How personalisation can help banks retain customers

Banking personalisation copy

In research conducted across retail financial services, in 2014 and 2015, it was found that around 74% of consumers would initially prefer a provider, when looking for a banking product, because they’re a current customer. However, of that 74%, 35% go on to choose a different provider to open an account with or apply through. The credit card industry fared the worst with 41% of people selecting a different brand, followed by mortgages with 34% going elsewhere.

Brands within the banking industry generally aim to encourage customers to hold multiple accounts and products with them, so to lose a current customer to another bank when they’re seeking out a new product can result in a significant loss for the bank. Not only are they missing out on a new opportunity, but it also puts the bank at risk of losing the customer’s business across other accounts as well.

Why are banks losing so many opportunities?

In addition to competitive offers and rates, website usability plays a major role in which brands consumers choose to do business with. To assess how well banking websites aid consumers online, a series of consumer experience benchmarking studies were conducted. For the most part, Australian banks perform relatively well across the online customer journey, compared to UK peers, however there is one area that suffers greatly: the handling of existing customers.

Across the main banking products, credit cards and mortgages are the worst performers in this area, with industry averages of 38% and 30% respectively. The performance is far better within transactions accounts, averaging 58%, leaving personal loans (45%) and savings accounts (44%) in the middle, although still a lot of room for improvement.

Existing customer handling

When we break down some of the key elements used to aid in existing customer handling, we can see that there are areas that are lacking. Looking at the Big 4 banks (ANZ, CBA, NAB and Westpac), all brands ask if you’re an existing customer during the application process for a personal loan. However, when it comes to applying for a credit card or transactions account only three of them ask and for mortgages and savings accounts only two ask the question.

Going on to prompt a non-registered customer to register for online member services, three brands do this for transactions accounts, but only one brand for each of the other products does so – and it’s not the same brand each time!

Big 4 banks criteriaFrom this assessment we can see that not only are there areas that are missing, but there is also an inconsistency across brand websites. In recent years there have been endless discussions about ensuring a consistent user experience across devices in order to create a seamless flow as consumers switch between desktop and mobile devices. This same focus of consistency is not being considered and implemented across the full product range a brand’s website offers. When there isn’t a predictable and reliable flow throughout a website, it creates more work for the customer as they try to navigate their way through a mix of design structures.

It’s human nature to stick with what we know. So if a customer knows the process of opening up a savings account with Bank X and they now want to get a credit card account, then it would be reasonable for them to expect the process to be similar. If Bank X is offering a completely different experience across the two products, then there is no sense of familiarity for the customer and therefore getting a credit card account with a competing bank would hold just as much consistency.

Until brands implement a more universal approach on their websites, customers may as well view each product offering as a separate website. So the question for customers then becomes whether to use different websites within the same domain or across a multitude of sites? After all 18% of consumers surveyed within our consumer experience benchmarking studies for financial services products, stated that if they encountered a problem they would most likely leave and try a different site.

 

Visit our research library for more research across the banking sector and register your brand to ensure it’s captured in our next study period.

Continue reading

Website experience influencing which energy brand consumers prefer

Select energy digital

Australia’s energy retail industry is made up of a mix of big brands and mid-small brands. AGL and Origin hold a long history and therefore find themselves to be better known than the likes of Energex and Momentum.

In a digital marketing effectiveness study conducted by Global Reviews in March 2015, consumers were asked to recall up to five energy providers. AGL and Origin were on equal placement both with 66%, nearly double the recall rate of EnergyAustralia who was on 34%. Red Energy and Lumo Energy rounded off the top five with 21% and 19% respectively. It should be noted that even through TRUenergy has not been branded as such since 8th October 2012, it still equals Integral Energy and Momentum in terms of brand recall, all on 5%.

In spite of the gap between AGL and Origin, and EnergyAustralia, when it came to initial brand preferences, EnergyAustralia was able to match Origin, both on 10% – just three points behind AGL.

recall and initial preference energy

Being a current or former customer and having trust in a brand are key drivers when consumers first have a brand in mind. It’s not until consumers begin their research that they become influenced by other factors in making a decision. With 91% of consumers who are searching for a new provider stating that they would research online, the internet suddenly becomes a prime influencer.

Typically a mix of search engines, aggregators and brand websites are used when researching an energy provider online. Whilst brands may not have absolute control over the role search engines and aggregators play in influencing the consumer, they do control their own website experience.

In a real life situation, 65% said that they would only spend between 1-4 hours researching an energy provider and 55% would only get prices from 1-3 providers. In addition to that, 18% said that they would leave a website if they encountered a problem. With all of this in mind, brands do not get a lot of time or leeway to get on the consideration list. If their website is not up to standard, they are a risk of losing out.

In order to ascertain just how well the websites of energy providers perform, a digital sales effectiveness customer experience assessment was completed on the websites of nine energy providers. This benchmark assessment was made up of a best practice features and functions audit, consumer usability testing and a customer audit. Origin, EnergyAustralia and AGL topped the benchmark at 55%, 52% and 49% respectively. ActewAGL and Red Energy sat one point below the industry average with 44%, whilst Powershop, Lumo, Simply Energy and Momentum all fell further below the line.

Since the previous sales effectiveness benchmark in September 2014, Lumo and AGL have shown the greatest improvement, rising by 11 points and 8 points respectively.

Overall Energy DSE score

With Origin, EnergyAustralia and AGL providing the best online experiences, the question then was whether this influenced how consumers selected a preferred provider.

In terms of shortlisting providers Origin was considered by 51%, ahead of AGL on 46% and EnergyAustralia on 35%. Origin retained this lead in the final preferences with 28%, while EnergyAustralia moved up to take second place with 18%, two points ahead of AGL who moved down to third. These three brands kept well ahead of the rest of the market at every stage of the research journey.

Shortlist final preference energy

Here is where we see the influence websites have on considering a preferred provider. Between July 2014 and March 2015, website usability has become a far more prominent reason for considering a brand. The appearance of being easy to use doubled in importance when considering a brand, with the ability to compare options, ease of finding products and a visually appealing site all also increasing between study periods. With Origin, AGL and EnergyAustralia offering the top websites across the industry, it’s no surprise that the experience they’re providing is feeding into why consumers are considering them.

shortlisting energyThe same goes for the final preference. Having a website that made it easy to locate the right plan was an influencing factor for 17% – up from 14% in 2014. The ability to find plans quickly also rose from 9% up to 14%.

final preference energy

Looking back at the benchmark assessment, it’s noted that EnergyAustralia performed particularly well in the stages of introducing product options and assisting the customer in the evaluation of the products. Leading in these stages coupled with website usability being a strong reason behind selecting a brand would have helped push EnergyAustralia ahead of AGL when it came to final preference.

While AGL, EnergyAustralia and Origin continue to offer the best website experiences, they will remain on the top of the list for preferred brands. If the other brands in the industry want a greater share of final preferences, then they need to not only consider how their brand is perceived beyond the internet, but also how well their website is retaining prospective customers through ease of use and appearance.

 

Contact us to find out more about what is influencing consumers online.

Continue reading

Internet Service Providers: Battle of the Commonwealth

Internet Service Providers: Battle of the Commonwealth

In May and November of 2014, Global Reviews ran Digital Sales Effectiveness benchmark studies across 10 internet service provider websites in Australia, New Zealand and UK. Overall, Australian brands performed better than UK and New Zealand brands, with Optus coming out on top as the leader. A similar result to that of the mobile phone provider study that was conducted at the same time.

#1 Optus 62%
#2 Telstra 60%
#3 iiNet 59%
#4 Spark 53%
#5 Vodafone (NZ)
52%
#6 BT 51%
#7 TPG 51%
#8 Compass 51%
#9 EE 50%
#10 Orcon 50%

 

Despite the variance in scores across for each brand and region, there is a consistency in where along the customer research and purchasing journey the industry as a whole is excelling and where it is falling short. The telecommunication industry is strong in how they introduce their products and how they facilitate a consumer in the checkout, with scores of 67% and 61% respectively for these stages. However, getting from the product options through the decision making to the purchase/checkout stage is quite a sore spot for the industry. On average the industry scores just 37% for helping facilitate a decision and guiding the customer to a means of purchasing.

DSE x country2

This poor score in the crucial phase of the purchasing journey can be detrimental to a brand’s ability to close the sale, not to mention hindering all the marketing efforts used to get consumers to this point. When customers were asked what they would do if they encountered problems on a website when researching and obtaining a new internet service provider, an overwhelming 22% said that they would leave the website and go somewhere else, highlighting just how crucial this step of the sales process is.

When we looked at this further, we found that the customers who said they would leave the website and go elsewhere were more commonly the ones who had just completed tasks on the websites that scored lowest in the digital effectiveness study. From here we found a strong negative correlation (r=-0.798) between a poor website experience and opting to leave the website and go elsewhere if a problem is encountered – as demonstrated in the following graph.DSE vs leave website

What this shows is that if a brand is unable to at least meet the industry average, then customers will go elsewhere to get the service they want and expect. When we’re dealing with internet service providers, the digital experience delivered can make or break a customer’s opinion of the brand. They are not going to want to commit to a brand’s service if they can’t deliver within their own medium.

In a market where prices are so competitive – it’s the experience that could be the differentiator.

 

Contact us to ensure your website’s experience isn’t losing you customers.

Continue reading

How AU consumers research & select a car insurance provider online

On a monthly basis as part of our Digital Marketing Effectiveness program we ask 200 Australians who are in the market for motor insurance to use the internet to research, shortlist and choose a provider.

In April we found that while 71% of consumers had a brand in mind before beginning their research, only 34% of these consumers still preferred that brand at the end of their research.

Motor Insurance researchVisit our reports library to download FREE industry reports from across our digital marketing and digital sales effectiveness programs, or contact us to find out how well your brand converts from initial through to final preference.

Continue reading

Betting on Mobile: The differences between iPhone and Android users

AndroidApple1

Author: Marie Sheehan

With the mobile betting industry set to be worth £27 billion* by 2017, Sports Betting Providers are sharpening their mobile strategies in order to optimise punters’ mobile customer experience. It’s even more pertinent when you consider that the Google Play Store does not allow apps that facilitate online gambling.

So how will Sports Betting Providers win the punters’ mobile pound?

Should Sports Betting Providers have one mobile strategy for Apple fans and a different strategy for Android users?

Or should they just have one mobile strategy irrespective of which type of mobile device punters bet on?

Findings from Global Reviews’ latest research into the UK Sports Betting industry will help to answer these questions.

The science behind the mobile research

The Global Reviews Mobile Sales Effectiveness* study of UK Sports Betting Providers Q1 2015 looked at how effective the mobile sites of Bet 365, Bet Fred, Bet Fair, Bet Victor, Coral, Ladbrokes, Paddy Power, Sky Bet and William Hill are at converting and convincing punters to place a bet with them.

The field work for this research was completed in January and February of this year. Along with Global Reviews’ best practice audit, the research also comprised remote usability testing, an element of which is where tasks were set for punters who are looking to open or switch an online sports betting account within the next 90 days. These tasks are completed by the participants as they are going through a pre-assigned sports betting mobile site.

Even spilt of Android and iOS devices users in study

A total of 281 in-market bettors participated in this study. 51% (or 143) of those interviewed completed the research on an Android device, while 49% (or 138) of those interviewed completed the research on an iOS device.

Less effort needed by iPhone users

The Customer Effort Score (CES) is measured by asking punters to rate the level of effort needed to move and navigate through a particular sports betting providers mobile site. Where 1 is ‘not an awful lot of effort’ and 5 requires a ‘very high level of effort’. The score we are looking for here is the score that is closest to zero.

With the lower CES score of 1.85, bettors with an iPhone perceive the amount of effort required to be less than the perceived level of effort needed by Android users (1.92).

Fig 1 Customer Effort Score Source: Global Reviews Mobile Sales Effectiveness study into UK Sports Betting Providers Q1 2015

Fig 1 Customer Effort Score
Source: Global Reviews Mobile Sales Effectiveness study into UK Sports Betting Providers Q1 2015

 

Higher task success rate by iPhone users

At the end of each task Global Reviews asked each of the ‘in market’ research participants to indicate how successful they were in completing the task by hitting either the success or abandon button. 62% of all participants across the nine different brands were successful in completing the five different tasks.

There is a noticeable difference in the task success rate between those using an iPhone or an Android device. At 65% the iPhone score is six percentage points higher that the score for Android. So punters with iPhone are more successful at complete the assigned tasks (we have no comment on whether or not they are more successful at winning!)

Fig 2 Task Success Rate Source: Global Reviews Mobile Sales Effectiveness study into UK Sports Betting Providers Q1 2015

Fig 2 Task Success Rate
Source: Global Reviews Mobile Sales Effectiveness study into UK Sports Betting Providers Q1 2015

 

So who are they? The profiles of iPhone and Android bettors

Android owners are more likely to be male, and to be older than iPhone users. Yet there is little difference between the different phone owners in terms of family status, propensity to be single, be in a relationship or to have children.

There is a significant difference however in the total household income of each of these segments. iPhone owners total household income is on average £13,000 higher than Android owners – which has of course significant implications on potential disposable income and need states.

It is interesting then, when it is considered that the mobile websites of iPhone users are rated as being easier to navigate than the Android website, when in reality they are largely the same.

Considering the differences between those who own an Android against those who own an iPhone, it could be postulated that iPhone owners are not only easier to please they are a more valuable consumer base.

As casual gaming on smartphones has exploded amongst women in recent years, is there an opportunity for Sports Betting companies to set new sights on attracting more female bettors?

It is important to note however that 67% of UK consumers in 2013 were reported as owning a smartphone of which iPhone own 31% of this market**. So Android users still represents the lion’s share of the market.

Please contact us to find out more

*Juniper Research
** Kantar World Panel

 

Continue reading

The A to Z (& Search) of Navigation on Sports Betting Providers’ Mobile sites

The A to Z (& Search) of Navigation on Sports Betting Providers’ Mobile sites

Author: Marie Sheehan

The Global Reviews Mobile Sales Effectiveness* study of UK Sports Betting Providers Q1 2015 looked at how effective the mobile sites of Bet 365, Bet Fred, Bet Fair, Bet Victor, Coral, Ladbrokes, Paddy Power, Sky Bet and William Hill are at converting and convincing punters to place a bet with them.

Key to their success is great mobile navigation 

Navigation is central to the mobile user experience as punters want to be able to find what they’re looking for with minimal effort. If menu options aren’t clear, if there are too many barriers (perceived or real) or if search isn’t optimised many will go to the competitors – in fact almost one in five will immediately abandon (18%). Tweet: Navigation is central to mobile UX. Punters want to find what they’re looking for with minimal effort http://ctt.ec/Rjy09+   #GRblog

There is a clear correlation between mobile site navigation and conversion. Essentially, the better the navigation, the more likely punters are to recommend the sports betting providers and the more likely they are to use this brand. For example punter’s sentiment for Sky Bet prior to completing five assigned tasks on the mobile site stood at a mean score of 6.4 on a 10 point scale. Post task completion punters likelihood to use Sky Bet, and therefore their positive sentiment towards the brand increased, to 7.4. The average task success completion rate across the 5 tasks was 72%. Contrast this against Betfair who achieved an average successful task completion rate of 43% and an overall drop in positive sentiment towards the brand from pre task completion to post task completion (6.6 to 5.5). If navigation through your website is poor, you are donating your potential customers to the competition.

Fig 1 Positive Sentiment towards a Sports Betting Brand before and after task completion. Also includes successful task completion rates. Source Global Reviews Mobile Sales Effectiveness study into UK Sports Betting Providers Q1 2015

Fig 1 Positive Sentiment towards a Sports Betting Brand before and after task completion. Also includes successful task completion rates. Source Global Reviews Mobile Sales Effectiveness study into UK Sports Betting Providers Q1 2015

“A deep information architecture (often supported by cascading menus on the desktop) doesn’t translate well on mobile: it often forces the user to take too many steps to reach the content.”

- Nielsen Norman Group

What will punters do if they can’t find what they are looking for?

Almost a quarter of consumers on a sports betting provider’s mobile site would look for an online chat feature if they encountered a problem. This is a trend that is continuing to emerge, as we have seen this percentage grow over time and the course of our research programmes in both Europe and Australasia.

18% would leave the mobile site immediately and look for another provider – a figure that is lower than most industries. While 27% would look for FAQs.

Fig 2 Answers to the question: “If this was a real-life situation and you encountered problems on a website when doing research on placing a bet, please select what you would do next?” Source Global Reviews Mobile Sales Effectiveness study into UK Sports Betting Providers Q1 2015

Fig 2 Answers to the question: “If this was a real-life situation and you encountered problems on a website when doing research on placing a bet, please select what you would do next?”
Source Global Reviews Mobile Sales Effectiveness study into UK Sports Betting Providers Q1 2015

What problems did the punters encounter?

50% of the ‘in market consumers’ participating in our research did not encounter any problems on the sports provider’s mobile site, however that of course means that the other half did. The main problems when set a task to find an event range or locate a specific bet, being finding where they should start was not easy – a problem encountered by one in five. Furthermore 16% said that they information was not where they expected it to be.

Fig 3 The aspects of Sports Betting Providers’ mobile sites that customers found challenging Source Global Reviews Mobile Sales Effectiveness study into UK Sports Betting Providers Q1 2015

Fig 3 The aspects of Sports Betting Providers’ mobile sites that customers found challenging
Source Global Reviews Mobile Sales Effectiveness study into UK Sports Betting Providers Q1 2015

Optimal Navigation: A to Z or Search?

Punters’ default option when they can’t find something is to search for it. The optimal combination for mobile search is the magnifying glass icon in the upper right hand corner with predictive text suggestions based on the first couple of letters.
A-Z indexes are also useful when navigating a long list of sports, but an A-Z cannot replace everything a search is used for. However, there is a place for the A-Z too, but it must contain sufficient terms.

There is a place for both A to Z and Search options. A mobile site would need to include both options to ensure optimal navigation.

So which Sports Betting Providers do Mobile Site navigation well?

Coral leads the industry for helping punters to understand the various betting options – with an overall score of 71%. In fact, the research participants on Coral’s mobile website were the most effective and performed well for task efficiency –completing tasks with a one page view and only taking 1 minute and 16 seconds with a satisfaction score of 80%.

Coral provide a clear ‘A-Z All sports’ index which allows visitors to find specific events quickly. For example if you wanted to find the odds for Lewis Hamilton to win the 2015 Formula One Motor Racing Driver’s Championship, a punter can select ‘Formula 1’ from this index; view the events and ultimately each driver.

Fig 4 Screen shots of Coral’s mobile site

Fig 4 Screen shots of Coral’s mobile site

 

Betfred allows navigation by A-Z and by favourites, which includes Motor Sports

Fig 5 Screen shots of BetFred’s mobile site

Fig 5 Screen shots of BetFred’s mobile site

Paddy Power enables favourites to be saved on mobile

Fig 6 Screen shots of Paddy Power’s mobile site

Fig 6 Screen shots of Paddy Power’s mobile site

 

Betfred’s mobile search searches dynamically and remembers previous searches

Fig 7 Screen shots of BetFred’s mobile site

Fig 7 Screen shots of BetFred’s mobile site

 

For more info please contact us

Continue reading

Does the tertiary sector consumer experience meet the grade?

Tertiary student research

If we equate the tertiary sectors consumer website experience for future domestic students with the academic grading in Australia, it would receive a ‘C’. So with an industry average Digital Sales Effectiveness (DSE) score of 55%, it’s a ‘Pass’ – but only just!

20 of Australia and New Zealand’s University and Tafe colleges were assessed in November 2014 to understand the experience they offer prospective students during the research and consider phase of their journey and to a lesser extent, through to the application process (for post graduate or direct study).

We know the process of selecting the correct course and institution can be overwhelming and confusing, which is perhaps why prospects feel they need tools to assist them in selecting the right course (NB: 92% rate this as important to extremely important). It is therefore surprising that university websites aren’t taking advantage to direct prospects into appropriate study, rather than being a passive source of course information. In fact, the industry is only offering an overall experience for this category (Matching courses to needs) at 46%. Institutions however, are providing better assistance around pathways to study with a higher average at 67% (for category ‘Pathways to the university’). Our audit of features and functions that allow prospects to match needs came in at a staggering low of 32% with 13 of the 20 under the average.

The question that remains is: does the experience offered online influence prospects’ opinions of the universities they navigate?

In a recent mobile experience study by Global Reviews, we found that 27% find that a bad experience makes the company look unprofessional, with 25% indicating that it makes them doubt the quality and service of the company’s product or service offerings. 13% even went to the length of saying they feel that the company is not valuing their time as important, by not putting more emphasis on a good experience. What is clear is that a poor experience will stop many prospects in their tracks and push them off the site, often onto competitor websites.

Learn more about how this industry meets prospective student expectations in our recent whitepaper.

Continue reading

If ‘Last Click’ tells how a conversion story ends, ‘Points of Attribution’ paint the full picture

600x330POints of attribution

Author: Marie Sheehan

If the digital pathway to purchase was a linear and simple process, consumers would find the product they need…. and then just purchase it.

But it’s not.

How do you measure attribution?

Before the customer makes that last click, what happened to influence the consumer to make that purchase?

What are the points that influenced and steered the consumer to choose a particular brand over all others?

How can a marketer understand how the different channels and different campaigns work together to produce a purchase?

How can you attribute what delivered success and what didn’t?

Finding the answers to these questions is the ‘holy grail’ for (digital) marketers.

The Global Reviews Points of Attribution Model

Using findings from the Global Reviews Digital Marketing Effectiveness programme we measure all elements of attraction which drives a consumer to choose or not to choose a particular brand.

There are a number of different touch points that can be in the model:

1. Previous relationship with the brand.
Including the level of that relationship. The concept of retention – is a person already with a brand? Is the customer looking to renew? Has the relationship lapsed?

2. Online journey.
Where are consumers being intercepted online and what messages are they seeing as they move through the digital journey? Looking at things like Search engine, aggregators, affiliate models, online advertising, banner ads and SEM.

3. Advertising.
Traditional through the line advertising – including TV, billboards and radio advertising.

All of these elements feed forward and push value statements through to consumers to consider a particular brand.

Fig 1: The Global Reviews Points of Attribution Model

Fig 1: The Global Reviews Points of Attribution Model

 

An example: Health Insurance Providers in Ireland

We ran a Digital Marketing Effectiveness (DME)* study of the Health Insurance providers in Ireland in February. The DME measures how effective Irish health insurance providers are at attracting customers online.

‘In market’ consumer data is gathered at each stage of the sales and acquisition funnel and rolled up into scores. These scores benchmark each provider against other providers and against the industry average.

Aviva’s website challenge

A fifth of consumers chose Aviva as their preferred provider in the February study, but this figure is down 7% since August 2014. We know from the results of the DME that the propensity to actually purchase increases if consumers visit the brand website.

Irish consumers are far more likely to choose the provider whose website they visit on the purchase decision journey – but only 8% of all consumers in Ireland are visiting Aviva’s site – compare this to 50% for Vhi’s website and 34% for both Laya Healthcare and Glo Health websites.

Aviva is depending too much on the strength of its brand – but the results of our research indicate that the importance of previous brand relationship in choosing a health insurance provider is beginning to erode.

Not enough Irish consumers are visiting Aviva’s site. Aviva is under leveraging its website as a point of attribution.

Laya Healthcare is becoming more attractive as an alternative to Vhi

Between August 2014 and February 2015 Aviva’s weighted unprompted brand recall fell from 53% to 48%, whereas Laya Healthcare’s score improved from 36% to 43% over the same period.

Laya Healthcare is increasingly becoming the most attractive option as an alternative to Vhi, replacing Aviva who traditionally held the second place spot.

Vhi is, not surprisingly, the first health insurance provider Irish consumers think of when asked to recall brands. The percentage of consumers that recall Aviva after Vhi has dropped from 30% to 24% between August 2014 and February 2015, while Laya Healthcare’s score increased from 19% to 25% over the same six month period.

These figures and Laya Healthcare’s increasing ‘top of mind’ recall score indicate that advertising is an effective point of attribution for them.

Three key touch points

The three key touch points Irish consumers move through when searching for a health insurance provider online are:

• A search engine which is used by 91%
• While 76% visit the brand website
• And 31% use a research website

Unlike consumers in the UK, very few consumers used an aggregator site.

The brand website is hugely important as a point of attribution for health insurance providers in Ireland.

Fig 2 Breakdown of how that actual journey takes place

Fig 2: Breakdown of how that actual journey takes place Source: Global Reviews Digital Marketing Effectiveness studies into Health Insurance Providers in Ireland, August 2014 and February 2015

 

The search engine is not delivering for Aviva, but is for Laya Healthcare

Even though Aviva has a strong presence on the search engine results, the majority of consumers looking for health insurance online in Ireland are still not clicking on Aviva and visiting the Aviva website.

However, Laya Healthcare is enjoying a lot more success from both organic results and paid contextual ads on Google.

What’s interesting to note is that 29% actually clicked on Laya Healthcare from this results page – either on the organic results (which is interestingly listed underneath Aviva) or the “Healthcare from €9 a week” ad on the right hand side. In fact Laya Healthcare scored higher than any other brand.

When used cleverly the search engine can be a very effective point of attribution.

Fig 3: Google Search Engine Results page one for search term: “health insurance Ireland”

Fig 3: Google Search Engine Results page one for search term: “health insurance Ireland”

 

The search is on for Laya Healthcare

Laya Healthcare’s advertising is definitely working as consumers are being prompted to use “Laya Healthcare” and “Laya” as keywords when searching for a health insurance provider on Google.

Usage of their brand name as a search keyword has increased from 9% in August 2014 to 15% in February 2015 while other brand terms have dropped.

Fig 4: Search keywords used by Irish consumers looking for a Health Insurance Provider Source: Global Reviews Digital Marketing Effectiveness studies into Health Insurance Providers in Ireland, August 2014 and February 2015

Fig 4: Search keywords used by Irish consumers looking for a Health Insurance Provider
Source: Global Reviews Digital Marketing Effectiveness studies into Health Insurance Providers in Ireland, August 2014 and February 2015

 

Laya is being very clever in their approach to both SEO and SEM, making search a successful point of attribution for them.

If you would like to know more please contact us.

 

International best practice

To find out more about what best practice looks like and those who are achieving it view our webinar: Health Insurance Providers in Ireland – Digital Sales & Marketing Effectiveness

Health insurance webinar

*Digital marketing effectiveness
The Global Reviews Digital Marketing Effectiveness (DME) programme focuses on the Discover and Consider stages of the online purchase journey. The best results come from continuous measurement.

Digital Marketing Effectiveness

The DME identifies both the barriers and enablers to how and who consumers shortlist in the online purchasing decision journey, what drives final preference and crucially WHY your potential customers (but now lost opportunities) pick another brand over yours.
We use life-like methodology which virtually places companies in the homes of 50,000 ‘In market’ consumers in the UK annually.

DME process

Adopting both a passive and claimed research approach, we bridge the gap between claimed search behaviour and actual search behaviour.
Using cutting edge technology we measure every key stroke, link clicked and website visited. Most importantly, our methodology investigates and explores WHY consumers search and research the way they do.

We can provide you with a unique insight into how ‘in market’ consumers research and make decisions about your brand, your products and your competitors online and will help you to answer the following strategic marketing questions:

1. How integrated is your offline (traditional) marketing with your digital strategy?
2. Why are competitors winning the online prospects you are losing?
3. Who is stealing the prospects that short listed you?
4. How can you reduce lost opportunities and increase sales?

Continue reading

What is causing Aviva to fall into third place in the Irish health insurance online market?

Health Insurance

 Author: Marie Sheehan

Laya Healthcare is increasingly becoming the most attractive option as an alternative to Vhi, replacing Aviva who traditionally held the second place spot.

Aviva’s scores are down
The Global Reviews sales and acquisition funnels shows how consumers are moving through the online pathway to purchase and choosing one provider over another. As you can see from fig 1, Aviva’s unprompted brand recall score has dropped four percentage points from 69% in August 2014 to 65% in February 2015.

Their shortlisted score or repertoire of brand has also fallen from 73% to 66%, and the percentage of consumers who choose Aviva as the one single brand they prefer has dropped from 28% to 21% over the same six month period.

Avivas funnels

Fig 1: Aviva’s Sales and Acquisition Funnels Source: Global Reviews Digital Marketing Effectiveness studies Feb 2015 and Aug 2014

 
 
Not enough Irish consumers are visiting Aviva’s site
As you can see from Fig 1 only 8% of consumers are visiting aviva.ie (compare this to 50% for Vhi’s website and 34% for both Laya Healthcare and Glo Health websites).

We know from the results of the Global Reviews Digital Marketing Effectiveness (DME)* study into health insurance providers in Ireland, that the propensity to actually purchase increases if consumers visit the brand website.
Irish consumers are far more likely to choose the provider whose website they visit on the purchase decision journey.

Aviva is relying too much on brand awareness.
Aviva’s retention rate is dropping

53% of current Aviva customers would renew with them again, however this percentage has dropped significantly from 83% in August 2014.

The search engine is not delivering for Aviva
The most used the search term by Irish consumers looking for a health insurance provider is “health insurance Ireland”.

Even though Aviva has a strong presence on the search engine results using this search term (see fig2 it’s the second ad and the highest ranked organic SEO result) the majority of consumers looking for health insurance online in Ireland are still not clicking on Aviva and visiting the Aviva website.

Aviva google

Fig 2: Google Search Engine Results page one for search term: “health insurance Ireland”

What’s interesting to note is that 29% actually clicked on Laya Healthcare from this results page – either on the organic results (which is interestingly listed underneath Aviva) or the “Healthcare from €9 a week” ad on the right hand side. In fact Laya Healthcare scored higher than any other brand.

Even though Aviva has a presence on a Search Engine; people are still not clicking on Aviva. In fact the consumers who choose Aviva as their provider are not doing so because they visited their website.

If you would like to know more please contact us.

International best practice

To find out more about what best practice looks like and those who are achieving it view our webinar: Health Insurance Providers in Ireland – Digital Sales & Marketing Effectiveness

Health insurance webinar

* Digital marketing effectiveness
The Global Reviews Digital Marketing Effectiveness (DME) programme focuses on the Discover and Consider stages of the online purchase journey.

Digital Marketing Effectiveness
The DME identifies both the barriers and enablers to how and who consumers shortlist in the online purchasing decision journey, what drives final preference and crucially WHY your potential customers (but now lost opportunities) pick another brand over yours.

We use life-like methodology which virtually places companies in the homes of 50,000 ‘In market’ consumers in the UK annually.

DME process

Adopting both a passive and claimed research approach, we bridge the gap between claimed search behaviour and actual search behaviour.

Using cutting edge technology we measure every key stroke, link clicked and website visited. Most importantly, our methodology investigates and explores WHY consumers search and research the way they do.

We can provide you with a unique insight into how ‘in market’ consumers research and make decisions about your brand, your products and your competitors online and will help you to answer the following strategic marketing questions:
1. How integrated is your offline (traditional) marketing with your digital strategy?
2. Why are competitors winning the online prospects you are losing?
3. Who is stealing the prospects that short listed you?
4. How can you reduce lost opportunities and increase sales?

Continue reading

How are Irish Health Insurance Providers going to win Online in the Age of LCR?

Health insurance feet

Author: Marie Sheehan

With Lifetime Community Rating (LCR) being introduced in Ireland at the start of next month, let’s take a look at which Irish health insurance provider attracts more potential customers online…and why.

First, we measured each provider’s performance
The Global Reviews Digital Marketing Effectiveness (DME)* programme measures how effective Irish health insurance providers are at attracting customers online. It identifies both the barriers and enablers to how and who consumers shortlist in the online purchasing decision journey, what drives final preference and crucially WHY potential customers pick one health insurance provider over another.

The most recent iteration of the Global Reviews Irish health insurance providers DME programme took place in February 2015 and before that it ran in August 2014.

Let’s have a look and see what’s happened in those six months…

What’s important to health insurance customers in Ireland is changing
The market is evolving.

Over time the reasons Irish consumers give for choosing one provider over another are increasingly about product details that meet their needs. Essentially Irish consumers want providers to show them the policies that suit them best, but at the same time giving them options to choose from and making sure that it is all easy to understand.

 
The importance of brand relationship is beginning to erode
Irish consumers are shopping around more.

“I have used them before” has dropped as a reason to purchase from 35% of consumers to just 30% in the six month period August 2014 to February 2015. Trust in a company and previous brand relationship is becoming less important.

With LCR becoming a reality, it makes it all to play for!

 
Brand awareness is not enough
Not surprisingly, as the legacy health insurance provider in Ireland, Vhi is the provider Irish consumers are most aware of. 84% recalled Vhi as a provider without being prompted. However just 28% choose Vhi in the end.

Compare this to Laya Healthcare who has a lower unprompted brand recall score of 58%, but is actually chosen by more consumers (final preference score: 34%).

 
Vhi’s retention rate is increasing
71% of current Laya Healthcare customers would renew with them again, however this percentage has decreased slightly from 76% in August 2014. Conversely Vhi has seen an increase from 61% to 69% over the same period. Both Glo Health and Aviva have seen significant drops from 83% to 53% and from 72% to 55% respectively.

 
Consumers who visit the brand website are more likely to go with them
Again Laya Healthcare scores really well here with 42% of potential customers, who visited their site, ultimately choosing them in the end. Interestingly, a third of those who visited Vhi.ie preferred Laya Healthcare, however 31% of those who visited the website chose with Vhi in the end.

We know online is important, but this research further underpins the importance of the brand website over aggregator and research sites. Irish consumers are far more likely to choose the provider whose website they visit on the purchase decision journey.

More consumers are searching for Laya Healthcare in February 2015
18% of Irish consumers looking for health insurance search for Vhi by brand name (“Vhi” = 12%, “Vhi health insurance” = 3%, “Vhi healthcare” = 3%).

15% of Irish consumers looking for health insurance search for Laya Healthcare by brand name (“Laya healthcare” = 9%, “Laya” = 6%).

Vhi as a search term is still the highest brand, but Laya Healthcare is growing and hot on their heels.
Laya Healthcare’s advertising is definitely working as consumers are being prompted to search for them by name in Google. They are certainly emerging as being very clever in attracting customers and very effective at converting them.

If you would like to know more please contact us.

International best practice

To find out more about what best practice looks like and those who are achieving it view our webinar: Health Insurance Providers in Ireland – Digital Sales & Marketing Effectiveness

Health insurance webinar

* Digital marketing effectiveness
The Global Reviews Digital Marketing Effectiveness (DME) programme focuses on the Discover and Consider stages of the online purchase journey.

Digital Marketing Effectiveness
The DME identifies both the barriers and enablers to how and who consumers shortlist in the online purchasing decision journey, what drives final preference and crucially WHY your potential customers (but now lost opportunities) pick another brand over yours.

We use life-like methodology which virtually places companies in the homes of 50,000 ‘In market’ consumers in the UK annually.

DME process

Adopting both a passive and claimed research approach, we bridge the gap between claimed search behaviour and actual search behaviour.

Using cutting edge technology we measure every key stroke, link clicked and website visited. Most importantly, our methodology investigates and explores WHY consumers search and research the way they do.

We can provide you with a unique insight into how ‘in market’ consumers research and make decisions about your brand, your products and your competitors online and will help you to answer the following strategic marketing questions:
1. How integrated is your offline (traditional) marketing with your digital strategy?
2. Why are competitors winning the online prospects you are losing?
3. Who is stealing the prospects that short listed you?
4. How can you reduce lost opportunities and increase sales?

Continue reading