Price comparison website accreditation Research report Prepared by: Contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 2 2. Consumer Futures ............................................................................................. 11 3. Background ........................................................................................................ 12 4. Research objectives ........................................................................................... 14 5. Methodology ....................................................................................................... 15 6. Results ................................................................................................................ 17 SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED ............................................................................ 17 USES MADE OF PCWS.................................................................................................. 18 CHOOSING BETWEEN PCWS ....................................................................................... 19 EXPERIENCE OF PCWS ................................................................................................ 21 USE OF PERSONAL DATA ........................................................................................... 22 REASONS FOR NON-USE OF PCWS ........................................................................... 22 INITIAL REACTION TO SCHEMES ................................................................................ 23 AWARENESS OF PCWS ACCREDITATION SCHEMES ............................................... 23 CONCEPT OF PCWS ACCREDITATION ....................................................................... 24 APPROPRIATE ACCREDITING ORGANISATIONS ...................................................... 26 COMPARISONS WITH OTHER EXISTING SCHEMES .................................................. 27 THE ROLE OF PEER REVIEW SITES ............................................................................ 28 EVALUATING EXISTING PCW ACCREDITATION SCHEMES ...................................... 30 SUMMARY OF VIEWS ON EXISTING PCW ACCREDITATION SCHEMES .................. 31 PCW-SPECIFIC INSIGHTS ............................................................................................. 32 CONSUMER CONCLUSIONS ON EXISTING PCW ACCREDITATION SCHEMES ....... 39 SECTOR SPECIFIC SCHEMES ...................................................................................... 40 PRINCIPLES FOR AN IDEAL SCHEME ......................................................................... 44 FUTURE MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS ......................................................... 41 Appendix A: Participant profile Appendix B: Screening and recruitment questionnaire Appendix C: Topic guide eDigitalResearch Price Comparison Website Qualitative Research Page 1 of 64 1. Executive Summary 1.1 Background As Price Comparison Websites (PCWs) continue to flourish, concerns have been raised about issues of impartiality, reliability and accuracy of information. In response to some of these concerns, various initiatives have been implemented to improve the functioning of the PCW market. Some of these led to the development of accreditation schemes to certify the quality of PCWs. Examples of such schemes are the OFGEM Confidence Code and the OFCOM Price Calculator.12 Additionally the growth of peer reviews within a growing range of websites creates new challenges and opportunities for accreditation of the sector. Awareness of the OFGEM and OFCOM accreditation remains low, however. It is important that any promotion in future is cost-effective and can be pursued on a limited budget. 1.2 Research Objectives In summary the research set out to determine the potential impact of introducing cost-effective ways to increase consumer awareness and usage of accredited PCWs. Specifically, the research needed to investigate: • consumer perceptions of current PCW accreditation • testing consumer preferences for PCW accreditation schemes • what the minimum standards for an accreditation/trustmark scheme should be • who would consumers trust to run accreditation schemes • ways to increase consumer awareness of accreditation schemes The full objectives are set out in the body of this report. 1.3 Methodology The research was wholly qualitative, using focus group discussions to explore reactions and solutions to the objectives set out above. Six face-to-face focus groups were conducted in England with consumers aged 18+ who have responsibility for buying/obtaining products and services such as those included in PCWs (eg insurance, holidays, broadband, mobile phone, energy supply). Participants included a mix of heavy and light internet users, and both users and non-users of PCWs. These focus groups used open discussion and use of the internet to assess the issues around existing schemes and how best to develop them in the future. 1 https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/domestic-consumers/switching-your-energy- supplier/confidence-code 2 http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/price-calculator-accreditation/ eDigitalResearch Price Comparison Website Qualitative Research Page 2 of 64 1.4 Summary of Key Insights and Recommendations CONTEXT FOR ACCREDITATION KEY INSIGHT: Awareness of PCW accreditation is very low amongst the consumers in our research. This is in the context of a reasonable degree of trust from consumers towards the PCWs revealed in these focus groups. RECOMMENDATION: For any future scheme raising awareness of the presence of an accreditation scheme is an absolute necessity. Increased awareness would benefit consumers by developing an appetite for accuracy and reliability in the data received. For PCWs there would be benefits of knowing that the market is closed to unscrupulous entrants, building even greater trust in the sector. KEY INSIGHT: The consumers in our research had rarely, if ever, considered that PCWs are supplying anything other than an extremely useful service based on reasonably accurate and impartial data. At the present levels of awareness and understanding accreditation appears to be an answer to a question that consumers are not asking. RECOMMENDATION: Consumer Futures needs to consider the most appropriate way to frame the consumer risks around using PCWs. This messaging should focus on the implications for consumers if the information is not consistently accurate, up-to-date and complete. Such communication could emphasise the risk that the consumer is not getting the opportunity to choose from the most appropriate range of products, as not every supplier is included in a PCW listing of products and services. However, Consumer Futures must be careful not to be seen to be critical of specific PCWs. TRUST IN PCWS KEY INSIGHT: There appears to be a passive degree of trust by which it is assumed that the results being returned have been generated in an even- handed way. Even for the small proportion of consumers who assume there is a financial relationship between the PCWs and the supplier this does not translate directly into active distrust. While there are some murmurings to this effect in our research, it does not appear to be a very widespread view and clearly has not prevented people from making use of PCWs to any significant degree. This might suggest that a voluntary accreditation scheme would be of limited value, other than it might reassure consumers using PCWs which they have not previously heard of. RECOMMENDATION: It would be important for the future Accreditation Scheme to be clear that it insists on transparency of interaction between the PCWs and the end-supplier. Such transparency would help consumers know that they are making choices in a level playing field. eDigitalResearch Price Comparison Website Qualitative Research Page 3 of 64 KEY INSIGHT: Those not using PCWs are generally opting for other routes for reasons of personal preference/unfamiliarity with PCWs or reasons of perceived complexity (amongst older consumers). Consumers do not appear to be avoiding PCWs for reasons of trust. RECOMMENDATION: The communications around future Accreditation Schemes could focus on a subtle message around trust. For those currently using PCWs this would add a layer of reassurance that accreditation is intended as a force for good. For those not using PCWs this trust message would help to address any reluctance that might exist in future (though we should re-emphasise there does not appear to be any crisis of trust at present). KEY INSIGHT: One area that does appear to compromise levels of trust is the common perception that PCWs will pass on personal data that has been entered in a search. This information is then used for marketing by a third party organisation. Though anecdotal, this is a relatively widely-held view in these focus groups and is an unwelcome by-product of using PCWs. Additionally the PCW itself will use the contact information to carry out marketing calls, sometimes quite intensively. This is slightly more acceptable to consumers, though not greatly appreciated. RECOMMENDATION: Consumer Futures needs to help consumers understand what uses are acceptable and allowable with the data given to PCWs in the search process. This will help set expectations for consumers and allow them to make more informed choices about use of PCWs (in general and specifically). USE OF PCWS KEY INSIGHT: The PCWs are seen to be offering a highly valuable service to users. They help to streamline a process that might otherwise take considerably longer, while also offering the potential to shop around widely for the best offers. To many users the PCW has become the starting point for the search and the sector has clearly established itself as a hugely useful resource. Consumers are clearly empowered to seek out the products that they feel suit them best. RECOMMENDATION: Consumer Futures must be careful to acknowledge the positive role PCWs play. The benefits are achieved through widening access to a broader range of products than would otherwise have been possible without a substantial amount of searching. eDigitalResearch Price Comparison Website Qualitative Research Page 4 of 64 KEY INSIGHT: There is a good level of understanding that some key suppliers are not featured within PCWs and this is factored in to the shopping around process. RECOMMENDATION: Future Accreditation Schemes should recognise that many product providers exercise their right not to feature on PCWs. In doing this it will be necessary to distinguish between this degree of choice and how comprehensive the listings are from the providers which are featured. Consumers will then be better able to assess the degree to which they are receiving complete information results. CHOOSING BETWEEN PCWS KEY INSIGHT: Consumers make very little distinction between the functional performance of the PCWs. Which sites these consumers are using appears very directly linked to the advertising recall of the biggest PCWs. While this is not surprising in itself, there appears to be a degree to which this visibility also engenders a degree of trust among consumers. RECOMMENDATION: Accreditation should emphasise that there is at least the potential for PCWs to differ from each other in their performance and coverage. Developing this message might help consumers to become more aware of alternatives open to them, increase overall usage of the PCW sector, and ultimately allow more informed choices. KEY INSIGHT: Perceived scale and investment in advertising are used as a proxy for trustworthiness. In part this view holds sway because there is virtually no functional difference reported between the sites. However, it also demonstrates that the market could be at risk of becoming overly-dominated by these big ad spenders. Additionally this high-awareness-via-big-spend contrasts markedly with the likely investment that will be available to promote accreditation in the future. RECOMMENDATION: Marketing accreditation in future can develop messaging around the concept of “not all PCWs are the same” to encourage greater diversity and choice in the market. RECOMMENDATION: If we assume that future marketing budgets cannot compete with the collective spend of the PCWs it would be sensible to deploy marketing activities at the point closest to the search and transaction, for example within Google searches, pop-ups on the PCWs themselves, etc. eDigitalResearch Price Comparison Website Qualitative Research Page 5 of 64 PCW ACCREDITATION SCHEMES KEY INSIGHT: Amongst these groups (who had no prior awareness of the PCW Accreditation Schemes) there was a mixed reaction to the principle. Those with positive views on the concept of accreditation feel it would offer a degree of reassurance in the PCWs’ services. In the main this relates to being sure that the deals/products returned by a search are the best available and that there will not be a major mismatch when compared with the eventual/real price offered by the end supplier. RECOMMENDATION: Consumer Futures/Accrediting Organisations need to develop simple messages around the principles of accreditation. These need to achieve cut-through in a very busy market and to bear in mind that the majority of consumers are not attuned to the need for accreditation. Messaging around making better choices, accurate information and coverage are likely to have the most effect. KEY INSIGHT: The main negative reactions (towards the statement read out in the groups) were around the voluntary nature of the Schemes. The issue of whether data generated by PCWs is comprehensive is seen to be problematic by consumers in so far as they are very aware of major companies who do not place their product information on PCWs. Similarly it is thought by some that not all the best/cheapest products will be on these sites. RECOMMENDATION: Accreditation status could become a powerful signal to consumers of the attitude of the PCWs. Consumer Futures can use this opportunity to establish the value of accreditation to consumers. The fact that some PCWs choose not to take part would give a message to consumers that most PCWs would want to avoid. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING KITEMARKS/SCHEMES KEY INSIGHT: The response received to the existing kite marks and schemes (especially ABTA/ATOL) suggests that there is a very significant challenge ahead to build recognition of the Scheme’s existence and understanding of its aims. There will therefore be an additional task of demonstrating the relevance of a PCW Accreditation Scheme to the lives of consumers. RECOMMENDATION: The Accrediting Organisation take the key reasons for the appeal of these long-standing kitemarks (it is clearly impossible to replicate their heritage). This can include being absolutely clear that accreditation exists to represent the interests of the consumer, that it can help to deliver money saving, and gives redress and reassurance if things go wrong. However this last point needs to be established if it is a viable reality. Where the Accrediting Organisation is not in this position, it should focus on being clear about the process of seeking redress. eDigitalResearch Price Comparison Website Qualitative Research Page 6 of 64 MARKETING CHALLENGES KEY INSIGHT: As mentioned above it is clear from the research that building awareness is the primary challenge, the method of achieving this is more problematic. While consumers naturally suggest that TV/radio advertising is used, this is in part because of the highly visible advertising campaigns from the biggest PCWs. There is a clear need, however, for the marketing of the future Accreditation Scheme to work in a cost-effective way. RECOMMENDATION: In addition to the “close to transaction” advertising mentioned above, there are likely to be other methods that will reach the key audience groups. These might include advertising through affinity groups, and literature campaigns in relevant locations. KEY INSIGHT: Consumers see that awareness-raising would be most appropriate at the time they are engaged in the search process. As PCW accreditation is at present a very low interest subject on a personal level to these consumers there appears to be a very limited role for marketing via social networking sites. This may change over time but may not be the best use of resource at present. RECOMMENDATION: From the insights gained in this research a clearer on- site presence would be of major benefit. Online advertising at the time of the initial search would work to increase awareness at the very time consumers are most receptive to the message. KEY INSIGHT: Once awareness is achieved the secondary challenge is around enhancing understanding of the value of a PCW Accreditation Scheme. In terms of marketing messages, establishing a perceived need for accreditation is fundamental and problematic. There remains a challenge to establish a need in the minds of the consumer. At present there is very little perceived risk of harm when dealing with a PCW. Consumers appear relaxed about their interactions with PCWs and often assume that the perceived size of the site is a shortcut to trust. RECOMMENDATION: Message development that focuses on fear and risk can be very captivating to audiences, and in this instance might be effective. At present this would be a task of altering consumers’ perceptions of this sector and some dramatic messages around risk may help to achieve this. KEY INSIGHT: Additionally the consumer/supplier ‘contract’ (in both a literal and figurative sense) is most often seen to be with the company at the end of the chain; the PCW is seen as being an independent functionary/cipher. As such the PCW is not seen to introduce extra risk to the equation, most especially in financial services and energy/utilities. RECOMMENDATION: Consumer Futures needs to identify ways in which consumer communication can clarify the roles, remits and relationships between the PCWs and the provider companies. This might help consumers to appreciate that PCWs have responsibilities and that the consumer using the PCW can expect specific standards of quality, reliability and impartiality. eDigitalResearch Price Comparison Website Qualitative Research Page 7 of 64 eDigitalResearch Price Comparison Website Qualitative Research Page 8 of 64 PCW ACCREDITATION IN FUTURE KEY INSIGHT: Once awareness is raised of the existence of PCW Accreditation the majority of our consumers feel it would increase their level of trust in a PCW and that they may look to use an accredited PCW in future. This should be taken in the context of the views offered that the presence of accreditation may not influence which specific sites are used, given the wide range of other factors at play. RECOMMENDATION: If consumers are made aware of an Accreditation Scheme it could help to give reassurance in the services being offered. At present there is an extremely low level of perceived risk; consumers who use PCWs have received a highly useful and efficient service that they are likely to return to in the future. KEY INSIGHT: Those consumers NOT using PCWs are often making an active choice to use different methods. There are very few instances of consumers not using PCWs because they do not trust the results being returned. They choose personal contact with suppliers, follow recommendations from people they know/those perceived as experts (such as Martin Lewis) or avoid PCWs through fear of them being complicated to use. RECOMMENDATION: Messages targeting current non-users could focus on the benefits of accredited PCWs. It is not the role of the accrediting body to promote the sector itself. KEY INSIGHTS and RECOMMENDATIONS. The research identified a number of the key criteria that any future PCW Accreditation Scheme must meet: • to be marketed such that consumers become aware of its existence and understand its value, making effective use of methods that are as close to the search process as possible • to work to principles of honesty, impartiality and trustworthiness • to have genuine authority/teeth that means PCWs must act fairly towards consumers • that accreditation can be revoked if PCWs do not comply with the Code • to be clear how to contact the Accrediting Organisation when there are complaints/grievances about the PCWs • to have the potential of user-reviews if these can be shown to be impartial and even-handed. There is a risk involved in having such reviews as part of the Accreditation Scheme if they are not wholly trusted by consumers. The user reviews shown are often felt to be selected with a bias towards those that are positive, which could clearly be counterproductive in this context where impartiality is so important • for some, that the Accrediting Organisation should actively intervene to represent the interests of individual consumers where there is a perceived wrong-doing or misrepresentation. However there was also a counter-opinion offered that this intervention role is beyond the remit of an accrediting organisation, and on balance it is this view that held sway amongst the consumers in our focus groups. Given that it was not a consensus view we would suggest further investigation by Consumer Futures eDigitalResearch Price Comparison Website Qualitative Research Page 9 of 64