00 5.82 6.43 5.58 5.54 5.42 5.81

Handling of delinquent accounts 4.92 4.67 4.69 4.45 5.28 4.87 4.97 5.33

Travel management services 3.51 3.36 3.50 2.99 4.75 4.49 4.67 4.51

Expense management services 3.77 4.26 4.08 3.86 4.56 4.63 4.73 4.89

Sponsorship of commercial card "User Conferences" or other training programs 4.98 4.24 3.49 4.00 5.22 4.81 4.68 4.65

Overall customer service and support 6.19 5.88 5.43 6.09 5.41 5.59 5.20 5.47


Exhibit B-3: Importance of and Satisfaction with Travel Card Data Capture



Fortune 500-Size

Large Market

Middle Market


Profit

Fortune 500-Size

Large Market

Middle Market


Profit

Data Capture Item

Airline data (city pairs) 4.27 4.00 3.69 3.68 4.70 4.47 4.57 4.60

Airline data (travel leg) 4.08 4.00 3.63 3.55 4.31 4.54 4.40 4.58

Airline data (itinerary) 4.76 4.27 3.99 4.18 4.49 4.40 4.45 4.42

Airline data (seats purchased by service class) 4.94 3.97 3.91 3.80 4.18 4.00 4.30 4.28

Fare basis code 4.34 3.76 3.47 3.39 4.24 4.00 4.28 4.25

Airline data (seat upgrade data) 4.60 3.97 3.94 3.77 4.12 3.64 4.21 4.10

Hotel folio data 5.02 4.20 3.97 4.38 4.00 3.77 4.11 4.13

Enhanced auto rental data 4.52 4.08 3.58 3.55 4.17 3.70 4.13 3.95

Taxpayer identification number 3.56 3.28 2.84 3.02 4.03 3.91 4.20 4.36

Sales tax information 3.93 4.24 3.25 4.23 4.39 3.73 4.16 4.32

VAT tax information 4.40 3.76 2.56 2.65 4.42 3.52 4.23 4.39

Hotel street address 3.95 3.68 3.15 3.52 4.17 3.69 4.33 4.43

Carbon emission data related to travel purchases 2.79 2.59 1.82 1.80 3.56 3.50 3.85 3.74

Information to support discount negotiations with travel service providers 5.02 3.84 3.00 3.40 3.97 3.61 3.93 4.11

Overall capture of transaction-related information 5.67 4.46 4.63 5.01 4.62 4.00 4.71 4.61


Exhibit B-4: Importance of and Satisfaction with Aspects of Travel Card Data Integration



Fortune 500-Size

Large Market

Middle Market


Profit

Fortune 500-Size

Large Market

Middle Market


Profit

Data Integration Item

Ability to integrate travel card data into resource planning, general ledger, or AP applications 5.71 5.32 5.34 5.63 5.07 5.08 4.49 5.16

Ability to transfer travel card data to expense reporting system 6.62 5.59 5.42 5.24 5.82 5.29 4.83 5.02

Ability to transfer travel information (other than from travel card) to expense reporting system 5.82 4.74 4.99 4.81 4.89 4.70 4.59 4.88

Ability to consolidate multiple global site spending into one report 5.62 4.78 4.13 3.54 4.79 4.81 4.72 4.58

Ability to consolidate multiple North American site spending into one report 5.34 4.73 3.93 3.62 5.24 4.97 4.74 4.67

Ease with which travel card spending is allocated to appropriate cost center 5.45 5.49 5.39 5.53 5.32 5.59 4.72 5.31

Ease with which travel card spending can be reconciled with other organizational data about travel card purchases 5.45 5.16 5.24 5.32 5.20 5.06 4.51 4.92

Overall integration of travel card data with organizational information systems 6.08 5.73 5.30 5.55 5.31 5.26 4.74 5.05


Exhibit B-5: Importance of and Satisfaction with Software Technology Features Related to Travel Card Program Management



Fortune 500-Size

Large Market

Middle Market


Profit

Fortune 500-Size

Large Market

Middle Market


Profit

Ability of the Card Administrator to:

Perform cardholder data maintenance in real time 6.43 6.09 5.76 6.39 6.09 6.33 5.57 6.08

Terminate/order travel cards in real time 6.64 6.24 6.20 6.47 6.15 6.42 5.91 6.16

Obtain real-time access to information on card spending approvals/declines 6.70 6.27 6.10 6.38 5.74 6.07 5.52 6.05

Modify spending limits in real time 6.57 6.39 6.40 6.50 6.27 6.56 5.86 6.03

Allocate travel card spending to separate accounts on an ad hoc basis 4.80 4.95 4.70 4.85 5.16 5.26 5.20 5.31

Automate workflow processing for expenditure approval 5.16 5.00 4.97 5.34 5.39 5.32 4.96 5.29

Monitor card program metrics 6.10 5.43 5.00 5.31 5.54 5.28 4.77 5.22

Access administrative tools via mobile or tablet device 4.59 4.79 4.65 4.35 4.50 4.59 4.83 4.60

Use technology to validate account codes 4.91 4.72 4.89 4.94 4.95 4.89 4.75 5.07

Self-manage the travel card program 5.98 5.68 5.59 5.74 5.54 5.58 5.26 5.50

Overall ability of card issuer technology to support travel card program management 6.32 5.86 5.68 6.05 5.80 5.74 5.25 5.65


Exhibit B-6: Importance of and Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Reporting Technology



Fortune 500-Size

Large Market

Middle Market


Profit

Fortune 500-Size

Large Market

Middle Market


Profit

Reporting Item

Length of transaction history 6.06 5.83 5.38 5.90 5.67 5.74 5.46 5.49

Access to past/present cardholder statements 6.40 6.16 5.77 6.04 5.88 5.56 5.36 5.48

Readability of reports 6.44 6.02 5.79 6.14 5.65 5.51 5.24 5.45

Support provided in development and/or interpretation of reports 5.82 5.73 5.04 5.53 5.02 5.21 4.87 4.93

Ability of cardholders to obtain statements by e-mail or from internet/intranet 5.79 5.27 5.49 5.39 5.76 5.31 5.40 5.24

Ease of submitting expense reports to proper person for approval 5.38 5.78 5.51 5.18 5.29 5.29 5.37 5.13

Ability to track disputed transactions 5.60 5.81 5.57 5.86 4.82 4.95 5.01 5.06

Ability to analyze spending patterns 5.77 5.57 5.09 5.48 5.16 5.10 4.83 4.91

Ability to locate a traveler in an emergency 5.23 4.60 4.04 4.40 5.12 4.50 4.70 4.49

Ability to track payment delinquencies 5.71 4.61 4.07 4.21 5.38 4.62 4.79 4.91

Ability to access travel card reports on mobile or tablet devices 4.52 4.83 4.51 4.40 4.56 4.54 4.68 4.54

Card misuse analytics 5.90 5.47 4.89 5.15 4.91 4.60 4.62 4.92

Ability to customize reports 6.26 5.88 5.46 5.75 5.16 5.00 4.65 5.06

Integrity of data contained in reports 6.43 6.14 5.71 6.08 5.75 5.50 5.18 5.62

Overall reporting package 6.16 5.90 5.54 6.06 5.50 5.41 4.96 5.28

2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results About the Authors | 65

[End of Document]

© 2016, RPMG Research Corporation

[this page intentionally left blank] - rpmg research

Documents