• No results found

Attitudes about Charter Cable

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Attitudes about Charter Cable"

Copied!
24
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Final Report Final Report

Community Survey:

Community Survey:

Attitudes about Attitudes about

Charter Cable Charter Cable

conducted for conducted for

The Town of Highland Park The Town of Highland Park

&

&

The City of University Park The City of University Park

Michael E. Egan, PhD, CMC

(2)

Methodology Methodology

™ Telephone interviews

X 425 total, 18 minutes long

9 175 University Park 9 175 Highland Park

9 75 Non subscribers (6 minutes) 9 CATI

X Error: plus or minus 5 percentage points

™ Statistical analysis

™ Participant profile

9 Gender: 61% Female

9 Sole cable decision maker 76%

9 Average age: 54.8 years

9 Single family household: 88%

9 Average No. TVs on cable: 3.2

(3)

Key Findings Key Findings

™ Low overall satisfaction (59%) and very low overall satisfaction with the value (35%).

™ Of 20 attributes associated with cable service only two had satisfaction scores higher than 70%: Accuracy of your bill? (85%), Availability of the programming you want? (77%).

™ Among agreed-upon contractual services, no more than half rated Charter as doing a “good” or

“excellent” job.

™ Lower cost was the most important factor to both subscribers and non subscribers to encourage broader cable service usage.

™ “Overall Satisfaction” and “Value” were independent, but factors driving these perceptions had considerable overlap.

™ Three in five subscribers (61%) obtained services provided by Charter from other suppliers, mostly high speed internet access.

™ Over half (57%) of non-subscribers had previously subscribed to a cable service, and had done so for an average of 6.7 years. Their most common reasons for dropping: Cost (51%) and Service (47%). A third (35%)

™ Of ten service problems, almost half of all subscribers (49%) experienced Intermittent loss the internet more often than 5 times in the past two years. Other frequent problems: Partial channel loss (42%), Total internet loss (41%), Intermittent television loss (40%), degraded picture (37%), Slow internet (37%), Loss e-mail service (33%) and Total outage of your cable television service (32%). Only 18% of frequent problems did not require a service call.

™ Highland Park had higher Intermittent television loss (45% to 36%) and higher Total outage (39% 24%) than University Park, but University Park had significantly higher Loss of internet (39% to 24%).

™ About half (54%) who called Charter were satisfied with the way their concerns were addressed; about a third (31%) were dissatisfied, significantly more often among men than women. (40% vs. 26%).

™ Most (81%) subscribers had called for service, but 30%

were on hold too long. A service call was required for 68% of the calls, but only 35%were scheduled

according to the terms of the Charter contract.

Generally, service technicians arrived promptly (62%),

but less than half of the service calls (42%) ended with

the problem being fixed on the first visit, most often

because the problem persisted.

(4)

Type of service Type of service

47%

9%

4%

1%

15%

61%

89%

61%

29%

29%

24%

14%

41%

41%

29%

19%

65%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100

%

High speed internet access like DSL An antenna for television reception Direct Satellite Dish Network Dial up internet access

Non cable services by subscribers Basic Cable television programming Extended Basic Cable television programming Cable internet access Premium Movie Channels on Cable Digital cable television High definition television

Subscribers Non Subscribers

Shows the percent of respondents answering; Multiple responses (n=425)

(5)

Reasons for Dropping Cable Services Reasons for Dropping Cable Services

51%

47%

35%

28%

26%

23%

19%

16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Cost

Service

Reception

Unresponsiveness

Programming

Picture quality

Features

Other: Moved, Didn't want, etc.

(6)

Duration of current Cable Service Subscription Duration of current Cable Service Subscription

8.6

5.8

4.6

4.2

2.9

2.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Cable television Dial up internet access Cable internet access Direct TV High speed internet access Dish Network

Shows the average time (number varies)

(7)

Frequency of problems (Past 2 years) Frequency of problems (Past 2 years)

19%

30%

22%

17%

32%

41%

44%

20%

54%

77%

5%

8%

8%

9%

12%

5%

8%

11%

8%

10%

16%

10%

14%

14%

11%

8%

4%

15%

10%

5%

12%

11%

16%

20%

8%

10%

12%

23%

11%

3%

49%

42%

41%

40%

37%

37%

33%

32%

18%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Intermittent loss of your internet connection via cable

Ability to access all your channels

Total loss of your internet connection via cable

Intermittent loss of your television service

Seriously degraded picture quality

Slow internet speeds

Loss of access to Charter's e-mail service

Total outage of your cable television service

Any problem not requiring a service call

A problem with your bill

Never ONCE TWICE 3 TO 4 FIVE +

(8)

Problems: trends Problems: trends

Shows the percent of respondents answering; (n=350)

45%

39%

37%

36%

24%

46%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Intermittent loss of your television service Total outage of your cable television service Total loss of your internet connection via cable

HP UP

50%

50%

49%

48%

40%

25%

25%

37%

36%

30%

36%

27%

13%

36%

Ability to access all your channels Total loss of your internet connection via cable Seriously degraded picture quality Intermittent loss of your television service Total outage of your cable television service Any problem not requiring a service call with Loss of access to Charter's e-mail service

Male Female

44%

42%

42%

39%

33%

31%

30%

30%

29%

25%

23%

57%

Ability to access all your channels Intermittent loss of your television service Total loss of your internet connection Seriously degraded picture quality Total outage of your cable television service Loss of access to Charter's e-mail service

House Others

(9)

Characteristics of Service Calls:

Characteristics of Service Calls:

Yes, 81%

No, 19%

Called Charter? “On hold” time?

Scheduled OK?

Tech Visit Needed?

Too long, 30% A reasonable amount of time,

58%

Not long at all, 13%

No,

32% Yes,

68%

Scheduled OK?

Too long, 65%

As Promised, 35%

Arrived on time? Fixed problem?

Never, 7%

Sometimes, 32%

Always, 62%

Never, 15% Always, 42%

Sometimes, 43%

(10)

Characteristics of Service Calls:

Characteristics of Service Calls:

Shows the percent of respondents answering; (n=varies)

68%

32%

28%

10%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Problem with TV persisted Equipment or infrastructure problems Incompetent technician Unresponsive; poor follow through Problem with Internet persisted

54%

31%

40%

26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Top 2 boxes Bottom 2 boxes Men, bottom 2 box Women bottom 2 box

How satisfied are you with the way your concerns were addressed?

Why was problem not fixed?

(11)

Chart 7: Satisfaction Ratings Chart 7: Satisfaction Ratings

24%

48%

56%

50%

47%

43%

38%

26%

25%

25%

24%

21%

19%

19%

18%

15%

15%

14%

14%

12%

7%

3%

37%

33%

38%

35%

49%

54%

65%

63%

65%

64%

63%

65%

60%

54%

65%

68%

77%

59%

85%

58%

59%

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

OVERALL SATISFACTION SATISFACTION WITH VALUE

Any other issue important to you Value you pay for your digital cable television Value you pay for your Extended cable Value you pay for your high definition cable Value you pay for your basic cable television Ability to resolve cable issues with Charter?

Picture quality Reliability of television cable service?

Reliability of internet cable service?

Promptness in responding to your inquiries or The quality of Installation and repair service?

Helpfulness of Customer Service?

Ability to reach Charter on a toll free phone?

Availability of service at a local Charter office?

Accuracy of cost information about services The clarity of information about services Availability of the programming you want?

Ease of resolving billing issues?

Accuracy of your bill?

Government Access Programming?

Bot 2 box Top 2 Box

(12)

Trends: Satisfaction ratings Trends: Satisfaction ratings

15%

46%

38%

35%

33%

25%

17%

54%

18%

8%

34%

17%

19%

21%

15%

6%

27%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

HP (purple) vs. UP (green) Ease of resolving billing issues?

MEN (blue) vs. WOMEN (pink) Value you pay for your basic cable

television

Reliability of television cable service?

Picture quality Ability to resolve cable issues with Charter?

The quality of Installation and repair service?

Accuracy of cost information about services 46-65 (yellow) vs. 65+ (gray) Value you pay for your Extended cable Availability of the programming you want?

Shows the percent of respondents answering; (n=varies)

(13)

Other important issues Other important issues

27%

27%

22%

20%

14%

14%

6%

4%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Better programming, lineup, communication

Consistent reception (picture & sound)

Cost: Lower or better packaging

Service: More responsive, Live operators

Another provider, competition

Better technology: capability (e.g., HDTV)

Better, faster internet

Other comments

Broader regional coverage on government

(14)

Contract compliance Contract compliance

39%

39%

36%

29%

26%

21%

18%

15%

11%

7%

50%

40%

46%

27%

57%

39%

51%

29%

48%

25%

10%

16%

10%

20%

17%

35%

17%

24%

29%

54%

40%

64%

1%

3%

1%

1%

1%

4%

1%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

A live representative 90% of time M-F Same day response to all "no picture" problems Next day or sooner response for all other Prorated rebates for loss of service Morning or afternoon scheduling A channel , continuously updating programs An office within a mile of the Park Cities Single events such as movies Installations in 7 days Parental control option

Fair - Poor Excellent - Good Not provided Don't Know

v

Shows the percent of respondents answering; (n=350)

(15)

Ratings of Desired Features Ratings of Desired Features

41%

36%

32%

31%

18%

89%

31%

27%

20%

23%

17%

88%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

More flexibility e.g., á la carte programming Ultra-high-speed wireless internet service Digital video recording More movie options Telephone calls using the internet Others named

Subscribers Non-subscribers

68%

55%

53%

49%

48%

7%

73%

65%

68%

59%

60%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Telephone calls using the internet More movie options

Digital video recording Ultra-high-speed wireless internet service More flexible programming e.g., á la carte

Others named Subscribers

Non-subscribers

Top 2 boxes

Bottom 2 boxes

(16)

Other desired features Other desired features

40%

22%

12%

12%

12%

9%

8%

5%

5%

38%

13%

17%

17%

13%

13%

13%

4%

4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Cost: Lower or better packaging Better programming, lineup, communication of Another provider, competition Consistent reception (picture & sound) Service: More responsive, Live operators, better Flexibility Additional services (DVR, Video conference) Better technology: capability (e.g., HDTV) Better, faster internet

Subscribers (n=97)

Non-subscribers (n=24)

(17)

My Advice:

My Advice:

What new services or changes to existing What new services or changes to existing

services could you recommend services could you recommend

25%

22%

21%

21%

19%

15%

8%

5%

5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Flexibility/ a la Carte

Better programming, lineup, communication of changes

Cost: Lower or better packaging

Service: More responsive, live, better communication

Consistent reception (picture & sound)

Better technology: capability (e.g., HDTV) and infrastructure

Better, faster internet

Another provider, competition

TV Guide

(18)

Correlation analysis:

Correlation analysis:

what drives attitudes?

what drives attitudes?

Mean Score-- Rating

Lower score Higher Rating

Correlation Score

Low Correlation

High Correlation

C.

Higher Rating Higher Correlation

Good Work!

A.

Lower Rating / Higher Correlation

Drivers

D. Higher Rating / Lower Correlation Evaluate Effort

B.

Lower Rating / Lower Correlation

Monitor

(19)

Relationship between Relationship between

Overall Satisfaction Overall Satisfaction & &

Satisfaction with Value Satisfaction with Value

S11S10S9 S7 S8

S6

S5

O P4

P3 S4

B3

B2

P2

V4 V5

V3

V2 R2

R1

Q2

S3 S2

S1

B1 P1

Q1

V1 OA

y = 0.3349x + 0.335

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000

C o rr e la tio n s - V a lu e

(20)

Scattergram:

Scattergram: Overall Satisfaction Overall Satisfaction

V1

Q1

P1B1 S1

S2

S3 Q2

R2R1

V2

V3 V5 V4

P2 B2

B3 S4

P3 P4 Other

S5

S6

S7 S8

S9S10S11

| ---

0.050 0.150 0.250 0.350 0.450 0.550 0.650 0.750

2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2

Satisfaction Score

C o rr el at io n

Billing

B1 ALL: RESOLVING billing issues?

B2 ALL: RESOLVE PROBLEMS

B3 ALL: BILL ACCURACY Programming

P1 TV PROGRAMMING

P2 TV Government Access Programming?

P3 ALL: ACCURACY about cost of services available P4 ALL: CLARITY information about services available Quality

Q1 TV Picture Quality

Q2 ALL: QUALITY, Installation & repair Reliability

R1 Internet RELIABILITY

R2 TV RELIABILITY

Service

S1 ALL: HELPFULNESS, Customer Service S2 ALL: CONTACT by toll free phone?

S3 ALL: LOCAL OFFICE

S4 ALL: PROMPTNESS, responding to inquiries or calls S5 INITIAL SERVICE CALL: how your concerns were addressed S6 SERVICE CALL: The friendliness & courtesy of technician S7 SERVICE CALL: The technician's knowledge

S8 SERVICE CALL: The professionalism of the technician S9 SERVICE CALL: The helpfulness of the call center S10 SERVICE CALL: The thoroughness of the repair, service call S11 SERVICE CALL: That the repair fixed the problem Value

V1 OVERALL VALUE your subscription V2 TV: DIGITAL, VALUE

V3 TV: HD VALUE

V4 TV: Basic VALUE

V5 TV: Extended VALUE

Other ALL: Any other issue important to your subscription?

(21)

Scattergram:

Scattergram: Satisfaction with Value Satisfaction with Value

Billing

B1 ALL: RESOLVING billing issues?

B2 ALL: RESOLVE PROBLEMS

B3 ALL: BILL ACCURACY Programming

P1 TV PROGRAMMING

P2 TV Government Access Programming?

P3 ALL: ACCURACY about cost of services available P4 ALL: CLARITY information about services available Quality

Q1 TV Picture Quality

Q2 ALL: QUALITY, Installation & repair Reliability

R1 Internet RELIABILITY

R2 TV RELIABILITY

Service

S1 ALL: HELPFULNESS, Customer Service S2 ALL: CONTACT by toll free phone?

S3 ALL: LOCAL OFFICE

S4 ALL: PROMPTNESS, responding to inquiries or calls S5 INITIAL SERVICE CALL: how your concerns were addressed S6 SERVICE CALL: The friendliness & courtesy of technician S7 SERVICE CALL: The technician's knowledge

S8 SERVICE CALL: The professionalism of the technician S9 SERVICE CALL: The helpfulness of the call center S10 SERVICE CALL: The thoroughness of the repair, service call S11 SERVICE CALL: That the repair fixed the problem Value

V1 OVERALL VALUE your subscription V2 TV: DIGITAL, VALUE

V3 TV: HD VALUE

V4 TV: Basic VALUE

V5 TV: Extended VALUE

Other ALL: Any other issue important to your subscription?

---

| S11S10 S9

S8

S7

S6 S5

Oth

P3P4 S4

B3 B2

P2 V5

V4

V3 V2

R2 R1

Q2

S3 S2 S1

B1 P1 Q1

OS

- 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800

2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2

Satisfaction Score

C o rr elat io n

(22)

Correlation Analysis 2005

CODE Attribute Score Corre-

lation

SATIS- FACTION Quadrant

VALUE Quadrant

OA

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH WITH YOUR CABLE

SUBSCRIPTION 3.46 1.000 A

R1 28. Internet RELIABILITY 3.46 0.741 A A

S5

12. INITIAL SERVICE CALL: how your concerns were

addressed 3.20 0.655 A A

V2 30. TV: DIGITAL, VALUE 2.71 0.596 A A

Q1 21. TV Picture Quality 3.44 0.507 A A

V4 32. TV: Basic VALUE 3.14 0.503 A A

V5 33. TV: Extended VALUE 2.89 0.499 A A

B2 35. ALL: RESOLVE PROBLEMS 3.42 0.483 A A

S9

18 d. SERVICE CALL: The helpfulness of the call

center 3.41 0.477 A B

S11

18 f. SERVICE CALL: That the repair fixed the

problem 3.45 0.477 A B

V1 20. OVERALL VALUE your subscription 2.84 0.474 A S10

18 e. SERVICE CALL: The thoroughness of the repair

or service call 3.45 0.467 A B

V3 31. TV: HD VALUE 2.82 0.323 B A

Other

40. ALL: Any other issue important to your

subscription? 2.58 0.319 B B

R2 29. TV RELIABILITY 3.46 0.698 C A

Q2 27. ALL: QUALITY, Installation & repair 3.54 0.546 C C S1 24. ALL: HELPFULNESS, Customer Service 3.60 0.530 C C S4

37. ALL: PROMPTNESS, responding to inquiries or

calls 3.59 0.472 C D

S8

18 c. SERVICE CALL: The professionalism of the

technician 3.89 0.402 D D

S7 18 b. SERVICE CALL: The technician's knowledge 3.69 0.394 D D

B3 36. ALL: BILL ACCURACY 3.93 0.349 D D

S6

18 a. SERVICE CALL: The friendliness and courtesy

of the technician 4.13 0.317 D D

S2 25. ALL: CONTACT by toll free phone? 3.71 0.313 D D P4

39. ALL: CLARITY information about services

available 3.65 0.292 D C

B1 23. ALL: RESOLVING billing issues? 3.75 0.282 D D

P1 22. TV PROGRAMMING 3.75 0.271 D C

S3 26. ALL: : LOCAL OFFICE 3.76 0.255 D D

P3 38. ALL: ACCURACY about cost of services available 3.65 0.245 D C P2 34. TV Government Access Programming? 4.00 0.072 D D

(23)

Some observations Some observations

™ Driver analysis:

X Long on promises

X Short on performance

™ Price & flexibility key desired features

™ Weak or incomplete communication

™ Poor follow-through on service and maintenance

™ Attitudes are inconsistent

(24)

12720 Hillcrest Road Suite 880 972.991.3600 (Fax) 972.239.5613

Dallas, Texas 75230 www.DallasMarketingGroup.com

References

Related documents

education and training pay professional degree doctorate degree master s degree bachelor s degree associate degree some college, no degree high school graduate. South Texas

\ I've taken the painting on these models even further than the. ) Devastator Squad. With a small squad containing such characterful models it's hard to resist putting

The primary objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with romosozumab for 12 months compared with placebo on percentage change from baseline in the LS

Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival and progression-free survival of patients with metastatic GIST treated with imatinib in the EORTC-ISG-AGITG phase III study (training

For each of the different lower dimensional proposal schemes, it was found that similar designs occurred across the different utilities, apart from those generated by the beta and

There are indeed two opposite effects at work: a direct effect, implying that for a given level of R&D knowledge an increase in the employee’s outside options rises the fraction

All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including, but not limited to coverage error, and measurement error.. The poll also has a credibility interval