Contact Center Satisfaction Index 2013

Transcription

1 Contact Center Satisfaction Index 2013 In the growing environment of continuous connectivity, contact centers have become, for many, the primary face of the companies we do business with always there, always on, and always expected to deliver on the company promise. Technology leveraging the science of the ACSI

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 INTRODUCTION... 5 WHY DO PEOPLE REACH OUT FOR SERVICE?... 9 HOW ARE PEOPLE CONTACTING US? WHEN PEOPLE CALL, HOW DOES IT GO? THE FUTURE OF THE CONTACT CENTER MIX SOCIAL MEDIA FINDING A PLACE IN THE CONTACT CENTER MIX MILLENIALS THE CHANGING FACE OF CONSUMERS IVR USAGE CHAT USAGE OFFSHORE CALL CENTERS INDUSTRY RESULTS KEY TAKEAWAYS APPENDIX CFI Group. All rights reserved.

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The seventh year of the Contact Center Satisfaction Index (CCSI) study shows a dramatic drop: with a score of 69, the index drops 1 point below its 2007 inaugural score of 70. Looking at the underlying data we do not see one overwhelming explanation for the drop. Across the model scores retreated, but not to the extent that the overall CCSI index score fell. As further background, for the first time in the study we took a mid-year 2013 read of the index which yielded a score of 73, a 4 point drop from the year-end 2012 score. At the time, we questioned whether we were seeing a seasonal pull back. Apparently not, as the index score continued to slide an additional 4 points giving us the 8 point drop year-over-year. Reasons for the drop are all supposition at this point. The pull back was generally consistent across all industries measured, underlying population demographics remain consistent year over year, and call mix remains generally consistent. Our first hypothesis for the drop is that the consuming public is generally fatigued as the economy continues to languish. With consumer confidence low, the dysfunctional government shut-down, confusion over the looming Affordable Care Act, and stagnant employment growth perhaps people just reached their breaking point. The CCSI index score is one of the many indices of consumer satisfaction that captured the overall mood of unrest in the country. A second hypothesis is that after years of steady growth in performance consumers had a built up expectation of great things to come/continue in the increasingly connected company service functions. Perhaps 2013 was the year that expectations finally overtook the ability to deliver. Faced with such a let down versus expectations the index suffered disproportionately as manifested in the 8 point drop. One thing is for sure, everyone will have to wait until the next study to see if this is a one year anomaly or a general reset of the index itself. CCSI Scores Seven-Year Trend CFI Group. All rights reserved.

4 As a general statement, with a focus on improving customer satisfaction, companies need to look at the policies and procedures they have in place and the contact processes they have deployed within their contact centers. With improvement, these areas will yield the greatest returns as measured by increased satisfaction. Looking year over year, the desired contact method has remained fairly constant. Roughly two-thirds of respondents in the CCSI 2013 study reached the service function via the phone with the remaining three contact methods in order of frequency being , chat, and self-service via the website. It is interesting to note that while actual contact method is two-thirds phone, consumer preference for phone is a much lower 54 percent. As the non-call methods continue to improve we expect actual contact percent to approach this lower desired percent which will then have an impact on both the kinds of technology and human capital skill sets required to run a successful contact center in the future. Social media seems to have found its role in the contact center. Rather than being a first line of contact, social media is developing into more the disaster recovery medium saw a marked increase in contact centers building out this community relations/recovery function within the contact center. Lastly, website chat as a service method seems to have solidified its place in the service mix during It is obvious to anyone who does business on the web that chat has become more prevalent over the past year. Further, study participants are telling us more and more that they are looking for the function as they interact with companies and not simply viewing it as a pleasant surprise. Use of chat is most prevalent in the Retail, Cable or Satellite TV, and Cell Phone Service industries. While chatbots exist to automate the chat function, companies are opting for live agent manning of this function versus this chatbot technology CFI Group. All rights reserved.

5 INTRODUCTION Contact centers are big business, and in the environment of continuous connectivity they have become, for many, the primary face of companies we do business with always there, always on, and always expected to deliver on the company promise. CFI Group has been actively working in the contact center industry for over 10 years. After several years, and a growing customer base, the need for a national index to inform our insights and increase our understanding of trends in this important sector resulted in the very first CCSI index in Since its inception the CCSI has provided a benchmark for the industry and served as an important indicator of evolving trends in an increasingly important company touch point with customers. The purpose of this study is to aid executives as they navigate a challenging business climate and evolving role of customer service. This is the seventh consecutive year that CFI Group has administered this study using the proven methodology of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). In 2013, the aggregate CCSI across measured private sector industries drops 8 points to 69 on a 100 point scale. The CCSI Measurements The CCSI 2013 quantifies the impact contact centers have on customer satisfaction and loyalty across the following six industries: About the ACSI Methodology The American Customer Satisfaction Index ( is the only uniform, national, cross-industry measure of satisfaction with the quality of goods and services available in the United States. A key distinguishing feature of the ACSI methodology is its patented scientific approach to customer satisfaction measurement. When applied to your organization, the unique cause-and-effect methodology of the ACSI shows how satisfied customers are today, and how satisfaction leads to desired results. This one-of-a-kind methodology also gauges satisfaction with specific elements of the customer experience that influence overall satisfaction and future success. The ACSI is an important indicator of economic performance, both for individual firms and for the macro economy. As such, the national ACSI score has been shown to be predictive of both consumer spending and stock market growth, among other important indicators of economic growth. Perhaps most revealing, however, have been the linkages discovered between aggregate ACSI growth, aggregate corporate earnings growth (among S&P 500 companies), and average Market Value Added (MVA), which measures a firm s success in creating wealth for shareholders. Bank / Credit Union Cable or Satellite TV Cell Phone Service Health Insurance Property & Casualty Insurance Retail The ACSI methodology quantifies how improvements to different aspects of the contact center experience lead to improvements in customer satisfaction and, ultimately, loyalty and recommend behaviors CFI Group. All rights reserved.

6 As shown in Figure 1, there are six measured drivers of satisfaction with the contact center experience: Representative s Knowledge Representative s Demeanor Ease of Understanding the Representative Policies and Procedures Contact Process IVR Machine Figure 1 CCSI 2013 Model Satisfaction Drivers Future Behaviors 78 Representative s Knowledge 85 Representative s Demeanor Ease of Understanding Policies and Procedures 69 Contact Center satisfaction index (CCSI) 71 Recommend to Others Remain a Customer 77 Contact Process 59 Ivr machine Key Driver Impacts The patented ACSI methodology calculates an Impact Value for each satisfaction driver, quantifying its potential to improve the overall CCSI score. As shown in Figure 2, improvements to Contact Process, Policies and Procedures, and the IVR Machine aspect of the contact (where applicable) show the greatest potential for helping the CCSI score recover in the coming year from the unprecedented drop in The remaining drivers; Representative s Demeanor, Representative s Knowledge, and Ease of Understanding show stronger scores in the high 70 s and low 80 s and Impact Values indicating that as potential levers for increasing satisfaction they need not be an immediate point of focus. The way to interpret Impact Values is as follows; for every 5 point improvement in a driver score, CCSI will improve by the value of the impact. For example, in Figure 2, if Contact Process improves from a score of 77 to 82, the CCSI score would improve by 2.6 points, moving from 69 to Similarly, a 5 point improvement in Policies and Procedures, from 74 to 79, would drive the CCSI score higher by 1.9 points CFI Group. All rights reserved.

7 Figure 2 CCSI Driver Impacts Score Impact on Customer Satisfaction Contact Process Policies and Procedures Improving these areas will drive CCSI higher IVR Rep Knowledge Rep Demeanor Ease of Understanding Further improvement in these drivers will not drive significant improvement in CCSI When reviewing the chart in Figure 2, it should be noted that drivers with low impacts should not be interpreted as unimportant to the customer experience. Rather, low impact drivers are an indication that further improvement will not have as great an impact on satisfaction compared to other options. Remember, the ACSI methodology is about identifying the greatest return (in terms of higher satisfaction) on investments, not just high scores for the sake of high scores. CCSI Model Over Time Figure 3 CCSI Over Time CFI Group. All rights reserved.

8 CCSI has risen slowly but steadily over the years of the study, showing its first meaningful drop in Looking further, Figure 4 shows all driver scores in the CCSI model experienced drops in 2013, however not nearly as dramatic as the CCSI Index score itself (the IVR Machine was not measured in 2012). Figure 4 Driver Score Changes 2013 v Ease of Understanding Rep Knowledge Rep Demeanor IVR Policies and Procedures Contact Process CFI Group. All rights reserved.

9 WHY do people reach out for service? While there are a myriad of reasons customers need to reach out to an organization s contact centers, we categorize these reasons into a more manageable set of classifications as shown in Figure 5. While the actual percentage distribution across contact reasons has varied from year to year, the two major contact reasons have remained the same: Product or Service Support and Billing Issue. Figure 5 Contact Reason Frequency With CCSI Scores 35% 30% 70 25% 71 20% 15% 10% % 0% billing issue product or service support place an order check order status complaint tech help with website Other Not surprisingly, simpler contact reasons (Place an Order, Technical Help With Website) show the highest satisfaction scores. Unfortunately, the more prevalent contact reasons, Billing Issue and Product or Service Support show scores just scratching the 70 point threshold which would be considered acceptable on the ACSI s point scale. Looking closer at complaint contacts, Figure 6 shows the breakdown of complaint contacts as a percentage of total contacts across the measured industries. In past years this percent has remained fairly consistent year to year was an exceptional year in that three industries saw a significant change in their ratio of complaint calls versus total calls with Property & Casualty Insurance, and Cell Phone Service providers actually showing three and four percentage point drops respectively while Cable or Satellite TV service providers saw their ratio rise by three percentage points moving from 15 percent in 2012 to 18 percent in Figure 6 Complaints as a Percent of Total Contacts by Industry Bank/Credit Union 9% 10% Cable or Satellite TV 15% 18% Cell Phone Service Health Insurance 4% 4% 10% 14% Property & Casualty Insurance 6% 9% Retail 22% 21% CFI Group. All rights reserved.

10 HOW ARE PEOPLE CONTACTING US? Figure 7 shows the breakdown of contact methods in Continuing the trend seen in 2012, Called on Phone, as a contact method, dropped another 2 percentage points to 67 percent in the 2013 study. , Website, and Interactive (online) Chat dominate the non-call contact methods with Interactive Chat jumping three percentage points in 2013 to account for 8 percent of total contacts. In a continuing theme, social media (Facebook, Twitter, SMS/IM/texting) are virtually non-existent as a customerinitiated service channel. Rather, companies used social media as damage control after the initial customer service interaction has somehow gone awry. We explore this phenomenon more in depth later in this report. Figure 7 Percent Breakdown of Contact Method Called on phone 67% 15% Interactive (online) chat 8% Website 6% Facebook 3% Twitter 1% As shown in Figure 8, the CCSI score for Called on Phone is 68, one point below the CCSI Index score of 69 for all contact methods in the aggregate. Another point of interest is, in a year of falling scores across the board, as the percent of Interactive (online) Chat rose in 2013, it experienced the smallest point decline (2 points) in terms of CCSI Index score for the contact type. Figure 8 CCSI Scores by Contact Method Interactive (online) chat 74 Website Called on phone CCSI 2013 = CFI Group. All rights reserved.

11 Tying it all together, Figure 9 shows how the various contact reasons are spread across contact methods. Note that percentages do not total to 100 percent for Contact Method columns as respondents may indicate multiple reasons for contacting customer service. Figure 9 Contact Reason by Contact Method With Percentage and CCSI Scores Call % Call CCSI % CCSI Website % Website CCSI Chat % Chat CCSI Facebook % Facebook CCSI TOTAL / AGGREGATE product or service support 64% 70 14% 74 7% 77 11% 71 3% 71 Billing issue 69% 68 14% 73 6% 70 8% 74 3% place an order 60% 73 17% 8% 79 11% 78 2% check order status 56% 66 55% 43 61% 73 75% 71 0% 0 69 complaint 55% 43 27% 48 7% 63 7% 56 4% tech help with website 61% 73 17% 78 6% 73 13% 78 2% Other 75% 71 12% 75 4% 83 6% 80 2% In Figure 9, the green shading indicates a CCSI score that is higher for that combination of contact reason/contact method as compared to the CCSI score for the contact reason in the aggregate. We note that the old-fashioned call is the least satisfying of all contact options leading us to believe that control over their interaction timing and availability of self-service are gaining in importance to consumers. Efforts to give consumers even more control of their contact experience are likely to help CCSI scores begin to return to their previous high levels CFI Group. All rights reserved.

12 WHEN PEOPLE CALL, HOW DOEs IT GO? First Call Resolution (FCR), the holy grail of contact center satisfaction, saw an astounding seven percentage point jump in 2013 to 72 percent, confounding the CCSI Index score which saw its most precipitous drop in the seven-year history of the study. Bolstering the hypothesis that the population in general has raised their standards for acceptable service, the CCSI score for successful FCR remains a respectable 81 however it is still off the 2012 high score of 86 for successful FCR. Figure 10 FCR Percentage (with CCSI score) 65% 63% 65% 72% Knowing that FCR is incredibly important to satisfaction, it is useful to see the impact of NOT achieving successful FCR. As shown in Figure 11, when a query is not resolved in the first call and the customer has to call a second time, their CCSI score drops 26 points, or 32 percent. If the customer has to call back three or more times the decline in customer satisfaction is even more dramatic: 49 points, or 60 percent. Looking past satisfaction, towards stated future intent, customers become much less inclined to both recommend and stay loyal to companies that have a hard time effectively addressing their issues within the first call. Figure 11 Score Decay as Calls to Resolve Increase CCSI Recommend Loyalty First Call Resolution Two calls Three Calls Four or More Calls CFI Group. All rights reserved.

13 Delving further into the how does it go question, we asked study participants to identify how many people they talked with on their call as well as the length of time it took to complete the call. What we found is that as long as the issue is resolved on the first call people really don t seem to mind being transferred or spending a little more time on the phone. Figure 12 shows being transferred to a second or possibly third person (or more) saw CCSI scores drop by a mere 3 points. Figure 13 shows the importance of speed, with shorter call durations scoring well above longer calls. That said calls lasting upwards of 20 minutes show a CCSI score of, still well above the aggregate 69 for this year s study. Figure 12 CCSI by Number of People Talked With, FCR Successful 1 Person 81 2 people 78 3 or more people 78 Figure 13 CCSI by Length of Call, FCR Successful 1 to 5 minutes 86 6 to 10 minutes to 15 minutes to 20 minutes 21 to 30 minutes 74 More than 30 minutes CFI Group. All rights reserved.

14 THE FUTURE OF THE CONTACT CENTER MIX The apparent desire for self-paced and/or instantaneous service continues to manifest itself in the CCSI 2013 data with Called on Phone as a contact method dropping another two percentage points to 67 percent versus 69 percent in the 2012 study. A continuing trend is the desire for a non-call contact method offering as a first-service communication alternative. As we have done in years past, we asked respondents to indicate their preferred contact method (allowing a different answer than the method they ultimately settled for) and found that almost half (46 percent) would opt for a non-call communication such as , chat or the website. Figure 14 shows the breakdown of actual contact method in this year s study as well as the preferred method had it been available and/or more effective. It will be interesting to see over the next several years if improvements in non-call service channels can improve sufficiently to bring these two measures more into line with each other. It is not unreasonable to suspect that this year s precipitous drop in CCSI could have something to do with the continued gap between preferred method and actual contact method. As our connected world continues to evolve it is reasonable to expect that consumer intolerance with not being able to interact with companies on their (the consumer s) terms will continue to increase, perhaps pushing CCSI scores lower if companies are not able to respond to consumer expectations. Figure 14 Revised Contact Mix to Reflect First Preferences for Contact Called on phone 54% 67% 18% 15% Interactive (online) chat Website 9% 8% 13% 6% Revised to reflect 1st choice Actual Contact Facebook 3% 3% Other 3% 1% So, where should we look for improvement? The answer lies in asking consumers directly, Why did your first choice of contact fail? Figure 15 shows us that the greatest opportunity lies in improving the information access in some fashion and general timeliness. Looking further, Figures 16, 17, and 18 show fail points for the most popular non-call channels, , websites and chat CFI Group. All rights reserved.

15 Figure 15 Reason First Contact Method Did Not Work Figure 16 Fail Points for Contacts No response 10% I could not provide additional info required 13% Not authorized to address my issue 11% Incomplete info provided 10% Did not understand my issue 11% Info provided not helpful 34% Info or assistance provided not timely 11% I could not provide additional info required 5% No response 14% Incomplete info provided 10% Not authorized to address my issue 9% Did not understand my issue 16% Info provided not helpful 31% Info or assistance provided not timely 15% Figure 17 Fail Points for Website Service Figure 18 Fail Points for Chat Service I could not provide additional info required 16% Not authorized to address my issue 7% No response 7% Incomplete info provided 11% Did not understand my issue 9% Info or assistance provided not timely 7% Info provided not helpful 43% I could not provide additional info required 8% No response 17% Incomplete info provided 8% Not authorized to address my issue 21% Info provided not helpful 17% Info or assistance provided not timely 12% Did not understand my issue 17% As a matter of prognostication, these channel mix changes will inevitably impact the mix of the contact center workforce itself. The need for technology workers within the contact center world will continue for the short to mid-term future, at the very least. Moreover, contact centers will benefit from recruiting from within the company, improving and expanding skill sets in web design, content management, and database management to better serve their customers CFI Group. All rights reserved.

16 SOCIAL MEDIA FINDING A PLACE IN THE CONTACT CENTER MIX 2013 marked the year that contact centers truly started to understand the role of social media in their service arsenal. Contrary to early messages by gurus in the space (always be careful of self promoted gurus and the software they are trying to sell you), social media has NOT turned into a preferred consumer service channel. Rather, it has remained true to its roots as a way for people to gather and talk, brag, and complain amongst themselves. Does this mean that companies should abandon social media? Far from it! What companies have (we think) finally come to understand is that social media is most effective in engaging with the crowd (and the individual) to better the relationship, rather than treating it as just another cost-effective inbound phone line. After three years of monitoring, the CCSI data clearly indicates that consumers do not want to talk with companies via social media as a way to solve problems. What they want to do is call/contact the company one-to-one and solve their problem, away from the hoopla and bright lights of the rest of the electronic world. This being said, if things go wrong, social media is where consumers go to shine the light of complaint with their network and the world at large, whoever will listen. At this point companies should take the opportunity to join the conversation, fix problems, and reap goodwill in the social media world. To this end, in 2013, companies have finally turned the corner and started to embrace this paradigm saw a quantum leap for meaningful company engagement in terms of customer service. CCSI data shows a strong 39 percent of respondents indicating that when they had a problem with a company that they broadcast over social media, the company reached out to them over that same medium and (finally?) helped them through to a solution. At 39 percent, this is a dramatic increase from the 17 percent reach out rate we saw in Figure 19 Customers Contacted After Commenting on Social Media 2013 v Don t remember 3% Contacted 17% Contacted 39% Not contacted 61% Not contacted 80% CFI Group. All rights reserved.

17 Not surprisingly, this contact was overwhelmingly appreciated with 95 percent of respondents answering in the affirmative to the simple question Was the contact appreciated? Looking beyond this simple yes/no question, the accompanying driver scores for Contacted versus Not Contacted (Figure 19) brings home the importance of this customer service being provided. With positive, corrective assistance offered in response to social media grievances, every single key driver score in the CCSI model increases by roughly percent, yielding scores higher than any of the overall or industry-specific scores in the CCSI. Most importantly, when looking at what people will do in the future, the Loyalty score improved 21 percent and Recommend increased by an even larger 28 percent. For contact centers looking to quantify and monetize the payback from investing in social media, these findings are an important reference for computing and measuring return on investment in this growing area. Figure 20 Social Media Contact s Impact on Satisfaction and Its Drivers Customer Satisfaction Loyalty Contacted Not contacted Likelihood to Recommend CFI Group. All rights reserved.

18 MILLENIALS THE CHANGING FACE OF CONSUMERS Much has been written about how Millennials (people age 18-34) see and behave in the world differently than their elders. The CCSI 2013 data illustrates this phenomenon. In terms of general satisfaction, Millennials show a slightly more satisfied view of their interactions (Figure 21). Not a huge difference, but a difference nonetheless. Figure 21 CCSI Score by Age Group and over 72 The Millennial difference continues beyond CCSI scores to other primary behaviors. Figures 22, 23, and 24 show they are more likely to share their experiences in general, use social media to voice their opinions, and prefer to communicate with the companies using non-call methods. As this group continues to move along the age group spectrum, companies will obviously need to continue to bolster their non-call service channels, as pointed out earlier, and be prepared to engage even more effectively over social media to help resolve problems to create more satisfied and loyal customers. Figure 22 Likelihood to Share Their Experience by Age Group % % % % 65 and over 35% CFI Group. All rights reserved.

19 Figure 23 Likelihood to Share Over Social Media by Age Group % % % % 65 and over 19% Figure 24 Percent Preferred Contact Method Non-Call by Age Group % % % % 65 and over 28% CFI Group. All rights reserved.

20 IVR Usage We had dropped the topic of IVRs from the CCSI study in 2010 due to its seemingly low impact on the customer experience. With feedback from the general marketplace along with comments from our own customers we decided that after a three-year hiatus from the study, the topic of IVR use needed to come back. This year s CCSI results show the technology is employed in slightly more than half of all call centers, a number that was lower than we had expected. One of the major advances in the technology during its hiatus from the study has been the steady increase in capabilities of voice recognition. With this writing, consumers are telling us that voice recognition capabilities are offered in roughly 60 percent of all call interactions. However, as shown in Figure 25, exclusive utilization of the capabilities is used by only 18 percent of callers. Figure 25 IVR Capabilities Used Phone Keypad 56% Both Keypad and Voice recognition 22% Voice Recognition 18% Don t remember 4% The adoption of IVR use versus talking to a live agent still shows a tendency towards tradition. People like to talk to people. When presented with the option of using an IVR system, 54 percent of respondents indicated they asked for an agent immediately, with only 6 percent indicating they concluded their interaction exclusively on the IVR. Further, it was discovered that 6 percent of companies do not give the consumer a choice of live agent, at all, over their published service line (Figure 26) CFI Group. All rights reserved.

21 Figure 26 Percent Customer Usage of IVR Capabilities Asked for agent immediately 54% Used menus - Representitive needed 35% Used Menus - No representative needed 6% No option for a live representative 6% In general, when an IVR strategy is deployed successfully, with robust and clear menus accompanied by an option supported by an agent, things appear to go quite well in regards to CCSI score. However, take away live agent assistance when necessary and things can go quite bad. Figure 27 shows this last group giving their interaction a CCSI score of 41, a dismal result by anyone's measure. As a general statement, performance of IVR technology in the call center has less of an impact on the customer experience. However, if yours is a company that has decided to use the IVR to the exclusion of live agents, regardless of the call reason, it would be wise to measure its impact on your customer service function to make sure you are not being penny wise but pound foolish. Figure 27 CCSI Score for IVR Usage Used Menus - No representative needed Used menus - Representitive needed 61 No option for a live representative CFI Group. All rights reserved.

22 chat Usage Chat, as a preferred customer service tool amongst respondents within the CCSI study, has remained at a nearly steady 10 percent penetration over the past two years. Because of the increasing instance of chat boxes popping up, we asked ourselves (and our respondents) whether chat as a service tool was really a preferred channel or if its use was just an opportunistic convenience. In response to this question, a full 63 percent of respondents indicated that they actively look for the chat function making it more than simply a useful pop-up annoyance. Of the industries surveyed, Retail appears to be the biggest users of chat for service, followed by the Cable or Satellite TV and Cell Phone Service industries tied for second place. Figure 28 Chat as a Percent of Service Interactions Retail 16% Cell Phone Service 10% Cable or Satellite TV 10% Another issue we looked at this year is the staffing of the chat function within the contact center. We have seen an ongoing effort to try to intelligently automate the function for a few years now. It appears that, overwhelmingly, companies continue to use a live person on the other side of the chat function. Admittedly, the function could be so good that users don t know it is automated, but we doubt it. In our survey, respondents indicated that 88 percent of the time they felt they were talking to a live person and 9 percent indicated they got a combination of chatbot and live agent. Only 2 percent indicated that they felt the interaction was with a chatbot the whole way through. Figure 29 Who Is on the Other Side of That Chat? Live agent 88% Both live agent and chatbot 9% I could not tell 2% Chatbot 2% CFI Group. All rights reserved.

23 OFFSHORE CALL CENTERS The last area of inquiry for the CCSI 2013 was the ongoing impact of outsourcing and, more specifically, perceived offshoring. After a fairly steady CCSI score gap of approximately 20 points, when comparing offshore centers to onshore, 2013 saw this gap jump almost 50 percent, closer now to a 30 point gap between the locations. Figure 30 CCSI Scores for Onshore v. Offshore Onshore CCSI 2012 CCSI Offshore Reversing the drop we saw in 2012 for call transfers, offshore centers took a move in the absolute wrong directions in 2013 with the percent of consumers reporting they were transferred amongst agents moving from 31 percent in 2012 to a full 50 percent in A bright spot for offshore centers in 2013 was FCR. Continuing the rise we saw in 2012, FCR at offshore centers continued its rise to 57 percent in 2013, its highest mark ever over the seven year history of the CCSI study. Figure 31 Call Transfers for Offshore Centers % % % Figure 32 First Call Resolution for Offshore Centers % % % CFI Group. All rights reserved.

24 Figure 33 Overall Resolution for Offshore Centers % % % When looking at the percentage of respondents by industry that believe they were talking to a call center outside of the US (2013 versus 2012), the Cable & Satellite TV and Retail industries both saw meaningful increases in 2013 versus prior year. Reversing trends of a year earlier, both industries saw their perceived percent of offshore contacts double in 2013 versus Figure 34 Offshore Calls as a Percent of Total by Industry Bank / Credit Union 5% 4% Cable or Satellite TV 5% 10% Cell Phone Service 13% 13% Health Insurance 2% 4% Property & Casualty Insurance 2% 3% Retail 5% 9% CFI Group. All rights reserved.

25 Industry results For the 2013 CCSI study, we looked at six industries: Banks/Credit Unions, Cable or Satellite TV, Cell Phone Service, Health Insurance, Property & Casualty Insurance, and Retail. Significant drops in CCSI were seen in all of the six industries. More in-depth results for each of the industries can be found in the appendix to this report. Figure 35 CCSI Scores by Industry Bank / Credit Union Cable or Satellite TV Cell Phone Service Health Insurance Property & Casualty Insurance 85 Retail CFI Group. All rights reserved.

26 KEY TAKEAWAYS People want options beyond the phone. A full 46 percent of study respondents indicate that their first choice for service contact is something other than the phone. First Call Resolution is everything. The impact of call transfers and longer call times don t have near the impact on satisfaction as not being able to solve the problem on the first attempt. Chat as a service channel is growing in popularity. While attempts are being made to intelligently automate the channel, staffing the function with a live agent remains the primary delivery choice by contact centers. Social media is used as damage control. Social media has emerged as the engaged damage control mechanism for companies and not (as some have predicted) the primary source of customer service. Offshore call centers continue to lag their onshore counterparts. While FCR continues to rise in these centers, the gap in satisfaction with onshore centers widened in People don t want to call. About CFI Group ( CFI Group is a global leader in providing customer feedback insights through analytics. CFI Group provides a technology platform that leverages the science of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). This platform continuously measures the customer experience across multiple channels, benchmarks performance, and prioritizes improvements for maximum impact. Founded in 1988 and headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan, CFI Group serves global clients from a network of offices worldwide. Our clients span a variety of industries, including financial services, hospitality, manufacturing, telecom, retail and government. Regardless of your industry, we can put the power of our technology and the science of the ACSI methodology to work for you. About ACSI ( The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is the only uniform, cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction proven to predict financial results. Founded at the University of Michigan s Ross School of Business, the ACSI is a leading economic indicator of consumer spending in the United States. ACSI and its logo are Registered Marks of the University of Michigan, licensed worldwide exclusively to American Customer Satisfaction Index LLC with the right to sublicense. The ACSI measures more than 230 companies and organizations across 43 industries, representing close to half of the U.S. economy. Nearly 20 years of data from the ACSI show that customer satisfaction is an indicator of financial results on both macro and microeconomic levels, including shareholder value and cash flow volatility. The U.S. Federal Government also uses the ACSI as the gold standard of satisfaction measurement for its agencies CFI Group. All rights reserved.

27 Appendix Industry Detail

28 Bank / Credit Union Industry Detail Bank / Credit Union score Rep Knowledge 81 Ability to answer your questions in a 80 timely manner Ability to understand your situation 81 Ability to provide accurate 81 information Ease of Understanding 84 Speaking/writing clearly 83 Explaining things in a way that is easy 82 to understand Using words that are easy to 86 understand Rep Demeanor 86 Courteousness 86 Friendliness 86 Professionalism 87 Contact Process 80 Total time required to address issue 77 Explaining the process to address 80 your issue Helping you find the information you 80 need Successfully completing your 81 interaction Policies and Procedures Policies that make sense 75 Ability to offer a product or solution tailored to your situation Being empowered to address your 78 issue IVR 65 Ease of accessing information 64 Did IVR met your needs 63 Order of the menu options 66 Voice Recognition 63 IVR voice recognition 69 Speed of response to voice commands 69 Able to navigate IVR to solution / 58 info Overall speed of trans 59 Customer Satisfaction 74 Likelihood to Recommend 74 Loyalty 80 CCSI Trend CCSI Model scores and impacts Score Impact on Satisfaction Contact Process Policies and Procedures 2.3 IVR Rep Knowledge Rep Demeanor Ease of Understanding number of contacts for resolution 82% 12% 6% 1 Contact 2 Contacts 3+ Contacts 44% contact type method used to contact customer service Facebook Interactive 3% (online) chat 7% Other 1% 29% Website 8% 14% 13% 10% 9% 12% 15% Called on phone 66% Billing issue product or service support check order status place an order Tech help complaint with website Other

29 Cable or Satellite TV Industry Detail Cable or Satellite TV score Rep Knowledge 74 Ability to answer your questions in a 73 timely manner Ability to understand your situation 74 Ability to provide accurate 74 information Ease of Understanding 77 Speaking/writing clearly 78 Explaining things in a way that is easy 75 to understand Using words that are easy to 79 understand Rep Demeanor 80 Courteousness 80 Friendliness 80 Professionalism 80 Contact Process 73 Total time required to address issue 68 Explaining the process to address 74 your issue Helping you find the information you 75 need Successfully completing your interaction Policies and Procedures 70 Policies that make sense 68 Ability to offer a product or 70 solution tailored to your situation Being empowered to address your 73 issue IVR 54 Ease of accessing information 54 Did IVR met your needs 51 Order of the menu options 57 Voice Recognition 63 IVR voice recognition 66 Speed of response to voice commands 68 Able to navigate IVR to solution / 60 info Overall speed of trans 59 Customer Satisfaction 64 Likelihood to Recommend 66 Loyalty 73 ccsi trend CCSI Model scores and impacts Score Impact on Satisfaction Contact Process Policies and Procedures IVR Rep Knowledge Rep Demeanor Ease of Understanding number of contacts for resolution 74% 18% 8% 1 Contact 2 Contacts 3+ Contacts contact type method used to contact customer service 35% 34% Interactive (online) chat 10% Facebook Other 3% 1% Website 5% 18% 17% 12% 12% 8% 11% Called on phone 70% product or service support Billing issue complaint place an order check order status Tech help with website Other

30 Cell Phone Service Industry Detail Cell Phone Service score Rep Knowledge 80 Ability to answer your questions in a 78 timely manner Ability to understand your situation 81 Ability to provide accurate 81 information Ease of Understanding 82 Speaking/writing clearly 81 Explaining things in a way that is easy 81 to understand Using words that are easy to 84 understand Rep Demeanor 85 Courteousness 85 Friendliness 85 Professionalism 85 Contact Process 77 Total time required to address issue 73 Explaining the process to address 78 your issue Helping you find the information you 78 need Successfully completing your 80 interaction Policies and Procedures 75 Policies that make sense 74 Ability to offer a product or 75 solution tailored to your situation Being empowered to address your issue IVR 65 Ease of accessing information 65 Did IVR met your needs 64 Order of the menu options 64 Voice Recognition 74 IVR voice recognition 73 Speed of response to voice commands Able to navigate IVR to solution / 73 info Overall speed of trans 72 Customer Satisfaction 72 Likelihood to Recommend 71 Loyalty ccsi trend CCSI Model scores and impacts Score Impact on Satisfaction Contact Process Policies and Procedures IVR Rep Knowledge Rep Demeanor Ease of Understanding number of contacts for resolution 78% 14% 8% 1 Contact 2 Contacts 3+ Contacts contact type method used to contact customer service 40% 36% Facebook 4% Interactive (online) chat 10% Other 2% 17% Website 8% 11% 10% 8% 8% 11% Called on phone 65% Billing issue product place an or service order support check order status complaint Tech help with website Other

31 Health Insurance Industry Detail Health Insurance score Rep Knowledge Ability to answer your questions in a 74 timely manner Ability to understand your situation 78 Ability to provide accurate information Ease of Understanding 82 Speaking/writing clearly 82 Explaining things in a way that is easy 79 to understand Using words that are easy to 85 understand Rep Demeanor 86 Courteousness 87 Friendliness 85 Professionalism 86 Contact Process 73 Total time required to address issue 69 Explaining the process to address 74 your issue Helping you find the information you 74 need Successfully completing your 75 interaction Policies and Procedures 69 Policies that make sense 66 Ability to offer a product or 69 solution tailored to your situation Being empowered to address your 72 issue IVR 53 Ease of accessing information 53 Did IVR met your needs 50 Order of the menu options 54 Voice Recognition 58 IVR voice recognition 64 Speed of response to voice commands 64 Able to navigate IVR to solution / 55 info Overall speed of trans 53 Customer Satisfaction 64 Likelihood to Recommend 66 Loyalty 74 ccsi trend CCSI Model scores and impacts Score Impact on Satisfaction Contact Process Policies and Procedures IVR Rep Knowledge 1.5 Rep Demeanor Ease of Understanding number of contacts for resolution 65% 24% 11% 1 Contact 2 Contacts 3+ Contacts contact type method used to contact customer service 35% Interactive (online) chat 5% Facebook 1% 22% 20% Website 7% 10% 12% 12% 7% 4% Called on phone 77% check order status Billing issue complaint product Tech help or service with support website place an order Other

32 Property & Casualty Insurance Industry Detail Property & Casualty Insurance score Rep Knowledge 84 Ability to answer your questions in a 82 timely manner Ability to understand your situation 85 Ability to provide accurate 84 information Ease of Understanding 88 Speaking/writing clearly 89 Explaining things in a way that is easy 86 to understand Using words that are easy to 89 understand Rep Demeanor 90 Courteousness 90 Friendliness 90 Professionalism 89 Contact Process 83 Total time required to address issue 81 Explaining the process to address 83 your issue Helping you find the information you 84 need Successfully completing your 84 interaction Policies and Procedures 80 Policies that make sense 79 Ability to offer a product or 80 solution tailored to your situation Being empowered to address your 82 issue IVR 62 Ease of accessing information 62 Did IVR met your needs 63 Order of the menu options 61 Voice Recognition 66 IVR voice recognition 69 Speed of response to voice commands 72 Able to navigate IVR to solution / 61 info Overall speed of trans 62 Customer Satisfaction Likelihood to Recommend 80 Loyalty 82 ccsi trend CCSI Model scores and impacts Score Impact on Satisfaction Contact Process Policies and Procedures IVR Rep Knowledge Rep Demeanor Ease of Understanding number of contacts for resolution 68% 22% 10% 1 Contact 2 Contacts 3+ Contacts 36% contact type method used to contact customer service Interactive (online) chat 3% Website 5% Facebook 1% Other 1% 24% 25% 14% 13% 6% 6% 3% Called on phone % Billing issue product place an or service order support check order status complaint Tech help with website Other

33 Retail Industry Detail Retail score Rep Knowledge Ability to answer your questions in a 75 timely manner Ability to understand your situation 78 Ability to provide accurate information Ease of Understanding 81 Speaking/writing clearly 80 Explaining things in a way that is easy 79 to understand Using words that are easy to 84 understand Rep Demeanor 82 Courteousness 83 Friendliness 81 Professionalism 81 Contact Process 74 Total time required to address issue 71 Explaining the process to address 74 your issue Helping you find the information you 74 need Successfully completing your 75 interaction Policies and Procedures 72 Policies that make sense 72 Ability to offer a product or 72 solution tailored to your situation Being empowered to address your 72 issue IVR 57 Ease of accessing information 57 Did IVR met your needs 56 Order of the menu options 61 Voice Recognition 66 IVR voice recognition 69 Speed of response to voice commands 74 Able to navigate IVR to solution / 59 info Overall speed of trans 62 Customer Satisfaction 65 Likelihood to Recommend 68 Loyalty 72 ccsi trend CCSI Model scores and impacts Score Impact on Satisfaction Contact Process Policies and Procedures IVR Rep Knowledge 0.0 Rep Demeanor Ease of Understanding number of contacts for resolution 67% 21% 12% 1 Contact 2 Contacts 3+ Contacts contact type method used to contact customer service Facebook 4% Other 1% 24% 22% 22% 15% 13% 6% 16% Website 4% Interactive (online) chat 16% Called on phone 47% check order status product complaint or service support Billing issue place an order Tech help with website Other 28%