The user experience

The typical steps that consumers take when using a PCW include:

 navigating from the homepage to the section that is specific to the product or service they are looking for

 entering any data that the site requests, in order to carry out a customised comparison

 evaluating search results and making a decision to purchase, or to contact providers in other ways.

The qualitative research demonstrates some of the challenges that consumers face in practice when going through these steps, as well as the elements that they find straightforward. These indicators of best practice and suggested improvements are summarised in the sections below.

General usability: site design and layout

When they describe features that make PCWs easy to use, it is clear that consumers prefer websites that have:

 a clear, uncluttered layout

 headings and banners that are easy to read and understand

 a logical design and flow.

Findings from the hall tests indicate that some sites have issues relating to basic design and layout, which make them harder to use. Key reasons for giving a poor ‘ease of use’ rating for a tested site are summarised below.

Unclear signposting in menus and sub-menus confuses consumers and makes navigation difficult. Some feel that they would benefit from being guided through the process of searching, because they don’t feel totally confident doing so unassisted. Consumers who tested Moneysavingexpert.com and Quidco are critical of these particular aspects of those sites. Having simple, clear, very visible menus and sub-menus make PCWs more user-friendly.

Small text is also confusing to consumers. Most obviously, small fonts make people worry that they have missed something important or that disagreeable information might be hidden from them. Using a minimum font size reduces the risk that consumers will miss, or worry that they might unknowingly have missed, key information.

In addition to unclear signposting, links that are unrecognisable, such as text that contains a hyperlink but does not make this obvious, can mean that consumers don’t know where to click next, in order to proceed. Some users also get confused about whether a piece of text or an image on the page is an actual link, and become frustrated by clicking on boxes and text which they think are links when they are not. Towards the end of the process, others don’t realise that they need to click on the selected deal to get more information about it, because they don’t interpret the provider’s logo as a link for clicking on the deal. Clearly-formatted buttons and other links help consumers to understand the available ‘next steps’ on the page, and to judge which is likely to be most useful.

Consumers appreciate having explanations for technical terms that they might be unfamiliar with, but some struggle to use definitions and explanations that are not provided in an

obvious way. Sites that provide such explanations using question marks or ‘i’ symbols next to the words are praised by those who are frequent internet users, but can be problematic for less experienced users, who struggle to identify and use them. Including information to explain terminology in side boxes means that inexperienced internet users are able to find it easily.

A small number of consumers, who are generally in their fifties of older, also worry about sites that position advertising next to results. This confuses some consumers, who think that the advertisement is actually part of the search results. They also think adverts are irritating, and get in the way. Setting advertising content clearly apart from comparison

information ensures that people can be confident of where these are on the page, and focus on the results of their search.

‘I don't think they are particularly simple because you get all sorts of side issues. You get adverts with them as well. I don’t like that and I don’t want that and it just interferes with it and makes it more difficult to work your way through the site.’

North East, SEG A, 75+, light internet user

Locating information about the product or service of interest

As summarised above, consumers using some PCWs struggle to navigate from the homepage to the appropriate section for the product or service category they want to compare. This is typically because the homepage does not have clear or visible links to the different sections, or because the menus are cluttered or otherwise confusing. The wording used in the menus can also be unclear to consumers, or not obvious enough. For instance, people who go to a PCW to compare prices for gas or electricity might not realise that they need to look under ‘utilities’.

Consequently, some consumers are unsure about where to start their search on the site.

They think there might be several routes they can take, and they are uncertain whether the different routes would take them to the same part of the website. A few consumers overcome this confusion by using the sites’ search tools, but the remainder search different parts of the website before finding the right section. They find this frustrating and annoying.

‘There were three buttons. There was ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘three’ and then ‘go next’. That would confuse me…I would have to ask my partner. I would have to ask someone unless I played around with it. If the arrow was on one and I needed to go to two, if I pressed two and it wasn’t the right one, then I would panic.’

South East, SEG E, 60-74, non-user of PCWs

Some PCWs, such as Quidco and thepeoplespower.co.uk, encourage users to create a profile or to sign in through social media websites, such as Facebook, in order to share their use of the site with friends and family. In some cases, the login box is more prominent than the links to the search functions themselves, and it is not obvious to the site user whether they can actually use these sites without logging on. Some users express concern about this and say that this would deter them from using that PCW in the future.

‘It just took me into areas that I am not asking for. I just found it taking me into a thing and I thought, "No, what are you doing?” When I am trying to put that right it is going into something…. I thought, "Let me just come off this" because it was frustrating me and I thought to myself you go into things to be quick and this is taking too long and it is taking up so much of my time, no darling...’

South East, SEG B, 30-44, heavy internet user

Customising the comparison

Findings from the quantitative survey show that a key reason for negative experiences with a PCW is not being able to customise or tailor the search. Many consumers get frustrated if the search is too standardised and inflexible to allow them to change the search criteria.

‘Very limited, not given the opportunity to alter search criteria. Options are closed, and you cannot tailor the results.’

England, SEG C1, 45-49, used PCWs in last two years

‘They don't offer the parameters that I am looking for.’

Wales, SEG B, 45-49, used PCWs in last two years

The findings from the hall tests support this, with the main reasons for consumers giving poor scores including:

 not allowing enough customisation in terms of the search criteria

 not asking all the questions the consumers thought needed to be asked for them to get accurate and relevant search results.

Consumers are slightly more positive about the amount of information they need to provide to make the comparison; with the sites they test achieving a mean score of 7.6 out of 10 for this aspect of user friendliness. However, around one in 10 rate sites poorly in this regard and a total of 13 different sites are rated poorly by one or more consumers. Consumers are inclined to give negative ratings, when they get frustrated answering pre-questions requiring specific information, which they don’t have to hand, such as information from a recent bill. They are also frustrated if they don’t know why the information is needed at such an early stage and how it is going to be used in the search.

PCW users can also become frustrated if the site format does not allow incomplete answers (which they can go back and complete later in the process), or provide an opportunity to explain some of their answers in more detail.

The majority of consumers prefer tick-box questions or drop-down response options, because these provide a choice of appropriate answers. However, a minority feel these constrain them too much and they are not able to reflect their situation in their answers.

Related to this, users become frustrated when PCWs return them to previous pages several times because they have entered incorrect or incomplete data in response to a question.

‘If you're filling in a questionnaire, you have to put what they want, and if you want to put something different in and it won't let you, and it just stops, it won't let you go any further, talking to a person is much easier than filling a form in online.’

England, SEG C2, 60-74, used PCWs in last two years

‘Beyond the basics, there was no other options to enter, method of payment maybe.

Looking back it feels like there was a small range of options.’

Quantitative survey, England, SEG C1, 45-59, used PCWs in last two years

Around a quarter of the consumers in the hall tests place the ability to customise their search among the top three factors influencing their choice of PCW. Only a handful of people say that this is the most important factor. While customising is important for some, the majority of users prefer to do a quick search first of all, possibly adding further details after the initial search.

‘Quick and basic to start off with and with the option, if I was interested, then I would use it.’

Midlands, SEG B, 30-44, light internet user

Entering personal details

Consumers’ willingness to enter more personal details to customise their search depends to a certain extent on the type of product they are looking for. Consumers are more willing to answer detailed questions about themselves and their usage of a product or service when purchasing products that they understand need to be customised for them. This applies to products and services such as utilities and insurance, where the deals available are

influenced by the buyer’s location or characteristics. For other products, people expect to be able to do quick searches without answering too many questions.

‘I think that would depend on exactly what you were looking for. If you are looking for home insurance, then you can expect to have to put in detailed information because you want to make sure that the price that you get is actually accurate for the cover you are going to get and the type of property you own […] With broadband, all you want is how much it costs and what limitations there are.’

Wales, SEG C1, 40-59, heavy internet user

While some people are happy to provide all of the required personal details straight away, a few would do so only once they have had a look at the site to assure themselves that it is reputable and secure. Many explain that they might follow up their initial quick search with a more detailed search, in which they would be willing to provide more detailed information.

This is typically because they want to get a better initial understanding of the types of deals available for them to select from, or of the parameters for different elements of the products:

for example, what is a reasonable amount of cover to purchase for airline insolvency?

‘Travel insurance is a bit of a complicated thing. You have to read first and then put in what you want, not the other way round. There's different types of deals for travel insurance, you have to read it first to know which one to pick.’

England, SEG C1, 30-44, used PCWs in last two years

Willingness to enter personal data in using PCWs also depends to a great extent on what this data is. Most people are willing to enter their postcode, but are more hesitant about providing their telephone number and email address. People perceive postcodes not to be too personal, recognising that postcodes relate to several addresses. Furthermore, this is publicly available information. Their email address is also considered to be less ‘personal’

than their telephone number, and some consumers say that it is easy to discard unwanted messages, even if receiving them can be annoying. They are least comfortable with providing telephone numbers, expecting to receive sales calls if they do so, and feeling unable to prevent this. Many consumers have already experienced these, and want to avoid this in the future.

Entering personal data is often also a question of maintaining control. Some consumers voice concern about the possibility that details submitted to PCWs will be sold on to other companies without their knowledge, leading to unsolicited contact from a range of different companies. Although this concern is voiced by a range of consumers, those aged 40 or older, and those in socio-economic grades C1, C2, D and E are slightly more concerned about the prospect of receiving junk mail and sales calls. By refusing to provide these details, they feel they can maintain better control over who approaches them.

A minority of consumers are worried about PCWs being at risk of hacking, as they have heard many stories about the hacking of sites for contacts and, particularly, financial details.

The majority of customers are clear that they would not provide their bank details or more sensitive financial information regarding their income.

Comparing deals

Information required

In general, PCW users prefer sites to give them a lot of information about the product or service they are comparing, so that they are confident about what they are buying. At the same time, they expect sites to provide them with well-structured summary tables, giving concise information on the deals and allowing them to cross-compare the different options.

Some consumers also mention that they like to have the option to use filters, which allow them to reduce the number of options to a condensed, workable shortlist. Younger

consumers’ appetite for this kind of tool is often borne out of their generally higher levels of comfort with the internet. Conversely, some older consumers mention that small icons or text make it difficult for them to read everything properly; additional filtering tools would allow them to condense the amount that they have to take in. This preference for filtering was somewhat higher among the A, B and C socio-economic grades.

‘Some specific provider details [on Tescocompare.com] were confusing. I’d have liked to see a filter showing information about the paying method, like whether you can do it by Direct Debit or not.’

South East, age 60-74, SEG C1, light internet user

‘I’d like to see a ranking tool [on Moneysupermarket.com] where you could make comparison based on price. For instance, cheapest option first.’

South East, age 18-29, SEG C1, heavy internet user

‘I don’t think the providers should be ranked as they are. The greatest saving was at the end of the results […] They should be ranked alphabetically, by providers.’

Wales, age 75+, SEG B, light internet user

Factors considered

While consumers look at a range of factors when they compare deals on PCWs, it is plain that price is the most important one. Around nine out of 10 consumers in the hall tests mention price as one of the three most important factors influencing their purchase decision researched via a PCW, and around two-thirds of them say that price is the most important factor. A majority of consumers also mention price in passing, as they talk spontaneously about the steps they are taking as they use it.

Although price is the key influencing factor, many PCW users state in the hall test that they don’t immediately turn their attention to the cheapest possible deal, but instead compare prices in the context of the rest of the information they are given about deals. The information provided about the deal (ie the product description and features) is also very important; two thirds of people in the hall tests say that this would be among the top three factors if they were making a real-life decision using a PCW.

In the quantitative research (see Figure 5.3), one-fifth of consumers (21 per cent) say that the product provider being ‘a well-known brand’ is one of the three most important considerations when using PCWs. A much higher proportion (around six in 10) in our hall tests mention the reputation of the product provider as one of the top three prompted factors they would consider when making a decision.

Examples of trusted brands include both traditional providers and newer affinity partners such as Asda, Tesco or Debenhams, whose reputation in their core business areas creates a positive impression over their products in other sectors, such as insurance.

‘Sometimes [reputation] is important, sometimes it's not, for example you can get the best deals off little companies you've never heard of.’

Scotland, 18-29, SEG E, heavy internet user

Next steps

For most consumers PCWs are one of several sources of information. The majority (83 per cent) continue their search with other PCWs, using more than one site before making their decision. Over half (57 per cent) use two or three comparison sites while over a quarter (26 per cent) use four or more PCWs before making a decision. Those who don’t use the internet very frequently are significantly more likely to use a single site, with a quarter (25 per cent) of them saying this, compared with a minority of heavy internet users (16 per cent).

Conversely, a significant minority (17 per cent) of consumers who use the internet, and use PCWs, more often use four to five sites when they undertake the comparison process.

Figure 5.1: Number of PCWs used before making a decision

For the majority (61 per cent) of consumers, the main reason for using multiple sites is to make sure they get the best deal. Around two fifths (42 per cent) do this in order to compare or verify the comparison results. Only a few (five per cent) say they use more than one PCW because they don’t trust the sites. Visibly more consumers in socio-economic grade A (12 per cent) give this as a reason for using multiple sites than in other grades. Consumers in London (9 per cent) are noticeably more likely to say they use multiple sites because they don’t trust the sites, than those in other regions.

Figure 5.2: Reasons for looking at multiple price comparison websites

Consumers aged 60-74 are significantly less likely than younger consumers to use multiple sites for cross-checking purposes.

Consumers’ other reasons for using multiple sites include ensuring that they see all possible deals available, and comparing the results.

‘To see if there are any differences. If one site has deals that others don't have.’

‘To see if there are any differences. If one site has deals that others don't have.’