Customer Satisfaction Tracker 11 th May 2012 Crowne Plaza Hotel www.sboresearch.co.ke
Background The Customer Delight System is an industry wide measure of service delivery It is an initiative steered by AKI It aims at providing highlights that will assist industry players develop and apply strategies that can improve their customer satisfaction and loyalty
Approach Target The survey targets two segments of policy holders; individuals and business (SMEs) Methodology A quantitative approach involving face-to-face interviews is used for data collection Sample 1,000 Individuals per wave 200 SMEs per wave 100 policy holders who deal with Intermediaries Nationwide coverage Cutting across AKI membership Sample included in Dec-11 So far three (3) waves have been conducted (Mar-11, Aug-11, Dec-11)
INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS + SMES
Industry perceptions What comes to mind when one thinks about insurance Top of mind mentions 57% 48% 56% Individuals 27% 24% 24% 10% 12% 4% 3% 5% 8% Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Security /Risk cover Compensation Savings / Investment Premiums 50% 63% 75% SMEs 28% 19% 24% 21% 7% 6% 4% 3% 10% Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Security /Risk cover Compensation Savings / Investment Premiums Individuals Base: Wave 1=1000, Wave 2=1000, Wave 3=1000 SMES Base: Wave 1=200, Wave 2=200, Wave 3=200 What should be most salient for the industry? What sentiments do we want consumers to hold? Have we done enough?
Purchase drivers What customers look for in an ideal insurance company Individuals Good customer care Read clockwise Good track record, reputation Financial stability 30% 12% 26% Qualities of an ideal insurance company 20% 22% 20% Fast processing of claims Flexible premium payment options Affordable premiums Base: N=3,000 Individual customers
Purchase drivers What customers look for in an ideal insurance company SMEs Fast processing of claims Read clockwise Affordable premiums Good track record, reputation 28% 11% 24% Qualities of an ideal insurance company 15% 22% 18% Financial stability Good customer care Premium payment options Base: N=600 SMEs
Perception drivers Positive drivers What is liked most about own insurance 62% 40% 25% 19% 13% 6% 4% 25% 6% 4% Individuals SME Good customer care Affordable premiums Wide branch network Communication & Contact Good reputation Financial stability Access to customer care Appeal is mainly driven by good customer care and value for money in product offering For SMEs brand reputation (i.e. credibility, transparency, track record) also matters a lot Base: N=3,000 Individual customers Data for waves 1+2+3 consolidated
Perception drivers Negative drivers What is disliked most about own insurance 43% 32% 29% 16% 12% 13% 5% 5% 7% Individuals SME Slow, complicated claim procedures Poor communication High/Expensive premiums Physical inaccessibility Poor customer care Long, complicated compensation procedures are a key pain point Lack of proper customer engagement in terms of frequency, use of appropriate channels and quality of sensitization generates concern Derivation of value for money also matters Base: N=3,000 Individual customers Data for waves 1+2+3 consolidated
Brand perception drivers 7.92 7.90 7.88 7.80 7.85 Individuals SME 7.79 7.68 7.77 7.76 7.62 7.51 7.49 7.48 7.43 7.42 7.38 7.50 7.29 7.28 7.24 7.19 6.92 Is a brand I admire Makes me feel important as a customer Is a company I can trust Treats customers fairly Cares about what is important to me Helps me organize my life Is reliable and won t let me down Is part of an international network Is innovative Growing more popular nowadays Has good advertising Equity of the brand is key BUT focus on the me is paramount The brand that will appear to understand customers more will have a constructive advantage There is need for continuous value conversations with customers Individuals Base: N=3,000 SME Base: N=600 Data for waves 1+2+3 consolidated.smes have a stronger sense of brand affiliation rating than individuals
Brand perception drivers Individuals 7.62 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Avg. 7.56 7.497.51 7.51 7.5 7.477.49 7.507.49 7.46 7.48 7.46 7.42 7.43 7.447.43 7.437.42 7.377.38 7.33 7.33 7.32 7.34 7.3 7.31 7.277.28 7.29 7.28 7.2 7.43 7.24 7.24 7.17 7.18 7.19 7.16 7.13 6.99 6.92 6.88 6.88 Is a brand I admire Makes me feel important as a customer Is a company I can trust Treats customers fairly Cares about what is important to me Helps me organize my life Is reliable and won t let me down Is part of an international network Is innovative Growing more popular nowadays Has good advertising Individuals Base: Wave 1=1000, Wave 2=1000, Wave 3=1000
Brand perception drivers SMEs 8.26 8.22 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Avg. 7.85 7.65 8.04 7.92 7.89 7.90 7.78 7.88 7.83 7.77 7.64 7.65 7.91 7.80 8.04 7.85 7.78 7.7 7.58 7.52 7.50 7.39 7.96 7.79 7.79 7.63 8.09 8.04 7.74 7.77 7.76 7.69 7.68 7.62 7.62 7.64 7.6 7.6 7.96 7.62 7.48 7.42 Is a brand I admire Makes me feel important as a customer Is a company I can trust Treats customers fairly Cares about what is important to me Helps me organize my life Is reliable and won t let me down Is part of an international network Is innovative Growing more popular nowadays Has good advertising SMES Base: Wave 1=200, Wave 2=200, Wave 3=200
Gap analysis - service delivery INDIVIDUALS Politeness and helpfulness of person dealing with you (18) Staff knowledge of various insurance products (3) Experienced and knowledgeable staff (7) Use of appropriate language (15) Being courteous/ friendly to customers (17) Ease of accessing a person in customer care department (19) Staff showing genuine interest in serving you (20) Ease of making payments for premiums (2) Understanding the specific needs of customers (13) The staff listens to you when you have a problem (4) Value for money (14) Affordability of premiums (5) Prompt service (10) Customer care staff ability to resolve problems (16) Timely notification on new insurance products and services (22) Issuing contracts with clear, transparent, non ambiguous terms (12) Ability to solve problems quickly (8) Efficiency in answering customers letters/telephones/emails (11) Keeping delivery commitments (6) Regular communication with customers (21) Complaint handling (9) Settling customer claims without unnecessary delays (1) 5 attributes in the among the top 10 in importance have a negative gap -6.00-5.00-4.00-3.00-2.00-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 How to read the data: A positive gap implies that what the customer expected and what they experienced was closely matched BUT how important is the specific attribute in driving customer satisfaction (i.e. are the attributes with the highest ranking in terms of importance having a positive or negative gap?)
Gap analysis service delivery SMEs Use of appropriate language (17) Being courteous/ friendly to customers (15) Politeness and helpfulness of person dealing with you (14) Understanding the specific needs of customers (21) Staff showing genuine interest in serving you (18) Experienced and knowledgeable staff (9) Ease of accessing a person in customer care department (13) Ease of making payments for premiums (5) The staff listens to you when you have a problem (7) Prompt service (3) Customer care staff ability to resolve problems (6) Keeping delivery commitments (4) Ability to solve problems quickly (8) suing contracts with clear, transparent and non ambiguous terms (2) Affordability of premiums (16) Value for money (11) Regular communication with customers (20) Timely notification on new insurance products and services (19) The way they handle complaints (10) Settling customer claims without unnecessary delays (1) Efficiency in answering customers letters/telephones/emails (12) 7 attributes in the among the top 10 in importance have a negative gap -4.00-3.00-2.00-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 How to read the data: A positive gap implies that what the customer expected and what they experienced was closely matched BUT how important is the specific attribute in driving customer satisfaction (i.e. are the attributes with the highest ranking in terms of importance having a positive or negative gap?)
Satisfaction Index This is based on all the 22 attributes measured 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 72 68 66 66 63 65 66 68 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Avg. Individuals SMEs The satisfaction index for both Individuals and SMEs is closely matched The average Index stands at 67%
Individuals Satisfaction Index 74% 70% 70% 72% 72% 74% 73% 73% 76% 72% 69% 72% 52% 54% 50% Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Reliability Price Customer handling Communication Complaint handling SMEs 71% 74% 74% 70% 73% 75% 66% 68% 69% 69% 71% 67% 73% 55% 51% Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Reliability Price Customer handling Communication Complaint handling Customer handling is under-performing compared to other service delivery areas
Complaint handling The incidence of lodging complaints has remained low during the period of tracking 36 28 27 Individuals 21 20 23 Why they did not report complaint 1. It couldn t make a difference/ take too long to solve issues 26% 2. Don t know who to complain to/where/procedure to follow 21% 3. Didn t think anything would be done 11% Individuals SME Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 % who have ever lodged a complaint with their insurance company 4. Didn t have time to go to the branch 5% 5. Felt it would be a waste of time 5% There a sense of indifference among a considerable proportion of customers Individuals Base: Wave 1=1000, Wave 2=1000, Wave 3=1000 SMES Base: Wave 1=200, Wave 2=200, Wave 3=200
Complaint handling The incidence of complaints is indeed higher than reported Individuals It couldn t make a difference/ take too long to solve issues (26%) + Didn t think anything would be done (11%) + Felt it would be a waste of time ( 5%) 21 33% gap Individuals Reported 54 Actual What we don t know we might not fix and this could be a potential trigger for churn Individuals Base: N=3,000 SME Base: N=600 Data for waves 1+2+3 consolidated
Individuals 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Complaint handling Mode through which complaints are channeled Physical visit Telephone call Letter Email Social Media (e.g. face book) SMS Wave 1 66% 16% 4% 10% 0% 4% Wave 2 72% 21% 4% 1% 0% 1% Wave 3 71% 13% 9% 3% 2% 1% Where was the complaint reported? Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Branch network 48% 53% 47% Head office 31% 30% 33% Agent 13% 8% 8% Broker 7% 8% 8% IRA 1% 1% 1% AKI - - 1% There is still heavy reliance in physical contact, hence the reason customers are keen about branch networks The adoption of emergent technology in communication is still latent Base: Wave 1=210, Wave 2=200, Wave 3=230 (All who have lodged complaints)
Complaint handling SMEs 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Mode through which complaints are channeled 0% Physical visit Telephone Letter Email SMS Wave 1 66% 16% 4% 10% 4% Wave 2 42% 42% 13% 4% Wave 3 68% 17% 7% 10% Where was the complaint reported? Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Branch network 54% 44% 12% Head office 30% 31% 71% Agent 8% 17% 2% Broker 8% 6% 17% IRA 1% - 1% AKI - 2% - There is still heavy reliance in physical contact, hence the reason customers are keen about branch networks Customers The adoption of emergent technology in communication is still latent Base: Wave 1=56, Wave 2=72, Wave 3=54 (All who have lodged complaints)
Satisfaction with complaint resolution Individuals % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Whether satisfied with complaint handling 18 25 31 82 75 69 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Satisfied Dissatisfied There s improved query resolution for issues brought forward BUT the absolute success levels are still low this is despite personal visits being the main avenue used for channeling complaints There s need to encourage customers to engage the industry as sustained progress is made in tackling emerging issues Base: Wave 1=210, Wave 2=200, Wave 3=230 (All who have lodged complaints)
Satisfaction with complaint resolution SMEs % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Whether satisfied with complaint handling 12 49 62 88 38 51 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Satisfied Dissatisfied The overall levels of query resolution are slightly better than is the case for individuals.but there are signs of inconsistency There s need to encourage customers to engage the industry as sustained progress is made in tackling emerging issues Base: Wave 1=56, Wave 2=72, Wave 3=54 (All who have lodged complaints)
Individuals % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Service Delivery Whether has noted any improvement in service delivery by own insurance company? 34 38 66 62 56 44 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Yes No Improvements noted Efficient/effective customer care 24% Quick delivery of services 12% Use of technology e.g. e-mail, websites, mobile phones 12% Quick response to claims 11% Easier premium payment i.e. M-PESA 10% More regular communication 9% Creating awareness of new services/ policies 11% Good communication channels 8% Yes, progress is being made towards the enhancement of general service delivery
Technological developments Individuals 100 80 60 40 20 SMEs % who have noticed technological changes affecting the industry recently 57 63 67 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Changes that have been observed Fast/ cheap/ more efficient communication 36% Electronic premium payment methods 18% Access to more information via internet /website 16% More and easier ways to advertise hence growth and marketing 15% Faster service due to computerization 5% Efficient, flexible ways of delivering service Easy access to info (i.e. on websites) Automation hence faster service Fast, cheap, easy way to communicate Flexible ways of paying premiums Individuals Base: Wave 1=1000, Wave 2=1000, Wave 3=1000 SMES Base: Wave 1=200, Wave 2=200, Wave 3=200
THE INTERMEDIARIES
Satisfaction with Intermediaries Accessibility Handling queries/issues competently Being knowledgeable & competent Quality of services Answering questions to full satisfaction Timeliness of services Giving adequate information on claim procedures Handling complaints well Addressing problems promptly 5.78 5.71 5.53 5.38 6.88 6.73 6.60 7.27 7.03 Satisfaction Index= 63% Gaps exist in the following areas - Time efficiency in provision of services, query resolution, competency in query handling and clarity of claim processes insurance companies need to work closely with intermediaries to ensure they have proper support and SLAs are observed Base: N=100
Satisfaction with Communication Yes No Whether contacted regularly 71% 29% Whether has been contacted in tha last 12 months 67% 33% To a large extent Intermediaries maintain contact with most of their customers Base: N=100
Complaint handling % who have ever had a complaint with the services received from own intermediary 58% Whether satisfied with how the complaint was handled 42% Satisfied 55% % who reported the complaint 93% Dissatisfied 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % satisfied with the following aspects in terms of resolution + turn-around time 65% General enquiries 60% 58% Accuracy Technical complaints Base: N=100 Satisfaction levels are low Intermediaries require more support in handling of technical complaints and empowerment so as to handle queries more effectively
How the Industry can improve services offered by the business partners Train /equip intermediaries with information 20% Encourage them to be trustworthy/reliable 10% Increase remuneration of intermediaries/motivate them 10% Audit intermediaries frequently 9% Give clear and sufficient product/policy information 8% Encourage them to give regular customer information 8% Employ qualified people with integrity 7% Base: N=100
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations Focus on the key service drivers to narrow the gap between expectation and experience Claim processing Complaint handling Customer engagement Faster adoption of technology To deliver services more efficiently and effectively Customer centrism KYC and align our offering (to need, expectations) in order to create value Customer education and sensitization Create and manage expectations Address the grey areas
Recommendations Empower and support intermediaries Their customer service issues are our issues Training and capacity building Professionalism, more stringent adherence to SLAs
We have an ear to the ground Thank You! www.sboresearch.co.ke