Telephone preference service

Transcription

1 1 Telephone preference service July 2014

2 Methodology 2 October 2013: 2,183 panellists recruited by telephone to take part in diary study Diary wave 1 November ,092 returns Stratified Randomisation: Half signed-up to Diary wave 2 March returns Analysis

3 3 Live marketing and sales calls

4 Proportion of panellists who received live marketing/ sales calls in wave 2 4 Just over half of the registered panellists received at least one live marketing/ sales call over the four week period in the second wave, compared with three-quarters of the control group 55% Live marketing / sales 74% Base: All respondents who completed second diary (: 391, : 391), March 2014

5 Impact of registration on live marketing/ sales calls The net effect of registration was an average reduction of 1.3 live marketing/ sales calls. In terms of the percentage decrease in calls, the group experienced a 31% reduction in live marketing/ sales calls after taking into account the drop in calls observed in the control group 5 Number of Live marketing / sales calls per wave ,000 1,500 2,000 % change in call volume W1 vs W2 Net impact of on number of calls received Live marketing / sales calls (2.5) (3.7) (4.2) (4.1) (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) wave 2 wave 1 Base: All respondents who completed both diary stages, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

6 Spread of live marketing/ sales calls in wave 2 The group signed up to received fewer live marketing calls on average and overall. T was also less variation in the number of calls received by individual panellists Highest # of calls Upper quartile Highest # of calls received Upper quartile Lower quartile Lowest # of calls received 5 0 Median = 1 Wave 2- Live marketing / sales calls Median = 2 Lower quartile Base: All respondents who completed second diary (782), March 2014

7 Reported volumes of live marketing/ sales calls in wave 2 7 The group signed up to were more likely to report receiving no calls than the control group Zero calls 26% 45% Low (1-5 calls) 39% 52% Medium (6-10 calls) 12% 13% High (11+ calls) 5% 9% Base: All respondents who completed second diary (: 391, : 391), March 2014

8 reduces nuisance calls for all users, but people with high calls before still receive higher numbers of calls once registered 8 Based on Reported Live marketing / sales calls Banding based on volume of calls received at wave 1 Medium High (11+) Low (1-5) (6-10) Number of Live marketing / sales calls per wave (1.6) (2.5) (2.4) (2.5) (4.4) (7.7) (6.9) (8.2) (7.5) (16.3) (10.7) (15.9) % change in call volume W1 vs W Net impact of on number of calls received wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All respondents who completed both diary stages, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

9 Topic of live marketing/sales call 9 Panellists at wave 2 live marketing/sales calls People in the group were less likely than the control group to report receiving unwanted calls across a range of topics. Just under one in five of the group reported receiving at least one call from/about an energy company. PPI Claims 12% 20% Energy Company 18% 28% Insurance 14% 20% Market Research 18% 27% Base: All respondents, March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

10 The group received 0.2 fewer PPI and energy company calls, after taking into account the drop in the control group 10 Based on reported Live marketing / sales PPI Claims Ctrl Number of Live marketing / sales calls per wave (0.2) (0.4) (0.3) (0.4) % change in call volume W1 vs W Net impact of on number of calls received -0.2 Energy Company Ctrl (0.3) (0.5) (0.5) (0.6) Insurance Ctrl (0.3) (0.5) (0.3) (0.4) Market Research Ctrl (0.4) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All live sales / marketing calls recorded, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

11 Feeling about live sales/marketing calls received 11 Panellists at wave 2 live marketing/sales calls Half of the group and nearly three quarters of the control group reported receiving at least one annoying call. Annoying 50% 71% Distressing Useful 6% 6% 6% 6% Not a problem 15% 22% Base: All respondents, March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

12 The group saw a net decrease of 1.0 annoying live marketing / sales calls after taking into account the drop in the mean 12 Based on reported Live marketing / sales Number of Live marketing / sales calls per wave ,000 1,500 Distressing Annoying Ctrl Ctrl (2.0) (3.4) (2.9) (3.3) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1 w1&w2) % change in call volume W1 vs W Net impact of on number of calls received Useful Ctrl (0.1) (0.0) (0.1 w1&w2) Not a problem Ctrl (0.5) (0.3) (0.6 w1&w2) wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All live sales / marketing calls recorded, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

13 Calls from companies you have/have not dealt with before 13 Panellists at wave 2 live marketing/sales calls Just under half of the group and around three in five of the control group recorded at least one live marketing / sales calls from companies they did not recall dealing with in the past. 17% Dealt with - YES 28% 46% Dealt with - NO 61% Base: All respondents, March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

14 appears to reduce unwanted call volumes whether or not the panellist believed they had dealt with the organisation in the past 14 Based on reported Live marketing / sales calls Dealt with - YES Number of Live marketing / sales calls per wave ,000 1,200 (0.3) (0.6) (0.6) (0.5) % change in call volume W1 vs W Net impact of on number of calls received -0.2 Dealt with - NO (1.6) (2.2) (2.7) (2.4) wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All live sales / marketing calls recorded, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

15 Calls from companies you have/have not given permission to call Panellists at wave 2 live marketing/sales calls Just under half the group and just over three in five of the group panellists received live marketing / sales calls from companies they did not recall giving permission to. 15 Permission - YES 2% 7% Permission - NO 46% 62% Base: All respondents (: 391, : 391), March 2014

16 appears to reduce unwanted call volumes whether or not the panellist believed they had given the organisation permission to call 16 Based on reported Live marketing / sales calls Permission - YES Number of Live marketing / sales calls per wave ,000 1,500 (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) % change in call volume W1 vs W Net impact of on number of calls received -0.1 Permission - NO (1.8) (2.6) (3.1) (2.8) wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All live sales / marketing calls recorded, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

17 Results by age Based on reported Live marketing / sales calls Number of Live marketing / sales calls per wave ,000 1,200 (0.6) (2.2) (2.4) (3.1) % change in call volume W1 vs W Net impact of on number of calls received (1.3) (2.9) (3.6) (3.2) (3.3) (5.2) (4.8) (5.1) wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All respondents who completed both diary stages, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

18 By work status 18 Based on reported Live marketing / sales calls Number of Live marketing / sales calls per wave ,000 1,200 % change in call volume W1 vs W2 Net impact of on number of calls received Working full-time (2.0) (3.8) (2.9) (3.4) Other (3.1) (4.6) (4.2) (4.6) -8 wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All respondents who completed both diary stages, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

19 By gender Based on reported Live marketing / sales calls 19 Number of Live marketing / sales calls per wave ,000 % change in call volume W1 vs W2 Net impact of on number of calls received (2.8) (4.9) -43 Male -1.6 (3.9) (4.4) -10 Female (2.4) (3.5) (3.6) (3.9) wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All respondents who completed both diary stages, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

20 20 All nuisance calls

21 Proportion of panellists who received live marketing/ sales calls in wave 2 21 Panellists in wave 2 Just over three quarters of the registered panellists received at least one unwanted call over the four week period in the second wave, compared with nine in ten of the control group 77% All nuisance calls 91% Base: All respondents who completed second diary (: 391, : 391), March 2014

22 Impact of registration on all unwanted calls Based on ALL reported nuisance calls The net effect of registration was an average reduction of 4.1 unwanted calls. In terms of the percentage decrease in calls, the group experienced a 35% reduction in nuisance calls after taking into account the drop in calls observed in the control group 22 Number of nuisance calls per wave 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 % change in call volume W1 vs W2 Net impact of on number of calls received All nuisance calls (5.8) (11.9) (10.0) (11.9) -16 wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All respondents who completed both diary stages, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

23 Spread of unwanted calls in wave 2 23 The same picture is also reflected in all calls received with much more variation for those not signed up Highest # of calls received Upper quartile 30 Lower quartile Median = 3 Median = 7 Lowest # of calls received 0 Wave 2 - All calls Base: All respondents who completed second diary (782), March 2014

24 Types of unwanted call received in wave 2 Frequency of calls across wave 2 24 The group received fewer recorded messages promoting a service. They received similar volumes of market research calls which would be expected as these are not required to be screened against the register (5.8) (10.0) (0.9) (3.1) (0.1) (0.3) (1.6) (2.0) (0.3) (0.3) 23% 41% 16% 19% 9% 33% 21% 37% 60% 38% 2% 30% 51% 15% 4% 91% 9% 84% 16% 54% 49% 40% 86% 84% 5% 8% 13% 16% 3% 4% 1% 37% (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Zero 1 to 5 6 to All nuisance Calls (incl. live marketing) Recorded message promoting a product or service Abandoned call Silent call Base: All respondents who completed second diary (: 391, : 391), March 2014 Market research

25 Reported volumes of live marketing/ sales calls in wave 2 25 Panellists in wave 2 Just over a third of panellists received between 1-5 unwanted calls in total at stage two Zero calls 9% 23% Low (1-5 calls) Medium (6-10 calls) 16% 21% 33% 41% High (11+ calls) 19% 37% Base: All respondents who completed second diary (: 391, : 391), March 2014

26 As with Live marketing / sales calls, decreases in call volumes seen amongst the group in all bands Based on ALL reported nuisance calls Number of calls per wave Low (1-5) Medium (6-10) High (11+) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 (3.6) (3.3) (2.9) (1.5) (7.4) (8.1) (3.0) (8.1) (10.8) (21.5) (16.9) (21.6) % change in call volume W1 vs W Net impact of on number of calls received wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All respondents who completed both diary stages, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

27 Topic of all nuisance calls 27 Panellists at wave 2 (all unwanted calls) In the second wave over half of the control group reported receiving at least one call about Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) compared with a quarter of the group. PPI Claims 25% 56% Energy Company 25% 40% Insurance 18% 26% Market Research 31% 40% Base: All respondents who completed second diary (: 391, : 391), March 2014

28 The group received 1.0 fewer PPI calls, after taking into account the drop in the control group Based on All reported nuisance calls PPI Claims Ctrl Number of nuisance calls per wave (0.5) (1.6) (1.5) (1.6) % change in call volume W1 vs W Net impact of on number of calls received Energy Company Ctrl (0.5) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) Insurance Ctrl (0.3) (0.6) (0.5) (0.7) Market Research Ctrl (0.7) (1.2) (0.9) (1.3) wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All respondents who completed both diary stages, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

29 Time of day of nuisance calls 29 Panellists at wave 2 (all unwanted calls) Most panellists received calls at all times of day 6am % 70% 12-6pm 69% 85% 6pm - 6am 45% 62% Base: All respondents who completed second diary (: 391, : 391), March 2014

30 Change in call volumes between 6pm and 6am Based on ALL reported nuisance calls The mean number of calls received by the group between 6pm and 6am reduced by 0.5 after taking into account the drop in the control group Number of nuisance calls per wave ,000 % change in call volume W1 vs W2 Net impact of on number of calls received 30 Calls between 6pm 6am (1.1) (2.1) (1.6) (2.2) -27 wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All respondents who completed both diary stages, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

31 Any nuisance calls from companies you have / have not dealt with before 31 Panellists at wave 2 (all unwanted calls) The majority of panellists received unwanted calls from organisations they had not dealt with in the past. The group were more likely to report receiving calls both from organisations they had and had not dealt with in the past, compared with the group. Dealt with - YES 24% 37% Dealt with - NO 59% 76% Dealt with - NOT SURE 20% 27% Base: All respondents who completed second diary (: 391, : 391), March 2014

32 appears to reduce all unwanted calls, whether or not the panellist believed they had dealt with the organisation in the past 32 Based on ALL reported nuisance calls Number of nuisance calls per wave ,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Dealt with - YES (0.5) (0.9) (1.0) (0.9) % change in call volume W1 vs W Net impact of on number of calls received -0.4 Dealt with - NO (2.9) (5.2) (6.2) (5.7) wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All respondents who completed both diary stages, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

33 Calls from companies you have / have not given permission to call 33 Panellists at wave 2 (all unwanted calls) Similarly, the majority of panellists believed they had not given the organisation permission to call them. Permission - YES 5% 10% Permission - NO 59% 79% Permission - NOT SURE 14% 21% Base: All respondents who completed second diary (: 391, : 391), March 2014

34 And reduced calls whether or not panellists believed permission had been given (although base size is small for organisations with permission) 34 Based on ALL reported nuisance calls Permission - YES Number of calls per wave ,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) % change in call volume W1 vs W Net impact of on number of calls received -0.1 Permission - NO (3.2) (6.1) (7.0) (6.7) wave 2 wave 1 (Mean number of calls per panellist shown in brackets) Base: All respondents who completed both diary stages, November 2013 and March 2014 (: 391, : 391)

35 35 Panel Profile

36 Panel profile relatively consistent throughout study, though younger people more likely to have dropped out 36 Gender Work status Age Women Men Working full-time Not working full-time % 21% 18% Key 54% 46% 44% 56% % 35% Telephone recruitment wave 1 Diary Completes 33% wave 2 Diary Completes Recruitment End wave 1 Recruitment End wave 1 37% Male 47% 45% Working FT 49% 46% % Female 54% 55% Not working FT 51% 54% 49% Base: All respondents (2,183), 04 October 22 October 2013/ All respondents who completed first diary (1,092) November 2013 / All respondents who completed second diary (782), March 2014

37 Good geographical spread at end of stage two 37 Region Telephone recruitment stage (base: 2,183) End wave 1 (base: 1,092) End wave 2(base: 782) 8% East Midlands 6% 6% 6% 3% 10% 4% 9% Eastern 10% 10% 11% London 11% 10% 9% Northeast 4% 4% 4% Northwest 10% 9% 10% Scotland 10% 9% 8% South East 15% 16% 16% 4% 9% 12% 6% 16% 11% 9% South West 10% 12% 12% Northern Ireland 3% 3% 3% Wales 5% 5% 4% West Midlands 9% 8% 9% Yorks & Humber 9% 9% 9% Base: All respondents (2,183), 04 October 22 October 2013/ All respondents who completed first diary (1,092) November 2013 / All respondents who completed second diary (782), March 2014

38 Despite some minor fluctuations, profile by socioeconomic grade remains close to original recruitment profile 38 AB C1 C2 DE Social Grade 25% 28% 28% 31% 33% 33% 21% 20% 18% 21% 18% 20% Key Telephone recruitment wave 1 Diary Completes wave 2 Diary Completes Base: All respondents (2,183), 04 October 22 October 2013/ All respondents who completed first diary (1,092) November 2013 / All respondents who completed second diary (782), March 2014