The Power Report Europe

Transcription

1 Pursuing Customer-Defined Quality The Power Report Europe Quarter 2, 2010 J.D. Power and Associates Europe A Global Marketing Information Company

2 Customers in Germany who are highly satisfied with their dealer service are nearly five times more likely to repurchase their next new vehicle from the servicing dealership J.D. Power and Associates 2010 Germany Vehicle Ownership Satisfaction Study SM (VOSS) Vehicle appeal is the most important of the four drivers of vehicle ownership satisfaction, accounting for more than one-third of overall satisfaction in the UK J.D. Power and Associates 2010 UK Vehicle Ownership Satisfaction Study SM The importance of an attractive exterior in overall vehicle appeal perception in the City Car segment is almost 35% higher than in the SUV segment J.D. Power and Associates 2010 Germany, 2010 France and 2010 U.K. Vehicle Ownership Satisfaction Studies SM (VOSS) Customer-Defined Quality 2 Winning by Understanding and Delivering on What Matters Most Organizing for Customer-Defined Quality 4 Greater Customer Demands Require Doing Business Differently The Key to Superior Customer Service 5 Delivering Superior Service is No Coincidence, but is the Result of Performance Consistency Getting it Right: More Important than Ever 7 How the Shift Toward Smaller Cars Challenges Automakers Market View: Kia Italia President, Giuseppe Bitti 8 Challenges in the Italian Market

3 1 Welcome Listening to millions of customers every year about their product and service experiences, we are often asked by clients about customer expectations, what shapes them, and the differences among customers. One of the most poignant examples I have experienced that reflects differences in expectations for quality occurred several years ago as I was getting into my father-in-law s 4-year-old vehicle. As I finally closed the door, which had been sticking on its hinge, and I began putting down the window, which then became stuck half way, I can still recall his response when I commented on these quality issues. He said, But it runs like a charm. Fortunately, vehicle defects such as these have dramatically decreased. And automakers intensive efforts to eliminate problems in terms of things breaking, falling off, not starting, or sticking have helped meet customers need for peace of mind. However, this peace of mind has, in fact, served to raise the bar in terms of customer expectations for vehicle quality that go far beyond trouble free-operation. Maslow s Hierarchy of Needs theory provides an interesting context for understanding how expectations have progressed. As vehicle defects have decreased thus meeting basic customer needs for security, order and stability customers have sought higher need fulfillment from their vehicles. Vehicle style, content, and performance have the ability to fill more advanced needs, such as status, achievement, and even overall contentment. Thus, a more sophisticated, multi-dimensional set of factors now serve to define customers perceptions of overall vehicle quality. Everything from how well the vehicle accelerates to the harmony and symmetry of interior colors, textures, fit, etc. forms those quality perceptions. As you will read in this issue of The Power Report Europe, customer-defined quality challenges the way we view, or even label, quality and delivering it does create competitive differentiation. Since product perceptions are also influenced by dealership experiences, we examine variability in the fulfillment of service activities and this relationship to strong performance. In our continuing desire to hear what is happening in the markets, we speak to the president of Kia Motors Italia, which has high expectations for its new products to help the brand meet the challenges of an increasingly tough sales environment. Charles Mills Vice President European Operations J.D. Power and Associates Munich Charles.Mills@jdpa.com We hope you find The Power Report Europe interesting and informative. Thank you for your continued cooperation with J.D. Power and Associates. Sincerely

4 2 Customer-Defined Quality Winning by Understanding and Delivering on What Matters Most Lifestyles change, design changes, taste changes, but does the perception of quality change? By Marcus Behrendt Senior Director J.D. Power and Associates Munich Yes, it does. The perception of quality for automotive consumers is continuously changing. Seems just two decades ago quality might have been defined as the ability of your vehicle to transport you and your family from Point A to Point B with only a little maintenance and no breakdowns. Or, you hoped your car would start in adverse weather conditions (especially in -20 C weather), and that you wouldn t have to resort to the many tricks you devised to get your car started after an indefinite number of cranks. And nowadays? Dare your vehicle if it does not start under any given condition, and no one gives a second thought to driving problem-free from Point A to Point B. Quality today encompasses a much broader scope of definition than in years past. J.D. Power and Associates data shows that in 2003, 76% of customer-reported vehicle problems were related to defect/malfunctions. By 2009, that had dropped to 52%. Conversely, design- and usability-related problems have grown threefold in that same time frame (Figure 1). Quality perceptions are now far more than just the measurable failure of systems or components, and the scope is increasing every year. Several trends have contributed to these changes: The increasing level of baseline quality (measured in hard quality failure items) The increasing level of external technologies, such as advanced convenience systems, assistant systems, and multimedia, that have created new challenges for human interaction and have impacted perceived quality due to difficult to use issues related to these technologies The usage pattern of vehicles has changed over the years, and today it is common to own and/ or drive more than one vehicle, such as a rental car, which requires the ability to understand and adapt to different technologies in different vehicles The bar has been raised on consumers vehicle expectations. Consumers are constantly confronted with advertisements for new, ever-more refined models that include increasingly sophisticated features, or they see others driving these types of vehicles. When they reach a point of selecting a new vehicle, they consequently have high expectations for how it should look and what features they want it to include Have the systems with which quality is measured throughout the industry changed to keep up with these trends? If OEMs are using outdated, misaligned, or limited systems, they will not be able to identify the quality problems vehicle owners are currently experiencing. Measuring quality problems is comparable to an iceberg, in that the older standard quality monitoring tools only detect those problems above the surface and measure the situation accordingly. That there might be newer and larger perceived quality problems looming beneath the surface may not have been considered (Figure 2). In the past, the traditional way to judge the level of product quality was via warranty incidence and costs, and while that has long since changed, a significant portion of the iceberg the perceived quality problems are still hidden beneath the surface. The question is, how can those problems be identified and measured? Evolving Focus of Quality Categories 2003 vs Fig. 1 Views on Quality 11% 9% Other Warranty cases 13% % 39% Malfunctions Design/Usability (not brought to 48.3% warranty) 26.7% Soft Inadequacies (e.g., wind noise from 52% Defect/Malfunction side mirror) Customer-Defined Quality Extended Quality Traditional Quality Vehicle Experience Doesn t Meet Expectations (e.g., Fuel Efficiency, HVAC Intuitiveness) Apparent Problems Hidden Problems Fig. 2 Source: J.D. Power and Associates 2003/2009 European Vehicle Quality Study SM (VQS)

5 3 Perceived quality is impacted by three important issues. Two relate to problems that create customer dissatisfaction malfunctions that for whatever reason the vehicle owner chooses not to address by taking the vehicle to the dealer and soft problems, such as features that are difficult to use and for both, customers have no mechanism to convey their experience to OEMs. The third is OEMs lack of alignment of products to customer needs and desires. To address these issues, J.D. Power and Associates has developed a new customer-oriented quality paradigm, which address customer-defined quality problems and provides a competitive advantage in a changing market with declining sales volumes. This new quality paradigm encourages OEMs to consider all of these quality issues when trying to assess their products. It is crucial to carefully monitor quality on each level, using precise tools that actually measure what is targeted. Satisfaction ratings can be used to measure the effectiveness of models offered against what consumers are seeking. However, satisfaction ratings do not provide OEMs and their creative divisions with enough information at a deep level to design and develop the necessary technical solutions. The first step is having customers define quality as they perceive it. The second step is identifying and using the appropriate tools to understand and transform data into actionable solutions. Data from the J.D. Power and Associates Vehicle Ownership Satisfaction Studies (VOSS) and Automotive Shopper Studies provide useful insights that enhance the information gathered by OEMs internal sensors. While the VOSS is a composite study that captures the holistic experiences of vehicle owners, the Automotive Shopper Studies provide information on vehicle shopping behaviors and consideration. Managing customer-defined quality demands will be a key differentiator in an increasingly competitive and complex automotive environment. Figure 3 illustrates the benefits of addressing the relevant factors: repurchase intent, brand recommendation, and dealer service recommendation. Higher-ranked brands have higher levels of these metrics. For example, among the eight highestranked brands in the 2010 Germany VOSS, 55% of customers say they would recommend the brand, but that percentage drops to 39% among the eight lowest-ranked brands. While 47% of customers of the eight highest-ranked brands say they definitely will repurchase the brand, just 32% of customers of the eight lowest-ranked brands say the same (Figure 3). The 16-percentagepoint and 15-percentage-point gaps, respectively, are substantial, and will impact future performance of those brands both in terms of vehicle sales figures and service revenue. These data identify the implications for automakers of the ever-evolving changes in customers perceptions of quality. OEMs will need to undertake steps to address these issues. First, acknowledge the changes in customers quality perceptions. Second, effectively measure all aspects of quality. Third, act upon the insight gained to build vehicles that better accommodate the needs of today s customers. Customer-Defined Quality: Payoff Business Effects by Level of Overall Satisfaction Repurchase Brand Fig. 3 Top 8 Makes % 32% Recommend Brand Mid 9 Makes % 39% Bottom 8 Makes 790 Average Overall Satisfaction Index Score Recommend Dealer Service 43% 37% % Definitely Will Source: J.D. Power and Associates 2010 Germany Vehicle Ownership Satisfaction Study SM (VOSS)

6 4 Organizing for Customer-Defined Quality Greater Customer Demands Require Doing Business Differently Quality Becomes a cross-divisional function to ensure quality in all customer experience points across the value chain Ensures all areas of the organization are customeroriented, rather than only those departments that directly interact with customers, such as sales Ensures each value chain group understands requirements for customerdefined quality at each point in the customer experience from design to the dealership and their specific roles in achieving it Sets KPIs for customerdefined quality, which influence activities at each value chain point Performs root-cause analysis on quality, functionality and usability problems; sets the appropriate standards to help resolve necessary compromises in the vehicle manufacturing process Engineering Manufacturing Sales/Marketing After-Sales Understands both content requirements and the related performance requirements for function of vehicle features Ensures appropriate usage of carryover components, including alignment of potential carryover parts to target customer requirements as part of decision making (in addition to cost) Develops design executions across the model lineup as well as across brands based on expectations of the different potential customer groups, for which executions will be focused Organizes work station operating instructions according to efficiency and customer-quality requirements Integrates faster and more reliable information from the market to resolve production-related customer quality issues Ensures all quality loops, are aligned not only to customer-perceived quality requirements, including defects and malfunctions, but also soft issues such as gaps and misalignments Focuses OEM and dealer communication on real, customer-relevant product strengths, concurrently creating customer desire and managing expectations/weaknesses Aligns pre-delivery prep/inspections to customer-perceived quality, addressing defects and malfunctions as well as soft issues Creates and promotes product excitement through a thorough vehicle delivery process based on individual customer needs Actively addresses with customers potential difficult to use problems that have been identified in customer-centric evaluations Informs service teams of their critical role in reinforcing that vehicles meet customer expectations through additional feature and function training Executes all service activities to achieve the delight level to ensure customer value and strong vehicle quality perceptions By Felicitas Zankl Consultant J.D. Power and Associates Munich Felicitas.Zankl@jdpa.com VoC Understanding Collects in-depth customer quantitative and qualitative information at each customer touch point Ensures information is actionable, providing clarity and understanding of both diagnostic and open-ended questions Utilizes information on both stated and derived importance of problems Creates competitive edge based on greater understanding and application of customer experience information

7 5 The Key to Superior Customer Service Delivering Superior Service is No Coincidence, but is the Result of Performance Consistency One of the playing fields automakers compete on is the quality of service at their authorized dealerships. As in past years, the recently released J.D. Power and Associates 2010 UK Vehicle Ownership Satisfaction Study SM (VOSS) shows interesting performance differences in service ratings among brands. Automakers do not compete on service for the sake of winning the horserace, but for very clear economic reasons. The study finds that service customers of the five highestranked brands are 44% more likely to definitely recommend the dealership s service department than are service customers of the five lowest-ranking brands. Given that personal recommendation is one of the strongest influencing factors in customer spending decisions, this high percentage illustrates how high satisfaction ratings pay off for dealerships and automakers alike. At the same time, this finding raises a question: How can OEMs improve their service satisfaction ratings? Dealerships that continually meet or exceed customers expectations are likely to receive higher satisfaction scores than those that only occasionally satisfy and sometimes disappoint their customers. This rationale gives rise to two hypotheses. First, high-performing brands can be expected to be much more consistent in satisfying customers (Hypothesis One). Second, highperforming brands have much more consistent performance because they manage to more closely adhere to the service process standards that they and virtually all other automakers have defined and introduced at some point in time (Hypothesis Two). By Felix Friedrich Consultant J.D. Power and Associates Munich Felix.Friedrich@jdpa.com Both of these hypotheses can be assessed using data from the 2010 UK VOSS. To verify Hypothesis One, that high-performing brands satisfy customers more consistently, the mean and the standard deviation of customers service experiences with dealerships are calculated across brands. The overall service index score is computed across all questionnaires returned by owners of a given brand who went to an authorized dealership for service within the past 12 months. The mean score is a measure of how satisfied that brand s customers reported they are, on average, with high scores indicating high average satisfaction. In contrast, the standard deviation shows how homogeneous the service experience of that brand is, as reported by their customers. The higher the standard deviation, the less homogeneous the customer-reported service ratings and the less consistently the brand manages to satisfy customer expectations. To verify Hypothesis Two, that high-performing brands perform more consistently because they manage to more closely adhere to service process standards, requires a closer look at the customer-reported process parameter descriptions in the 2010 UK VOSS, which are referred to as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Survey respondents not only rated their service experience subjectively but also provided an objective measure based on service process parameters. If highperforming brands were to follow process standards more closely, this would result in process quality measures being fulfilled more constantly. The following process parameters have been chosen for a more in-depth analysis. These are four examples of the 40 service experience KPIs in VOSS that, if fulfilled, drive higher service satisfaction: Greeting upon entering the dealership Explanation of work provided Explanation of charges provided All work completed right the first time If Hypothesis 2 that consistent performance is the result of adhering to service process standards holds true, the percentage of customers reporting all four measures to be fulfilled at the last service visit is expected to be higher for high-performing brands, compared to lowperforming brands. Both of the hypotheses can be put to the test using real-world customer satisfaction data from the 2010 UK VOSS. To assess whether high-performing brands satisfy customers more consistently (Hypothesis One), the average overall satisfaction index scores of the five brands ranked highest for service in the 2010 UK VOSS were calculated. The average overall satisfaction index score for this group is 836 points, measured on a 1,000-point scale. Among the five brands with the lowest index scores, the average index score for service is 764. If the way dealership service is executed in both the highest- and lowest scoring groups were similarly consistent, one could expect equal relative variability in both groups, i.e., high standard deviation in the high average performance group and low standard deviation in the low average performance group. However, analyzing actual 2010 UK VOSS data leads to different findings. The high-performing group has a high average score

8 6 of 836 points and a low standard deviation of 142, whereas the low-performing group has a low average service satisfaction score of 764 and a high standard deviation of 167. (Figure 4) One can conclude that Hypothesis One holds true: high-performing brands do indeed satisfy customers more consistently. This, in turn, raises the question of how the difference in performance consistency manifests. Hypothesis Two suggests that high-performing brands adhere closer to service process standards. In an attempt to test this hypothesis, the following analysis shows what percentage of customers report all of the four criteria (if applicable) fulfilled, and what percentage of customers report at least one criterion not fulfilled. Figure 5 depicts the result: among customers of brands in the highperforming group, all of the four criteria were fulfilled in 48.3% of service visits, whereas among customers of brands in the low-performing group, all four criteria were fulfilled in only 26.7% of service visits. As a result, Hypotheses Two also holds true: High-performing brands have much more consistent performance because they manage to more closely adhere to service process standards they have a better control over their service process than do low-performing brands. This finding points toward two crucial implications for automakers striving to increase their service quality scores. First, automakers need to define the right service process standards. Second, automakers need to increase conformance to the new process standards. The best way to define service standards is by observing how the different service experiences of actual customers impact their service satisfaction ratings. For this article, four common service standards have been chosen for a preliminary analysis; in reality, it is important to more analytically derive those standards from existing J.D. Power data. In the 2010 UK VOSS, respondents were asked more than 40 questions to achieve an objective metric of the service standards experienced. These questions ranged from waiting time to being served (minutes), to the service adviser s behavior (paid attention to details), to vehicle cleanliness at pickup (cleaner/as clean/less clean than before). At the same time, respondents were asked to provide their subjective satisfaction ratings in five service sub-categories such as service adviser and facility, as well as an overall service rating. This combination of specific process diagnostics and corresponding satisfaction ratings offers the insight required to define service process standards for a customer group and the target national market. Once defined, service standards need to be implemented in a way that ensures compliance. This is a three-step process that starts with ensuring/revising service processes to support the new standards. The second is to train and motivate personnel to execute the new standards/processes. The third is to continuously monitor and refine performances against the standards. J.D. Power and Associates Customer-Aligned Retail Excellence SM (CARE) supports OEMs and dealers with activities to make what sounds easy on paper, less difficult to execute in real-life. Whilst changing dealership customer interaction standards and increasing conformance to these standards can be challenging, the benefits are clear: the percentage of customers who definitely would reuse the dealership for customer pay service was nearly 50% higher for the top five service brands than the bottom five service brands (58% vs. 41%) in 2010 UK VOSS. Service Satisfaction Average and Variability by Group Fig. 4 Service Process Fulfillment % All Four Performance Criteria Fulfilled Fig / / 142 Average (Mean) 100% Performance Criteria: Greeting upon entering the dealership Lowest- Performing Brands Highest- Performing Brands Variability (Standard Deviation) 5 lowest-performing brands: Vauxhall, Peugeot, Kia, Chevrolet, Fiat 5 highest-performing brands: Lexus, Honda, Jaguar, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz % 5 Lowest- Performing Brands 48.3% 5 Highest- Performing Brands Explanation of work provided Explanation of charges provided All work completed right the first time Source: J.D. Power and Associates 2010 UK Vehicle Ownership Satisfaction Study SM (VOSS)

9 7 Getting It Right: More Important Than Ever How the Shift Toward Smaller Cars Challenges Automakers Some clear trends are emerging in the European vehicle market. Arguably, one of the most important of these is the continuing reduction in the average vehicle size that has taken place over a number of years and looks likely to continue throughout this decade as CO 2 reduction mandates from the European Union loom ever larger on the horizon. The huge increase in small car penetration in Western Europe in 2009 should not, however, be seen as part of this longer-term trend. The surge last year was primarily a result of scrappage schemes favoring small, economical vehicles, and some of the gains will be unraveled in Additionally, simultaneous changes to vehicle design, not least in the powertrain area, are likely to contribute more to CO 2 reduction than vehicle size itself. Yet, once the long-term trend toward downsizing re-establishes itself, some key issues will emerge and vehicle manufacturers and suppliers will need to address them. How is the expansion of smaller segments going to affect the industry in the coming years? One immediate result is that there will be many more models in three segments than in the past: the Basic (Fiat Panda), Small (Ford Fiesta) and, to a lesser degree, Lower Medium (Volkswagen Golf) segments. This is because one of the most effective ways of bringing more buyers to the smaller segments is to offer greater choice, more options, and increased utility. This means that the conventional models in these smaller segments most often a straightforward hatchback will no longer sufficiently cover the market requirements. Vehicle manufacturers will be required to show a great deal of innovation and take great care with vehicle positioning to successfully participate in the product proliferation within smaller segments. Small SUV-styled vehicles, small Premium models, and other vehicle types will be increasingly offered in order to stay in the competitive game. By Peter Kelly Senior Director J.D. Power and Associates Automotive Forecasting Oxford Peter.Kelly@jdpa.com Yet past experience of expansion into a new segment, or a new niche, indicates that there are significant pitfalls. There are some clear examples of a less-than-positive move into a relatively unfamiliar or novel segment or niche. Renault s Modus was a new Small segment MPV-styled model with a relatively high degree of equipment for this segment. Originally planned volumes were 285,000 units per year at peak production; in the end, production peaked at 170,000 units and was quickly reduced from even that level. Similarly, the Peugeot 1007, with a novel sliding door concept and modern high-cube styling, also fell significantly short of its target of 110,000 units, as sales disappointed. A further example is Seat s Altea, which came in at little more than half the projected 130,000 units in its first year. Of course, the manufacturers involved in these examples had roaring successes with other models at or around this time, so the underperformance relative to expectations of a small number of models did not prove to be overly damaging. Furthermore, all vehicle manufacturers have launched models in the past that have not reached initial expectations, but it appears clear that moves from areas of comfort and expertise, and from areas of natural strength, for a given manufacturer carry with them a greater risk. CO 2 reduction and increased smaller segment proliferation and competition will push most OEMs into unfamiliar territory. Large and Premium car makers may be forced into producing smaller vehicles with potential risk to the brands of those vehicles. At the same time, purely small car makers may, perhaps surprisingly, be looking at investing in slight larger models in order to offset the risk of sharply increased competition in the small car segments, or in order to address larger car needs outside of the EU mandate geography. Rising Importance of A and B Segment % Share A+B Segment, Personal Vehicles, Europe 50% Fig. 6 30% '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 Source: J.D. Power and Associates Automotive Forecasting '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17

10 8 Market View: Challenges in the Italian Market As part of a continuing series of interviews with key leaders in the European vehicle market, The Power Report Europe spoke to Giuseppe Bitti, President and COO of Kia Motors Italia. He discusses both the challenging current situation in the Italian auto market and how this is further increasing the importance of brands and dealers that offer strong value propositions to their customers. The Power Report Europe (PRE): How has Kia Motors progressed in the Italian market during the past 3 to 5 years? Interview conducted by Felix Friedrich Consultant J.D. Power and Associates Munich Felix.Friedrich@jdpa.com Bitti: In terms of sales results, the last years have been very challenging. Historically, the best year for Kia in Italy was 2005, when we were able to sell almost 40,000 units, reaching 1.68% market share. In the following years, in contrast, Kia s performance was not as good because of the decreased customer demand of large recreational vehicles and also the limited availability of our city car, Picanto, in the last 2 years; therefore, Kia s market share was closer to about 1%. Last year, in turn, was better for Kia again, due to the government incentive in Italy. Money was provided for buying low-emission cars, with a special incentive for LPG, natural gas, and hybrid engines. You can imagine that this policy dramatically boosted the number of LPG registrations in Italy. LPG engines comprised as high as 70% of our sales. The overall share of LPG vehicles in the Italian market was close to 15.7% in 2009, compared to 3.43 % in Unfortunately, things changed again in Despite initially announcing to continue the incentive scheme, the government decided to no longer grant the incentive. Given the share of natural gas engines we had, this government decision has impacted us very hard. Demand is now very low due to the challenging general financial situation. We will definitely have to work hard for sales this year. PRE: What about Kia as a brand specifically? Bitti: Kia has developed a very nice lineup of engines and powertrains over the last 3 years. We have decided to build a plant in Europe that manufactures C segment cars. We also locally manufacture the Sportage, which is a very nice car, and the new Venga, our compact MPV. The quality of these is very good, which is why we are the only European manufacturer that offers a 7-year warranty. As a result, I can say that Kia made a huge jump forward on the product side over the last 3 years. Still, the fight is a tough one because many of our competitors have been here in Europe longer than we have and are fiercely defending their market share. We have one specific challenge in the Italian market. Here in Italy, the A and B segments account for 58% of the total market. The Picanto has traditionally been a top-seller in the B segment. Unfortunately, since 2008, most of the Picanto production has been absorbed by domestic demand in Korea. That is why we have experienced a shortage in supply of the Picanto. Obviously, it is tough to compete without sufficient supplies in the B segment, which is the most important one in Italy. PRE: Do you see an end to this discount-driven market any time soon? Bitti: Many of the big players in Italy continue to discount aggressively, including promotions where consumers buy a car today and pay the first installment in This is an extremely costly promotion, of course. PRE: Does Kia s 7-year warranty help you to offer something other than just discounts? Or are consumers still looking only for discounts? Bitti: The 7-year warranty is a great point and helps to further strengthen our brand. But, unfortunately, we still have to offer discounts, too, as the competition is quite fierce. PRE: Do you expect to see consolidation in the dealer network? Bitti: Today, many dealers are largely entrepreneurs. These small- and medium-size dealers are facing significant challenges. Big dealer groups have clear advantages in the current market conditions. This makes it indeed likely that we will see some changes in the dealer networks. PRE: You have an important launch coming up this autumn with the new Sportage. What are your expectations? Bitti: I have to point out that this is a really outstanding car. The design is very unique. In my opinion, it beats the competition in the midsize SUV segment. When we displayed the car in Geneva last March, we received tremendous feedback from the press. This is a milestone for Kia. We saw how, for instance, the Nissan Qashqai or the Toyota RAV4 boosted their brands in Europe. We believe the Sportage can do the same for Kia as a brand. Expectations are high let s hope production capacity is sufficient this time.

11 9 83% of service customers in Germany would recommend their dealership s service department if they have had a better service experience than expected J.D. Power and Associates 2010 Germany Vehicle Ownership Satisfaction Study SM (VOSS) 63% of customers in Germany who received an accurate cost estimate are highly satisfied vs. 39% of customers in France J.D. Power and Associates 2010 Germany and 2010 France Vehicle Ownership Satisfaction Studies SM (VOSS) The Power Report Europe Quarter 2, The Power Report Europe is a J.D. Power and Associates European quarterly. It is available free of charge in print and electronically. For feedback, comments or subscription, please write to Felix.Friedrich@jdpa.com. Reproduction of any material contained in this publication, including photocopying of this publication in whole or in part, is prohibited without the express written permission of J.D. Power and Associates. Advertising claims cannot be based on information published in The Power Report Europe.

12 J.D. Power and Associates Europe London Munich Oxford Frederick Sanger Road Oskar-von-Miller-Ring 1 J.D. Power Automotive Forecasting TM Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YD Munich 60 St Aldates United Kingdom Germany Oxford, OX1 1ST United Kingdom