Price Comparison Websites Consumer Perceptions and Experiences

Price comparison websites:
consumer perceptions and

experiences
A report by RS Consulting for
Consumer Futures
Consumer Futures
Consumer Futures
Consumer Futures represents the interests of consumers across essential,
regulated markets. We use compelling evidence, expert analysis and
strong argument to put consumer interests at the heart of policy-making
and market behaviour.
Consumer Futures is the statutory representative for consumers of postal
services across the United Kingdom, for energy consumers across Great
Britain and for water consumers in Scotland. It maintains the powers,
responsibilities and duties of Consumer Focus.
In April 2014 Consumer Futures will become part of the Citizens Advice
service.
Consumer Futures
Foreword
Price comparison websites (PCWs) have mushroomed over recent years
and are now seen by many as a tool of consumer empowerment. They
are slowly beginning to shift traditional asymmetries in information
and power between a consumer and a supplier. The price comparison
intermediaries market continues to evolve and now alongside more
established PCWs, which focus primarily on information giving and advice,
a new generation of services that build on the price comparison model
is emerging. These include collective switching sites, group purchasing,
mobile apps or more sophisticated consumption data analysers.
The growth of the price comparison tool market is undoubtedly fueled by
consumer demand for third party services which can:
save them time and money when navigating through the maze of deals
and the complexity of products and services on the market
take the hassle of switching, for example switching energy suppliers
help them to understand their consumption needs, and potentially lead
to changes in consumption behavior.
The growing importance of the price comparison tool market was
recognised in the UK Governments consumer empowerment strategy
Better Choice, Better Deals: Consumers powering growth where,
for example, price comparison websites are seen as key tools to
help consumers make better and more informed choices. The UK
Governments midata initiative, which aims to give consumers access to
core consumption and transaction data, is set to power a new breed of
comparison tools that can offer bespoke comparisons to the consumer
based on their specific requirements and their actual use of a service.
However, despite the rapid development of the price comparison tool
market, little is known about:
consumer attitudes, knowledge and experiences of using PCWs
the reasons behind popularity of some services compared to others
consumer appetite for a new generation of intermediary services which
are emerging on the market.
For example anecdotal evidence suggests consumers tend to use PCWs for
car or home insurance, but fewer use them for other markets.
OFT research found that consumers trust price comparison websites for
energy, travel and insurance, but regard them as less reliable for other
financial products, mobile phones and media.
Ofgem research indicated that consumers were less aware of energy price
comparison websites which could help them to choose an energy supplier
or tariff, or help them to switch in comparison to generalist ones which
offer information on a range of consumer goods and services.
Price comparison websites: consumer perceptions and experiences
Similarly, there is limited understanding of consumer perceptions of

PCWs and their knowledge of how they operate, or awareness of quality
assurance accreditation schemes for price comparison sites, such as
Ofcoms and Ofgems schemes.
In order to address the information shortfall indentified above and to
gain an insight into consumer experiences with the price comparison
tools market Consumer Futures commissioned RS Consulting to carry
out research to explore consumer awareness, trust and confidence, user
behaviour, accessibility and usability, and interest in take up of a new
generation of services that build on the price comparison model.
The research confirms that PCWs are a popular choice for consumers:
56 per cent declared they have used a PCW in the last two years
52 per cent switched or purchased directly through a PCW.
The research found that consumers use PCWs to:

bargain hunt to get the best deal (85 per cent)

compare prices (83 per cent)
save money (79 per cent)
identify providers 69 (per cent)
to switch (67 per cent) either through the PCW or directly with the
supplier
52 per cent declared they have used PCWs to switch providers or
purchase products.
Our research indicates that the use of PCWs as a switching or purchasing
portal has increased; a survey of online consumers for the OFTs
Advertising of Prices market study published in December 2010 found
that only 15 per cent of those surveyed purchased through a PCW.
However, switching with the use of PCW as an intermediary portal
remains dominated by car and home insurance, and energy markets. For
example, 77 per cent of consumers used a PCW to switch car insurance
and 37 per cent their energy supplier and home insurance. In comparison
only 7 per cent have bought landline or mobile telephone services via
a PCW, and only 3 per cent TV services. The low switching levels via
PCWs for telecommunication utilities correspond to low consumer
satisfaction with using PCWs for switching mobile or broadband via
PCWs. Gas and electricity markets score more highly. Consumers point
out that the renewal notice present in the insurance sector serves as a
trigger to look for more competitive offers and switch. This is unlike in
the telecommunication sector, where consumers tend to haggle with
retaining providers in order to achieve savings rather than switch.
Consumer Futures
In addition consumers cite contract terms, high costs of early termination

rates, and limited choice of quality providers in their locations offering
good mobile coverage or high broadband speeds as reasons which
prevent them from switching.
It is evident from the findings that PCWs enjoy a high level of consumer
trust and satisfaction. For example 73 per cent of those using PCWs
describe them as fairly reliable, while 52 per cent rate them as useful
in helping to find a good deal. However, despite high consumer trust
the research indicates that some consumers rely on assumptions about
the price they pay and the pricing details provided by PCWs, rather
than accurate information when making their purchasing decisions. For
example, our research shows that consumers are often not sure about
ranking criteria, and are not clear about how suppliers included in the
ranking are selected. Similarly some are confused by positioning of adverts
and sponsored links next to research results which makes it difficult to
determine whether the advertisement is part of the actual search, or not.
In addition, consumers score PCWs performances as poor on clarity on
whether the companies can influence their ranking by paying (54 per cent).
The research also identified consumer concerns about privacy. In
particular consumers are hesitant to give their personal details such as
telephone number and email address, as they fear these might be shared
with third parties and may result in nuisance calls and other unsolicited
marketing. Our research found that privacy concerns undermine
consumer confidence in using PCWs for switching and purchasing
products and services, with 30 per cent of consumers declaring they
do not want to give personal details to PCWs. Similar privacy concerns
are also cited as one of the barriers to consumer engagement and take
up of new generation of comparison services such as for example data
analysers.
In conclusion we reiterate our previous call for PCWs operators, as well as
the new generation of comparison intermediaries to reassure consumers
that their trust in price comparison services is well founded. That means
ensuring independence, impartiality and transparency of information
so that any commercial relationship between price comparison websites
operators and suppliers are transparent to consumers and do not
influence the accuracy or consistency of the information provided.
In particular we recommend that price comparison tool operators:
ensure a clear distinction between sponsored or advertised links, and
ranked search results based on consumer preference
improve clarity around ranking of results
Price comparison websites: consumer perceptions and experiences
ensure prices displayed are accurate, up to date and comprehensive

(ie if they include additional costs, such as a delivery charge or any
compulsory extra charges)
do not misrepresent their independence
do not post fictitious recommendations
are open about suppliers who have paid for prominence
have clear privacy policies which give consumers an opportunity to opt
out of data sharing.
We also urge regulators to continue market supervision and enforcement,
address problems with switching barriers, as well as raising awareness of
accreditation schemes they run.
With regard to the latter our research indicates that consumer awareness
of accreditation schemes run by regulators is low, with only 16 per cent of
consumers declaring knowledge of these. However, the findings point out
that many consumers would see the value in accreditation as a means of
providing an extra level of reassurance and trust in the services provided
by PCWs. Evidence suggests that accredited comparison tools are likely
to perform better on a number of criteria. For example, Consumer Focus
mystery shopping found that the degree of good performance was
higher on accredited sites in comparison to non-accredited ones. Similarly
preliminary findings from the European Commissions 2012 ISP study
found that comparison websites accredited or run by regulators scored
higher in five out of seven assessed criteria, including user-friendliness,
market coverage of offers, clarity of information on offers and price.
Accreditation is likely to increase in importance with the growing number
of new generation comparison intermediaries offering consumers more
complex integrated services such as information and advice, switching
services, personal data management, life management services (for
example health or money management), or voice tools to express
opinions and views. That is why it is vital that regulators investigate
ways the existing accreditation schemes for price comparison tools can
be more effective in aiding consumers in choosing quality assured price
comparison websites operators. Perhaps one of the ideas to consider
would be to development of a unified accreditation for price comparison
services across the markets, or some kind of mark of trust which
emerging innovative new services could use to distinguish their offering,
emphasise their genuineness and increase consumer trust.
Marzena Lipman
Policy Manager
Consumer Futures
Price comparison websites: consumer

perceptions and experiences
Findings from qualitative and quantitative research
By Kate Downer, Aino Pietikinen and Charlotte Crichton
with Sania Haq, Rhiannon Jones and Fiona Pannell
Prepared for Consumer Futures
This work has been conducted in accordance with ISO 20252,

the international standard for market and social research
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................ i

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... i
1.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ i
1.3 Purchasing and comparing prices for products and services .............................................. ii
1.4 Use and usability of price comparison websites ................................................................. ii
1.5 Consumer trust and understanding of price comparison websites operating models ..... v
1.6 The future for price comparison websites ......................................................................... vi
1.7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ vii
1.8 Recommendations............................................................................................................ viii
Background and objectives ........................................................................................................... 1
2.1 About Consumer Focus ....................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 4
Methodology................................................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Research design and target audience ................................................................................. 6
3.2 Quantitative survey ............................................................................................................. 6
3.3 Semi-structured usability hall tests ..................................................................................... 6
3.4 Depth interviews ................................................................................................................. 7
Purchasing and comparing prices for products and services ....................................................... 8
4.1 Using the internet ................................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Awareness of price comparison websites ......................................................................... 13
4.3 Proportion of people using PCWs ..................................................................................... 15
4.4 How often price comparison sites are used ...................................................................... 17
4.5 Price comparison websites used ....................................................................................... 17
4.6 Consumers who dont use price comparison websites ..................................................... 23
Use and usability of price comparison websites ........................................................................ 27
5.1 The user experience .......................................................................................................... 27
5.2 Benefits of using PCWs ...................................................................................................... 34
5.3 Ease of use and usability ................................................................................................... 37
5.4 Switching behaviour .......................................................................................................... 39
5.5 Non-user decision-making................................................................................................. 42
Consumer trust and understanding of price comparison websites operating models ............. 48
6.1 Trust and confidence in the information that PCWs provide ........................................... 48
6.2 Understanding and trust in rankings ................................................................................. 49
6.3 Verifying price comparison results .................................................................................... 51
6.4 Concern about use of personal details and consumer privacy ......................................... 52
6.5 Trust in PCWs as trading entities....................................................................................... 54
6.6 Knowledge and understanding of PCWs business models .............................................. 54
6.7 Awareness and usage of accreditation schemes and accredited PCWs ........................... 58
7. The future for price comparison websites.................................................................................. 63
7.1 Anticipated future use of PCWs ........................................................................................ 63
7.2 Collective switching sites ................................................................................................... 63
7.3 Data analyser service ......................................................................................................... 68
7.4 Price comparison apps ...................................................................................................... 70
7.5 Interest in an alternative price comparison service .......................................................... 72
8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 75
8.1 Awareness, perceptions and usage of price comparison sites ......................................... 75
8.2 Trust placed in price comparison sites .............................................................................. 75
8.3 Interest in alternative comparison models and services .................................................. 77
8.4 Ways in which PCWs enable consumers to make more effective choices ....................... 78
8.5 Ways in which PCWs inhibit effective choices .................................................................. 78
8.6 Ensuring that PCWs enable effective decision-making: user experience and usability ... 79
8.7 Ensuring that PCWs enable effective decision-making: accreditation ............................. 80
8.8 Recommendations for the ways PCWs operate................................................................ 80
8.9 Recommendations for further research............................................................................ 80
Appendix A: Methodology ................................................................................................................. 82
Research design .......................................................................................................................... 82
Target audience .......................................................................................................................... 82
Quantitative survey..................................................................................................................... 82
Semi-structured usability hall tests ............................................................................................ 85
Depth interviews ......................................................................................................................... 88
Appendix B: Websites covered in consumer usability testing ........................................................... 91
Appendix C: Quantitative questionnaire ........................................................................................... 92
Appendix D: Hall test screener questionnaire ................................................................................. 123
Appendix E: Hall test questionnaire................................................................................................. 134
Appendix F: Qualitative depth interview discussion guide ............................................................. 142
The Authors
Kate Downer, Associate Director, specialises in public policy, third sector and decisionmaking research, and has led high-profile assignments for Consumer Focus, the Department
for Work and Pensions (DWP) and many private sector clients. Kate has an MA in Modern
and Medieval Languages from Cambridge University, and an MSc in Management and
Business Research Methods from the Open University.
Aino Pietikinen, Project Manager, specialises in public policy and third sector research.
She has worked extensively for public and charity sector clients, including the Department for
Education (DfE), DWP, Nesta (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts)
and the British Red Cross. Aino read Management at UMIST and Science, Technology and
Innovation Management at Manchester Business School, University of Manchester.
Charlotte Crichton, Senior Research Consultant specialises in technology, public and
third sector research. She has worked on a number of studies for Consumer Focus and other
client organisations including Macmillan Cancer Support, the British Library and DWP.
Charlotte read Psychology at the University of Kent.
Date Last Edited: 4 July, 2013
Checked By: KD, KA, AP
Date Checked:26.4.13
Glossary of terms
Accreditation scheme
Voluntary codes of conduct that price comparison

websites can sign up to. These guarantee to consumers
that the information they receive is accurate, reliable and
comprehensive. Examples of these schemes include the
Consumer Focus Confidence Code and Ofcom Price
Comparison Accreditation Scheme
Advertising banner
See Banner
Ad-tracking
Recording, monitoring and reporting on the number of

people who click on, or otherwise respond to an advert
Affinity partnership
Affinity partnerships consist of two parties. The affinity

group seeks to add value to its existing customers,
members or donors by promoting products and services
they dont currently sell, for example electricity.
Meanwhile, the product supplier seeks to acquire new
customers by using the strength of the affinity group
organisations relationship with its customers
Airline insolvency
When an airline collapses and fails to exist
Banner
A graphic image on a webpage used with the intention of

being highly visible. Banners can contain links to other
parts of the site, or they can be advertisements that take
the website user to the advert suppliers own site, when
somebody clicks on them
The Big Four
The four price comparison websites with the greatest

market share. They are moneysupermarket.com,
gocompare.com, comparethemarket.com and
confused.com. The Big Four operate across a range of
sectors, including utilities, insurance, broadband internet
and mobile phones
Billmonitor
An online data analyser service that finds the mobile

phone contract most suited to the users lifestyle and
usage, based on data inputted directly by the user, or by
the service accessing the user's online account (with their
permission)
Broadband
Signals sent over a wide range of frequencies in highcapacity telecommunications, used for access to the
internet and is sometimes known as high-speed internet
Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB)
An independent UK charity that gives free, confidential

information and advice to help people with their money,
legal, consumer and other problems
Click-throughs
In this context, when consumers click on a supplier shown

on a price comparison websites results page, and are
taken either to the suppliers own website, to an area of
the site where they are given more information about the
supplier, or to a payment page
Collective switching site
Websites where people can register their household and

act as a group to get the cheapest electricity and gas. These
websites ask electricity and gas suppliers to quote their
cheapest deal, and that deal is then made available to
people who have registered with the site
Commission
A payment to a price comparison website that is directly

related to the amount of goods sold through it to a site
user
Consumer Focus Confidence Code
A voluntary code of practice for online domestic price

comparison services, that says the site will provide
completely impartial and unbiased information
Consumer watchdog
An official organisation that works to protect the rights and

interests of people who buy things or use services
Contractual tie-ins
Otherwise known as contracts. Mobile phone service

providers can sell their mobile phone package to a user
who enters into a long-term (generally lasting 12, 18 or 24
months) or short-term (also commonly referred to as a
rolling contract or a 30-day contract) billing arrangement
with a mobile network operator
Data analyser service
A new kind of price comparison tool where consumers give

detailed data about their usage (e.g. of energy, mobile
phone) to a third party, who then helps the consumer to
find the best deal. One example is Billmonitor
Deal
A result that shows in the quotes section of the price

comparison website
Depth interview
A qualitative research technique used in market research

which is usually a one-on-one interview between the
researcher and interviewee
Direct purchasing
Making a payment for a product or service via a price

comparison website by using a click-through
Download
To transfer (software, data, character sets, etc.) from a

distant to a nearby computer, from a larger to a smaller
computer, or from a computer to a peripheral device
Drop-down menu
A menu that appears on a computer screen when its title is

selected and remains on display until dismissed
Fibre-optic broadband
A broadband internet connection using fibre-optic cables

to transfer data. Transfer is typically faster than via a
telephone modem or dial-up connection
Filter
Routing within a website, that tailors the information

presented or asked for, to the individual. Normally, filtering
cuts down the amount of information that a user must see
or provide
Hacking
To gain access to a computer file or network illegally or

without authorisation
Hall test
A market research test where respondents are asked to go

into a central location to answer questions or to test
products or services
Homepage
The opening or main page of a website, intended chiefly to

greet visitors and provide information about the site or its
owner
Impartial results
In this context, results that appear in the quotes that have

not been influenced by the service provider
Internet Protocol (IP)
The method by which data is sent from one computer to

another over the internet
Lapsed user
Internet users who have used a price comparison website

in the past, but not in the last two years
Link
Abbreviation for hyperlink. A word, phrase, picture, icon, or

something similar on a website, on which a user may click
to move to another part of the website, or to another
website
Menu
A list of available options as displayed on a screen
Mobile phone app
Software that runs on mobile phones and smartphones

that make it easier for people to access information
services on the go. Apps often have more customisable
features than websites
Mobile phone package
Also known as a data plan, this refers to the data usage

allowances that come with direct debit phone tariffs and
normally includes calling minutes, number of texts and
internet download capacity. Mobile phone service
providers offer different packages based on price and the
volume of data that consumers want to access
Next generation price

comparison service
Sites and services that provide new approaches for

consumers to use in making price comparisons, whether
online or offline. Examples of next generation price
comparison services include those that analyse the users
consumption data in detail, and those that allow
consumers to act together as a group in negotiating with
providers
Ofcom (Office of communications)
The independent regulator and competition authority for

the UK communications industries. Ofcom regulates the TV
and radio sectors, fixed line telecoms, mobiles, postal
services, and the airwaves over which wireless devices
operate
Ofcom Price Comparison

Accreditation Scheme
A voluntary code of practice for online domestic price

comparison services for providing completely impartial and
unbiased information
Office for National Statistics (ONS)
The UKs largest independent producer of official statistics
Office of Fair Trading (OFT)
A not-for-profit and non-ministerial government

department of the United Kingdom, established by the Fair
Trading Act 1973, which enforces both consumer
protection and competition law, acting as the UK's
economic regulator. The OFT's goal is to make markets
work well for consumers, ensuring vigorous competition
between fair-dealing businesses and prohibiting unfair
practices such as rogue trading, scams and cartels
Ofgem (Office of Gas and

Electricity Markets)
The independent regulator and competition authority for

the UK gas and electricity industries. Ofgem promotes
competition, wherever appropriate, and regulates the
monopoly companies that run the gas and electricity
networks
Package
When more than one service is bought from one supplier in

order to get a better deal
Pay as you go
A mobile phone for which credit is purchased in advance of

service use. The purchased credit is used to pay for mobile
phone services at the point the service is accessed or
consumed
Personal Digital Assistant (PDA)
A palmtop computer used to store information such as

addresses and telephone numbers, and for simple word
processing and spreadsheet use, as well as for accessing
the internet
Price comparison websites (PCW)
Online tools that consumers can use to assess the options

available to them while shopping online, and to view
different prices for specific products and services. The sites
can help to simplify purchase decision-making by compiling
and organising information from several sources in a way
that allows consumers to understand easily the deals that
are available to them
Price-led ranking
Results provided on a site are ranked in an order that is

influenced by price, either low to high, or high to low
Profile
A social identity that an internet user establishes in online

communities and websites. Often this requires users to
provide their name and other personal information such as
date of birth and address, as well as creating a username
and password so that they can log in and find details saved
from previous sessions
Provider
See Service provider
Qualitative research
An exploratory research technique used in market

research, and in this study. Typically, this involves openended questions that form part of a discussion
Quantitative research
A systematic, empirical study used in market research and

in this study. Typically, quantitative research involves
closed-ended questions within questionnaires
Quotes
The results that the PCWs produce when they have

completed the process of making a comparison. These
normally contain information about the service offered
Rank
To give something a place within a grading system. In this

context it refers to the position of a quote within the
results
Regulated market
The provision of goods or services that is regulated by a

government-appointed body. The regulation may cover the
terms and conditions of supplying the goods and services
and, in particular, the price allowed to be charged and/ or
to whom they are distributed. It is common for a regulated
market to control natural monopolies such as aspects of
telecommunications, water, gas and electricity supply
Regulator
See regulatory body
Regulatory body
A public authority or government agency responsible for

exercising autonomous authority over some area of human
activity in a regulatory or supervisory capacity
Search engine
A website that collects and organises content from all over

the internet. Those wishing to locate something would
enter a query about what they would like to find and the
engine provides links to content that matches what they
want
Search results
See quotes
Search tools
Parts of a website that help users to search for a particular

word or phrase within the website. This normally take the
form of a box into which the user types a search term, with
the site then producing links to the searched-for term
Service provider
An organisation that provides some kind of service or good

to another organisation or individual in exchange for
payment
Smartphone
A mobile phone that is able to perform many of the

functions of a computer, typically having a relatively large
screen and an operating system that is capable of running
general-purpose applications
Social networking site
A website that allows subscribers to interact with one

another, typically by requesting that others add them to
their visible list of contacts, by forming or joining subgroups based around shared interest, or publishing content
so that a specified group of subscribers can access it
Stakeholder
A person, group or organisation that has interest or

concern in an organisation
Street intercepts
A market research technique where people are stopped in

the street and asked to take part in a research exercise
Supplier
A company or body that enters into a contract with a

customer to supply a service such as gas, electricity,
broadband, insurance or telephone
Switching supplier
Changing from one supplier to another
Tablet computer
Commonly referred to as tablets, these are wireless

portable personal computers that use a touchscreen or a
stylus pen to access or process information. Most do not
require a keyboard or a mouse. They are generally
lightweight devices that allow for greater mobility
Termination charges
The charges that are applied when switching supplier

before the end of the contractual period
Trader
See supplier
Trading Standards
Local authority departments in the UK which enforce a

wide range of legislation. They investigate commercial
organisations that trade outside the law or in unethical
ways. They attempt to remedy breaches by advice or by
formal enforcement action
Usage data
The amount of data sent or received from a mobile phone

device, normally over the course of a month. Mobile
phone packages normally have a set amount of data that
can be sent or received
Which?
A charity that engages in advocacy campaigns on various

consumer protection issues and aims to promote informed
consumer choice in the purchase of goods and services, by
testing products, highlighting inferior products or services,
raising awareness of consumer rights and offering
independent advice.
List of acronyms
CAB
Citizens Advice Bureau
CATI
Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing
ONS
Office for National Statistics
OFT
Office of Fair Trading
PDA
Personal Digital Assistant
PCW
Price Comparison Website
RDD
Random Digit Dialing
RIM
Random Iterative Method
RIU
Regulated Industries Unit
SEG
Socio-Economic Grade
1.
Executive summary
1.1
Background
Price comparison websites (PCWs) are online tools that consumers can use to assess the
options available to them while shopping online, and to view different prices for specific
products and services. Along with increased penetration of fixed and mobile internet,
smartphones and other portable internet devices, use of PCWs has become increasingly
common among consumers. Previous research has highlighted various concerns about
PCWs, such as the failure of some to provide adequate information about delivery costs,
delivery times, taxes or availability; unclear information about the way search results are
ranked; and lack of information about payments that traders can make in exchange for
ranking placements and listings.1
However, to date there is little evidence of the user experience and usability of PCWs from
the consumer perspective.
Consumer Futures commissioned this research to explore consumer experiences of PCWs in
terms of awareness, trust and confidence, user behaviour, accessibility and usability, and
potential related concerns. The research will allow Consumer Futures to advise stakeholders
on consumer concerns regarding the use of PCWs and, ultimately, to set best practice for
such sites.
Consumer Futures represents the interests of consumers across essential, regulated
markets. It uses compelling evidence, expert analysis and strong argument to put consumer
interests at the heart of policy-making and market behaviour.
Consumer Futures is the statutory representative for consumers of postal services across the
United Kingdom, for energy consumers across Great Britain and for water consumers in
Scotland. It maintains the powers, responsibilities and duties of Consumer Focus.
In April 2014 Consumer Futures will, subject to Parliamentary consent, become part of the
Citizens Advice service.
1.2
Methodology
The research consisted of three elements:
a nationally representative telephone survey of 2,000 consumers aged 18 years and older
a consumer usability exercise with pre-selected PCWs, undertaken via 197 hall tests
qualitative 30-minute face-to-face interviews among 63 consumers (who also took part in
the usability study) to obtain a better understanding of attitudes to PCWs.
The usability hall tests and depth interviews were carried out in five locations across Great
Britain: Watford, Cardiff, Birmingham, Newcastle and Glasgow. They involved consumers
who use the internet to some extent, and who are responsible for researching or buying at
least one of the specified products. The products covered in the scope of the usability tests
and depth interviews are fixed broadband, electricity, home insurance, travel insurance and
mobile phones.
Civic Consulting (2011) Consumer market study on the functioning of e-commerce and Internet marketing and selling techniques in
the retail of goods [Online]. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_research/market_studies/docs/study_ecommerce_goods_en.pdf [Accessed:07.06.13] ;
Consumer Focus (2013), Comparing comparison sites, http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/files/2013/01/Comparing-comparisonsites.pdf
i
Date Checked: 26.4.13
1.3
Purchasing and comparing prices for products and services

The majority (84 per cent) of consumers use the internet. Most people (85 per cent of all
consumers) are aware of PCWs, but awareness is understandably higher among internet
users (93 per cent). Awareness is also significantly higher among internet users in England
(94 per cent) than those in Scotland (87 per cent). Among those aware of PCWs, the majority
(83 per cent) recall one or more of the Big Four sites without prompting. Very few
consumers (less than one per cent) who are aware of PCWs, spontaneously name collective
switching sites and next generation sites.
While over half of all consumers (56 per cent) have used a PCW in some way to view
prices, for other research, or to actually switch providers in the last two years, the
proportion of users is much higher (71 per cent) among those aware of them. Fewer
consumers in the socio-economic grades D and E use PCWs.
A large majority of consumers (85 per cent), who have used a PCW in the last two years,
have used one or more of the Big Four while few (eight per cent) have used only other sites.
Younger consumers are more likely to use the Big Four PCWs than older groups. There is
little evidence of loyalty to particular sites; our qualitative research suggests that consumers
use sites that come to mind for them when they are shopping around, and the quantitative
survey demonstrates that a large majority (83 per cent) of PCW users typically visit multiple
sites as part of the process. Advertising is a key reason for remembering specific sites and
for using them.
Consumers who use PCWs do so to get what they perceive to be the best deals (85 per
cent), compare prices (83 per cent) and, consequently, to save money (79 per cent). Around
two-thirds of consumers (69 per cent) use them to identify providers for particular products or
services, and a similar proportion (67 per cent) to switch providers.
The most common product categories for using PCWs in the last two years are car insurance
(81 per cent); home insurance (50 per cent) and gas or electricity deals (44 per cent). Fewer
consumers have used a PCW to investigate travel insurance (32 per cent), mobile phone
services, (21 per cent) or cable and satellite TV packages (13 per cent).
A small proportion of all consumers (six per cent) are lapsed users of PCWs: they have used
a PCW in the past but not in the last two years. Half of these lapsed users (50 per cent)
have not used a PCW because they have not needed to compare products and 18 per cent
have someone else using it for them. Some (15 per cent) felt they had have not got the best
deal when using a PCW in the past.
Less than half (44 per cent) of consumers who do not use the internet are aware that
websites exist that can help people to compare prices for products and services. A minority
of non-users of the internet (21 per cent) have asked others to use PCWs on their behalf.
1.4
Use and usability of price comparison websites

The usability exercises and interviews identify various issues that consumers face in using
PCWs. Unclear signposting in menus and sub-menus confuses consumers and makes
navigation difficult. Text in small font sizes is also confusing, and causes consumers to worry
that they have missed something important, or that disagreeable information might be hidden
from them. Additionally, links that are unrecognisable, such as text that contains a hyperlink
but does not make this evident, can mean that consumers dont know where to click next in
order to proceed. Consumers appreciate having explanations for technical terms that they
might be unfamiliar with, but some still struggle to use these explanations.
ii
A few consumers also worry about adverts that are positioned next to results, because this
can make it difficult to identify whether the advertisement is actually part of the search
results. Some users also express concern about sites that encourage creating a personal
user account, or logging in via social media sites, and say that this would deter them from
using that PCW in the future.
Both the quantitative survey and qualitative research show that a key reason for negative
experiences with a PCW is the lack of opportunity to customise or tailor the search. Around a
quarter of the consumers in the hall tests place the ability to customise their search among
their personal top three factors influencing choice of PCW. Many become frustrated if the
search is inflexible and does not allow them to change the search criteria to reflect their
personal situation. They may also become irritated when answering questions requiring
specific information, which they dont have to hand, or when it is not clear why the
information is needed at such an early stage or how it will be used. Other elements that
frustrate consumers include sites not allowing the user to progress until they have provided
all information required (information they may not have to hand), not allowing the user to add
additional explanation (for example, if their situation does not correspond directly to one of
the options in a drop-down menu), and returning to previous pages several times because
incorrect or incomplete data has been provided.
Most people are willing to enter their postcode, because they do not perceive this information
to be overly personal in nature. However, consumers are more hesitant about providing their
telephone number and email address. Out of the two, they are least comfortable with
providing telephone numbers because they expect to receive sales calls as a consequence
of doing so. The majority of consumers are clear that they would not provide their bank
details or more sensitive financial information regarding their income when using a PCW.
In comparing the deals that PCWs offer, users prefer to be presented with a reasonably high
volume of information. It is important, though, that this information is clearly structured. This
allows users to feel confident about what they are buying, and to easily compare the different
options and their features.
Price is the most important factor in the comparison process, with nine out of 10 consumers
in the hall tests mentioning price as one of the three most important factors influencing their
personal decision. Generally, however, consumers do not necessarily choose the cheapest
deal: rather, they compare prices in the context of the overall deal and the information as a
whole. Consequently, the information provided about the deal (ie the product description and
features) is also very important, with two-thirds of consumers placing this among the top
three factors considered. Being a well-known brand is also a key consideration, with around
six in 10 consumers in hall tests mentioning familiarity with, or the reputation of, the product
provider as one of the top three factors they consider when making a decision.
The main perceived benefits of PCWs are getting better deals and saving money. The
majority of users think these sites make price comparisons easier and quicker to complete as
they no longer need to ring numerous providers and provide the same details multiple times.
It allows them to make an informed choice as they can easily compare deals in a structured
manner. Some believe that the sites also show a wider range of product providers while
others think they bring more freedom to do their research when it is convenient for them.
Many also believe they are now more questioning of their deals since they can look at
competitors offers. Indeed, most (83 per cent) PCW users visit more than one site in the
comparison process. Their main reasons for using multiple sites are to make sure they get
the best deal (61 per cent) or to compare or verify the comparison results (42 per cent). The
comparison process often also continues offline, for instance with phone calls to current or
alternative suppliers.
iii
Consumers expect PCWs to be accurate and reliable, as well as easy to use, with half of
consumers (52 per cent) specifying getting accurate and reliable information as one of the
three factors that is most important to them when they use a PCW. Generally, consumers are
satisfied with the sites they have used. Over half (57 per cent) rate PCWs they have used in
the past as excellent or very good in terms of ease of use, and half (52 per cent) think they
have been useful in helping the user to find a good deal.
Consumers are happy to switch insurance providers using PCWs. They believe there is little
to gain from being loyal to their current provider, and also consider switching via PCWs to be
fairly easy. Consumers have started to switch utilities providers more in recent years and to
some extent, this is due to PCWs, since these sites are seen to have put more pressure on
the companies by providing consumers with more information about competitors prices.
Furthermore, some PCWs facilitate switching between providers, by making it easy to
purchase products or services directly through the comparison sites and generally reducing
the inconvenience and delays related to switching. Over half of consumers (52 per cent)
have used PCWs to switch providers or purchase products directly, predominantly with car
insurance (77 per cent of those who have used a PCW to switch). Over a third have switched
electricity or gas, or home insurance (37 per cent of those who have switched respectively)
via a PCW. The data suggests that PCWs facilitate supplier switching with utilities companies
in particular: almost half (46 per cent) of people using PCWs for gas or electricity think they
are excellent or very good and, on average, give them a score of 7.1 out of 10 on this
measure.
The main barrier to switching or purchasing directly via PCWs is that consumers want to
speak to their current provider before switching, often to see how the land lies with their
provider, or specifically to bargain. Almost two-thirds of consumers (63 per cent) give this
reason. Some (27 per cent), however, simply prefer to purchase off-line.
Half of all consumers (51 per cent) have not used a PCW in a regulated market (this includes
non-users of PCWs) in the course of the last two years.2 These consumers feel they still
make an active comparison. Nearly half of the non-users of PCWs (44 per cent) seek
information and recommendations from friends, family or neighbours, almost a third (29 per
cent) telephone a number of providers and around one quarter (26 per cent) rely on
advertising. While the proportion who telephone providers is relatively stable across the
different markets, likelihood of seeking others advice varies a little. While around half ask for
recommendations about a TV service or mobile phone deal (53 per cent and 49 per cent
respectively), slightly fewer consult friends, family or neighbours about deals on electricity or
gas (42 per cent) or insurance (37 per cent).
The main reason for not using PCWs is a preference to talk to someone in person (23 per
cent of non-users). A minority have had a negative experience, or have negative perceptions
of PCWs: 15 per cent are put off using sites because they think they are too complicated to
use. The majority of consumers (87 per cent) who dont use PCWs are confident they are
getting the best deal for their needs without one. When comparing themselves to PCW users,
nearly two fifths of non-users (38 per cent) say they get a better deal offline, while almost a
third (29 per cent) think they get the same deal as those using PCWs.
Of consumers who have used PCWs in the past two years, almost eight out of 10 (79 per cent) have used PCWs when investigating
deals for products in regulated markets only.
iv
1.5
Consumer trust and understanding of price comparison websites operating models

The majority of consumers using PCWs (94 per cent) consider these sites to be either very
(21 per cent) or fairly reliable (73 per cent). Consumers who have never used PCWs are
more suspicious with one in 10 (11 per cent) mentioning spontaneously that they would not
trust the results provided by these sites.
Generally, consumers assume that comparison results are ranked by price and,
consequently, they are often confused if ranking is based on other criteria, such as how
much of a saving each search result offers them, when compared with their current deal.
However, many consumers are interested in accessing alternative ranking criteria, as well as
more filters, to limit the number of options they work through. Where results are ranked by
price, consumers often distrust the cheapest results that appear at the top of the list. They
seek value for money, rather than the cheapest deals, which will tend to be from less wellknown (and less trusted) providers.
Although consumers generally trust the PCWs that they use, many are in the habit of
verifying results on other sites or on the phone, out of the instinctive belief that the sheer
volume of information online makes fact-checking necessary. Findings from the qualitative
research suggest this is because consumers have more concerns about buying through a
middleman such as a PCW, rather than directly from the provider.
Consumers are unsure about how PCWs operate and how they make a profit, with many
never having considered this before discussing it during the research. Most consumers have
never considered whether product providers pay PCWs to influence comparison results or
positions in rankings. However, when asked directly, most consumers think this is possible.
Half of consumers (51 per cent) in the quantitative research are either certain (23 per cent) or
had suspected (28 per cent) that some providers can pay to get better rankings. Although
nearly half of these consumers (43 per cent) say this has a strong (20 per cent) or slight (23
per cent) influence on their choice of PCW, most (56 per cent) say it does not influence them.
This is simply because they are pragmatic: they say they understand that money will change
hands behind the scenes without them being aware, and that they appreciate the site
operators need to make money somehow. Among the consumers, who say they either knew
or suspected that providers can pay to influence rankings, three-quarters think that at least
half of providers do this (74 per cent).
Awareness of voluntary accreditation schemes for PCWs is very low, with only 16 per cent of
consumers who have used a PCW in the last two years aware of these schemes. Many of
those who are aware of accreditation schemes say they influence their choice of website:
four in 10 (36 per cent) say it does so a little, and one-third (34 per cent) that it has a strong
influence on their choice. Among those not aware of voluntary accreditation schemes threequarters (76 per cent) say that they would be either 'slightly' (38 per cent) or 'strongly'
influenced (38 per cent) by these when choosing which PCW to use in the future.
Consumers already place a high level of trust in PCWs, and they do not actively seek out
accredited sites. However, they see accreditation as providing an extra level of reassurance,
conferring legitimacy and instilling confidence and trust in the information generated by
PCWs.
The vast majority of consumers (84 per cent) who are not aware that independent
accreditation schemes exist would trust some kind of independent body to run such a
scheme. A third of these consumers (35 per cent) would most trust a regulator such as
Ofgem, Ofcom or the Office for Fair Trading (OFT) to run this, and a further third (35 per
cent) would place most trust in a consumer organisation, like Which?
v
1.6
The future for price comparison websites

The research tested a number of new forms of PCW, including collective switching sites, data
analyser services and price comparison mobile apps.
Collective switching intermediaries

Collective switching intermediaries offer websites that allow consumers to register their
interest in taking part in a group switch, and then combine registrants into a block of market
share. The intermediary then looks to leverage the power of the group, by inviting electricity
and gas providers to compete for the groups custom by offering a deal that would be
available to all who have registered. The intermediary then relays the winning deal to all
participants, alongside a comparison of how much they would stand to save, and manages
the switching process for all who choose to accept the deal.
Around one in 10 consumers are already aware that collective switching exists. Their initial
reaction is often positive because collective switching promises savings. For some, collective
switching also represents a way to make a stand against powerful energy companies, while
others respond positively to the idea of community spirit. The concept also raises a number
of reservations and questions in consumers minds. They are unsure about how exactly the
scheme works and how binding registration is, and are unclear about whether they are
obliged to accept the offer given.
Some consumers react to collective switching more negatively. They worry that their
personal data may be misused, and feel wary about sharing data or having to recruit other
people. Some also worry that joining a collective undermines personal control. A few worry
that the deal that is offered will not be sufficiently tailored to their own needs.

Data analyser services analyse detailed data about consumers consumption patterns to
recommend a deal that is suited to their usage profile. Just over half of consumers in the
qualitative research say they would be quite likely or very likely to use a service like this.
Consumers, who are positive about the concept of a data analyser service, like the fact that
the tool does the comparison work for them and provides a recommendation that is tailored
to their usage profile. They think this is likely to save them money.
However, even among the more interested consumers, there are concerns about privacy
and, in particular, about sharing of personal and usage data with other product providers,
without their knowledge or permission. They also have reservations about whether the tool
considers contractual tie-ins.
While under half of consumers say they are unlikely to use a data analyser service, the main
barrier for consumers is their wish to protect personal and usage data, and preference for
staying 'in control' of the research process. Some also feel that inputting usage data and
using such a tool is time-consuming and inconvenient.
Price comparison apps

Some price comparison providers are beginning to develop mobile applications to allow
people to access their services on the move. While most consumers, who own a smartphone
use apps, they are unsure whether they would use dedicated price comparison apps in
practice. Approximately half say they are 'very likely' or 'quite likely' to use a price
comparison app.
vi
Consumers, who are positive about apps, are often heavy mobile internet users, and they
value the convenience that apps offer. Those saying they are unlikely to use price
comparison apps feel that comparing is something they cannot do on the go either
because their mobile phone has a small screen that would make the process difficult, or
because they prefer to make price comparisons when there are no distractions. Other, more
minor, worries include privacy concerns around ad-tracking, not having the required
information to hand at the time, and fear of what might happen to the data the user has
entered if the handset is lost or stolen.
Interest in an alternative price comparison service

There is interest among consumers towards having an alternative comparison tool3 that
would allow them to compare offers and get advice on best deals. In our quantitative study
six out of 10 (60 per cent) say they would definitely use (25 per cent) or would consider using
(35 per cent) such a service. Although it was made clear the service does not need to be
online, appetite for an alternative price comparison service is markedly lower among those
who have never used PWCs (28 per cent). Consumers show most interest in a comparison
service for utilities or insurance (64 per cent) compared to TV services (40 per cent),
broadband (54 per cent) and mobile phones (46 per cent).
In terms of the format of this service, the two main preferences among those who would
consider using it are for a telephone (32 per cent) or online service (30 per cent). Around a
quarter (22 per cent) would prefer a face-to-face service.
1.7
Conclusions
For a high proportion of consumers, PCWs form part of the usual decision-making
process and, in particular, for insurance products, gas and electricity. Most consumers
are aware of PCWs and the majority of these are able to name at least one of the Big Four
PCWs. More than half of all consumers have actually used PCWs in the last two years.
Advertising has a strong influence on the PCWs that consumers use, so it is unsurprising that
the Big Four sites dominate also in usage.
Consumers main concern about providing personal details is that doing so will result
in unwanted communications. PCWs occupy a position of trust in consumers minds. Most
feel that the information they access through price comparison websites is broadly reliable,
and they address any concerns about reliability by consulting multiple PCWs, or by verifying
information directly with providers.
Internet and PCW users show interest in other kinds of price comparison service that
would allow them to compare offers and get advice on the best deals available, and
have a strong preference for these alternatives to be offered online. Consumers are
interested in collective switching and data analyser services to some extent but there are
questions about mechanics of how these would work in practice. The main concerns relate to
how binding the commitment would be, and to issues of data privacy.
Consumers who participated in the quantitative survey were allocated a product or service
category that they had previously confirmed they had bought or renewed in the previous two
years, and asked, How likely are you to use a price comparison service which would allow you to compare
the offers and get advice on the best deal available for [category]? This does not need to be an online
service. They were asked to pick the most appropriate response from I would definitely use this, I would
consider it, I would possibly consider it if recommended to me by someone I trust and I wouldnt consider
it.
vii
Consumers are less likely to be interested in price comparison apps than in the other
alternatives discussed. This disinterest is typically driven by a perceived lack of need to
compare prices on the go. Non-users of PCWs show less interest in accessing these kinds
of service.
Most consumers perceive PCWs to be convenient, useful tools that work in their
favour. They save consumers time and effort, helping them to take more effective action in
making purchasing decisions, and ultimately to secure good deals on products and services.
Many consumers feel that they are empowered by using PCWs and have more leverage over
the providers they use compared to before these sites became mainstream.
Some consumers struggle with sites particular physical features, such as confusing
layouts and small fonts. Consumers also react negatively to sites that dont allow them to
customise or tailor their search to the degree that they want to. On the other hand, PCW
users prefer sites to provide a lot of information about the product or service that is being
compared. While they want brief, straightforward questions to generate a fast comparison,
they want to feel the sites cater to their situation.
Many consumers have never thought about how PCWs make their money, but the
majority are very ready to believe that providers can (and do) pay PCWs in order to
influence comparison results. However, more than half of those who believe that this
happens say that it would not influence their choice of PCW. Many admit that they dont mind
how the sites make their money, as long as they see an improvement on their current
providers offer.
Following some guiding design principles would make PCWs more user-friendly:
a simple, clear and visible system of menus

a minimum font size for text
clearly identifiable and clearly formatted buttons and other navigational tools
readily accessible explanation of terms and other key information
clearly identifiable advertising, where this is present on the site.
Sites need to strike a balance between a fast fact-finding process and sufficiently detailed
search that ensures consumers are confident that the product fits adequately with their
needs. The results of the comparison need to show the consumer sufficient information about
the deals, while keeping the content concise and simple. Key to this is the ranking of results,
which must be clearly communicated. Some consumers voice a desire to manipulate the
results by applying different filters. As many consumers estimate their current spend or
usage, the sites could remind consumers that any comparisons, or anticipated savings, may
not be fully accurate.
Relatively few consumers who have used a PCW in recent years are aware of
voluntary accreditation schemes, although their general view is that these schemes
provide an additional form of reassurance and improve confidence on the information on
PCWs. Consumers see bodies such as regulators, Which? and the Citizens Advice Bureau
as being suitable organisations to represent their interests by accrediting sites. Consumers
using an accredited PCW rarely notice accreditation; the genuine importance they attach to it
may be more limited than they say it is.
1.8
Recommendations
This research highlights several ways in which PCWs could make changes to improve the
user experience, and to allow consumers to make more effective decisions when making
price comparisons. In summary, these are:
viii
addressing transparency issues, including a clear distinction between sponsored or
advertised links, and ranked search results

addressing usability issues such as adding filtering options to enable more effective
interpretation of search results
improving clarity around ranking of results
raising awareness of existing accreditation schemes, which is currently low
more effective advertising of collective switching sites and next generation PCWs, where
awareness is again currently low (although this is likely to be at least in part linked to next
generation tools newness)
addressing concerns related to privacy, particularly concerns about contact details being
passed to third parties, and resulting in unsolicited communication.
There is scope for further research to increase understanding of the way consumers view
and act on accreditation of PCWs. This research shows that awareness is currently low, and
that consumers rarely notice sites accreditation, despite many saying that they value it.
Moreover, PCW users tendency to interpret deals as good and appropriate for me, without
taking into account their own usage and consumption behaviour, could be seen to highlight
the need for best practice in the way sites select and display available deals.
More generally, further research would allow evaluation of the areas of best practice that this
research has identified, where they were implemented.
Additional research among non-users of PCWs would allow greater understanding of their
reservations in engaging with price comparisons, whether online or offline. In our view, older
consumers, in particular, are less willing than existing PCW users, to communicate or
negotiate actively with the providers they use, and may not even be aware that this is
possible. Consequently, some people miss out on the best deals systematically. Therefore,
raising awareness of the cost implications and support needs of these consumers is
important.
ix
2.
Background and objectives

This chapter provides an overview of the background to the research carried out for this
report, explaining the rationale and context in which it was seen important. It also sets out the
research objectives set as goals for this research.
2.1
About Consumer Futures

Consumer Futures represents the interests of consumers across essential, regulated
markets. It uses compelling evidence, expert analysis and strong argument to put consumer
interests at the heart of policy-making and market behaviour.
Consumer Futures is the statutory representative for consumers of postal services across the
United Kingdom, for energy consumers across Great Britain and for water consumers in
Scotland. It maintains the powers, responsibilities and duties of Consumer Focus.
In April 2014 Consumer Futures will, subject to Parliamentary consent, become part of the
Citizens Advice service.
2.2
Background
Global internet protocol (IP) traffic on public and private networks is expected to increase
fourfold between 2011 and 20164, with around 45 per cent of the worlds population online by
that time5. In the UK in 2012:
seventy six per cent of households had fixed or mobile broadband access, and households
had an average of three types of internet-enabled device
following a doubling in ownership between August 2010 and February 2011, smartphone
penetration was higher than in other European countries, and four in 10 adults (39 per
cent) owned a smartphone
one in 10 households (11 per cent) owned a tablet computer, and one in six (17 per cent)
intended to purchase a tablet in the next year.
Research by Civic Consulting (2011)6 and Ofcom (2011)7 has identified the UK as having
one of the highest proportions of online shoppers in Europe. The former reported that 71 per
cent of UK adults were frequent online shoppers, the latter that 82 per cent of UK consumers
used their internet connection for shopping. Although in February 2012 shopping carried out
online represented only 11 per cent of the UKs retail revenue8, the value of online retail
sales had increased by 0.6bn from February 2011, compared with an increase of only
0.1bn in high street stores.
Cisco (2012) Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2011-2016 [Online]. Available from:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-481360.pdf. [Accessed:
07.06.13]
5
Cisco (2012) Cisco's VNI Forecast Projects the Internet Will Be Four Times as Large in Four Years [Online]. Available from:
http://newsroom.cisco.com/press-release-content?articleId=888280 [Accessed: 07.06.13]
6
Civic Consulting (2011) Consumer market study on the functioning of e-commerce and Internet marketing and selling techniques in
the retail of goods [Online]. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_research/market_studies/docs/study_ecommerce_goods_en.pdf [Accessed: 07.06.13]
7
Ofcom (2011) International Communications Market Report 2011 [Online]. Available from:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr11/icmr/ICMR2011.pdf [Accessed: 07.06.13]
8
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012.pdf [Accessed: 07.06.13]
1
In addition to the general increase in broadband penetration discussed above, existing

research identifies several reasons for the increase in online purchasing among UK
consumers, including:
the convenience of shopping from home9

consumers increased confidence in online shopping10
the ability to carry out fast price comparisons11
the ability to secure cheaper prices than in physical shops12
high rates of credit card ownership13
high levels of trust in online payments14
the historical prevalence of catalogue shopping15
the early launch of major online shopping services16.
This anticipated continued growth in internet use and online shopping highlights the role of
price comparison websites (PCWs); online tools that consumers can use to assess the
options available to them while shopping online, and to view different prices for specific
products and services. The sites can help to simplify purchase decision-making by compiling
and organising information from several sources, in a way that allows consumers to
understand easily the deals that are available to them.
Research conducted by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in 201017 showed that more than
eight in 10 consumers (81 per cent) had ever used a PCW, and that three-quarters (73 per
cent) had used one in the last year18. Civic Consulting (2011) found that 81 per cent of
consumers had used a PCW in the course of the previous year. This research, which
compared 27 European countries, found that of these, the UK had the highest number of
PCWs: 30 PCWs versus 22 sites in France and 19 in Germany.
While PCWs have the same general purpose, there are differences in the way they function.
Some are dedicated to a specific service area, such as energy, while others offer price
comparisons across a wider range of services. The ability to tailor searches according to
individual needs also differs, with some PCWs allowing greater customisation than others,
based on personal profiling or consumption data. Price comparison sites also differ in the
way they gather information and their approaches to revenue generation.
Civic Consulting (2011).
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Ofcom (2011).
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
OFT (2010) The consumers view of the Advertising of Pricing: Final Report, Annexe H [Online]. Available from:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/market-studies/AoP/Annexe-H.pdf [Accessed: 07.06.13]
18
Note that this research was carried out using Ipsos MORIs online access panel. The survey sample therefore didnt include
members of the offline community. The under-representation of some demographic groups was controlled for by weighting the
final data to match the socio-demographic profile of Great Britain.
2
Some source information directly from providers by arrangement; others gather information
independently from providers sites. Similarly, some rely on revenue from advertising, while
others earn this on a commission basis, when consumers switch providers as a direct result
of using the PCW.
The impartiality and reliability of PCWs and the accuracy of the information they present to
the user, have been highlighted in the recent research noted here, and are of particular
concern to consumer bodies. Civic Consulting (2011) found that some PCWs did not provide
adequate information about delivery costs, delivery times, taxes or availability, and that
information about default ranking was sometimes not presented to users clearly, or with
sufficient choice. The research also reports a lack of information about payments that traders
could make in exchange for ranking placements and listings.
Consumer Focus research published in 2013 reported the findings of a mystery shopping
exercise carried out on a total of 99 UK PCWs19. The research found that PCWs are a useful
platform for consumers to use in making basic searches, that they display a high proportion
of relevant search details, and that they usually provide accurate information about products
availability. However, a key finding of the study was that PCWs did not guarantee purchase
savings: in fact this was true in only 21 per cent of cases. Moreover, the Consumer Focus
research highlighted that not all PCWs allow users to make customised, personalised
searches, and that some sites lack clarity on costs: many dont disclose booking fees or
termination charges, for example, while others automatically add supplementary charges
such as product insurance.
A web sweep of 55 PCWs by the OFT in 2012 identified scope for improvements in the
presentation of search results, in the identification of the businesses operating individual
websites, and in privacy policies and complaints procedures20. To address concerns over
accuracy and reliability of information, the OFT has written to 100 leading PCWs asking them
to ensure they are providing clear information to consumers21. The energy regulator Ofgem
has also launched an investigation of PCWs and switching sites, to ensure the information
these sites provide to consumers is transparent and not misleading22.
Research evidence exists, therefore, about the accuracy and reliability of the information that
PCWs provide, and there is concern among consumer bodies about these sites. Evidence is
more limited, however, about the experiences and perspectives of consumers themselves.
Consequently, it is difficult to recommend strategies that consumers can apply, in order to
use comparison sites wisely. Ofgem (2012) has found that consumers level of trust in PCWs
differs by service sector, and is higher for energy, travel and insurance comparison sites than
it is for mobile phones or other financial products23. This research also reported lower
awareness among consumers of PCWs specialising in energy comparisons and switching.
19
Consumer Focus (2013) Comparing comparison sites: Price comparison website mystery shopping report [Online]. Available from:
http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/files/2013/01/Comparing-comparison-sites.pdf [Accessed 20.03.13]
20
OFT (2012) OFT advises price comparison websites how clearer information can improve consumer trust [Online]. Available from:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2012/113-12 [Accessed: 20.03.13]
21
Ibid.
22
Utility Week (2012) Ofgem launches probe into price comparison websites [Online]. Available from:
http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/news_story.asp?id=197743&title=Ofgem+launches+probe+into+price
+comparison+websites [Accessed: 07.06.13]
23
Ofgem (2012). Consumer engagement with the energy market: information needs and perceptions of Ofgem [Online]. Available
from: http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/RetMkts/rmr/Documents1/Consumer%20
3
Since 2009, Consumer Focus has managed a voluntary accreditation scheme for domestic
online energy price comparison services, known as the Confidence Code. The objective of
the Confidence Code is to implement and maintain standards that inspire consumer trust in
PCWs focused on the energy market. As a consumer watchdog, it needs to be able to advise
consumers on the accuracy and reliability of price comparison websites.
Understanding consumers perspectives on PCWs in more detail, and their experiences as
users, will allow Consumer Focus and other bodies to be able to better advise them on how
to use PCWs in the most beneficial way. A deeper understanding will also ensure that
recommendations regarding improvements or changes to PCWs are truly reflective of
consumers needs.
2.3
Objectives
The overall aim of this research is to explore consumer experiences of price comparison
websites in terms of awareness, trust and confidence, user behaviour, accessibility and
usability, and potential concerns. The research will allow Consumer Focus to advise
stakeholders on consumer concerns regarding the use of price comparison websites,
specifically websites covering the regulated markets and, ultimately, to set best practice for
such sites.
The research represents the views, experiences and understanding across the whole
population, including not only heavy internet users and those who are most comfortable
using the internet and online services, but those who dont use the internet at all, and those
who have some experience of the internet, but none of PCWs. It looks at the consumer
journey from the beginning to understand initial awareness, usage patterns and experiences
of usability. This will provide insight into how and why consumers use PWCs, evidence which
will prove useful in helping to assess and improve the websites functionality, ensuring that
they are easy for consumers to navigate.
The research also covers broader concepts such as trust in PCWs, their overall impact, and
attitudes to new developments among price comparison models. These will help to
contextualise findings and also identify further issues that may need to be addressed to
make consumers feel more at ease.
The specific research objectives are as follows:
profile consumers to understand who are users and non-users of PCWs

test consumer awareness of PCWs
explore how consumers find out about price comparison websites
assess why consumers use PCWs, what purpose they serve, and how often they use them
assess levels of use across different service sectors
find out the extent to which consumers consult PCWs when considering switching
between service providers
understand whether consumers verify results from PCWs in any way
gauge perceived ease of PCW use
assess perceived usefulness of PCWs
assess consumer understanding of functionality, in terms of how information is sourced
and how revenue is generated
engagement%20with%20the%20energy%20market,%20information%20needs%20and%20perceptions%20of%20Ofgem.pdf
[Accessed: 07.06.13]
4
test consumer understanding of rankings on search results

understand consumers level of trust in PCWs, whether they have concerns about using
these websites, and what these concerns are

gauge consumer awareness of accreditation schemes for PCWs
understand the impact of PCW use: whether this has influenced consumers shopping
around and switching behaviour, and how
assess consumer interest in a PCW service that would advise them on the best deal and
manage the process on their behalf
establish whether consumers who are not heavy internet users would want to obtain the
information from PCWs in any different ways (printed version, over the phone).
5
3.
Methodology
This chapter provides a short summary of the research methodology, including the methods
used and achieved sample sizes. Full details about the research methodology can be found
in Appendix A.
3.1
Research design and target audience

In light of the number and nature of the aims and objectives of this research, a mixed
methodology design was used. This consisted of three elements:
a nationally representative telephone survey

a consumer usability exercise with price comparison websites (PCWs), undertaken via hall
tests
qualitative face-to-face interviews among consumers (who also took part in the usability
study) to obtain a better understanding of attitudes to PCWs.
The quantitative survey involved a nationally representative sample of Great Britains 18plus population. The usability hall tests and depth interviews were carried out among a more
specific target audience, consisting of consumers who use the internet to some extent, and
are responsible for researching or buying at least one of the specified products. The products
covered in the scope of the usability tests and depth interviews are fixed broadband,
electricity, home insurance, travel insurance and mobile phones.
3.2
Quantitative survey
The quantitative survey consisted of 2,000 structured interviews. The interviews were
conducted using computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) using Random Digit
Dialling (RDD). Of the telephone numbers called, 12.2 per cent were mobile telephone
numbers and 9.2 per cent of the total interviews completed were on mobile telephone
numbers. To ensure that the full range of age groups, gender, geographic locations and
socio-economic grades (SEG) were captured, in line with the nationally representative
population profile, a series of soft quotas were incorporated. The soft quotas were
monitored continuously and the sample was stratified by geographic area to assist in the
monitoring of interviews achieved.
Interviews were carried out between February 22 and March 17, 2013, including evenings
and weekends. On average, interviews lasted 20 minutes.
To make the data representative by age, gender, region and SEG, the data was weighted
using Random Iterative Method (RIM) weighting. Weights were calculated separately for age,
gender, region and SEG. These weights were then applied to the data with each weight
applied separately to each individual case.
After weighting, the sample for Scotland and Wales contains significantly more consumers in
socio-economic grade E, than for England. It is important to bear this in mind when
comparing differences across nation/region as differences in Scotland and Wales may be
heightened due to the increased number of consumers in socio-economic grade E. This is
reflected in some of the quantitative survey findings in this report; significant differences
observed in Scotland and Wales often correspond to significantly different data for socioeconomic grade E. We highlight where these significant differences occur together.
3.3
Semi-structured usability hall tests

A total of 197 consumer usability hall tests were conducted. The hall tests took place in five
locations across Great Britain: Watford, Cardiff, Birmingham, Newcastle and Glasgow.
6
The hall tests consisted of a qualitative observational and interactive task, in which
consumers were asked to search for a new deal using a PCW. Consumers were allocated to
one of the following product categories: fixed broadband, electricity, home insurance, travel
insurance or mobile phones. All consumers were responsible for researching and/ or paying
for the product category which they were allocated to. After being allocated a product
category, consumers were assigned one PCW, which they used to look for a new deal for
their allocated product category. The websites tested included the Big Four, industry-specific
and next generation comparison websites, along with other PCWs that cover multiple product
categories. Due to the number of product categories that the Big Four cover, and in order to
avoid biasing the results of the research towards these four sites, one product category was
excluded from each of the Big Four.
To ensure that the discussion could focus on PCWs usability (rather than the internet more
generally), all consumers had some degree of direct experience and familiarity with the
internet. All consumers taking part in the usability hall tests fell into one of the following three
categories:
heavy internet users (people who use the internet on a daily basis for at least two
activities, and at least monthly for at least two of: managing finances, managing utilities,
researching products and services, booking travel and online shopping)
light internet users (people who use the internet, but dont match the description of
heavy users, and have used a PCW before)
non-users of PCWs (people who use the internet, but have not used a PCW before).
The hall test entailed the consumer looking for a new deal for the allocated product category
on the assigned PCW, before continuing to consider PCWs more generally.
3.4
Depth interviews
After completing a usability hall test, 63 consumers took part in a 30 minute face-to-face
depth interview. Recruitment to the depth interviews was dictated by the following quota
criteria:
age
gender
SEG
internet user type (heavy user, light user or non-PCW user).
The depth interviews investigated in more detail consumer awareness, usage, experiences
and views on PCWs.
7
4.
Purchasing and comparing prices for products and services

This chapter describes how consumers use the internet in general, and more specifically in
making purchase decisions. It describes the users of price comparison websites (PCWs) as
well as those who dont use them. It explains which sites consumers are aware of, which
ones they use and how often they use PCWs. It also provides insight into what they use
these sites for.
4.1
Using the internet

The majority (84 per cent) of consumers are internet users. Fewer women (80 per cent) use
the internet than men (88 per cent).
Access is highest among the 18-29 and 30-44 age groups, where almost all (99 per cent in
each group) are internet users. Access levels fall as age increases, with two-thirds (68 per
cent) of those aged 60-74 having internet access, and just over a quarter (28 per cent) of
those aged 75 or older reporting that they use the internet.
Figure 4.1: Internet access
8
Socio-economic grade E contains significantly more consumers who dont use the internet
than other grades, with less than half (45 per cent) of them using the internet. This is linked
to the high number of 60-74 year olds and those aged 75 or older who dont use the internet.
Of the 109 consumers who are aged 60+ and are in social grade E, almost eight in 10 (78
per cent) dont use the internet.
Figure 4.2: Internet access by socio-economic grade
Significantly more consumers in Scotland (23 per cent) are non-users of the internet than in
England (15 per cent), while the proportion of consumers in Wales who dont use the internet
lies between the two (19 per cent). These data are in line with findings from Ofcoms (2011)
communications survey24, which report that, in 2011, England had the greatest number of
broadband connections followed by Wales and then Scotland.
Consumers access the internet from a variety of settings. Eight in 10 (84 per cent) do so via
a computer, laptop or tablet. These devices are used principally at home (80 per cent),
though two-fifths (43 per cent) are accessing the internet via computers at work or at a place
of education. Around a quarter of consumers (27 per cent) use friends or neighbours
computers or tablets, while one-fifth (20 per cent) use public-access computers, such as
those in libraries.
Half of consumers (52 per cent) go online using a mobile device, such as a mobile phone,
PDA or BlackBerry, and a quarter (24 per cent) using a TV set or games console.
24
Ofcom (2011) The Consumer Experience 2011 [Online]. Available from:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/consumer-experience/tce-11/research_report_of511a.pdf [Accessed:
07.06.13]
9
Figure 4.3: How consumers access the internet
The 84 per cent of consumers who use the internet is broadly reflective of 2011 data from the
Office for National Statistics (ONS), which reports that 77 per cent of households had an
internet connection at that time25. We should note that a small proportion of consumers (two
per cent) in our survey only access the internet outside the home (at work or at university, for
example), and that a handful (less than one per cent) only access the internet using a mobile
phone.
A large majority of the consumers, who participated in our hall tests, had regular internet
access, and almost all of those, who didnt have regular access, were aged 60 or above.
What consumers use the internet for

Consumers engage in some online activities in higher proportions than others. A majority of
those in our quantitative survey use the internet to:
check email
visit websites for information about personal interests or hobbies
find information about products or services theyre thinking about buying
check the news or weather, or to make travel plans
check their bank account or financial holdings
visit social networking sites.
25
Office for National Statistics (2011) Statistical Bulletin: Internet Access - Households and Individuals, 2011 [Online]. Available
from: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_227158.pdf [Accessed: 07.06.2013]
10
Sending and receiving email

Almost all internet users (96 per cent) use email, with more than two-thirds (69 per cent)
doing so on a daily basis. As we might expect, those in the two youngest age groups (18-29
and 30-44) are more likely than older internet users to use email at all, and to do so on a
daily basis.
Those in socio-economic grades A and B also email more frequently than those in other
grades. More than nine in 10 (92 per cent) of those in socio-economic grade A, and more
than three-quarters (79 per cent) of those in grade B email on a daily basis, whereas half (50
per cent) of those in grade D, and one-third (35 per cent) of grade E do so.
Usage varies by nation with a higher proportion of internet users in England using the
internet to send and receive email (97 per cent) than in Scotland (92 per cent). As noted in
Section 3.2, this may be because consumers in socio-economic grade E make up a larger
proportion of consumers in Scotland, than in England.
Visiting sites for information on personal interests or hobbies
The majority of internet users visit sites in connection with personal interest and hobbies (91
per cent). Again, the vast majority of younger consumers (96 per cent of 18-29s and 94 per
cent of 30-44s) do this: a higher proportion than in the older age groups. Fewer of those in
the 60-74 age group (84 per cent), and fewer still of those aged 75 or older (68 per cent)
seek information about hobbies and interests online.
Finding information about products or services they are thinking about buying
Most internet users also go online to find out about items and services they are thinking
about buying, with more than nine in 10 (92 per cent) reporting that they ever do this. Higher
proportions of consumers in the ABC1 socio-economic grades use the internet for this
purpose, than in the C2DE grades.
Internet users who are aware of PCWs that is, they have heard about websites that help
consumers to compare goods and services from a range of providers, to help them make
informed purchase decisions are also significantly more likely to use the internet to find out
about items and services they are thinking about buying. The majority of those who are
aware of PCWs (93 per cent) do this, compared with less than three-quarters (65 per cent) of
those who are not aware of PCWs.
Checking news, weather or travel plans
A large proportion of internet users (88 per cent) also check news or weather, or make travel
plans online. More than two-fifths (41 per cent) do this on a daily basis, with the two youngest
age groups (18-29s and 30-44s) much more likely to do so than older consumers.
Significantly fewer internet users aged 75 or above go online for this reason, with only twothirds (66 per cent) reporting that they ever do so.
Again, consumers in the C2DE socio-economic grades are less likely to use the internet to
check news, weather or travel plans than those in the ABC1 socio-economic grades. For
example, more than nine in 10 in socio-economic grade A (95 per cent) do so, compared with
fewer than two-thirds of those in grade E (62 per cent).
The majority (90 per cent) of internet users, who are aware of PCWs, go online for this
reason, while significantly fewer who are not aware of them do so: just over two-thirds of this
group (68 per cent) list this as an online activity they ever do.
11
Checking bank accounts and other financial holdings

Around three-quarters (74 per cent) of internet users ever go online to check their bank
account or financial holdings indeed, six out of 10 (60 per cent) do so on at least a weekly
basis. A small majority (59 per cent) of internet users go online for this reason between
once a month and several times a week.
Reflecting usage patterns across the age groups for other online activities, significantly fewer
internet users, who are 75 or older, say they ever go online to check up on personal
finances, than in other age groups. While two-fifths (41 per cent) of those in the 75+ group do
so, nine out of 10 (87 per cent) in the 18-29 group do so, for example, as do eight out of 10
(80 per cent) in the 30-44 age group.
As we might expect, there are large differences between the socio-economic grades here,
with those in socio-economic groups A and B much more likely to manage their personal
finances online than those in other grades. For example, more than eight out of 10 (86 per
cent) of those in socio-economic grade A ever go online to check their bank account or
financial holdings, compared with only four in 10 (41 per cent) internet users in socioeconomic grade E.
Significantly fewer consumers in Scotland manage their personal finances online than in
England, with around two-thirds (62 per cent) and three-quarters (76 per cent) in each nation
respectively. Again, as Section 3.2 notes, this may be because consumers in socio-economic
grade E make up a larger proportion of the base in Scotland than in England. The proportion
of consumers in Wales going online for this reason again lies between the two, with over twothirds (68 per cent) doing so.
Visiting social networking sites
Over two-thirds (66 per cent) ever visit social networking sites and over half (56 per cent) do
so one or more times a week.
Younger internet users are the most frequent visitors to social networking sites, with eight in
10 (81 per cent) saying that they do social networking several times a week, or every day,
compared with a quarter (23 per cent) of those in the 60-74 age group, and a minority (six
per cent) of those aged 75 or above.
Use of social networking sites is concentrated around socio-economic grades C1, C2 and D,
where at least half of internet users are visiting social networking sites at least several times
a week.
Around two-thirds (68 per cent) of internet users in England use social networking sites:
significantly more than those in Scotland (58 per cent) or Wales (48 per cent).
What consumers are less likely to use the internet for

Lower proportions of consumers use the internet to carry out certain other activities. For
example, fewer than half use it to:
download music or films

play games online
do their grocery shopping.
12
Downloading music or films

Fewer than half of consumers (46 per cent) use the internet to download media such as
music or films. Downloading is concentrated within the 18-29 age group, who account for
more than two-thirds (68 per cent) of those who download music or films on a daily basis.
Significantly fewer consumers in socio-economic grade E than in some other socio-economic
grades ever download these media: one-third (34 per cent), compared with half in grades B
(49 per cent) and C1 (48 per cent). Around two-fifths of consumers in socio-economic grades
A (39 per cent) and C2 (42 per cent) do this.
Playing games online
Just over one-third (35 per cent) of consumers play games online, with significantly more
men (41 per cent) than women (28 per cent) reporting that they ever do this.
Significantly fewer consumers in socio-economic grade A engage in online gaming than in
some other socio-economic grades. For example, half (48 per cent) of those in socioeconomic grade D ever play games online, compared with one in 10 (11 per cent) among
grade A.
Grocery shopping online
One-third of consumers (33 per cent) shop for groceries online. As we have seen with other
online activities, more in the 18-29 and 30-44 age groups buy groceries online than among
the older groups. For example, more than two-fifths of those aged 30-44 (43 per cent) ever
do their grocery shop online, compared with one-fifth of those in either the 60-74 age group
(18 per cent), or those aged 75 and older (20 per cent).
Higher proportions of consumers in socio-economic grades A and B (37 per cent in both
grades) shop for groceries online than those in grades D (23 per cent) or E (20 per cent).
Significantly more consumers in England shop for groceries online (35 per cent) than those in
Wales (14 per cent) or Scotland (20 per cent), although again, the higher proportion of
consumers in socio-economic grade E in Scotland and Wales, relative to England, should be
noted.
4.2
Awareness of price comparison websites

The majority of all consumers (85 per cent) are aware that websites exist that have been
designed to help consumers to compare prices for goods and services for a range of
providers. Awareness of PCWs is significantly higher among men (89 per cent) than it is
among women (82 per cent), and significantly higher among the under-60s, than those aged
60 or above. Similarly, significantly more consumers in socio-economic grades A (94 per
cent) and B (91 per cent) are aware that PCWs exist, than in grades D (83 per cent) and E
(53 per cent), and significantly more in England (86 per cent) than in Scotland (76 per cent).
If we focus on internet users only, the proportion of consumers who are aware of PCWs rises
to more than nine in 10 (93 per cent), and among this group, there is little difference in
awareness between men (94 per cent) and women (92 per cent). Awareness among internet
users remains noticeably higher (above 90 per cent in each age group) among the under60s, than among older consumers. Two-thirds (67 per cent) of internet users aged 75 or
above are aware of PCWs.
Awareness remains significantly higher among internet users in England (94 per cent) than
those in Scotland (87 per cent).
13
Once again, we note that these differences in awareness may be because consumers in
socio-economic grade E make up a larger proportion of consumers in Scotland, than is the
case in England.
Awareness of the Big Four PCWs

Among those who are aware of PCWs, the majority (83 per cent) name one or more of the
Big Four sites without prompting, when asked to name as many PCWs as they can recall.
Repeating the pattern in general awareness, younger consumers are significantly more likely
to name at least one of the Big Four than those aged 60 and above, and particularly, those
aged 75 and older. Significantly more consumers in socio-economic grades A to D
spontaneously name one or more of the Big Four (all above 80 per cent), than consumers in
socio-economic grade E (60 per cent).
Awareness among consumers in the qualitative research also centres on the Big Four
PCWs, which they attribute to TV advertising.
Originally, it must have been TV adverts or radio adverts. I think Confused.com is always
on, and so is that comparethemarket.com one. Probably, it must have been from there.
North East, SEG B, 30-44, heavy internet user
Everybody is aware now, but firstly it was TV advertising. But now I think everyone is
pretty much hot on it. The chap that sings, everybody knows him, dont they?
Wales, SEG C2, 30-44, light internet user
Notably, consumers in the qualitative research dont differentiate strongly between the Big
Four sites, either when they list the sites that they have heard of, or discuss the ones that
they have used.
Yes, Moneysupermarket, and is Comparethemarket the same one? I just know that
because of the TV adverts.
South East, SEG D, 18-29, heavy internet user
In contrast, spontaneous awareness of collective switching sites and next generation sites is
very low, with a very small number (less than one per cent) of consumers, who are aware of
PCWs, naming either in the quantitative research. Consumers in the qualitative research,
who were already aware of collective switching sites or next generation PCWs, are typically
in their forties or older. Some have heard about consumers in rural areas taking action as a
group in order to attain lower prices for oil; others say they recall seeing recent BBC TV
coverage.
Theres a scheme like that at a local church. If a lot of them joined together, that could
result in cheaper deals
North East, age 75+, SEG D, heavy internet user
14
I heard about this on the BBC news. I wouldnt bother with it.
Midlands, age 60-74, SEG E, non-user of PCWs
Ive been approached to do this [] There should be equality in deals; everybody should
be offered this scheme.
Midlands, age 45-59, SEG D, non-user of PCWs
4.3
Proportion of people using PCWs

Among those who are aware of PCWs, more than two-thirds (71 per cent) have used a PCW
in the course of the last two years. Over half of all consumers (56 per cent) have done so.
Figure 4.4: Consumers using PCWs

Among those consumers who are aware of PCWs, the 30-44 age group is the most likely to
have used a PCW in the last two years: a majority (82 per cent) have done so. Conversely,
relatively few of those aged 60-74 (56 per cent) and especially few of those in the 75+ age
group (24 per cent) have used a PCW in the last two years.
Reflecting the lower level of general awareness of PCWs, significantly more consumers in
England (71 per cent) and Wales (80 per cent), who are aware of PCWs, have used a PCW
in the last two years, than in Scotland (59 per cent).
The proportion of consumers, who are aware of PCWs and have used one in the last two
years, is higher and relatively similar (between 71 per cent and 75 per cent) among the A to
C socio-economic grades. The proportion is lower among the D grade, where two-thirds (65
per cent) have used one, and lowest among the E grade, where fewer than half (47 per cent)
have used one.
15
The majority of those who consult PCWs are generally accessing them using a computer or
laptop (91 per cent), with a small proportion (6 per cent) using a tablet computer. A very low
proportion (two per cent) generally access PCWs using a mobile phone or mobile phone app
(one per cent); most of these consumers are in the 18-29 age group.
Figure 4.5: How consumers access PCWs
16
4.4
How often price comparison sites are used

Over half (56 per cent) of consumers use PCWs at least quarterly. A quarter (25 per cent)
use them twice a year, while around one-sixth (16 per cent) use them once a year.
Men are slightly more likely to use PCWs at least quarterly (60 per cent) compared to women
(50 per cent). Consumers in Scotland and Wales visit PCWs less frequently than those in
England: 55 per cent of consumers in Scotland and 63 per cent of those in Wales visit PCWs
twice a year or less often, compared with 43 per cent of consumers in England.
Figure 4.6: How often price comparison sites are used
Consumers in socio-economic grade B are the most likely to use PCWs at least quarterly (62
per cent) whilst consumers in the lower grades are the least likely to visit PCWs on this basis,
with less than half in either grade doing so (42 per cent for socio-economic grade D and 47
per cent for grade E).
4.5
Price comparison websites used

A large majority of consumers (85 per cent), who have used a PCW in the last two years,
have used one or more of the Big Four, while fewer than one in 10 (eight per cent) have used
only other sites.
17
Figure 4.7: Price comparison websites used
Younger consumers are more likely to use the Big Four PCWs than older groups are: the
vast majority (91 per cent) of 18-29 year-olds and 30-44 year-olds (93 per cent) use them,
while the proportions among the 45-59 group (86 per cent) and 60-74 group (80 per cent) are
slightly lower.
Customers feel that the fact the Big Four sites are the first to spring to mind, results in their
using them most often. As Section 4.2 has described, these PCWs are typically front-of-mind
because consumers have seen or heard recent advertising.
Originally, it must have been TV adverts or radio adverts. I think Confused.com is always
on and so is that comparethemarket.com one. Probably, it must have been from there.
Its because I see the advertising. The first thing when I sit down, I think,
"Confused.com".
Midlands, SEG B, 60-74, heavy internet user
Google. If I can't remember the name then I will just put in "comparison insurance" and
then it will come up.
Wales, SEG C1, 30-44, heavy internet user
There is little evidence of loyalty no consumer said that they used a particular site out of
habit for example, and there was often hesitation as they named the ones they had used.
Consumers told us they simply used sites that come to mind when they start to shop around
or research a purchase.
18
Something money.com? I was on that the other night.

Scotland, SEG C1, 60-74, light internet user
In general, consumers dont make a conscious choice to use a sector-specific or a more
generic PCW. They often rely on the Big Four sites, because they know that these sites offer
a range of the products they are looking for. They learn this either through advertising,
previous experience or recommendation.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. As long as the information they give you is decent, it could be
one website that covers everything. But in my mind, I use Moneysupermarket for more
financial-based products and Go Compare for the car insurance. That is what I am used
to. I know that Go Compare now do other stuff but to me it is largely irrelevant because if I
wanted to check up on financial products I would go to Moneysupermarket.
Wales, SEG B, 45-59, heavy internet user
A few respondents also mention that using sector-specific websites makes them focus on the
search in hand, rather than distracting them with other potential services or products.
If you know what services you are looking for, you can get straight to it. I think the more
services and choice you have, you just get confused as to why you are on there. I think
you can spend too long sometimes faffing around.
Midlands, SEG B, 30-44, light internet user
How consumers find price comparison websites

Consumers arrive at PCWs via different routes. Just over one-third (35 per cent) go to the
sites directly, by typing the site address in a browser window.
A further one-third (31 per cent) use a search engine to locate a specific PCW, typing its
name in to access the URL. The same proportion (31 per cent) use a search engine to
produce a list of different PCWs, then choose one to visit.
A much lower proportion use a search engine typically Google to search for cheap
[product] or compare [product]. Recommendations from others may also persuade
consumers to try out sites that they have become aware of through advertising.
19
Figure 4.8: Finding price comparison websites
Why consumers use PCWs

When prompted on what they might use a PCW for, consumers principal aims are to get the
best deals (85 per cent), compare prices (83 per cent) and, consequently, save money (79
per cent). This echoes a finding from research conducted by the National Consumer Council
(2005),26 in which more than three-quarters (77 per cent) of consumers said that they liked to
shop around between different providers to get the best possible deal.
Figure 4.9: What price comparison websites are used for
26
National Consumer Council (December 2005) Switched on to switching
20
More than two-thirds of consumers (69 per cent) also agree that they use PCWs to identify
the providers that offer the particular products or services they are looking for, or to make a
switch between providers (67 per cent). Two-thirds agree that they use PCWs to save time
(65 per cent) and to inform them when considering switching providers (62 per cent). In total,
more than eight in 10 consumers (82 per cent) say they use PCWs either to switch, or to
consider switching providers.
Slightly fewer consumers use PCWs to carry out more general research. Just over half (53
per cent) visit PCWs to identify the different product or service bundles that are available on
the market. Just under half (47 per cent) visit them to carry out more general (ie, not pricespecific) factfinding about products and services they are interested in. Fewer consumers
one-third (35 per cent) say that they use PCWs to get general advice on products or
services. This is understandable: relatively few PCWs provide advice or even reviews within
the information that they offer.
Overall, eight in 10 consumers (83 per cent) use PCWs to compare prices for specific
products. Approximately nine out of 10 consumers in socio-economic grades A and B do this
(97 per cent and 88 per cent respectively) than among socio-economic grades C2 and D,
where around three-quarters do so (78 per cent and 77 per cent respectively). Similarly,
significantly more consumers in grades A and B use PCWs to actually switch providers.
In addition, significantly fewer young consumers aged 18-29 use PCWs to source general
advice on products or services (26 per cent) than consumers aged 30 or older where the
proportion is one-third or more.
These data indicate that consumers in socio-economic grades A and B either have a more
well-defined idea of the product or service that they want to purchase, or take less time to
make a decision, than those in other grades.
Products and services consumers use PCWs to investigate

Car insurance is by far the most commonly investigated category. The majority of
consumers, who have used a PCW within the last two years (81 per cent), have used it to
compare prices for car insurance. The next most frequently-mentioned category is home
insurance, with half of consumers (50 per cent) having used a PCW while seeking this.
These findings correspond to research by Andrew Smith Research and Research Now
(2012),27 which also found car and home insurance to be the categories where consumers
had most often considered switching.
More than two-fifths (44 per cent) of those who have used PCWs have used one in
connection with gas or electricity deals, and one-third when shopping for travel insurance (32
per cent) or rail fares (31 per cent). Fewer consumers have used a PCW to investigate
mobile phone services, (21 per cent). Fewer still (13 per cent) have used a PCW while
shopping for cable and satellite TV packages.
27
Andrew Smith Research and Research Now (2012). Customers in Britain 2012
21
Figure 4.10: Products/ services that price comparison websites are used for
If we consider the product and service types that PCWs typically cover, the general pattern
here is that consumers are often using PCWs in purchasing:
products highlighted in PCWs advertising: all of the Big Four have promoted their use in
connection with car or home insurance
products that they buy most routinely: for example, insurance bought at the same time
every year; and
products that are relatively expensive: for example, insurance premiums and utilities.
The proportion of consumers using a PCW to shop for car, home or travel insurance is higher
among grades A and B, and lower among grades D and E. For example:
the majority in socio-economic grade A (88 per cent) and three-quarters in grade C1 (76
per cent) have shopped for car insurance via a PCW, compared with two-thirds of those in
socio-economic grade E (67 per cent)
two-thirds of those in socio-economic grade A (67 per cent) have shopped for home
insurance using a PCW, compared with half in grade C2 (50 per cent) and a quarter of
consumers in grade E (25 per cent)
more than one-third of consumers in socio-economic grades B (36 per cent) and C1 (35
per cent) have used a PCW to compare prices for travel insurance; less than one-fifth
have done so among grade E (17 per cent).
The youngest consumers those aged between 18 and 29 are also significantly less likely
to have used a PCW to compare prices for gas or electricity, than consumers in most of the
older age groups. Just over a quarter of the 18-29 group (28 per cent) have done so,
compared with half of the 45-59 group (50 per cent), and more than half of those aged
between 60 and 74 (53 per cent).
Significantly more consumers in Wales have used a PCW while shopping for car insurance
than in England: more than nine in 10 (92 per cent), compared with eight in 10 (80 per cent).
22
What consumers dont use sites for, and why

As we have seen, the extent to which consumers have used PCWs in their decision-making
varies according to different products and services. As Figure 4.10 shows, consumers use
PCWs less frequently when planning purchases of travel insurance, rail fares, mobile phone,
broadband and TV bundles, than when choosing car insurance, home insurance, or a utility
provider. This is likely to be at least partly explained by the fact that some products or
services are purchased less frequently. For example, a number of consumers in the
qualitative research explain that they have not needed travel insurance, because they have
not taken a holiday abroad recently. Likewise, many consumers have not sought to review
their broadband or mobile phone provider as they are tied into a contract.
For things like broadband I am tied into my current provider for some time, so if I have
tried to negotiate a deal I have done so directly with them.
Trivago - that is a holiday thing but I never go on holiday. I have seen that advertised on
television. There is tons of them, isn't there, but I just dont have the need for most of
them. My electricity and water is basically my outlay.
South East, SEG C1, 30-44, light internet user
There is little resistance to using PCWs for any specific kind of product or service.
It is silly not to really, isn't it, because you are just saving yourself so much time. I
certainly wouldn't rule out looking for anything, really.
4.6
Consumers who dont use price comparison websites
Lapsed users of PCWs

A small minority (six per cent) of all consumers can be called lapsed users of PCWs: they are
internet users who have used a PCW in the past, but the last time was more than two years
ago. This equates to more than a quarter (28 per cent) of all non-users of PCWs.
23
Figure 4.11: Use of price comparison website more than two years ago
Half of these lapsed users (50 per cent) have not used a PCW because they have not
needed to compare products, with significantly more men (59 per cent) than women (38 per
cent) giving this as a reason.
But some have been deterred by negative experiences. A minority of lapsed users (15 per
cent) feel they did not get the best deal when they used a PCW. A minority (seven per cent)
distrusted the results they got last time, or found the PCW hard to use (seven per cent), and
a small number experienced difficulties with the switching process (four per cent) or the
product that they had purchased (two per cent).
The qualitative research highlights that a main reason for finding the sites hard to use has to
do with struggling to interpret information that the sites present. Specifically:
some consumers, typically less experienced internet users, accidentally miss out
information that they are asked to enter. This slows down their progress, and they
interpret it to mean they have had difficulties using the site
a few people struggle to understand some of the terms they see on the sites, such as
baggage claims when searching for travel insurance, or have difficulty in understanding
what the amount of cover a policy would give them, and what it actually means in
practice.
Im not clear on some insurance jargon, such as what the 5 million referred to. The
language could have been made easier to understand.
South East, age 18-29, SEG E, heavy internet user
24
Figure 4.12: Reason for not using price comparison website in the last two years
Consumers who are not internet users

Fewer than half of those who dont use the internet (44 per cent) are aware that websites
exist that can help people to compare prices for products and services.
Figure 4.13: Heard of price comparison websites
Male non-users of the internet are significantly more likely than women to be aware of PCWs.
More than half of men (53 per cent) say they are aware of PCWs, compared with two-fifths of
women (39 per cent).
25
Significantly fewer consumers aged 75 or above are aware of PCWs than those in the age
groups below. One in three in the 75+ age group (29 per cent) are aware of PCWs,
compared with just over half in the 60-74 age group (54 per cent), and almost two-thirds in
the 45-59 age group (63 per cent).
A minority of consumers (21 per cent) who dont use the internet themselves, but are aware
of PCWs and what they do, have asked others to use PCWs on their behalf, with significantly
more women (25 per cent) having done this than men (16 per cent).
26
5.
Use and usability of price comparison websites

This chapter outlines the key research findings that relate to the way in which consumers use
price comparison websites (PCWs), and how the emergence of these sites has influenced
consumers strategies when searching for products and services. It summarises the benefits
they perceive of using the sites and their views on how easy they are to use. It discusses the
extent to which these sites are used to switch providers, and why consumers use PCWs for
this purpose. It also explains how non-users go about their price comparison activities.
5.1
The user experience

The typical steps that consumers take when using a PCW include:
navigating from the homepage to the section that is specific to the product or service
they are looking for
entering any data that the site requests, in order to carry out a customised comparison
evaluating search results and making a decision to purchase, or to contact providers in
other ways.
The qualitative research demonstrates some of the challenges that consumers face in
practice when going through these steps, as well as the elements that they find
straightforward. These indicators of best practice and suggested improvements are
summarised in the sections below.
General usability: site design and layout

When they describe features that make PCWs easy to use, it is clear that consumers prefer
websites that have:
a clear, uncluttered layout

headings and banners that are easy to read and understand
a logical design and flow.
Findings from the hall tests indicate that some sites have issues relating to basic design and
layout, which make them harder to use. Key reasons for giving a poor ease of use rating for
a tested site are summarised below.
Unclear signposting in menus and sub-menus confuses consumers and makes navigation
difficult. Some feel that they would benefit from being guided through the process of
searching, because they dont feel totally confident doing so unassisted. Consumers who
tested Moneysavingexpert.com and Quidco are critical of these particular aspects of those
sites. Having simple, clear, very visible menus and sub-menus make PCWs more userfriendly.
Small text is also confusing to consumers. Most obviously, small fonts make people worry
that they have missed something important or that disagreeable information might be hidden
from them. Using a minimum font size reduces the risk that consumers will miss, or
worry that they might unknowingly have missed, key information.
27
In addition to unclear signposting, links that are unrecognisable, such as text that contains a
hyperlink but does not make this obvious, can mean that consumers dont know where to
click next, in order to proceed. Some users also get confused about whether a piece of text
or an image on the page is an actual link, and become frustrated by clicking on boxes and
text which they think are links when they are not. Towards the end of the process, others
dont realise that they need to click on the selected deal to get more information about it,
because they dont interpret the providers logo as a link for clicking on the deal. Clearlyformatted buttons and other links help consumers to understand the available next
steps on the page, and to judge which is likely to be most useful.
Consumers appreciate having explanations for technical terms that they might be unfamiliar
with, but some struggle to use definitions and explanations that are not provided in an
obvious way. Sites that provide such explanations using question marks or i symbols next to
the words are praised by those who are frequent internet users, but can be problematic for
less experienced users, who struggle to identify and use them. Including information to
explain terminology in side boxes means that inexperienced internet users are able to
find it easily.
A small number of consumers, who are generally in their fifties of older, also worry about
sites that position advertising next to results. This confuses some consumers, who think that
the advertisement is actually part of the search results. They also think adverts are irritating,
and get in the way. Setting advertising content clearly apart from comparison
information ensures that people can be confident of where these are on the page, and
focus on the results of their search.
I don't think they are particularly simple because you get all sorts of side issues. You get
adverts with them as well. I dont like that and I dont want that and it just interferes with it
and makes it more difficult to work your way through the site.
North East, SEG A, 75+, light internet user
Locating information about the product or service of interest

As summarised above, consumers using some PCWs struggle to navigate from the
homepage to the appropriate section for the product or service category they want to
compare. This is typically because the homepage does not have clear or visible links to the
different sections, or because the menus are cluttered or otherwise confusing. The wording
used in the menus can also be unclear to consumers, or not obvious enough. For instance,
people who go to a PCW to compare prices for gas or electricity might not realise that they
need to look under utilities.
Consequently, some consumers are unsure about where to start their search on the site.
They think there might be several routes they can take, and they are uncertain whether the
different routes would take them to the same part of the website. A few consumers overcome
this confusion by using the sites search tools, but the remainder search different parts of the
website before finding the right section. They find this frustrating and annoying.
There were three buttons. There was one, two, three and then go next. That would
confuse meI would have to ask my partner. I would have to ask someone unless I
played around with it. If the arrow was on one and I needed to go to two, if I pressed two
and it wasnt the right one, then I would panic.
South East, SEG E, 60-74, non-user of PCWs
28
Some PCWs, such as Quidco and thepeoplespower.co.uk, encourage users to create a

profile or to sign in through social media websites, such as Facebook, in order to share their
use of the site with friends and family. In some cases, the login box is more prominent than
the links to the search functions themselves, and it is not obvious to the site user whether
they can actually use these sites without logging on. Some users express concern about this
and say that this would deter them from using that PCW in the future.
It just took me into areas that I am not asking for. I just found it taking me into a thing and
I thought, "No, what are you doing? When I am trying to put that right it is going into
something. I thought, "Let me just come off this" because it was frustrating me and I
thought to myself you go into things to be quick and this is taking too long and it is taking
up so much of my time, no darling...
South East, SEG B, 30-44, heavy internet user
Customising the comparison

Findings from the quantitative survey show that a key reason for negative experiences with a
PCW is not being able to customise or tailor the search. Many consumers get frustrated if the
search is too standardised and inflexible to allow them to change the search criteria.
Very limited, not given the opportunity to alter search criteria. Options are closed, and you
cannot tailor the results.
England, SEG C1, 45-49, used PCWs in last two years
They don't offer the parameters that I am looking for.
Wales, SEG B, 45-49, used PCWs in last two years
The findings from the hall tests support this, with the main reasons for consumers giving poor
scores including:
not allowing enough customisation in terms of the search criteria

not asking all the questions the consumers thought needed to be asked for them to get
accurate and relevant search results.
Consumers are slightly more positive about the amount of information they need to provide to
make the comparison; with the sites they test achieving a mean score of 7.6 out of 10 for this
aspect of user friendliness. However, around one in 10 rate sites poorly in this regard and a
total of 13 different sites are rated poorly by one or more consumers. Consumers are inclined
to give negative ratings, when they get frustrated answering pre-questions requiring specific
information, which they dont have to hand, such as information from a recent bill. They are
also frustrated if they dont know why the information is needed at such an early stage and
how it is going to be used in the search.
PCW users can also become frustrated if the site format does not allow incomplete answers
(which they can go back and complete later in the process), or provide an opportunity to
explain some of their answers in more detail.
29
The majority of consumers prefer tick-box questions or drop-down response options,

because these provide a choice of appropriate answers. However, a minority feel these
constrain them too much and they are not able to reflect their situation in their answers.
Related to this, users become frustrated when PCWs return them to previous pages several
times because they have entered incorrect or incomplete data in response to a question.
If you're filling in a questionnaire, you have to put what they want, and if you want to put
something different in and it won't let you, and it just stops, it won't let you go any further,
talking to a person is much easier than filling a form in online.
Beyond the basics, there was no other options to enter, method of payment maybe.
Looking back it feels like there was a small range of options.
Quantitative survey, England, SEG C1, 45-59, used PCWs in last two years
Around a quarter of the consumers in the hall tests place the ability to customise their search
among the top three factors influencing their choice of PCW. Only a handful of people say
that this is the most important factor. While customising is important for some, the majority of
users prefer to do a quick search first of all, possibly adding further details after the initial
search.
Quick and basic to start off with and with the option, if I was interested, then I would use
it.
Entering personal details

Consumers willingness to enter more personal details to customise their search depends to
a certain extent on the type of product they are looking for. Consumers are more willing to
answer detailed questions about themselves and their usage of a product or service when
purchasing products that they understand need to be customised for them. This applies to
products and services such as utilities and insurance, where the deals available are
influenced by the buyers location or characteristics. For other products, people expect to be
able to do quick searches without answering too many questions.
I think that would depend on exactly what you were looking for. If you are looking for
home insurance, then you can expect to have to put in detailed information because you
want to make sure that the price that you get is actually accurate for the cover you are
going to get and the type of property you own [] With broadband, all you want is how
much it costs and what limitations there are.
While some people are happy to provide all of the required personal details straight away, a
few would do so only once they have had a look at the site to assure themselves that it is
reputable and secure. Many explain that they might follow up their initial quick search with a
more detailed search, in which they would be willing to provide more detailed information.
30
This is typically because they want to get a better initial understanding of the types of deals
available for them to select from, or of the parameters for different elements of the products:
for example, what is a reasonable amount of cover to purchase for airline insolvency?
Travel insurance is a bit of a complicated thing. You have to read first and then put in
what you want, not the other way round. There's different types of deals for travel
insurance, you have to read it first to know which one to pick.
Willingness to enter personal data in using PCWs also depends to a great extent on what
this data is. Most people are willing to enter their postcode, but are more hesitant about
providing their telephone number and email address. People perceive postcodes not to be
too personal, recognising that postcodes relate to several addresses. Furthermore, this is
publicly available information. Their email address is also considered to be less personal
than their telephone number, and some consumers say that it is easy to discard unwanted
messages, even if receiving them can be annoying. They are least comfortable with providing
telephone numbers, expecting to receive sales calls if they do so, and feeling unable to
prevent this. Many consumers have already experienced these, and want to avoid this in the
future.
Entering personal data is often also a question of maintaining control. Some consumers
voice concern about the possibility that details submitted to PCWs will be sold on to other
companies without their knowledge, leading to unsolicited contact from a range of different
companies. Although this concern is voiced by a range of consumers, those aged 40 or
older, and those in socio-economic grades C1, C2, D and E are slightly more concerned
about the prospect of receiving junk mail and sales calls. By refusing to provide these details,
they feel they can maintain better control over who approaches them.
A minority of consumers are worried about PCWs being at risk of hacking, as they have
heard many stories about the hacking of sites for contacts and, particularly, financial details.
The majority of customers are clear that they would not provide their bank details or more
sensitive financial information regarding their income.
Comparing deals
Information required
In general, PCW users prefer sites to give them a lot of information about the product or
service they are comparing, so that they are confident about what they are buying. At the
same time, they expect sites to provide them with well-structured summary tables, giving
concise information on the deals and allowing them to cross-compare the different options.
Some consumers also mention that they like to have the option to use filters, which allow
them to reduce the number of options to a condensed, workable shortlist. Younger
consumers appetite for this kind of tool is often borne out of their generally higher levels of
comfort with the internet. Conversely, some older consumers mention that small icons or text
make it difficult for them to read everything properly; additional filtering tools would allow
them to condense the amount that they have to take in. This preference for filtering was
somewhat higher among the A, B and C socio-economic grades.
31
Some specific provider details [on Tescocompare.com] were confusing. Id have liked to
see a filter showing information about the paying method, like whether you can do it by
Direct Debit or not.
South East, age 60-74, SEG C1, light internet user
Id like to see a ranking tool [on Moneysupermarket.com] where you could make
comparison based on price. For instance, cheapest option first.
South East, age 18-29, SEG C1, heavy internet user
I dont think the providers should be ranked as they are. The greatest saving was at the
end of the results [] They should be ranked alphabetically, by providers.
Wales, age 75+, SEG B, light internet user
Factors considered
While consumers look at a range of factors when they compare deals on PCWs, it is plain
that price is the most important one. Around nine out of 10 consumers in the hall tests
mention price as one of the three most important factors influencing their purchase decision
researched via a PCW, and around two-thirds of them say that price is the most important
factor. A majority of consumers also mention price in passing, as they talk spontaneously
about the steps they are taking as they use it.
Although price is the key influencing factor, many PCW users state in the hall test that they
dont immediately turn their attention to the cheapest possible deal, but instead compare
prices in the context of the rest of the information they are given about deals. The information
provided about the deal (ie the product description and features) is also very important; two
thirds of people in the hall tests say that this would be among the top three factors if they
were making a real-life decision using a PCW.
In the quantitative research (see Figure 5.3), one-fifth of consumers (21 per cent) say that the
product provider being a well-known brand is one of the three most important considerations
when using PCWs. A much higher proportion (around six in 10) in our hall tests mention the
reputation of the product provider as one of the top three prompted factors they would
consider when making a decision.
Examples of trusted brands include both traditional providers and newer affinity partners
such as Asda, Tesco or Debenhams, whose reputation in their core business areas creates a
positive impression over their products in other sectors, such as insurance.
Sometimes [reputation] is important, sometimes it's not, for example you can get the best
deals off little companies you've never heard of.
Scotland, 18-29, SEG E, heavy internet user
Next steps
For most consumers PCWs are one of several sources of information. The majority (83 per
cent) continue their search with other PCWs, using more than one site before making their
decision. Over half (57 per cent) use two or three comparison sites while over a quarter (26
per cent) use four or more PCWs before making a decision. Those who dont use the internet
very frequently are significantly more likely to use a single site, with a quarter (25 per cent) of
them saying this, compared with a minority of heavy internet users (16 per cent).
32
Conversely, a significant minority (17 per cent) of consumers who use the internet, and use
PCWs, more often use four to five sites when they undertake the comparison process.
Figure 5.1: Number of PCWs used before making a decision
For the majority (61 per cent) of consumers, the main reason for using multiple sites is to
make sure they get the best deal. Around two fifths (42 per cent) do this in order to compare
or verify the comparison results. Only a few (five per cent) say they use more than one PCW
because they dont trust the sites. Visibly more consumers in socio-economic grade A (12
per cent) give this as a reason for using multiple sites than in other grades. Consumers in
London (9 per cent) are noticeably more likely to say they use multiple sites because they
dont trust the sites, than those in other regions.
33
Figure 5.2: Reasons for looking at multiple price comparison websites
Consumers aged 60-74 are significantly less likely than younger consumers to use multiple
sites for cross-checking purposes.
Consumers other reasons for using multiple sites include ensuring that they see all possible
deals available, and comparing the results.
To see if there are any differences. If one site has deals that others don't have.
England, SEG B, 30-44, used PCWs in last two years
Because they do different companies - they don't all have the same ones another [site]
will have different companies.
In addition to other PCWs, the comparison process often continues offline. Many consumers
mention that they follow up their use of a PCW with a call or a visit to a product providers
branch. The reasons for this are discussed in more detail in Section 6.3.
5.2
Benefits of using PCWs

As shown in Figure 4.9, consumers main motivation in using PCWs is to get the best deal.
Many have noticed a rise in costs of basic products and services, such as utilities and
insurance in the last few years. They use the PCWs to see if they can find a better deal that
saves them money on bills. Consequently, the main perceived benefit of PCWs is getting
better deals and saving money.
34
'Makes sure you're not paying more than you should.'

Scotland, SEG B, 18-29, used PCWs in last two years
To get the cheapest prices and the best all-round deals.
England, SEG D, 18-29, used PCWs in last two years
Nonetheless, anecdotal evidence from the hall tests indicates that the consumers are unable
to articulate what they mean by the best deal and how they would define it. Consumers
often dont know the exact level of their consumption or usage and, when in doubt, they are
more likely to look for a bigger and more inclusive package than what they currently have, in
order to avoid extra costs and cap their expenditure. This is particularly common when
considering mobile phone and internet packages where there are cost implications for
exceeding defined volumes of minutes, texts or internet downloads. Consequently, when
consumers say they are looking for the best deal, they may be evaluating packages that
overestimate their requirements.
The majority of users think these sites make price comparisons easier to carry out. In the
past, consumers had to call various providers or visit different shops in order to collect
information about possible deals. Now they can compare numerous providers in one go.
They also find it convenient that they dont have to provide the same information and details
on multiple sites, or to make numerous separate phone calls. This makes the process of
comparing quicker to complete and saves them time.
Consumers also like having all of the information organised in a similar way, in one place.
They believe this allows them to make more structured comparisons and an informed choice.
Some believe that the sites also show a wider range of product providers. Many say that they
would only know to contact a few companies for any given product or service, but on PCWs
they get a wider range of options to choose from.
'Gives a good range of the thing you are looking for, good information on the packages
available and an insight into companies you wouldn't have thought of before.'
England, SEG D, 18-29, used PCWs in last two years
It gives you an overview of what is in the market, to enable you to make an informed
choice.
An additional benefit of PCWs is the convenience and freedom they bring for consumers to
do their research and comparison work whenever suits them. They dont need to make calls
to providers during normal business hours, because they can research the offers even late
into the night. They can also take their time in comparing the deals and return to the task
later, without losing information and having to re-enter it.
Those who still prefer shopping on the high street see PCWs as a way of getting a better
understanding of what is available, prior to going to the shops; they appreciate the
opportunity to shop around before leaving the house.
35
It's an efficient way at looking across many providers, saves the legwork, they store your
details for the next search and it is a fairly simple process.
I think it (PCW) is a bit of a time-saver, and it also narrows your search, so you dont have
to physically go to every store or office to check. If you have some good options, you can
go to those three places instead of doing a whole search around the city.
Midlands, SEG C1, 18-29, non-user of PCWs
Consumers also see PCWs as facilitating switching between providers, by making it easy to
purchase products or services directly through the comparison sites and generally reducing
the hassle and delays related to switching. This is discussed in more detail in section 5.4
further below.
Changes in the way consumers compare prices

Many users say that PCWs have changed their price comparison behaviour, making it
quicker and easier, since it has removed the need to call numerous different providers and
do other legwork. Those who still want to have direct contact with the providers also think
PCWs have facilitated the process, by providing information that helps them to narrow down
the list of companies to call or visit.
You are not actually spending time phoning, phoning, phoning. You are not spending an
hour or two sat on the phone getting all this information.
Scotland, SEG C1, 30-44, heavy internet user
These comparison sites to me have revolutionised for the better for the consumers,
because everything is in front of you. You dont need to knock on your neighbours door
and say, "Can you help me to choose a provider? or you dont have to phone your
parents up and say, "I dont want to be rude but what provider are you with for
broadband? It has made peoples lives easier.
Midlands, SEG D, 30-44, light internet user
Consumers believe PCWs have made them more questioning of the deals that they have
and more likely to look at competitors deals. They tell, how in the past, they tended simply to
stay with their current provider and accept their prices. Consequently, consumers feel more
empowered and feel they have more leverage over product providers after making PCWs a
usual part of the selection process.
Years ago you used to use an insurance broker for the car insurance. At the risk of
sounding a bit ignorant, I more or less accepted what was on offer. I do think that [PCWs]
have changed the way companies have to portray themselves now and what they have to
show you. I think it has swung it more in the consumers favour.
Midlands, SEG C1, 60-74, heavy internet user
36
5.3
Ease of use and usability
Usability expectations
Consumers expect PCWs to be accurate and reliable as well as easy to use. Half (52 per
cent) specify getting accurate and reliable information as one of the three factors that are
most important to them when they use a PCW, with almost as many (45 per cent) saying that
it must be easy to use. Nearly a third (31 per cent) also add impartiality of results, while the
same proportion (31 per cent) want to access a wide range of deals.
Ease of use is important to significantly more users of PCWs in Scotland (56 per cent) than
to those in England (45 per cent).
Figure 5.3: Most important features when using price comparison websites
User experience
Generally consumers are satisfied with their experiences of the PCWs they have used. Over
half (57 per cent) rate the PCWs they have used in the past as excellent or very good28 in
terms of ease of use. Almost the same proportion (52 per cent) think they have been useful
in helping the user to find a good deal. Over two-fifths (43 per cent) think they have been
excellent or very useful because they have been allowed to enter their own selection criteria.
28
Excellent or very good is defined as the proportion of consumers who have rated PCWs with a rating of eight, nine or 10.
Reasonable represents the proportion rating them with a score of five to seven.
37
Figure 5.4: Perceptions of price comparison websites used
Interestingly, there is no difference between heavy and light users of price comparison
websites when it comes to perceptions of ease of use.
Customers who have used PCWs for comparing insurance products give, on average,
slightly higher ease of use scores (mean score of 7.7 out for 10) than those visiting PCWs for
broadband (mean score of 7.0) or mobile phones (mean score of 7.1).
Consumers in the depth interviews and hall tests also have positive perceptions of ease of
use. The majority of these consumers in the hall tests state that the PCWs they test are easy
to use, giving an overall mean score of 7.7 out of 10. The Big Four sites receive higher
ratings, with a mean score of 8.0. Sites that are accredited by the Consumer Focus
Confidence Code also receive a slightly higher mean score (8.0) for ease of use from the 58
consumers asked to test them in the research exercise.
In contrast, over half of consumers (54 per cent) rate PCWs they have used in the past as
poor29 in clarifying whether providers are able to influence their ranking.
Over a third (35 per cent) also think the sites are poor in terms of clarity regarding how
providers are selected to be included in the ranking. Again consumers in Scotland (51 per
cent) as well as the consumers in the higher socio-economic grades (54 per cent for A and
45 per cent for B) are more inclined to give poor ratings for PCWs on this aspect.
Just under half of consumers (46 per cent) say they have recommended PCWs to friends
and family, while a similar proportion (50 per cent) say they have not done so.
Understandably, those who think the information that PCWs provide is unreliable, are
significantly less likely to have recommended a PCW to someone else (21 per cent have
done so), than those who think the sites are fairly reliable (45 per cent) or very reliable (55
per cent).
29
Poor is defined as the proportion of consumers that have rated PCWs with a rating of one to four.
38
Light internet users and infrequent users of PCWs are also less likely to have recommended
a PCW to someone else.
Figure 5.5: Whether recommended a price comparison website
5.4
Switching behaviour
Current level of switching through PCWs

Around half of the consumers (52 per cent) in our quantitative survey say they have switched
providers or purchased directly using a PCW, while the remainder (48 per cent) have not.
Those who think PCWs are very reliable (63 per cent) or are heavy users of the sites (59
per cent) are significantly more inclined to switch on the sites.
Consumers use PCWs to purchase car insurance directly or switch providers more than for
other product categories: over three-quarters (77 per cent) have done so. Over a third have
switched electricity or home insurance (37 per cent respectively) via a PCW, while smaller
proportions (16 per cent) have switched travel insurance or bought other travel related
services (15 per cent) such as flights or hotels, directly on PCWs. Only seven per cent have
bought landline or mobile telephone services, and only three per cent TV services.
39
Figure 5.6: Products/services switched for using price comparison websites
When asked to rate how useful the sites are for switching providers, those who have used
them for gas or electricity rate the sites much higher than those using PCWs for other
reasons. Forty six per cent of people using PCWs for gas or electricity think they are
excellent or very good and on average give them a score of 7.1 out of 10 on this measure.
For insurance, consumers are slightly more sceptical as only 39 per cent give them the
highest scores and the mean score is 6.8. The usefulness of these sites for switching mobile
or broadband is much less; the sites receive average scores of 4.8 and 3.7 respectively.
Reasons for switching providers

Consumers switch insurance providers more frequently than other providers because they
believe there is little to gain from being loyal to their current provider. The quotes are
normally fixed for a year and the costs tend to increase year-on-year. This is the case
especially with car but also with home insurance. As the prices vary greatly and the purchase
cycle is fairly frequent, they are keener to compare prices for these products. A few
consumers also mentioned that switching on PCWs is also fairly easy for insurances, so they
are generally happy to do this online.
I think consumers now have got easy access to far more availability of where they can
shop around and what is on offer, what deals, how they can strike a better deal for
themselvesInformation is the greatest tool in the world, isn't it? I think it has made it
more competitive and it has certainly made it easier for the consumer. I would like to think
that it has made these companies think. If they want to stay in the business, lets give a
bit better deal here and I think it has improved that way as well. I would like to think it has.
Male, Midlands, SEG C1, 60-74, heavy internet user
In terms of utilities, consumers have started to switch providers more in recent years and say
that, to some extent, this is due to PCWs. The sites are seen to have put more pressure on
the companies and, consequently, to have changed the market. The change has come about
in part because consumers now have more information on competitors prices.
40
Some also think that switching utility providers is now easier as it can be done directly on the
PCW, which then does the work on behalf of the consumer.
The opportunity to change has gone through the roof. My parents were with one provider
and I dont suppose they would even have contemplated changing. I am not even sure
you could [in the past]. Also, I don't think there was the competitive edge between the
electric cost, the pound a unit and that was the cost of electricity and it went up next year
and it is 1.05 a unit. There wasnt that ability to slice a tenth of a penny here and 5p
here.
South East, SEG E, 45-59, E, heavy internet user
I have actually used those and changed through them because it is very convenient. They
do all the work.
Reasons for not switching

The main barrier to switching or purchasing directly on PCWs is that consumers want to
speak to their current providers before switching. Almost two-thirds of consumers (63 per
cent) give this reason. Consumers commonly use the information that they gather on PCWs
as a bargaining tool to extract a better deal from their existing provider, especially on mobile
phone deals. Occasionally, the very act of wishing to switch providers may prompt the
existing provider to offer the consumer a better package. This opportunity to use the data
from the PCWs to negotiate a better deal offline is another reason why most consumers
prefer to defer and not purchase, there and then, via the PCW.
If you go through to the retention department and say, "I have just seen it for 50
cheaper" quite often, because they want to retain you, they [will let you use information
you have found elsewhere as a bargaining tool]. That happened. Also a lot of people will
say the same. It might be that you get extra minutes. It did work.
'When I want to go and change my phone contract I will probably have a look on the
comparison website but I will have to call up O2 to cancel it anyway, so they will probably
then try and give me a better offer, which I could be swayed by.'
Almost a third (30 per cent) of consumers dont switch via PCWs because they are unwilling
to provide all the details that the sites require. Consumers in London (38 per cent) are more
likely to be disinclined to switch because they dont want to provide personal details to the
PCW. Just over a quarter (27 per cent) simply prefer to purchase offline.
41
Figure 5.7: Reasons for not switching products/ services using price comparison
websites
Switching providers can occasionally be constrained by factors that are specific to the
individual consumer such as their location, or the nature of an existing contract which
mean they have no possibility to switch. Switching broadband and mobile phone contracts
can be complicated for those, who are bound into a contract with their current provider, and
penalties for switching prohibitive. Furthermore, the choice of provider can also be
constrained by where the consumer lives. For example, some areas have good mobile
coverage for only one provider; some live in areas where fibre optic broadband is not
available.
5.5
Non-user decision-making
Purchasing of products and services

Half of consumers (51 per cent) have not used a PCW in a regulated market (this includes
non-users of PCWs) in the course of the last two years. Almost half of these consumers have
purchased or renewed home insurance (45 per cent) or car insurance (44 per cent) in the last
two years. More than one-third (38 per cent) have bought or renewed a gas or electricity
supply, and a similar proportion (36 per cent) have bought or renewed mobile phone
contracts.
42
Figure 5.8: Products bought or renewed in the last two years
The consumers aged 30-44 (45 per cent) are much more likely to have bought or renewed
gas or electricity than consumers in the other age groups, especially compared to the young
non-users (32 per cent for 18-29 year olds). The young non-users are most likely to have
renewed their mobile contracts (60 per cent) whilst the over 60 year old non-users are most
likely to have renewed or purchased home insurance (58 per cent) compared to any other
age groups.
Non-users in socio-economic grades A, B, C1 and C2 are significantly more likely to have
purchased car insurance in the last two years, with between half and two-thirds having done
so than those in grades D and E, where fewer than three in 10 report this kind of purchase.
Information sources used

Non-users of PCWs dont typically line products up next to one another as PCW users are
able to do on-screen, but are still likely to make some kind of active comparison. These
consumers express a wish to talk to a real person via conversations in shops and phone
conversations with providers. Nearly half of consumers (44 per cent) seek information and
recommendations from friends, family or neighbours. Almost a third (29 per cent) telephone a
number of providers, while around one quarter (26 per cent) rely on advertising. Some 15 per
cent look at Best Buy tables in newspapers or magazines
Interestingly, 15 per cent of non-users in the quantitative survey ask their family member or
friend to use a PCW on their behalf. Some consumers in the qualitative research indicated a
preference simply to have others to make comparisons on their behalf. Some older
consumers, in particular, are accustomed to receiving help from children and other family
members, and do not see this task as being much different.
43
Figure 5.9: Information sources used in decision-making
Other information sources cited by consumers include Yellow Pages, other websites and
online sources, newspapers, visits to shops, brokers or door-to-door salesmen.
I guess I would probably ask for someones advice or I would probably go around and see
if I see any offers. If I see something interesting, I might go in there and ask. Maybe if it
was a bigger decision it would take me a few days more. I would just go to a few places
when I have the time and make a decision then.
Often it is triggered by newspapers. We read two newspapers each day. We live near the
shops so we would see if there is a special offer I would consult the family about things
if it is an important step or something new I need to look for.
South East, SEG D, 75+, non-user of PCWs
The younger non-users of PCWs are more likely to rely on family and friend
recommendations than other age groups (55 per cent of 18-29 year olds and 53 per cent of
30 -44 year olds). Non-users in the South West of England are less likely (15 per cent) to
phone the providers than consumers in the rest of the country.
There are also some differences in the way different sources of information are used for
buying different services. Non-users rely on recommendation much more when buying
broadband services (57 per cent), TV (53 per cent) and mobile services (49 per cent)
compared to insurance purchases (37 per cent). More people also use adverts for
information when buying broadband (36 per cent) or TV services (35 per cent).
44
Recommendations are also overall the most influential of all sources (29 per cent) for their
influence in final decision-making. Only one in six non-users of PCWs (16 per cent) say that
they are most influenced by calls to providers and even fewer (12 per cent) are swayed by
advertising.
Figure 5.10: Most influential information used in decision-making
Non-user perceptions about getting a good deal

The majority of consumers (87 per cent) who dont use PCWs are confident they are getting
the best deal for their needs without one. The over 75 year olds and the youngest age
groups of 18-29 year olds are most likely to think they have got the best deal; 91 per cent
and 92 per cent respectively are either very or fairly confident about this.
Figure 5.11: Confidence in getting the best deal
45
The majority of consumers (76 per cent) purchasing or switching electricity or gas are
confident that they have got the best deal, whereas nine out of 10 (90 per cent) of those
buying insurance are very, or fairly confident they are getting the best deal.
When asked to compare themselves to PCW users, nearly two fifths of non-users (38 per
cent) believe they actually get a better deal offline, while almost a third (29 per cent) think
they get the same deal that those using PCWs do. Only a minority (nine per cent) think they
might be losing out by not using PCWs, and actually getting a worse deal.
Figure 5.12: Whether PCWs are perceived to give a good deal
Some non-users are confident about their ability to negotiate the best deals by themselves
while others think there is very little difference between the deals that are available on- or
offline. A few also believe there is little point in switching providers because this will give only
short-term savings.
Simply because I'm capable of deciding what I like and what I don't like, and am also
capable of negotiating the best deal by myself.
England, SEG B, 60-74, never used PCWs
Because if you get it cheaper for one year, the next year it goes up to exactly the same
and you end up where you were at the start anyway.
England, SEG B, 75+, never used PCWs
Reasons for not using PCWs

A key reason why non-users dont use PCWs is a preference for making purchases in a way
that feels more direct. Just under a quarter (23 per cent) of non-users say they dont use
PCWs because they prefer to talk to someone in person.
46
A minority have negative experience or perceptions of PCWs: 15 per cent are put off using
sites because they think they are too complicated to use. Only a small proportion (three per
cent) say they dont use these sites because of negative feedback from other people.
Some simply have no need for PCWs services: one-fifth (20 per cent) are not looking to
switch their provider while a minority (16 per cent) are simply not interested in the products
PCWs compare.
Other reasons for not using a PCW include not having a computer or not wanting to use one,
not having the need to use them or to compare prices, and a perception that the sites only
give price-related information and no other details about products or services.
I've never made a big enough purchase to care.
England, SEG C2, 18-29, never used PCWs
I like to stick with what I know and go on personal recommendation.
England, SEG C1, 45-59, never used PCWs
Figure 5.13: Reasons for not using price comparison websites
47
6.
Consumer trust and understanding of price comparison websites operating

models
This chapter outlines the key findings related to consumer trust in price comparison websites
(PCWs) and perceptions of reliability and accuracy of the information they contain. It also
outlines their awareness of PCW accreditation schemes and the extent to which they would
value and be influenced by them in their selection and use of PCWs.
6.1
Trust and confidence in the information that PCWs provide

Consumers place a high degree of confidence in PCWs. A large majority (94 per cent) of
those who recall PCWs they have used consider them to be either very (21 per cent) or
fairly reliable (73 per cent).
Figure 6.1: Reliability of price comparison websites
'I am not that cynical. I tend to believe what I am told but I can be a bit nave. If I saw it, I
would be like, "Okay, that is good" and believe it with confidence.'
'The big companies are not going to run away with your money because they are the ones
that have been in this country for that long.'
There is a level of acceptance among consumers that the products they research on PCWs
are complex products, and that they may lack the will to bottom out every last detail. A
minority of consumers spontaneously link their feeling of trust to the influence of a regulatory
body, although they are not clear about which body this is.
'Quite happy really. I think they give you enough information. With things like this, I dont
tend to read all the small print. As long as the cover generally is right, I just look at the
numbers. The small print is going to be what it is going to be, really.'
48
'I don't know if there is an ombudsman or whatever you call them that says that this has
got to be true. If you are writing it down on this site, it has got to be true. So I am going to
assume it would be true.'
South East, SEG C1, 30-44, light internet user
Only a minority of current PCW users say the information that PCWs provide is fairly (four
per cent) or very unreliable (one per cent), and as Section 5.5 has described, a very low
proportion (seven per cent) of lapsed PCW users cite a lack of trust in the results, as a
reason they have stopped using them.
'I don't know that I would be all that confident [in the information]. Its a generation thing.
Its not a thing Ive grown up with. With young people its been there all your life, but its
not been there all my life.'
Scotland, SEG B, 75+, light internet user
'I am not confident, because they are selling something, and can you rely on people who
are selling something to give you the right information all the time? No.'
Wales, SEG C2, 60-74, non-user of PCWs
Consumers who have never used a PCW report somewhat higher levels of mistrust. One in
10 (11 per cent) mention spontaneously that they would not trust the results, while a similar
proportion (nine per cent) think that providers can pay the PCWs to place them higher up the
search results, a topic addressed in more detail below in Section 6.2.
6.2
Understanding and trust in rankings

Consumers typically assume that the default ranking of deals on PCWs is based on price,
though they are not always certain of this. Sites that rank by another variable such as the
consumers current deal versus the deals the PCW is offering are liable to cause confusion,
even when the ranking variable is flagged on the webpage.
Obviously they are all graded in cost and, effectively, once it gets to the first page as it
were, there will be increasing cost all the way down.
South East, SEG C2, 60-74, heavy internet user
What are these savings? Is that on electricity and gas?
Scotland, SEG E, 30-44, non-user of PCWs
49
When asked to give a score out of 1030 for their clarity about the criteria used to rank deals
on PCWs they have used, fewer than one-third (29 per cent) of consumers give a score of
eight or more, and the mean score awarded is 5.08 out of 10.
As Section 4.5 has described, the vast majority of PCW users (85 per cent) are visiting sites
to find the best deal. However, that best deal does not need to occupy the very top spot in
these predominantly price-led rankings. Only a small minority of consumers place the ranking
of deals among the three factors that they personally would consider important in a PCW if
they were actually making a decision, and none chose it as the most important factor overall.
Instead, it is more usual for consumers to scroll through ranked search results until they spot
a brand they 'know'. Consumers often explain that they distrust the cheapest results which
appear at the top of a list and are often from less well-known providers; perceived as 'too
good to be true'.
Some of these names that come up, I have never heard of them. Top Job, I have never
heard of that. Explorer, I don't know who does that. Travel Time, never heard of them
either.
North East, SEG C2, 75+, light internet user
I look to see if it is a company that I have known. I click into Sky and lets go onto their
website and see what they have done.
Wales, SEG E, 30-44, light internet user
Additionally, consumers are often seeking value for money, rather than the lowest ticket
price. They typically spend time weighing up product features and prices before settling on a
deal with the best product specification for a given price. This may end up being slightly more
expensive than the other options in their shortlist, but it feels to them like better all-round
value.
I won't necessarily always go for the top cheapest. I will go for what suits the totality of my
situation.'
'Because I like to know that I am getting the best one that is tailored towards me, like what
I am going to get the most usage out of.'
Consumers can also avoid the cheapest, top-ranking deals because they dont know how
much they currently pay for the product or service they are researching. An offer from a
provider they know, which meets their personal criteria, has an attractive price and is
reasonably well-placed in the rankings, is typically seen as a 'best deal' in the consumer's
eyes.
30
Consumers who had used a PCW in the last two years were asked in the quantitative survey to give a score from one to 10 for
eight different aspects of the sites. The question explained that a score of 10 meant the site was outstanding and 1 was very
poor.
50
'I don't want the cheapest result, as you get what you pay for. I am after something
reliable.'
Some consumers are interested in alternatives to price being used for ranking comparison
results, as well as more filters, which would limit the number of options presented on-screen.
They mention rankings and filters that could help them sort results by download speeds for
broadband, the total cost of monthly instalments on a home insurance deal and a specific
price range for travel insurance corresponding to a person's budget. Some websites, such as
broadbandchoices.co.uk, already have a selection of filters in place, but other sites are more
limited in the way their results can be displayed.
They have got things on the right-hand side, where if you like that option that is being
provided by a certain provider, you can then go to their website and look into the offer in
more detail. You can look at terms and conditions and, sometimes, there might be hidden
things that have not been explained on the front pages because all it gives you sometimes
is what your excess is and how much you are paying. For example, car insurance, if you
have legal protection or a free car, that would be my next step.
What you are getting on a price comparison website is a very brief synopsis of the
highlights, the savings, the amount of money you can save. There is always going to be a
downside somewhere.
South East, SEG E, 45-59, heavy internet user
Consumers are aware that the need for customisation varies between product types: energy
or travel insurance quotes involve fewer variables than home insurance does, for example.
They realise that customisation has both benefits and drawbacks. On the one hand, it takes
people longer to input personal data to produce a more tailored result, while greater
customisation can require them to share more personal details than they feel comfortable
with. Maximum customisation with minimum input would be their ideal.
'The postcode gives the area, but there is no field given for type of property or heating.
More questions are needed, for example the number of rooms.'
Midlands, SEG A, 60-74, heavy internet user
It's a long process but it allows you to get a tailored search and better options.'
Wales, SEG E, 30-44, heavy internet user
6.3
Verifying price comparison results

As Section 5.1 has described, the majority of PCW users (83 per cent) consult multiple price
comparison websites, although only a minority (five per cent) say they consult many sites
because they dont trust the results.
51
For most consumers, the verifying and cross-checking undertaken is not borne out of a
feeling that providers are wilfully trying to mislead them, but an instinctive belief that the
sheer volume of information online makes fact-checking necessary. For example, each site
may have a slightly different selection of providers and associated deals, and some sites may
have more recent information than others. By casting their search nets a little more widely,
they can feel confident that they haven't missed the best deals.
'I wouldn't doubt anything, but then again I probably would check other sites to see if they
have similar options. Usually I trust it.'
'If I am looking for car insurance I will look at three or four different comparison sites. You
might get the same best one on a couple, but the other couple might give you a different
one.'
North East, SEG E, 60-74, light internet user
Once they have drawn up a shortlist of attractive offers from the PCWs consulted, many
consumers carry out further checks offline, often keeping paper notes of their inquiries. They
either telephone the providers, or visit these providers' websites to ensure that the deal they
saw on a PCW is still available, and that they have understood it correctly.
'I would probably go direct to that companys website and then double check again ... Just
to make sure that the information was still valid and that that particular offer was still
available, and that I hadn't missing anything in the small print.'
South East, SEG E, 45-59, heavy internet user
'I am pretty confident. If I had any further questions, then I would contact them myself just
to make sure before I committed to anything....I dont suppose they are going to give us
any different information but sometimes it is just to be clear.'
A minority of consumers also ask friends and family for their views on a potential provider.
'I am always a bit sceptical because I would then draw on information from someone else.
I would try and find someone else that is using the same provider or whatever and "How
has it worked out?'
South East, SEG D, 75+, non-user of PCWs
6.4
Concern about use of personal details and consumer privacy

A secondary aspect of trust relates to consumers concerns about privacy, namely how their
personal details will be used by PCWs and whether they will subsequently receive mail or
other communications from individual providers. As Section 5.4 has already described,
almost one-third of PCW users (30 per cent) have not used one of these sites to switch
providers because they dont want to provide the personal details that this would require.
52
More than one in 10 (13 per cent) participants in the quantitative survey, who have not used
a PCW in the last two years, say that reluctance to give their details to a third party has been
a reason. In the qualitative research, uncertainty about the way PCWs might use their
personal details is a significant concern; and fear that the act of accessing quotes will lead to
large volumes of unsolicited communications afterwards. Both in the qualitative and
quantitative research, this concern about unsolicited communication is higher among the
middle age groups those in their forties and fifties and is also slightly higher among the A
and C socio-economic grades than elsewhere.
'You just wonder sometimes, "Why do they need to know that information? What are you
going to do with that information? Are you going to get lots of other emails and offers that
pop up in your email account from other companies? Do they sell your information on? It
is general security.'
The only concern that I have is that details might sometimes be misappropriated. Its a bit
like the iron fist and velvet glove. You sometimes dont realise what you have let yourself
in for, until youre being inundated with stupid emails or telephone calls or junk mail
through the letterbox.
Wales, SEG E, age 30-44, light internet user
Some consumers are reluctant to enter their bank details in particular, in case they may
unwittingly make a financial agreement. Again, older consumers (those aged 40 or above)
are more likely to raise this as a concern than younger ones.
'They could be a fraud(ulent) company. You could sign up and pay Whenever they ask
for your card details then that is when I step back and I dont just send it.'
Midlands, SEG E, 18-29, heavy internet user
No, I wouldn't [give my bank account details] because something could go wrong and
they could get into your bank account. You see that on the TV. People do get into other
peoples accounts.
Wales, SEG C1, age 60-74, non-user of PCWs
Before you sign up to these, you want to make sure, because they ask you to put your
bank details in. They are getting all your details and (you need) to make sure they are
kosher. I would be wary about putting my bank details in.
Scotland, SEG C1, age 45-59, light internet user
On-screen notifications about issues with the website's security certificate also act as red
flags.
53
'I may come out of the website if it is saying that the website is not secure. I really wouldn't
want my personal details hacked into. Also, I have had identity fraud done to me before
[] I would probably be a bit dubious.'
6.5
Trust in PCWs as trading entities

Another element related to consumer trust in PCWs relates to consumer confidence in these
sites as 'trading entities' on a par with bricks-and-mortar shops, notably in terms of their
consumer rights and ability to resolve any problems with a purchase. Section 5.4 has
discussed reasons why PCW users have not switched providers through these sites. As we
have seen, three-quarters of (77 per cent) those who have never used a PCW to actually
switch providers, say they prefer to buy direct, whether this is offline or through the providers
own site. However, one in five (23 per cent) of these consumers agree that their rights as
consumers are better protected if they buy directly from providers. A slightly smaller
proportion (18 per cent) voice concerns that they might have no-one to complain to if they
purchased via a PCW. There is evidence to suggest that consumers have more concerns
about buying indirectly through a middleman such as a PCW, rather than directly from the
provider whether this is online, or in a bricks-and-mortar shop on the high street.
You can't negotiate with this machine, whereas if I talk to people I can generally get some
off.
[For phones] You are seeing somebody face-to-face and they can explain what is actually
there. They can explain what it does and show you. Face-to-face some things are really
good.
6.6
Knowledge and understanding of PCWs business models
Perceptions of how sites work and make money

Consumers are unsure about how PCWs operate and how they turn a profit, with many never
having considered this before. As the quotations below demonstrate, the majority of
consumers can only conjecture about the PCWs business models. These hypotheses about
how sites make money can be grouped into some broad categories:
revenue from advertising

commission on sales
click-throughs to providers sites made via PCWs
access or listing fees.
'They must take a cut from the companies. They must get a certain amount of
commission.'
Scotland, SEG B, 18-29, heavy internet user
54
'Isn't that how people make money on computers? I don't know. Every time somebody
logs on, isn't that giving them money?'
'That is a good question. I know they do make money. I don't know if they say, "You
advertise with us and we will give you a certain percentage," but how that is figured out, I
wouldn't really know.'
Some providers, such as Direct Line, highlight their absence from any PCWs. This causes
speculation among a minority of consumers, in connection with the issue of how the PCWs
operate, and with their more general levels of trust.
'Somebody is not on any comparison sites at all and it tells you that on the television. It
says, "We are not on any comparison sites". If it was a good thing, why aren't they on it? If
it was that good, why are they bragging that they are not?'
Understanding of whether providers can pay to influence comparison results or rankings

Most consumers have never given any thought to whether product providers are able to pay
PCWs in order to influence comparison results, or their position in rankings. When asked
directly in the qualitative research whether they think this ever happens, the majority either
think that this must definitely occur, or that it is certainly a possibility.
'I have never thought about it before, but I think there is a very big chance that that
happens.'
'I think they could, definitely. I don't think it would surprise us one bit if they did that but I
am just kind of hopeful that it is just a case of cheapest and most expensive.'
This reflects findings from the quantitative study, where half of consumers (51 per cent) are
either certain (23 per cent) or had suspected (28 per cent) that some PCWs can pay to get
better rankings.
55
Figure 6.2: Knowledge of price comparison websites paying for ranking
Significantly more men (59 per cent) at least suspect that this happens than women (41 per
cent). There is also a steady progression in suspicion along socio-economic lines, with just
over one in 10 in socio-economic grade E (13 per cent) saying they knew that PCW
companies could pay to influence rankings while two fifths in socio-economic grade A (43 per
cent) believe this is the case.
Just under half (43 per cent) of consumers, who know that providers can pay to get better
rankings on some PCWs, say this has a strong (20 per cent) or slight (23 per cent) influence
on their choice of PCW.
Figure 6.3: Influence of knowledge about paying for rank on use of PCWs paying for
ranking
However, more than half (56 per cent) of those who know for certain that providers can pay
to get better rankings on some PCWs add that this would not influence their choice of which
site to use at all. As we have seen, in Section 6.2, deal ranking in price order is not typically
the deciding factor when consumers weigh up options.
56
As Section 5.3 explained, getting impartial results is noted by three in 10 (31 per cent)
consumers as one of the top three most important features in a PCW; the majority have other
priorities. Despite any perceived 'rigging' of the rankings, consumers are confident that
competitive deals, tailored to their own particular profile, are still being offered.
Moreover, the issue of rankings being influenced in some way is quite distinct in most
consumers' minds from the issue of 'accurate' or 'genuine' prices: that is, prices that really
exist when they go to follow up on a quoted offer. While a genuine offer is not the same
thing as impartial results, this is a nuance that most consumers do pick up on. They have a
general lack of clarity around this whole topic.
'I do think they are impartial. When you put the information in, say for car insurance, it
doesn't bring up the same sites so it is obviously tailored to the individual and not to a
particular company.'
'No. I think there must be influence. There is influence in everything. But hopefully with a
big company they give you a price and that is the price you are going to pay.'
As long as the price looks like an improvement on what they are currently paying, the
majority of consumers are pragmatic about how money changes hands behind the scenes,
with some even conceding that this is reasonable, because companies have to make their
money somehow.
'I don't think they have much control over it really. I suppose within these companies there
are probably people who know how these sites work and probably make sure their
company is at the top but then that is all in my interests so it might be a cheaper deal. If
they want the business then that is great. Let them fight amongst themselves. I am sure
there is stuff going on in companies to make sure that they can get the trade but that is
usually in my interests.'
'They have got to get a percentage, haven't they? Obviously they are going to take a little
bit of a cut off there which is only fair really.'
Among the consumers, who say they either knew or suspected that providers can pay to
influence rankings, three-quarters think that at least half of providers do this (74 per cent),
with nearly a third (31 per cent) believing that all providers do so.
57
Figure 6.4: Proportion of people who suspect that price comparison websites allow
payment for a better rank
6.7
Awareness and usage of accreditation schemes and accredited PCWs

Only a minority of customers (16 per cent), who recall using a specific PCW in the last two
years, are aware of voluntary accreditation schemes for price comparison websites, such as
Consumer Focuss Confidence Code and Ofcoms Price Comparison Accreditation Scheme.
Awareness is highest among those aged 60-74, where almost a quarter (23 per cent) say
they have heard of these accreditation schemes. Significantly more heavy users of PCWs
(those who have used PCWs in connection with four or more product or service types in the
last two years) are aware of these schemes (21 per cent) than those using fewer (11 per
cent). It should be noted that even this relatively low level of awareness could be inflated by
consumers recognition of the name of the regulator, Ofcom, rather than of its accreditation
scheme per se.
Figure 6.5: Awareness of voluntary accreditation schemes
58
Consumers who are aware of these voluntary accreditation schemes typically say that the
existence of a scheme like this influences their choice of website: four in 10 (36 per cent) say
it does so a little, and one-third (34 per cent) that it has a strong influence on their choice.
Figure 6.6: How accreditation schemes influence choice of price comparison website
Three-quarters (76 per cent) of consumers who are not aware of voluntary accreditation
schemes say that they would be either 'slightly' (38 per cent) or 'strongly' influenced (38 per
cent) in their future choice of PCW.
Figure 6.7: Whether accreditation schemes would influence choice of PCW in future
59
This echoes the findings of research conducted by Andrew Smith Research and Research
Now (April 2012)31, which reports that two-thirds (67 per cent) would be more likely to use a
PCW that is accredited by a relevant industry regulator.
Accreditation is seen largely as giving an extra level of reassurance to consumers, of
conferring legitimacy and instilling confidence and trust in the information generated by
PCWs. It also gives consumers protection and someone to whom they can turn to in the
event of a complaint. Some consumers feel this is especially helpful in view of the lack of
face-to-face contact entailed in a PCW. Even so, it must be noted that while actually using
PCWs, consumers rarely notice that a particular site is actually accredited.
'Very useful, and that puts your mind at rest, because you know that the are not going to
try and make lies up.'
Scotland, SEG D, 18-29, light internet user
'You have got somebody to go back to because you are not actually speaking to
anybody...The fact that they come under some sort of accreditation or somebody who is
going to answer if they dont do right, it makes you feel more safe.
Although consumers say that accreditation gives them an extra level of reassurance, they
dont actively seek this out, and dont miss it when it is not there. Nor are they likely to reject
a site they have been using up to now, just because they have learnt that it is not accredited.
As we have seen, consumers already place a high degree of trust in PCWs as they are
currently configured, notwithstanding their need to carry out a certain amount of factchecking of the results generated.
31
Andrew Smith Research and Research Now (April 2012). Customers in Britain 2012
60
Who should accredit sites?

The vast majority of consumers (84 per cent) who are not aware that independent
accreditation schemes exist would trust some kind of independent body to run such a
scheme. A third of these consumers (35 per cent) would most trust a regulator such as
Ofgem, Ofcom or the Office for Fair Trading to run this, and a further third (35 per cent)
would place most trust in a consumer organisation like Which? A lower proportion (14 per
cent) would prefer the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB).
Figure 6.8: Who would be most trusted to run an accreditation scheme?
Which? and the Citizens Advice Bureau are well regarded and seen as representing the
interests of the wider public and as champions of consumer rights. The word 'trading' in the
Office for Fair Trading or Trading Standards is also reassuring: consumers see the remit of
these two organisations as clamping down on providers flouting the law or any kind of sharp
practice in their dealings with their customers. The Office of Fair Trading is seen as an
impartial 'watchdog'. Additionally, it matters a lot to consumers that the bodies which run
these schemes should be both 'well known' and 'the main ones' in their eyes.
'Anybody that is independent and has not got an agenda, independent and neutral then
you trust them. Along the lines of Which? and Citizens Advice Bureau, you trust them
because you know that they have got your best interests at heart.'
'A lot of them are the ones which I have heard of and that I would think, "That is fine,"
because the more well-known it is, the better.'
Conversely, consumers are opposed to the idea of such a scheme being run by a
government ministry, an industry body, or the price comparison websites themselves. Fewer
than one in 10 (nine per cent) would prefer for one of these bodies to assume the role of
accreditor. A small number of consumers are also critical of the utilities regulators.
61
'I mean, the Citizens Advice Bureau, there is a limit to what they can do. I dont imagine
the Citizens Advice Bureau would ever take anyone to court if you didnt get what you
wanted whereas I can imagine Trading Standards could take it further.'
'Because I think that (the CAB) is more associated with helping people with a benefits
problem or dealing with Government and local authorities rather than commercial
activities.'
Ofgem and Ofcom dont seem to have much clout at all. They just seem to be agreeing
with whatever the companies say. I dont see any relevance to signing up to them so I
don't know. There are price rises and people getting ripped off from the gas and electricity
companies.'
Scotland, SEG C2, 60-74, non-user of PCWs
62
7.
The future for price comparison websites

This chapter summarises consumer views on how the use of price comparison websites
(PCWs) will evolve in the future. It also describes their initial reactions to some new price
comparison concepts and approaches tested with consumers during the research.
7.1
Anticipated future use of PCWs

A number of consumers talk spontaneously about using PCWs in the future, intending to
make more use of them, noting that they have become more aware of what PCWs offer
them. Some consumers even voice their intention to use the site that they have tested during
the research, the next time they want to make a comparison, when purchasing a specific
product or service.
'I should use these more often. If I tried occasionally, I might save money.'
Midlands, SEG D, 30-44, heavy internet user
Interesting. I have learned that there's more different options out there that could be
available.'
Midlands, SEG D, 30-44, non-user of PCWs
My mind is whirring now. I can't wait to get home to look up on phones because I didnt
even think of that. Actually, maybe I could save myself some money where that is
concerned. You just dont think of different areas. I have just come off my contract so now
I am quite excited to get home and do that.
I think it is definitely the way forward with a lot of things. The more that people take
advantage and are aware of price comparison websites and what they can actually
achieve, I think it is good to make retail competitiveness a lot easier for the consumer.
7.2
Collective switching sites

Collective switching sites are websites that allow consumers to act as a group, registering
their household along with others to build a group. The collective switching website then
approaches electricity and gas providers, asking them to quote their cheapest deal, which is
then made available to those who have registered with the sites.
A minority of consumers (around one in 10) are already aware that collective switching sites
exist, and those who have heard about these sites are typically in favour of the idea. The
collective switching schemes consumers know of are run by a variety of organisations, such
as housing associations, churches and local councils. A few consumers in the study have
signed up to one.
Consumers who discuss the concept of collective switching usually like the idea, at least
initially. The fundamental appeal of collective switching schemes lies in their money-saving
63
aspect: consumers understand that this is thanks to the greater buying power afforded by the
group.
You are talking on a grander scale, because there are potentially 2,000 people that could
switch over. In my eyes you could potentially gain 2,000 more customers, so therefore
they are going to give us a really, really good deal. Its kind of like, me on my own is not
going to make any difference but if it is on a much grander scale then potentially you could
be getting a better deal. It seems to me like it would work a lot easier.'
North East, SEG C1, 30-44, heavy internet user
'If you got a good amount of people, you can bargain more with them, can't you? That
would work out better in somebodys favour because as one individual they are not going
to take too much notice of you.'
Midlands, SEG D, 30-44, non-user of PCWs
Letting someone else do the legwork to secure them a better deal also frees consumers up
to spend time doing other things. An initiative like this is particularly welcome against the
backdrop of ever-increasing fuel bills and the concerns that accompany them.
'Heating is necessary; not a luxury.'
They [utilities company] have put the prices up, so I am paying a little bit more than I was
originally. It is about time I looked at that really.
Linked to this, is the opinion voiced by some consumers that the main energy providers are
overly dominant, and prone to regularly raising prices. They see the collective switching
concept as a way for them to make a joint stand against what they see as energy giants.
Others take a less combative view, seeing the deal as a 'win-win situation', where the energy
provider also benefits by gaining new customers.
[Collective switching] empowers local communities to fight corporate giants. Prices are
getting out of hand.'
'Good idea, more power being put in the hands of the common public. Energy is not a free
market and there is too much collusion.'
Wales, SEG B, 45-59, light internet user
The notion of people acting together, and of strength in numbers, appeals on two levels: the
savings to be made through collective bargaining, plus the sense of community spirit.
64
'This is a good idea. The community would come together and many people would
benefit.'
'Obviously that is giving the consumer power. It is giving the community power. It is giving
the town or the city a bit more power because obviously (the site) is going to do that on
their behalf.'
The more they think about it, however, the more likely consumers are to come up with
reservations and questions about the exact way in which the switching scheme would work.
These reservations are more prevalent among those who gauge their level of interest as
'quite likely,' than among the most interested in collective switching.
One key area of concern relates to whether the process of initially registering an interest via
the website or of actually signing up to a deal it generates is binding. Some consumers
fear that an offer may be withdrawn if not enough people take it up; others specify that they
would need reassurance about not being under obligation to accept the offer once it is
known.
'Sounds great, but I can see many potential hurdles. For instance, if it is a collective, the
deal is being done on a set number of people, any one of whom can drop out at any time.
I am unsure how this would impact the rest.'
'It's like a supermarket. Sounds great as long as it's easy to reject it. If I am presented with
an unimpressive offer, there needs to be the freedom to walk away.'
Another key worry is that the designated energy provider may raise prices further down the
line, whether owing to rises in its own wholesale costs, or to offset the loss of households
who may drop out of the scheme later on.
'My only concern about that would be whether what they give you with one hand, they
take it back with the other, so once you are all committed and they have lured you in with
these lucrative offers because of your collectiveness, they say, "OK, you are locked in
now. We are going to hike up our prices by 0.75 per cent, which on the whole might not
sound a lot to the individual consumer, but as a collective organisation, that is a lot of
money.'
'Good idea, I wonder if it will be good in the long run though. Im worried that it perhaps
will start out as a great deal with subsequent increasing prices.'
Wales, SEG D, 18-29, heavy internet user
65
A third concern relates to privacy issues generally and the collective switching sites', or
energy providers' possible misuse of personal data.
'I dont want to know that Joe up the road is on it or Fred up the street is on it. I would like
to be on it, but I dont want them to know I am on it. It should be totally confidential but
everybody collectively is getting a bargain.'
Meanwhile, a slightly lower proportion of consumers are more negative about the concept of
collective switching from the outset. However, just as some of those who are enthusiastic
about the idea also have concerns, some of this more negative group think collective
switching could be a good idea in principle, but that it is simply not right for them. Again, key
issues for this group also include the threat of their personal data being misused for
marketing purposes, and the implications of people quitting the scheme at any point in the
process, as outlined above.
'I don't like providing personal details. I receive a lot of calls and junk mail and dont know
how to make them stop.'
'Potentially a good idea, but it has problems. The fact that it depends on the number
signing up: what happens if people drop out?'
The other main concern expressed by consumers, who are more hesitant about collective
switching sites, relates to the overarching theme of individualism. For some, joining a
collective would lead to a perceived loss of control in the way they manage their household
affairs.
'I do not like this idea. I don't want to be dependent or reliant on other households.'
Some also have a perception that they would actually be obliged to mix with people in their
community, or to share information with them, to a greater degree than they feel comfortable
with. A few even think they might be required to recruit other people to join the scheme,
which they find very off-putting.
'I would think that I wasnt just paying for my own usage. I just want my own little bill. I
dont want to pay for a holiday with a group of another 50 people. I want to pay for our
own holiday. I want to pay for what I am getting and what I am using.'
66
'I am a very private person. I just would not do it. I know my neighbours really well. I have
lived in my house for many years and I know them and they are lovely but I would not do
that. I don't know how it would work...We have all got different suppliers so we wouldn't
change and we would have to all change, so how would you get four people to decide
which supplier they are going with?'
South East, SEG E, 60-74, non-user of PCWs
'Would you blog and say, "Come on everybody, we need to get more than 100, can you
recommend any family or friends? and I dont like to be part of things like that. I feel a bit
tied. I haven't got time to see my friends, let alone go on the internet and be tied to
something. To get it to work I dont see how else they would do it. You would have to have
active participation in it and I am not good at doing things like that, not online and stuff.'
A few of those who dont wish to get unduly involved in their communities which they
perceive they would need to as members of this 'collective' suggest that a small, close-knit
rural village would be most suited to the ethos of the scheme.
'I feel that you would have to be living in a close community, perhaps working in a village.
In this case, it could be a good idea.'
Wales, SEG B, 75+, light internet user
'The scheme would be appropriate in a rural village. Great idea and people rallying
together is always good, especially as they can have others to talk to in the case of any
issues with the service.'
Midlands, SEG E, 75+, light internet user
Another facet of this individualism manifests itself in a concern about the deal not being
sufficiently tailored to consumers' needs its 'one size fits all' premise may mean it is not, in
fact, such a good deal as it purports to be.
'I have used this before but feel they are of limited use. You need this customised and
these are generally generic, without the option to customise.'
Wales, SEG B, 60-74, light internet user
'No, not all households use the same amenities, what is right for some is not for others.'
'There could be loopholes. People may have an agenda when things are done collectively
they are not always suitable for individuals.'
67
Other, more minor concerns, include wariness about signing up with an energy provider
consumers have not heard of, or which they dont like, and concerns around how the deal
might be affected in the event of a household moving.
'What I dont like is that they are just finding one provider, and maybe I dont want to go
with that provider, or I might have had a bad experience with that provider. The option of
searching on a number of providers: that has been taken away from me.'
'I am unsure if a household would be tied to this, and what would happen if it moved.'
7.3

Some price comparison tools can help the consumer analyse detailed data on their
consumption patterns to come up with the most suitable deal. In the qualitative research,
consumers discussed Billmonitor, a service that finds the mobile phone contract most suited
to the consumer's lifestyle and usage, based on data directly inputted by users themselves,
and by the tool accessing the user's online account with their express permission.
Just over half of consumers say they would be quite likely or very likely to use a service like
this, with just under half saying that they would be 'not very likely' or 'not at all likely' to do so.
Consumers who find the concept appealing like the fact that the tool does the legwork of
comparing deals for them, and that it comes up with recommendations that are tailored to
their usage profile. They recognise that this is likely to save them money. Some consumers
think that they currently have a current mobile phone package that is over-specified for their
needs, for example. A minority also show some interest in this concept being extended to
energy deals. Making savings on fuel bills has become a priority for them, in view of
continually rising fuel bills.
'Good idea, I don't currently check my consumption. Id be interested to know if I am
spending too much money per month, and if there is a better deal.'
'I pay for two bills my grandson and myself. I think I may be overpaying, so would like
that to be scrutinised.'
Even among consumers, who are most interested in collective switching, there are a few
concerns about privacy issues and, in particular, whether their personal and usage data
might be shared with other product providers without their knowledge or permission, leading
to unwanted marketing communications. There are also one or two reservations among this
group as to whether the tool takes into account contractual tie-ins. A few respondents also
puzzle over how sites, such as Billmonitor, actually differ from those price comparison sites,
which also require the user to input usage data.
68
'If they are going to then sell that data onto another party again and that other party is
going to continually try to cajole the consumer into signing up with them, then that is not
right.'
'It is of some interest but I think there would be too much information sharing with that and
just the fact that somebody could go in and log in as me and that leaves me wide open for
whatever. I would like to look at it.'
'Im not sure. I don't know if it just seems a bit invasive when I dont actually know who
they are. It would be different if it was my phone provider, but a random third party...'
Just under half of consumers say they are unlikely to use a data analyser service. The key
barrier for these consumers is their wish to protect the privacy of their personal and usage
data, including their own phone number or even the numbers they have called. This is a
much greater concern for those who dont see a use for the service, than for those who like
the concept. In particular, most would consider an online access version of the tool to be too
intrusive, though they have misgivings about the handling of their data generally, regardless
of its method of collection.
'I wouldn't mind giving the information that I had made 50 calls to Orange. I wouldn't mind
that but they dont need to know the numbers. That is a bit too personal and nothing to do
with them.'
'I am wary about them having your details, and do not want to be contacted.'
Some consumers are unlikely to use this kind of comparison tool because they prefer to stay
'in control' of the research process and, in particular, to visit phone shops and negotiate deals
in person. This attitude was especially marked in the case of mobile phone PCWs (of which
Billmonitor is essentially one example). In most other product categories consumers are quite
happy to relinquish 'control' in this way and let price comparison sites do the work for them.
'Im not too fond of these kind of things. I prefer to make my own judgement on what I
would like rather than someones computer telling me what I should be looking at, kind of
thing.'
'I like to make my own decisions and be in control.'
69
Other consumers, meanwhile, feel that the act of inputting their usage data and letting the
tool sift through the options would take up too much time and involve too much work and
hassle on their part. This plays into the perception held by some consumers that the
comparison process would need to be undertaken regularly, to ensure that they got the best
deal on an ongoing basis.
'I wouldn't go on there and give the information that they wanted. I can't be bothered. It is
too much hassle. I know I wouldn't do it. I dont go online every month.'
'I would not make use of this, I don't have the time to enter the details every month.'
'I can see that it could be useful. However, I think it could become quite obsessive and
would have to be constantly checked. I dont have time.'
In contrast, some consumers are troubled by quite the opposite concern: that they cannot
see the point of using the tool unless they are at the end of their contract period. They
speculate as to whether the site might try to persuade them to switch providers.
Additionally, a minority of consumers have no interest in this concept because they are
happy with their current provider and feel no inclination to switch or even look into the
possibility of better deals. A few consumers are on 'Pay As You Go' contracts, so the concept
does not apply to them, while a small minority consider their usage too light to warrant an
investigative exercise on this scale.
'If I was using a bigger amount of mobile phone, I think I could justify it then. I only use a
small amount, so I just stay as I am.'
7.4
Price comparison apps

The third concept that consumers discussed in the qualitative interviews was a dedicated
price comparison app for smartphones, which some price comparison providers are
beginning to develop to allow people to access their services on the move. These apps give
consumers the opportunity to undertake price comparisons 'anytime, anywhere', rather than
being limited to carrying out research on desktop versions of websites on a computer or
tablet PC.
Most consumers who own a smartphone do use apps to some degree, and the majority
appreciate that these apps are designed to increase convenience for the user. They are
more divided, however, on whether they would actually use them in practice. Approximately
half say they are 'very likely' or 'quite likely' to use a price comparison app. The other half are
split evenly between 'not very likely' and 'not at all likely'.
70
The idea appealed more to consumers in the South East and the Midlands than to those in
other regions. There was also a noticeable age bias, with only one consumer aged over 60
saying that they would be 'quite likely' to use these apps.
Consumers who say they would be likely to use PCW apps would appreciate the
convenience factor, enabling them to save time and money. The concept appeals particularly
to people who are heavy users of the internet via their smartphones, either because they
have no or limited access to other internet-enabled devices, or simply because surfing on
their phones fits it with their work patterns or general lifestyle. A few consumers also find
apps easier to use than full-sized websites, in the sense of requiring fewer steps to access.
'Because if you were on the go and you were looking for stuff and if you were working all
the time and you have got kids and you have got a house to run, so if you are travelling to
and from places then you could actually do that as you are sitting on a train or a bus. It is
a lot easier than getting a laptop out or a notebook.'
'An app on your phone is there instantly without having to wait to get home. I am too tired
to browse at night, so it could be done during my lunch break.'
Smartphone users who say they are unlikely to use apps typically feel that comparing is not
something you can easily do on the go. This is mainly because they find entering data on the
small screens of their phones too fiddly and awkward, compared to the full-sized screen of a
computer, with a risk of making mistakes.
'That is just my preference. I dont like looking up things on my phone. I prefer to use the
big screen. I don't think you can get all the information on the one page.'
'I am not interested, and would use my laptop. I could miss info on the small screen.'
Some also consider that to use PCWs effectively, you really need to sit down quietly and give
the process your full attention with no distractions, for which a home computer is ideal.
Carrying out inquiries on the go might lead you to make hasty decisions you might
subsequently regret. Sitting down at a home computer also enables you to take notes, have
multiple screens open simultaneously and all the requisite details about your current
product/provider to hand: e.g. usage data in the case of an energy site, or specific details
about your car or home in the case of an insurance quote.
'Wouldn't use this on my phone. If I was going to use a price comparison website then I
would make time for it and use it in a controlled way, not just on the run which could lead
to rash decisions.'
Scotland, SEG B, 30-44, light internet user
71
'I would rather use my laptop at home. If I am trying to sort out my insurances, I will be at
home with everything I need close by.'
Moreover, many consumers are happy with their current habit of setting aside time at home
to look at these websites; they are not actively seeking additional windows of opportunity to
make price comparisons and, consequently, see no real need to do this on the move. This
includes consumers who are mainly home-based anyway, or who are not heavy mobile
phone users. Linked to this notion of not needing extra opportunities to consult PCWs, is the
fact that this is an occasional activity, while apps are viewed by some as a facility to be used
on a more regular basis, if not necessarily daily.
I am happy to do it at home. You dont need to find a new energy supplier whilst
shopping.'
'I just think for the amount of information you have to put in there for house insurance
specifically, I wouldn't want to be doing that on the phone or while I am having a coffee.
There is no benefit to me at all. If I am on the train from my house to work, I would rather
be reading my Kindle. I would rather be doing something like that at home.'
Consumers also have some privacy concerns around the issue of ad-tracking, as well as
fears of what might happen to the data they have entered into their mobile phone, in the
event of the handset being lost or stolen.
'Apps can track you, and likely know where you are and how you use your phone.'
'I suppose if I had an app, would my data be secure if I lost the phone? How secure would
it be?'
The few consumers who touch on the issue of possible pricing for these apps are quite clear
in that they should be free.
7.5
Interest in an alternative price comparison service

Six out of 10 (60 per cent) of consumers in the quantitative study say they would definitely
use (25 per cent) or would consider using (35 per cent) a price comparison service that
would allow them to compare offers and get advice on the best deal available, although
interest is markedly lower among those who have never used a PCW, with only 28 per cent
showing an interest. It was made clear that this need not be an online service.
72
Figure 7.1: Likelihood to use price comparison service providing offers and advice
Levels of interest in an alternative price comparison service are relatively lower for TV
services (40 per cent say they would definitely use or consider using one), broadband (54
per cent) and mobile phones (46 per cent give one of these responses). Consumers show
more interest in a comparison service for utilities or insurance, with two-thirds (64 per cent)
indicating in each case that this kind of service would be of interest. There are more
providers to consider in these two sectors, and the option of checking out offers in-store is
less practical.
Looking across the socio-economic grades, significantly more consumers in socio-economic
grade E say that they would not consider using this sort of alternative comparison service
than in other grades: one-third (35 per cent) give this response, compared with less than
one-fifth of consumers in the other socio-economic grades. Consumers in Scotland are also
significantly more likely to respond that they would not consider using this kind of service (25
per cent), than those in England (17 per cent). As noted in Section 3.2, this may be because
consumers in socio-economic grade E make up a larger proportion of consumers in
Scotland, than in England.
Significantly more consumers in the two youngest age groups are interested in an alternative
switching service, with around three-quarters in each (73 per cent of those aged 18-29 and
72 per cent of those aged 30-44) saying that they would at least consider using one.
Interest in this kind of service is significantly higher among those who have used a PCW in
the course of the last two years (38 per cent say they would definitely use a service like this),
than it is among either lapsed users (eight per cent), or those who use the internet but have
never used a PCW (four per cent). Interest is also very low among non-users of the internet,
with only a small minority (four per cent) saying they would definitely want to use a service
like this, despite emphasis in the explanation that this could be an offline service.
In terms of what format this service should take, the two main preferences among those who
would consider using this are for a telephone or online service. While one-third (32 per cent)
prefer telephone, almost as many (30 per cent) would like to access this kind of service
online. Around a quarter (22 per cent) prefer a face-to-face service. Only a minority of
consumers (14 per cent) are interested in accessing this kind of service by post, with
significantly fewer in the 18-29 age groups and in socio-economic grade E giving this
response than in other age groups or socio-economic grades.
73
Figure 7.2: Preferred method of accessing price comparison service
Focusing on non-users of PCWs specifically, more than half of this group (55 per cent)
express a preference to access this kind of service either face-to-face (32 per cent) or by
telephone (23 per cent). This preference for offline channels is understandable, given that
clearly not all members of this sub-group are internet users.
74
8.
Conclusions
8.1
Awareness, perceptions and usage of price comparison sites

Whether they are internet users or not, most consumers (85 per cent) are aware that
websites exist that can be used to aid their decision-making when purchasing different
products and services. The majority (83 per cent) of those who are aware of price
comparison websites (PCWs) are able to name at least one of the Big Four comparison
sites without prompting particularly younger consumers and those in socio-economic
grades A to D.
In contrast, the research shows that awareness of collective switching sites and next
generation sites is very low, with just a handful (fewer than one per cent) of consumers
naming sites of this type when asked to name the PCWs they know.
More than half (56 per cent) of all consumers have actually used one in the last two years,
with the majority of these consulting multiple sites during the decision-making process, and
using at least one of the Big Four sites.
Just over one-third (38 per cent) of consumers have never used a PCW. Only a small
minority (six per cent) of all consumers are lapsed PCW users, having used a PCW in the
past but more than two years ago.
Advertising is important in influencing the sites that consumers use, with the majority
reporting that when they begin the process of making an online price comparison, the PCWs
that spring to mind are those that they have seen advertised recently.
Consumers who have used a PCW within the last two years have most often been
comparing prices for:
car insurance (81 per cent of those using PCWs in the last two years)
home insurance (50 per cent)
electricity or gas (44 per cent)
travel insurance (32 per cent)
rail fares (31 per cent).
Some consumers also spontaneously mention their plans to use PCWs to a greater extent in
the future, when they next purchase, or switch providers for products they have not yet used
a PCW in researching or buying.
For a high proportion of consumers, PCWs form part of the usual decision-making
process for insurance products, gas and electricity. Their overall awareness and
choice of specific sites is heavily influenced by above-the-line advertising, and
consequently focuses on the Big Four PCWs.
8.2
Trust placed in price comparison sites

A key finding of this research is that consumers place a high general level of trust in PCWs.
This is evident in the way they use the sites, in many of their perceptions about how these
sites work, and in their motivations in using PCWs at all.
75
Broadly speaking, consumers use PCWs to get the best deals, to compare prices, and to
make savings on the products or services that they purchase: all positive outcomes that
indicate consumer trust in PCWs. Indeed, around half (52 per cent) of consumers who have
used a PCW in the course of the last two years, have switched providers or purchased
directly through a PCW, using the PCW not only as an information source, but as the
transactional channel when they purchase. Moreover, around half (46 per cent) have
recommended a PCW to a friend or family member.
More explicitly, on the topic of trust, most consumers feel that the information they access
through price comparison websites is broadly reliable, and are typically able to address any
concerns they might have either by consulting multiple PCWs, or by verifying information
directly with providers.
While consumers tend to respond to the questions that PCWs ask them rather automatically
clicking and answering methodically their willingness to share personal details and data
depends on:
the product or service being researched

the specific questions they are being asked
the point at which they are asked to provide this information
whether they have the information to hand.
By and large, people are able to assess whether the information they are being asked to
provide feels appropriate. Most understand, for example, why they might be asked for
medical details when applying for travel insurance, or that a utility or broadband provider
needs to know whether their home is in an area serviced by that company. For products like
mobile phones, they expect to be able to perform quick searches without providing in-depth
information.
Consumers main concern about providing personal details is that doing so will result in
unwanted communications. While they are slightly more tolerant of emails, many have
already experienced sales calls immediately after using a price comparison site. They see
these calls as a nuisance and as invasive, and prefer not to deal with them. This is a generic
concern about providing personal details, rather than one that they link to PCWs per se.
Only a minority of consumers are concerned that the details they provide to PCWs might be
sold on to other companies without their knowledge. Again, their fear is that this will lead to
unsolicited contact, and their aim is to maintain control over who is able to approach them.
The research shows that PCWs occupy a position of trust in consumers minds. It is
clear that PCWs are seen to deliver certain and specific benefits. For the most part,
consumers understand why they are asked to provide the details that sites request.
The concerns they do have often centre around providing contact details, and
receiving unwanted sales calls and emails as a consequence.
The way that sites rank comparison results is linked closely to the trust they place in PCWs.
Consumers typically make the assumption that price comparison results are ranked
according to their ticket or tariff price and, for some, their underlying trust means that they
continue to work on this assumption when they are uncertain whether it is the case. Some
consumers become confused when they encounter a site that ranks by another variable,
such as the potential saving versus their current provider, even when this ranking is flagged
by the web page. In fact, relatively few consumers feel clear about the criteria that are used
to rank deals on PCWs they have used: the mean of the scores they award is 5.08 out of 10.
76
Many consumers are only able to estimate the amount they pay currently for the product or
service they are researching. They can be attracted to deals from providers that are known to
them (and that they therefore trust) and that rank well in the comparison results, sometimes
interpreting this combination of factors to mean a deal is the best one without assessing
how it compares to the real amount they pay at the moment.
Some consumers express interest in alternative methods of ranking and in being able to filter
comparison results by different variables. This would allow them to reduce the number of
options under consideration to a condensed shortlist.
Some consumers rely on assumptions about both the price they pay now and the
pricing details provided by PCWs. This means that despite having high levels of trust
in PCWs, their decisions are sometimes not based on accurate information.
Communicating clearly the way that results have been ranked and giving PCW users
the option to filter results in alternative ways, would help to reduce the information
that they are trying to process to a workable volume, and allow them to analyse that
information according to their preference.
Moreover, in spite of placing a lot of trust in PCWs, many consumers have never thought
about how the sites make their money and, consequently, are unsure about their operating
models. The majority guess initially that PCWs earn revenue from advertising or from
commission that is paid by providers, but are very ready to believe that providers can (and
do) pay PCWs in order to influence comparison results. Crucially, though, more than half of
those who believe that this happens, say that it would not influence their choice of PCW.
Neither do consumers typically distinguish between the impartiality and genuineness of
results. Most dont feel that providers paying for higher rankings interferes with prices being
correct or accurate, and many admit that they dont really mind how the sites make their
money. As long as the price that they see appears to constitute an improvement on their
current providers offer, most consumers are prepared to accept it and to maintain typically
high degrees of trust.
Many consumers lack clarity around the way results are ranked, and how this can be
affected by providers themselves. However, many dont see this as an issue
provided they can identify a price that is below the one they estimate they pay
currently.
8.3
Interest in alternative comparison models and services

Generally speaking, consumers are interested in the concept of collective switching, and find
the idea of capitalising on the buying power of a group or a community appealing. They
express reservations, however, over some mechanics of collective switching: essentially,
they are concerned about entering into a binding agreement, or being forced to accept an
offer they only intended to show an interest in, especially one that could turn out to involve
unanticipated price increases later on. Concerns about this are also a deterrent for many.
Fewer consumers just over half are interested in data analyser services, although many
recognise that this kind of service would do even more of the legwork involved in making a
price comparison than a traditional PCW does, and many see the value of tailoring their
consumption to their own usage profile.
Again, consumers raise the same concerns about data privacy in connection with both
concepts, in particular whether their personal and usage data might be shared with other
product providers without their knowledge or permission. The wish to protect both their
personal and usage data is the main reason for rejecting data analyser services.
77
Consumers are less likely to be interested in price comparison apps than in the two concepts
described above. Disinterest is typically driven by a perceived lack of need to compare prices
on the go particularly on the small screen of a smartphone, where they think it would be
easy to make mistakes.
Those who use the internet or who already use PCWs say that they would be interested in
some other kind of service that would allow them to compare offers and get advice on the
best deals available although they have a strong preference for this to be an online service.
Those who have not used PCWs show less interest in accessing a service like this at all,
despite emphasis in the survey that this need not be an online service, and despite a feeling
among some that people who use PCWs get a better deal than they do as non-users.
Consumers show an interest in expansion of the range and type of PCW services that
are available, although the research highlights specific reservations about each of the
concepts discussed. Existing users show a clear preference for accessing
comparison services online; non-users of PCWs are less interested in accessing this
kind of service at all.
8.4
Ways in which PCWs enable consumers to make more effective choices

As we have seen, most consumers perceive PCWs to be convenient, useful tools that work
in their favour. They save consumers time and effort, helping them to take more effective
action in making purchasing decisions and, ultimately, to secure good deals on products and
services.
Many consumers who use PCWs say that they have changed their price comparison
behaviour in recent years, making the process faster and easier than it was before the sites
emergence. Using PCWs has removed the need for some consumers to call numerous
different providers, and increased the number of providers that they are able to take into
consideration in any particular decision. In other words, PCWs have removed a lot of the
legwork.
Moreover, some consumers say that using PCWs has made them more questioning of the
deals that they have, more likely to look at competitors deals, and less likely to simply stick
with their existing provider. This implies that PCWs can help to counteract inertia.
Those who use PCWs as an information source, but still prefer to buy goods in physical
shops on the high street, see PCWs as a way of getting a better understanding of whats
available: they appreciate the opportunity to shop around before leaving the house.
Many consumers feel that they are empowered by using PCWs. They feel they have
more leverage over the providers they use, and are able to make more informed
product and service choices, than they could before these sites became mainstream.
8.5
Ways in which PCWs inhibit effective choices

Some consumers struggle with particular physical features. The following issues can make
PCWs hard for them to negotiate particularly those who are lighter or less experienced
internet users:
unclear signposting in menus and sub-menus, which can make users feel they lack
guidance and support in navigating
small text anywhere on sites causes users to worry that they might miss important
information, which the site may have intentionally made hard to find
78
links and buttons that are not clearly discernible lead to uncertainty about where to click
next, which items or icons on the screen will take them forward and, consequently, create
frustration and confusion for some users
some consumers have difficulty locating explanations and definitions (such as definitions
of terminology) if they are not presented on the top layer of text. Explanations, however
clearly-worded, are problematic for some users to access if they need to hover or click to
uncover them
positioning advertising content next to search results confuses a few consumers, who
interpret the advertisement to be part of the search results. Others realise that this
content is advertising, but are annoyed by it being placed there.
Consumers also react negatively to sites that dont allow them to customise or tailor their
search to the degree that they want to. Many become frustrated when sites search functions
are heavily standardised, and not flexible enough to allow them to express information that
they believe is important to their situation, and the product that is the best deal for them.
On the other hand, PCW users prefer sites that provide a lot of information about the product
or service that is being compared. The more concise, comprehensible information that they
have, the more they can feel confident about the comparison they are making and about
what they are buying.
While a brief set of straightforward questions will yield a fast comparison, consumers
need to feel that the site is catering to their situation and that it reflects this in the way
it collects information about them. In order to engender confidence in the purchase
decision, this needs to be translated into search results that are detailed, but not
complex.
8.6
Ensuring that PCWs enable effective decision-making: user experience and usability
The research points to several approaches PCWs could employ to maximise consumer
understanding of the information that they are asked to enter when they use the site, and that
they are presented with when the site has made the comparison on their behalf.
Firstly, consumers believe that PCWs empower them as consumers, and most are happy to
put their trust in these sites. It should be clear to them why they are being asked for
information, and how that information will be used.
Following several guiding design principles would make PCWs more user-friendly:
a simple, clear and visible system of menus

a minimum font size for text
clearly identifiable and clearly formatted buttons and other navigational tools
readily accessible explanation of terms and other key information
clearly identifiable advertising, where this is present on the site.
Sites must strike a balance between a fact-finding process that is fast enough to keep the
user engaged, yet sufficiently detailed to make them feel confident that the product fits
adequately with their needs. Reflecting this, the results of the comparison need to show the
consumer sufficient information about the deals being offered, while keeping that information
concise and simple. Key to the way this information is managed and presented, is the
ranking of the results, which needs to be clearly communicated. Furthermore, ideally,
consumers would like to be able to manipulate the ranking results by applying different filters.
79
Many consumers estimate their current spend or usage, and sites could highlight this in the
results, to remind consumers that any comparisons, or anticipated savings, may not be fully
accurate.
8.7
Ensuring that PCWs enable effective decision-making: accreditation

Relatively few consumers, who have used a PCW in recent years, are aware of voluntary
accreditation schemes, although their general view is that these schemes provide an
additional form of reassurance and allow them to have confidence in the information they
access through the sites. As we have seen, they already place a great deal of trust in the
sites. It follows from this, that consumers see bodies such as Which? and the Citizens Advice
Bureau as being suitable organisations to represent their interests by accrediting sites.
At the same time, it is important to note that consumers using a PCW that is accredited rarely
notice accreditation; nor do those using unaccredited sites comment on its absence.
To summarise, consumers are very positive about voluntary accreditation schemes
for PCWs, but their awareness levels, and the genuine importance they attach to
whether a site belongs to one, are very limited.
8.8
Recommendations for the ways PCWs operate

This research highlights several ways in which PCWs could make changes to improve the
user experience, and to allow consumers to make more effective decisions when comparing
prices. In summary, these are:
addressing transparency issues, as described in Section 8.6, including clear distinction
8.9
between sponsored or advertised links, and ranked search results

adding filtering options to enable more effective interpretation of search results
improving clarity around ranking of results, as indicated in Section 8.2
raising awareness of existing accreditation schemes, which is currently low
more effective advertising of collective switching sites and next generation PCWs, where
awareness is again currently low
addressing concerns related to privacy, particularly concerns about contact details being
passed to third parties, and resulting in unsolicited communication.
Recommendations for further research

There is scope to increase understanding of the way consumers view and act on
accreditation of PCWs. This research shows that awareness is currently low, and that
consumers rarely notice sites accreditation, despite many saying that they value it.
Moreover, PCW users tendency to interpret deals as good and appropriate for me, without
taking into account their own usage and consumption behaviour, could be seen to highlight
the need for best practice in the way sites select and display available deals.
More generally, further research would allow evaluation of the areas of best practice that this
research has identified, where they were implemented.
Additional research among non-users of PCWs would allow greater understanding of their
reservations in engaging with price comparisons, whether online or offline. While inertia
clearly plays a role in their preference to make comparisons in their own way, and to stay
with existing providers, it is important not to over-simply our understanding of this behaviour.
80
Our view is that some consumers, particularly older consumers, who are least likely to use
PCWs, have not yet adapted to the increased choice and complexity that has grown up
within the product and service areas where PCWs operate. These consumers are less willing
than existing PCW users are to communicate or negotiate actively with the providers they
use, and many are not even aware that this is possible. Consequently, some people miss out
on the best deals systematically. Therefore, raising awareness of the cost implications and
support needs of these consumers is important.
On a related note, consumers may also have issues in getting around to learning to use
PCWs, or perhaps even to using the internet more generally. Some consumers may accept
that using a price comparison service of some kind might save them time and money in the
long term, but come up against the barrier of needing to invest time to learn how. There may
be scope to help consumers to overcome issues of this kind, if they are understood in greater
detail.
81
Appendix A: Methodology
Research design
In light of the number and nature of the aims and objectives of this research, a mixed
methodology design was used. This consisted of three elements:
a nationally representative telephone survey

a consumer usability exercise with price comparison websites (PCWs), undertaken via hall
tests
qualitative face-to-face interviews among consumers (who also took part in the usability
study) to obtain a better understanding of attitudes to PCWs.
Target audience
The quantitative survey involved a nationally representative sample of Great Britains 18-plus
population. The usability hall tests and depth interviews were carried out among a more
specific target audience, consisting of consumers who use the internet to some extent, and
are responsible for researching or buying at least one of the specified products. The products
covered in the scope of the usability tests and depth interviews are fixed broadband,
electricity, home insurance, travel insurance and mobile phones.
Quantitative survey
The quantitative survey consisted of 2,000 structured interviews. The interviews were
conducted using computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) using Random Digit
Dialling (RDD). Given that 15 per cent of UK households rely on mobile telephones alone32,
the sample included mobile telephone numbers. Of the telephone numbers called, 12.2 per
cent were mobile telephone numbers and 9.2 per cent of all quantitative interviews
completed were on mobile telephone numbers. To ensure that the full range of age groups,
gender, geographic spread and socio-economic grades (SEG) were captured, in line with the
nationally representative population profile, a series of soft quotas were incorporated. The
soft quotas were continuously monitored and the sample was stratified by geographic area to
assist in the monitoring of interviews achieved.
Interviews were carried out between February 22 and March 17, 2013. Some interviews were
conducted during evenings and at weekends to achieve a more representative sample. The
average interview length was 20 minutes.
After weighting, the sample for Scotland and Wales contains significantly more consumers in
socio-economic grade E, than the England sample does. It is important to bear this in mind
when comparing differences across nation/ region, as differences in Scotland and Wales may
be heightened due to the increased number of consumers in socio-economic grade E. This is
reflected in some of the quantitative survey findings in this report: significant differences
observed in Scotland and Wales often correspond to significantly different data for socioeconomic grade E. We highlight where these significant differences occur together.
The unweighted distribution of interviews by gender, age, region/ nation and SEG is shown in
Tables A.1-A.4.
32
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr11/icmr/ICMR2011.pdf [Accessed: 07.06.2013]
82
Table A.1 Unweighted distribution of interviews by gender

Gender
Total number of interviews
Male
976
Female
1,024
Total
2,000
Table A.2 Unweighted distribution of interviews by age
Age
18-29
30-44
45-59
60-74
75+
Total

470
472
429
429
200
2,000
Table A.3 Unweighted distribution of interviews by region/ nation

Region/Nation
Scotland
222
Wales
96
England
1,682
East Midlands
159
East of England
150
Greater London
206
North East England
93
North West England
238
South East England
254
South West England
203
West Midlands
212
Yorkshire and the Humber
167
Total
2,000
83
Table A.4 Unweighted distribution of interviews by SEG

Socio-economic group (SEG)
A
B
C1
C2
D
E
Total

52
535
598
331
274
210
2,000
To make the data representative by age, gender, region and SEG the data was weighted
using Random Iterative Method (RIM) weighting. Weights were calculated separately for age,
gender, region and SEG. These weights were then applied to the data with each weight
applied separately to each individual case.
The weighted distribution of interviews by gender, age, region/ nation and SEG is shown in
Tables A.5-A.8.
Table A.5 Weighted distribution of interviews by gender

Gender
Male
Female
Total

980
1,020
2,000
Table A.6 Weighted distribution of interviews by age

Age
18-29
30-44
45-59
60-74
75+
Total

412
520
496
374
198
2,000
84
Table A.7 Weighted distribution of interviews by region/ nation

Region/ Nation
Scotland
176
Wales
100
Total England
1,724
East Midlands
148
East of England
190
Greater London
264
North East England
86
North West England
230
South East England
280
South West England
174
West Midlands
180
172
Total
2,000
Table A.8 Weighted distribution of interviews by SEG

Socio-economic group (SEG)
A
B
C1
C2
D
E
Total

84
444
580
424
304
164
2,000
Semi-structured usability hall tests

A total of 197 consumer usability hall tests were conducted. The hall tests took place in five
locations across Great Britain: Watford, Cardiff, Birmingham, Newcastle and Glasgow. A
breakdown of the number of hall tests conducted in each location is shown in Table A.9.
85
Table A.9 Distribution of usability hall tests by gender

Location
Total number of usability hall tests
Birmingham (Midlands)
45
Cardiff (Wales)
42
Glasgow (Scotland)
41
Newcastle (North East)
32
Watford (South East)
37
Total
197
The hall tests consisted of a qualitative observational and interactive task, in which
consumers were asked to search for a new deal using a PCW. The majority (162) of the
consumers who took part in the hall tests were recruited using street intercepts and 35 were
pre-recruited to take part in the hall test at an arranged time. Consumers were allocated to
one of the following product categories:
fixed broadband
electricity
home insurance
travel insurance
mobile phones.
All consumers were responsible for researching and/ or paying for the product category
which they were allocated to. Table A.10 shows the total number of hall tests for each
category.
Table A.10 Distribution of usability hall tests by product category

Product category
Total number of usability hall tests
Fixed broadband
34
Electricity
55
Home insurance
37
Travel insurance
43
Mobile phones
28
Total
197
After being allocated a product category, consumers were assigned one PCW, which they
used to look for a new deal for their allocated product category. The websites tested included
the Big Four, industry-specific and next generation comparison websites, along with other
PCWs that cover multiple product categories. Due to the number of product categories that
the Big Four cover, and in order to avoid biasing the results of the research towards the
these four sites, one product category was excluded from each of the Big Four. The full list of
the websites that were used can be found in Appendix B.
86
To ensure that the discussion could focus on PCWs usability (rather than the internet more
generally), all consumers had some degree of direct experience and familiarity with the
internet. All consumers taking part in the usability hall tests fell into one of the following three
categories:
heavy internet users (people who use the internet on a daily basis for at least two of the
following tasks, and at least monthly for two of the tasks marked with *):
sending/ receiving emails
checking news, weather or travel plans (e.g. maps, train times)
visiting sites for information on personal interests or hobbies
visiting sites for information on products/ services I am thinking of buying*
checking your bank account and other financial holdings*
checking, paying or managing my utilities, phone, broadband or other bills*
booking holidays, hotels or making travel arrangements*
grocery shopping online*
other online shopping*
playing games online
downloading music or movies
visiting social networking sites (such as Facebook) or contributing to blogs, forums or
other open source sites
light internet users (people who use the internet, but dont match the description of
heavy users, and have used a PCW before)
Non-users of PCWs (people who use the internet, but have not used a PCW before).
Table A.11 shows summary details of the number of usability hall tests carried out for each
product category.
Table A.11 Distribution of usability hall tests by user type and Big 4 vs. others
Market
Total
Non-users
Big 4
Light
Heavy
users
users
34
3
10
21
10
Fixed
broadband
Electricity
55
13
17
25
9
Home insurance
37
9
10
18
14
Mobile phones
28
8
7
13
4
Travel insurance
43
9
14
20
13
Total
197
42
58
97
50
Others
24
46
23
24
30
147
The hall test entailed the consumer looking for a new deal for the allocated product category
on the assigned PCW, before continuing to consider PCWs more generally. The topics
covered in the hall test interview included:
steps taken when looking for a new deal on the PCW, and why those steps
factors that are important when making a decision
87
user-friendliness of the PCW

satisfaction with the amount of information that was required, and the ability to
customise the search
reactions to providing personal data when using PCWs, and whether there are specific
types of personal data that are considered more/ less acceptable
reactions to next generation comparison tools: collective switching sites and data
analyser services
reactions to PCW smartphone apps.
Each consumer was given a 5 cash incentive as a thank you for taking part. The hall tests
were carried out between 26 February and 9 March 2013.
Depth interviews
After completing a usability hall test, 63 consumers took part in a 30 minute face-to-face
depth interview. Just over half of these (35 consumers) had been pre-recruited to take part in
the depth interview at an arranged time, following their participation in the hall test. A further
28 consumers who had been recruited to take part in the hall test using in-street intercepts
also took part in a depth interview. Recruitment to the depth interviews was dictated by the
following quota criteria:
age
gender
SEG
internet user type (heavy user, light user or non-user of PCWs).
88
Table A.12 Distribution of depth interviews by gender

Birmingham Cardiff
Glasgow
Newcastle
Gender
Male
6
6
5
7
Female
5
7
9
7
Total
11
13
14
14
Table A.13 Distribution of depth interviews by age
Birmingham Cardiff
Glasgow
Age
2
1
4
18-29
Newcastle
Watford
6
5
11
Watford
Total
30
33
63
Total
11
30-44
19
45-59
12
60-74
12
75+
Total
11
13
14
14
11
63
Table A.14 Distribution of depth interviews by SEG

Birmingham Cardiff
Glasgow
SEG
A
0
0
0
B
3
2
4
C1
2
4
7
C2
3
4
1
D
2
1
1
E
1
2
1
Total
11
13
14
Newcastle
2
5
2
2
1
2
14
Watford
0
3
3
1
2
2
11
Total
2
17
18
11
7
8
63
As with the hall tests, the interviews were split by location. Table A.15 shows summary
details of the number of interviews in each location by user type.
89
Table A.15 Distribution of depth interviews by internet user type

Heavy users
Light users
Non-users
Location
Birmingham
4
4
3
Cardiff
7
3
3
Glasgow
4
9
1
Newcastle
7
5
2
Watford
7
2
2
Total
29
23
11
Total
11
13
14
14
11
63
The depth interviews investigated consumers experiences and views on PCWs in more
detail. Topics covered in the interviews included:
switching behaviour before PCWs were available/ commonplace, including whether
shopping around and switching behaviour changed as a result of the emergence of PCWs
how consumers became aware of PCWs and the service they offer, in particular the role
of (above the line) advertising recommendations, etc
previous usage of PCWs for products and reasons for this
extent to which a number of price comparison websites are used for the same query
willingness to use PCWs in connection with products not used for to date, and reasons
after using a PCW how the product is purchased: for example, whether via the link
provided or directly via the provider, and reasons for this
ease of use of PCWs, including what is considered good and bad practice
confidence in using PCWs, and the benefits and drawbacks of using them
opinions on the objectivity and accuracy of the results
awareness of accreditation schemes
opinion on what accreditation means in this context, and who should accredit PCWs
reactions and likelihood to use next generation comparison tools: collective switching
sites and data analyser services
reactions and likelihood to use PCW smartphone apps.
Each consumer was given a 10 cash incentive as a thank you for taking part. The depth
interviews were carried out following the hall tests between February 26 and March 9, 2013.
90
Appendix B: Websites covered in consumer usability testing

www.gocompare.com
www.moneysupermarket.com
www.comparethemarket.com
www.confused.com
www.beatthatquote.com
www.billmonitor.com
www.broadbandchoices.co.uk
www.thepeoplespower.co.uk
www.energyhelpline.com
www.moneysavingexpert.com/cheapenergyclub
www.moneysavingexpert.com
www.quidco.com
www.simplifydigital.co.uk
wwww.simplyswitch.com
www.switchgasandelectric.com
www.google.co.uk/compare
www.biba.org.uk
www.uSwitch.com
www.which.co.uk/switch
www.mobilife.com
www.tescocompare.com
91
Appendix C: Quantitative questionnaire

Good Morning/ afternoon, my name is ........................ calling from RS Consulting. We are currently
working with Consumer Focus. They represent consumers in regulated markets. They want to find
out how consumers compare prices for energy, mobile phones or internet contracts, or insurance.
Could you spare me a few minutes to answer some questions on this subject? The interview wont
take more than 20 minutes of your time.
IF NO: Is there a more convenient time I could arrange to call you back?
This research is being conducted under the terms of the Code of Conduct of THE MARKET RESEARCH
SOCIETY. Your replies will be treated in the strictest confidence and will not be attributed to you.
You have the right to stop at any point or not to answer specific questions. This research is strictly
for research purposes only so your details will not be passed on to any third parties and no attempt
to sell will result from taking part in this survey.
92
Before we start, I would like to ask a few questions about you and your household.
S1
Ask all
Record Sex
DO NOT ASK, SINGLE CODE
S1
Codes
Routing
Male
S2
Female
S2
Codes
Routing
Under 18
CLOSE
18-29
S3
30-44
S3
45-59
S3
60-74
S3
75+
S3
Refused
99
CLOSE
Ask all
S2
Could you please tell me into which of the following age ranges
you fall?
READ OUT, SINGLE CODE
93
S3
Ask all
Which part of Great Britain do you live in?
Codes
Routing
Scotland
S4
Wales
S4
England (INTERVIEWER PROBE AND CODE BELOW)
S4
East Midlands
S4
East of England
S4
Greater London
S4
North East England
S4
North West England
S4
South East England
S4
South West England
10
S4
West Midlands
11
S4
12
S4
Dont know/Refused
99
CLOSE
94
Ask all
S4
What is the highest educational or professional qualification

you have obtained?
Codes
Routing
(IF STILL STUDYING, CHECK FOR HIGHEST ACHIEVED SO FAR)

S5
GCSE/O-Level/CSE
S5
Vocational qualifications (=NVQ1+2)
S5
A-Level or equivalent (=NVQ3)
S5
Bachelor Degree or equivalent (=NVQ4)
S5
Masters/PhD or equivalent
S5
No formal qualifications
S5
Other please specify
S5
Dont know/Refused
99
S5
Codes
Routing
Ask all
Wed like to ask you about the member of your household
who you would say is the CHIEF INCOME EARNER, that is the
person with the largest income, whether from employment,
pensions, state benefits, investments or any other sources.
S1
TYPE OF FIRM
WRITE IN
Q1
JOB ACTUALLY DONE
WRITE IN
Q1
TITLE, RANK, GRADE
WRITE IN
Q1
QUALIFICATIONS HELD
WRITE IN IF
NOT CIE,
Q1
OTHERWISE
USE
ANSWER
FROM S4
SELF-EMPLOYED?
Yes 1
No 2
95
Q1
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WORKING THERE ALTOGETHER

(including CIE)
WRITE IN
Q1
NUMBER OF STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR (excluding CIE)
WRITE IN
Q1
Dont know/Refused
99
INTERVIEW INSTRUCTIONS:
CODE SOCIAL GRADE OF CHIEF INCOME EARNER
1A
2B
3 C1
4 C2
5D
6E
96
Close
Ask all
Q1
How do you access the internet? Please include all the ways
you ever access the internet.
Codes
Routing
READ OUT, MULTI CODE

Using a personal computer, laptop or tablet AT HOME
Q2
Using TV set or games console AT HOME
Q2
Using a computer, laptop or tablet AT

WORK/UNIVERSITY/SCHOOL
Q2
Using computer, laptop or tablet at someone elses house (e.g.

friend, neighbour or family member)
Q2
Using a computer, laptop or tablet at a convenient public place

of access - e.g. Internet Cafe, Library etc.
Q2
Using my own or work mobile device ( e.g. mobile telephone,

PDA, Blackberry, iPhone)
Q2
Using someone elses mobile device ( e.g. mobile telephone,

PDA, Blackberry, iPhone)
Q2
I do not use the internet
Q34
Other Please specify
Q2
Dont know/Refused
99
CLOSE
97
Q2
Ask if Q18
For which of the following do you use the internet and how
often?
Codes
Routing
USE THE FOLLOWING SCALE FOR EACH OPTION

Daily
Several times a week
Weekly
At least once a month
Once every couple of months
Once or twice a year
Less than once a year
Never
Dont know/Refused
READ OUT, SELECT ONE PER ROW
Sending / receiving emails
Q3
Checking news, weather or travel plans (e.g. maps, train times)
Q3
Q3
Visiting sites for information on products/ services you are

thinking of buying
Q3
Checking your bank account and other financial holdings
Q3
Checking, paying or managing your utilities, phone, broadband

or other bills
Q3
Booking holidays, hotels or making travel arrangements
Q3
Q3
Other online shopping
Q3
10
Q3
Downloading music or movies
11
Q3
Visiting social networking sites (such as Facebook) or

contributing to blogs, forums or other open source sites
12
Q3
98
Q3
98
Q3
Ask all
Have you ever heard of price comparison websites?
Codes
Routing
By price comparison websites we mean websites that help

consumers to compare prices for goods and services from a
range of providers to make an informed purchase decision.
DO NOT READ OUT, SINGLE CODE
Q4
Yes
Q4
No
Q36
Codes
Routing
all4comparing.co.uk
Q5
beatthatquote.com
Q5
best-mobile-contracts.co.uk
Q5
biba.org.uk
Q5
billmonitor.com
Q5
broadbandchoices.co.uk
Q5
broadbandgenie.co.uk
Q5
buymobilephones.net
Q5
cable.co.uk
Q5
cheapflights.co.uk
10
Q5
Collective Switching sites for energy
11
Q5
comparemobiledeals.com
12
Q5
comparethemarket.com
13
Q5
confused.com
14
Q5
Ask if Q3=1
Please name as many price comparison sites as you can
remember.
DO NOT READ OUT, MULTICODE.
INTERVIEWER PROBE ANY MORE THAT COME TO MIND?
UNTIL RESPONDENT SAYS No
99
dealchecker.co.uk
15
Q5
ebookers.com
16
Q5
energyhelpline.com
17
Q5
energylinx.co.uk
18
Q5
expedia.com
19
Q5
fairinvestment.co.uk
20
Q5
fuelswitch.com
21
Q5
gocompare.com
22
Q5
homeadvisoryservice.co.uk
23
Q5
homephonechoices.co.uk
24
Q5
icelolly.com
25
Q5
kelkoo.co.uk
26
Q5
knowyourmoney.co.uk
27
Q5
lastminute.com
28
Q5
lovemoney.com
29
Q5
mobilechecker.co.uk
30
Q5
mobilechoices.co.uk
31
Q5
mobilife.com
32
Q5
money.co.uk
33
Q5
moneyfacts.co.uk
34
Q5
moneynet.co.uk
35
Q5
moneysavingexpert.com
36
Q5
moneysupermarket.com
37
Q5
myutilitygenius.co.uk
38
Q5
omio.com
39
Q5
100
onecompare.com
40
Q5
onestopphoneshop.co.uk
41
Q5
onthebeach.co.uk
42
Q5
opodo.co.uk
43
Q5
quidco.com
44
Q5
quotezone.co.uk
45
Q5
raileasy.co.uk
46
Q5
railsaver.co.uk
47
Q5
redspottedhanky.com
48
Q5
saveonyourbills.co.uk
49
Q5
simplifydigital.co.uk
50
Q5
simplyswitch.com
51
Q5
skyscanner.net
52
Q5
switchgasandelectric.com
53
Q5
tescocompare.com
54
Q5
theenergyshop.com
55
Q5
trainline.com
56
Q5
travelrepublic.co.uk
57
Q5
travelsupermaket.com
58
Q5
ukpower.co.uk
59
Q5
unravelit.com
60
Q5
urmob.co.uk
61
Q5
uswitch.com
62
Q5
which.co.uk/switch/
63
Q5
whoscheapest.co.uk/
64
Q5
101
Q6
None
65
Q5
98
Q5
Dont know
99
Q5
Codes
Routing
Yes
Q7
No
Q32
Dont know/Refused
99
Q32
Codes
Routing
Broadband and other telephone packages
Q8
Energy gas or electricity
Q8
Car Insurance
Q8
Home Insurance
Q8
Travel Insurance
Q8
Mobile phone service
Q8
Cable and satellite TV packages
Q8
Package holidays
IF CODE 8, 9,
10 ONLYGO
TO Q36
Rail fares
IF CODE 8, 9,
10 ONLYGO
TO Q36
Ask if Q3=1
Have you used a price comparison website in the last two
years?
DO NOT READ OUT, SINGLE CODE
Q7
Ask if Q6=1
Which of the following products/services do you use price
comparison websites for?
Please say yes to all categories that you have used price
comparison websites for.
102
Q8
Other travel services, such as flights, hotel, car rental
10
IF CODE 8, 9,
10 ONLYGO
TO Q36
11
Q36
Dont know/Refused
99
Q36
Ask if Q7=1-7
Which of the following price comparison websites have you
ever used?
Codes
Routing
SHOW ALL. READ OUT, MULTI CODE. SHOW ONLY THOSE

SELECTED IN Q4
all4comparing.co.uk
Q9
beatthatquote.com
Q9
biba.org.uk
Q9
billmonitor.com
Q9
Q9
Q9
Q9
dealchecker.co.uk
Q9
energyhelpline.com
Q9
icelolly.com
10
Q9
11
Q9
12
Q9
13
Q9
energylinx.co.uk
14
Q9
fuelswitch.com
15
Q9
gocompare.com
16
Q9
quidco.com
17
Q9
103
simplifydigital.co.uk
20
Q9
simplyswitch.com
21
Q9
22
Q9
theenergyshop.com
24
Q9
ukpower.co.uk
25
Q9
unravelit.com
26
Q9
uSwitch.com
27
Q9
which.co.uk/switch/
28
Q9
98
Q9
Dont know/Refused
99
Q36
104
Q9
Ask if Q899
Thinking specifically about the sites that you just mentioned,
how often do you use a price comparison site?
Codes
Routing
READ OUT.
At least monthly
Q10
Once every couple of months
Q10
Four times a year
Q10
Twice a year
Q10
Once a year
Q10
Once every 18-24 months
Q10
Less than once every two years
Q10
Dont know/Refused
99
Q10
105
Q10 Ask if Q899 AND Q1=1 OR Q1=3-7 or 9

How do you generally access price comparison websites?
Codes
Routing
I access the website USING A COMPUTER OR LAPTOP
Q11
I access the website USING A TABLET
Q11
I access the website USING MY MOBILE PHONE
Q11
I use a MOBILE PHONE APP for a price comparison website
Q11
Q11
Dont know/Refused
99
Q11
Codes
Routing
I go to the website directly
Q12
I use search engines to find a specific price comparison website

(e.g. type the name of the comparison website into a search
engine)
Q12
I do a general search using the search engines to get a list of

price comparison websites to look at
Q12
Q12
Dont know/Refused
99
Q12
Q11 Ask if Q899

How do you tend to go about finding the price comparison
websites?
106
Q12 Ask if Q899

What do you use price comparison websites for?
Codes
Routing
READ OUT, MULTI CODE.

To view which companies offer the products/services I need
Q13
To identify the different types of service/product bundles on

offer
Q13
To do research on products/services or read reviews
Q13
To compare prices for a specific service/product across

suppliers
Q13
To switch suppliers
Q13
When considering switching suppliers
Q13
To help me to find the best deal
Q13
To save money or reduce costs or outgoings
Q13
To get general advice on services/products
Q13
To save time searching and comparing deals
10
Q13
98
Q13
Dont know/Refused
99
Q13
Q13 Ask if Q899

Have you ever switched suppliers through a price comparison
website?
Routing
By this I mean clicking on an option within the site to select the

product or service and making the switch through the price
comparison website rather than going directly to the supplier.
Yes
Q14
No
Q15
107
Q14 Ask if Q13=1

Which products/services have you switched suppliers for using
a price comparison website?
Codes
Routing
Broadband
Q16
Energy gas or electricity
Q16
Car Insurance
Q16
Home Insurance
Q16
Travel Insurance
Q16
Mobile phone service
Q16
TV service
Q16
Landline telephone service
Q16
Package holidays
Q16
Rail fares
10
Q16
Other travel services, such as flights, hotel, car rental
11
Q16
12
Q16
Dont know/Refused
99
Q16
Please select all that apply.

108
Q15 Ask if Q13=2

Why have you not switched suppliers through a price
comparison website?
Routing

I prefer to check/buy directly from the supplier
Q16
I prefer to purchase offline
Q16
Not aware that was an option
Q16
I am concerned about whom to complain to in case of a

problem
Q16
My rights as a consumer are more protected if I buy directly

from the supplier
Q16
I do not want to give my details on price comparison websites
Q16
I cannot be bothered to find data from my last bill
Q16
I do not have the information needed for the site
Q16
I am confused by what information is required
Q16
10
Q16
Dont know/Refused
99
Q16
109
Q16
Ask if Q899
When using price comparison sites for a particular purpose,
how many sites do you tend to look at before making your
decision?
Codes
Routing
One
Q17
Two to three
Q17
Four to five
Q17
More than five sites
Q17
Dont know/Refused
99
Q17
Codes
Routing
WRITE IN
Q18
I want to compare or verify the results
Q18
To ensure I get the best deal
Q18
I do not trust the results on price comparison sites
Q18
Other
Q18
Dont know/Refused
99
Q18
READ OUT IF NECESSARY, SINGLE CODE
Q17 Ask if Q16=2-4

Why do you look at multiple price comparison sites?
DO NOT READ OUT, MULTI CODE BELOW
WRITE IN
110
Q18 Ask if Q899

How reliable do you feel the information on price comparison
websites is generally?
Codes
Routing
Very reliable
Q19
Fairly reliable
Q19
Fairly unreliable
Q19
Very unreliable
Q19
Dont know/refused
99
Q19
Codes
Routing
WRITE IN
Q20
Codes
Routing
Yes, I knew this for certain
Q21
I didnt know for certain, but I suspected it
Q21
No, I was not aware of this
Q21
Dont know/Refused
99
Q21
Q19 Ask if Q899

What concerns, if any, do you have about using price
comparison sites?
WRITE IN
Q20 Ask if Q899

Did you know that on some price comparison websites
companies can pay to get better rankings?
111
Q21 Ask if Q899

Does knowing this influence your choice of price comparison
website?
Codes
Routing

Yes, it influences strongly which site I use
Q22
Yes, it influences slightly which site I use
Q22
No, it does not influence at all which site I use
Q22
Dont know/Refused
99
Q22
Codes
Routing
All
Q23
Less than half
Q23
More than half
Q23
Dont know/refused
99
Q23
Codes
Routing
Yes I was aware of this
Q24
No I was not aware of this
Q25
Dont know/Refused
99
Q25
Q22 Ask if Q20=1 OR 2

What proportion of price comparison websites do you think
allow this?
Q23 Ask if Q899

Are you aware that there are independent, voluntary
accreditation schemes for price comparison websites?
The accreditation schemes are voluntary codes of conduct that
the companies can sign up to. These guarantee consumers that
the information on the site is accurate, reliable and
comprehensive. Examples of such codes include Consumer
Focus Confidence Code and Ofcom Price Comparison
112
Q24 Ask if Q23=1

Does the existence of an accreditation scheme influence your
choice of price comparison website?
Codes
Routing
Yes, it influences strongly which site I use
Q28
Yes, it influences a little which site I use
Q28
No, it does not influence at all which site I use
Q28
Dont know/Refused
99
Q28
Codes
Routing
Yes, it would influence strongly which site I use
Q26
Yes, it would influence slightly which site I use
Q26
No, it would not influence at all which site I use
Q26
Dont know/Refused
99
Q26
Codes
Routing
A consumer organisation like Which?
Q27
The Citizens Advice Bureau
Q27
A regulator like Ofgem, Ofcom or the Office for Fair Trading
Q27
A Government ministry like the Department for Energy
Q27
An industry body like the British Retail Consortium
Q27
The price comparison websites themselves
Q27
Q25
Ask if Q23=2 OR 99
Would the existence of an accreditation scheme help you to
decide which price comparison websites to use in the future?
Q26 Ask if Q23=2 OR 99

Who would you trust most to run such an accreditation
scheme? READ OUT, SINGLE CODE
113
Other please specify DO NOT READ
Q27
Dont know/Refused
99
Q27
Q27 Ask if Q899
Codes
When using price comparison sites, which three

of the following features are most important to
you?
Yes=1
Routing
READ OUT, MULTICODE UP TO THREE OPTIONS.

ROTATE ORDER
Ease of use
Yes=1
Q28
Impartial results/No paid for influence on results
Yes=1
Q28
Being an accredited price comparison site
Yes=1
Q28
Opportunities to win prizes or free gifts, get

loyalty bonuses or cash back offers
Yes=1
Q28
Product guides to help choose right product
Yes=1
Q28
Well-known brand/name
Yes=1
Q28
Telephone helpline
Yes=1
Q28
Accuracy and reliability of information/deals

available from suppliers sites
Yes=1
Q28
Wide range of deals across the market
Yes=1
Q28
Ability to switch or purchase on the site
10
Yes=1
Q28
Ability to input selection criteria relevant to my

search needs
12
Yes=1
Q28
13
Yes=1
Q28
Programmer allocate to one product category based on those coding 1 at Q6
Electricity or gas
Insurance
Broadband service
TV service
Mobile phone
Control allocation to ensure equal sample size in each category if possible.
114
Q28 Ask if Q899

Thinking back to the sites you used for [INSERT CATEGORY
FROM Q7], how would you rate them in terms of the
following?
Codes
Routing
Please use a 1 to 10 scale where 10 is outstanding and 1 is

very poor.
A
Useful in finding a good deal
1-10 or DK/
REFUSED 99
Q29
Easy to use
1-10 or DK/
REFUSED 99
Q29
Clear about what criteria are used to rank the deals
1-10 or DK/
REFUSED 99
Q29
Clarity on how suppliers are selected to be included in the

ranking
1-10 or DK/
REFUSED 99
Q29
Clear on whether the companies can influence their ranking

by paying
1-10 or DK/
REFUSED 99
Q29
Useful for switching suppliers
1-10 or DK/
REFUSED 99
Q29
Useful in allowing me to enter my own search criteria
1-10 or DK/
REFUSED 99
Q29
Codes
Routing
Q29 Ask if Q28=1-4 for any option A-G

REPEAT Q for A-G if necessary
Why did you think they were NOT [OPTION a-g FROM Q28]?
INTERVIEWER TO PROBE Any other reasons? UNTIL
RESPONDENT SAYS NO
WRITE IN
Q30
115
Q30 Ask if Q899

Have you recommended using a price comparison website to
your friends and family members?
Codes
Routing
Yes
Q31
No
Q31
Cant remember
Q31
Dont know/Refused
99
Q31
Codes
Routing
Q31 Ask if Q899

If you were asked to explain to your friend or family member
what the main benefits of using price comparison websites
are, what would you say?
WRITE IN
Q43
Q32 Ask if Q1=1-7 and Q6=2 or 99

Have you ever used price comparison sites in the past, even if
not within the last two years?
Codes
Routing
Yes
Q33
No
Q35
Dont know/Refused
99
Q35
Codes
Routing
Did not trust results last time
Q36
Did not get the best deal
Q36
SINGLE CODE
Q33 Ask if Q32=1

Why have you not used price comparison websites in the last
couple of years?
DO NOT READ OUT, MULTIPLE CODE. INTERVIEWER PROBE
Any other reasons? UNTIL RESPONDENT SAYS No
116
Experienced a problem with the product I purchased and had

no one to complain to
Q36
Experienced a problem when switching suppliers and had no

one to complain to
Q36
Found the sites hard to use
Q36
Have not needed to price compare any products or services
Q36
Other - please specify
Q36
Dont know/Refused
99
Q36
Codes
Routing
Yes
Q35
No
Q36
Dont know/Refused
99
Q36
Codes
Routing
Yes, I have asked and other people have used them on my

behalf
Q36
Yes, I have asked other people but they have not used them
for me
Q36
No,
Q36
Dont know/Refused
99
Q36
Q34 Ask if Q1=8 (no internet access)

Have you ever heard of price comparison websites?
SINGLE CODE
Q35 Ask if Q34=1

Have you asked other people to use price comparison websites
on your behalf?
117
Q36 Ask if Q31 not answered
ROUTING
Id now like to ask you about a range of products and

services you might buy. Which of the following have
you bought or renewed in the last two years?
Yes
No
N/A
If any of these is not relevant to your personal

situation, please tell me that.
READ OUT, SINGLE CODE EACH OPTION
a
Broadband service do not ask if no internet access
Electricity and/ or gas
Q37
Car insurance
Q37
Home insurance
Q37
Travel insurance
Q37
Mobile phone
Q37
TV service
Q37
Landline telephone
Q37 SEE
INSTRUCTION
BELOW
Package holidays
Q37 SEE
INSTRUCTION
BELOW
Rail fares
Q37 SEE
INSTRUCTION
BELOW
Other travel services such as flights, hotels and car

rental
Q37 SEE
INSTRUCTION
BELOW
Q37
Programmer allocate to one product category based on those coding 1
Electricity or gas option b

Insurance any of option c, d, e
Broadband service option a
TV service option g
Mobile phone option f
IF ONLY OPTIONS H-K, THEN CLOSE
Control allocation to ensure equal sample size in each category if possible.

READ OUT: For the remainder of our conversation, Id like you to think specifically about when you look to
buy or renew your <insert category>.
118

So when considering buying or renewing your <insert
category>, what sources of information do you use in your
decision-making?
Codes
Routing
Best Buy tables in the newspaper or magazine (like Which?)
Q38
Adverts on TV, or in newspapers and magazines and compare

the prices provided there
Q38
Telephone a number of suppliers and compare the prices they

give me
Q38
I ask for recommendations from friends, family and/or

neighbours
Q38
I ask a family member or friend to use a price comparison

website for me
Q38
Q38
Dont know/Refused
99
Q38
Codes
Routing
Best Buy tables in the newspaper or magazine (like Which?)
Q39
Adverts on TV, or in newspapers and magazines and compare

the prices provided there
Q39
Telephone a number of suppliers and compare the prices they

give me
Q39
I ask for recommendations from friends, family and/or

neighbours
Q39
I ask a family member or friend to use a price comparison

website for me
Q39
Q39
Dont know/Refused
99
Q39
READ OUT, MULTIPLE CODE
Q38 Ask if Q31 not answered and coding more than one option at
previous Q37
Which of these is most influential in your decision-making?
READ OUT FILTER ON PREVIOUS Q, SINGLE CODE
119

How confident are you that you get the best deal for your
needs?
Codes
Routing
Very confident
Q40
Fairly confident
Q40
Not very confident
Q40
Not at all confident
Q40
Codes
Routing
Better
Q41
Same
Q41
Worse
Q41
Dont know/Refused
99
Q41
Codes
Routing
Q40 Ask if Q3=1 but Q6=2

Do you think that people who use price comparison websites
get the same deal, a better deal or a worse deal?

Why do you say that?
WRITE IN
Q42
120

Why have you never used price comparison websites?
Codes
Routing
I have heard negative feedback on them from other people
Q43
I do not trust the results
Q43
I think companies can pay to appear higher up the results/

rankings
Q43
Its too complicated to use those sites
Q43
I dont want to give a third party my personal details
Q43
I have no need for the types of products they compare
Q43
Im not interested in switching supplier
Q43
I prefer to talk to someone in person
Q43
I do not know what my rights are when switching/purchasing

through price comparison websites
Q43
I am concerned about whom to complain to in case of

problems
10
Q43
Other specify
10
Q43
Codes
Routing
I would definitely use this
Q44
I would consider it
Q44
I would possibly consider it if recommended to me by

someone I trust
Q44
DO NOT READ OUT, MULTIPLE CODE

PROMPT Any other reasons? UNTIL THE RESPONDENT SAYS
No.
Q43 Ask all

How likely are you to use a price comparison service which
would allow you to compare the offers and get advice on the
best deal available for <insert category>? This does not need
to be an online service.
121
I wouldnt consider it
Thank and
close
Dont know/Refused
99
Thank and
close
Codes
Routing
By telephone, calling a service line
Q44
Face-to-face service in a convenient public place such as a

library, Post Office or Citizens Advice Bureau
Q44
Postal service by filling a form
Q44
Q44
Dont know/Refused
99
Q44
Q44 Ask if Q43= 1-3

Which way would you prefer to access this type of advice
service?
THANK AND CLOSE
122
Appendix D: Hall test screener questionnaire

Introduction:
Thank you for sparing me a minute. I am working on behalf of Consumer Focus, the independent
organisation representing the interests of consumers across Great Britain.
We are interested in learning more about peoples experiences of using online comparison
websites and are looking for people who are willing to take part in a short exercise. It will take
approximately 20 minutes of your time today and you will receive a cash incentive of 5 as a thank
you for your time. We would simply like to sit with you while you go through online comparison
sites and complete a few specified tasks.
You dont need to be a regular user of the internet or these sites to take part. We just want to get
your thoughts on them and the tasks we ask you to complete.
Our team is located a short walk from here [add location].
123
A. MAIN SCREENER QUESTIONS

S1
Ask all:
Record Sex
DO NOT ASK, SINGLE CODE
S1
Codes
Routing
Male
S2
Female
S2
Codes
Routing
__________
S2b
Refused
99
CLOSE
Codes
Routing
Under 18
CLOSE
18-24
S3
25-39
S3
40-54
S3
55-64
S3
65-74
S3
75+
S3
Refused
99
CLOSE
Ask all:
S2a
Could you please tell me what your age is?

INTERVIEWER RECORD EXACT AGE AND CODE AT S2B BELOW
Ask all:
S2b Could you please tell me into which of the following age ranges
you fall?
124
Ask all:
S3
Which of these best describes your current working status:

Codes
Routing
Student
S4
Full-time employed
S4
Part-time employed
S4
Unemployed
S4
Housewife
S4
Home-maker
S4
Others ( Please specify_____)
S4
Prefer not to say/ dont know
99
CLOSE
Ask all:
Note: Please ask them to answer
with the details for the chief income
earner in the household, even if it is
not them
Social Grade classification
Interviewer please code SEG A-E

AND CHECK QUOTA
S4
Job title
Business qualification
Number of staff responsible for
Routing
S5
S5
C1
S5
C2
S5
S5
125
S5
S5
Ask all:
Can you tell me into which of the following bands your total
annual household income falls?
S1
Please provide the combined annual income for all members

of the household but excluding any tax and other deductions.
Codes
Routing
Less than 15,000
S6
15,000 - 19,999
S6
20,000 - 29,999
S6
30,000 - 39,999
S6
40,000 - 49,999
S6
50,000 - 59,999
S6
60,000 - 69,999
S6
70,000 - 99,999
S6
100,000 or more
S6
Dont know/Refused
99
S6
Codes
Routing
Electricity
S7
Travel insurance
S7
Home insurance
S7
Mobiles
S7
Fixed broadband
S7
WRITE IN
S6
Ask all:
Are you responsible for researching and/or paying for any
of the following:
S1
READ OUT, MULTICODE.
126
S7
None of these
Close
Dont know/ Refused
99
Close
Codes
Routing
Yes
S8
No
S8
Ask all:
Do you have regular access to the internet? SINGLE CODE
S1
S8
S1
Ask all:
How often do you use the internet?
By this we mean you use the internet for more than 30 minutes
each day.
Codes
Routing
4-5 times per week or more
S9
3 or less times per week
S9
Do not use the internet myself but ask family and/or friends to
help me if I need to research something (No permanent internet
access)
Close
Do not use the internet at all or have anyone else access it for me
Close
127
S9
For which of the following do you use the internet and how
often?
Daily
Several
times a
week
Weekly
At least
monthly
Once
every
couple
of
months
Once
or
twice a
year
SELECT ONE PER ROW
Less
than
once a
year
Never
Sending / receiving emails
Checking news, weather or travel plans (e.g. maps, train times)
Visiting sites for information on products/ services I am

thinking of buying
Checking my bank account and other financial holdings
Checking, paying or managing my utilities, phone, broadband

or other bills
Booking holidays, hotels or making travel arrangements
Other online shopping
Downloading music or movies
Visiting social networking sites (such as Facebook) or

contributing to blogs, forums or other open source sites
128
S10
S1
Ask all:
Have you used price comparison websites?
Codes
Routing
Yesin the last six months
S11
Yessix months to a year ago
S11
Yes but over a year ago
S11
Never
S11
Dont know/Refused
99
Close
Allocate as per below

Heavy user
At least 2 must be coded at S8 respondent must use the

internet daily for at least 2 of the activities listed.
AND
At least 2 must also be coded at S8 respondents must
do at least two of the following at least monthly
online shopping,
managing finances,
managing utilities etc.
visiting sites for information on products and services
booking holidays
They do not need to have used a price comparison site

Light user
Not heavy user but has used price comparison site
Non-user
Not heavy user and has not used price comparison sites
129
S11
Ask if: S10= codes 1-3

Which price comparison sites have you used:
Codes
DO NOT READ OUT, MULTICODE.

gocompare.com
confused.com
beatthatquote.com
billmonitor.com
thepeoplespower.co.uk
energyhelpline.com
10
11
12
Energylinx.co.uk
13
Fuelswitch.com
14
Quidco.com
15
Simplifydigital.co.uk
16
SimplySwitch.com
17
18
google.co.uk/compare
19
biba.org.uk
20
UKPower.co.uk
21
130
Unravelit.com
22
uSwitch.com
23
Which?Switch.co.uk
24
mobilife.com
25
tescocompare.com
26
None
27
98
Dont know
99
131
Respondent Confidentiality Disclosure

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this Research on behalf of Consumer Focus and PPUK.
Before you can participate in this research, we would like you to understand that it will involve products/ packaging or
concepts which may be confidential. If this is the case, by signing this agreement you agree as follows:
A) You will hold in confidence any information about the products or packaging that may be disclosed to you directly
or indirectly by participating in this research.
B) You will not discuss any of the information about the products/ packaging/ concepts disclosed to you with anyone
other than the person administering the test this includes verbal discussions, texts, blogs, twitters or any other
medium.
You will be compensated for your time, commitment, and confidential obligation. Please confirm your acceptance of
these terms by signing and dating this agreement in the space provided below.
I hereby acknowledge and agree to the terms.
By: (signature) _______________________________
Print Full Name: ______________________________
Date: _______________________________________
INTERVIEWER DECLARATION
This declaration covers the recruitment interviewing on this project. You should sign it after successfully recruiting a
respondent.
You must complete this section neatly for this interview to be valid.
I declare that I have conducted this interview within the MRS Codes of Conduct, the respondent answered all parts of
the questionnaire & he/she was previously unknown to me.
I also declare to hold in confidence any information about the products, packaging or concepts that may be disclosed to
you directly or indirectly by participating in this research.
I will not discuss any of the information disclosed to me with anyone other than the respondents participating in the
test. this includes verbal discussions, texts, blogs, twitters or any other medium. about the products, packaging or
concepts
NAME (PRINT)
SIGNATURE
INTERVIEWER NO
DATE OF RECRUITMENT
THANK YOU FOR WORKING ON THIS PROJECT
132
Duration of all interviewing stages completed:

Recruitment:_________________ mins Total of all other stages if applicable: _______________mins
UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT, IT IS ILLEGAL FOR MARKET RESEARCH COMPANIES TO STORE RESPONDENTS ADDRESS DETAILS
WITH THE QUESTIONNAIRE BEYOND THE LIFE OF A PROJECT RECONTACTING RESPONDENTS CAN ONLY BE CARRIED OUT IF THE
RESPONDENTS PERMISSION HAS BEEN OBTAINED. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS RE-CONTACT FOR QUALITY CONTROL PURPOSES
ADDRESS DETAILS APPEAR ON THE BACK PAGE OF THE RECRUITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE, SO IT CAN BE REMOVED & CONFIDENTIALY
DISCARDED AFTER THE PROJECT HAS FINISHED.
RECRUITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE BACK PAGE
PROJECT MEERKAT
3753
PERSONAL INFORMATION
First name
Last name
House name / Number

First line of address
Second line of address
Town / City
Postcode
Telephone including area code

Mobile number
133
Appendix E: Hall test questionnaire

Setting the scene
/ ground-rules
Introduction and Warm-up (2 minutes)

Thank you for taking part in our research. It will take no more than 20
minutes.
No right/ wrong answers
Anonymity is assured
We will be asking you to look at the following price comparison website
xxxx.
Please imagine that you are looking to get a new deal on [product
category]
Interviewer: Record Site __________________________________
Product category ________________________________________
Section 2 TASK (10 minutes)
Interviewer loads website and gives control of laptop to respondent.
Q1a.
Interviewer instruction: before beginning, please ask the respondent for

brief information about the current product or service they are using. We
do not need too much detail, but probe on provider, price, and their
satisfaction. Record details here:
Q1b.
Have you used any price comparison sites?

If so, which ones? What sort of product were you looking for at the time?
Interviewer reads out:

Id like you to spend a few minutes playing around with [website],
imagining that you were looking for deals on [product category]. Please
take me to the site and show me what youd do.
Please feel free to ask me any questions otherwise, lets begin.
Interviewer note: some sites provide special offers, some have the ability
to customise searches (e.g. by postcode) and some do both. Let the
respondent select whichever they wish to use (and let them select more
than one), without prompting them.
Interviewer record the steps the respondent takes, and probe to
134
understand why these steps are being taken.

When observing steps taken, please record actions the respondent takes,
rather than what appears on the screen as a result. For example, please
write down which tab they click on and the sort of details they enter,
rather than what appears on the screen when they click a tab, or just
noting the broad themes of what they do.
Your notes should be clear enough for us to replicate the search, if we
need to.
When writing in explanations, please enter the motivations behind their
search methods. Here, the focus is not on the micro details but broad
behaviours.
It is not necessary to ask why did you click this button all the time.
Instead, ask questions such as why are you searching for prices in your
area as opposed to nationally?
Interviewer allow the respondent to explore the site for 3 minutes.
Q2.
Steps taken
Q3.
Explanation of behaviour/ reasons for
doing this
135
Q2.
Q3.
Interviewer instruction: do not probe, but tick off any of the following
factors if the respondent mentions them during the course of the task.
Factor
Mentioned
Price
Reputation of product provider
Information provided about the deal
What other people have said about deals,
e.g. in reviews
Number of comparison options provided
Ability to customise your search (using
personal data e.g. postcode or price of bill)
The ranking of deals in the results the site
produces
Whether a deal is flagged as recommended
for you or something similar
Interviewer read out:
Still thinking about what you have seen on the screen in the last few
minutes, Id like us to think about the things that would be important for
you, if you were actually making a decision
Im going to read out a list of factors that Im interested in. Id like you to
tell me which would be the 3 most important ones. Well mark the most
important with a 1, the second most important with a 2 and the third
most important with a 3.
Interviewer, rotate order of codes 1 to 8: start with code 1 for first
interview; code 2 for second, and so on.
136
Factor
Rating of 1, 2, 3 (please write

N/A if not offered on PCW)
1. Price
2. Reputation of product
provider
3. Information provided
about the deal
4. What other people
have said about deals,
e.g. in reviews
5. Number of
comparison options
provided
6. Ability to customise
your search (using
personal data e.g.
postcode or price of
bill)
7. The ranking of deals
in the results the site
produces
8. Whether a deal is
flagged as
recommended for
you or something
similar
9. Other (write in)
Section 3 Usefulness of PCW (7 minutes)

Were going to move away from talking about the offers the website led
you to, and discuss the website itself now.
Q4.
Overall, how easy or difficult did you find it to use this website?
Please use a scale of 0-10, where 0 means the website is impossible or
very difficult to use, and 10 means it is extremely easy to use.
Q5.
Tell me a bit about why you gave the site that score.
137
Q6.
What were the specific things about this site that made it feel userfriendly, would you say? Can you give me an example? Why did that make
it feel user-friendly?
Q7.
Q8.
And what were the things about this site that werent user-friendly? Why
did that make you feel that way? Can you give me an example? Which are
the least user-friendly aspects of the site? Why?
And on a scale of 0-10, where 0 means you were completely dissatisfied,

and 10 means you were completely satisfied, how did you feel about
Sentence
Rating out of 10
The amount of
information you needed
to provide in order to
make the comparisons
The ability to customise
your search (using
personal data e.g.
postcode or usage
information)
Interviewer ensure you understand why ratings given and record any
additional comments below
Q9
How comfortable would you feel about providing your email address,
postcode, consumption data (annual energy bill, mobile phone bill etc.)
[Interviewer: for travel insurance interview], and medical conditions
when using a site like this?
Interviewer: probe here to make sure you understand any differences
about comfort levels with different types of information
138
Section 4 Concepts (5 minutes)

Now Id like to tell you about two other kinds of price comparison
websites, just to see what you think about them.
Collective switching sites
The first kind is called a collective switching site. These are websites
where people can register their household, with other households and act
as a group to get the cheapest electricity and gas. The websites ask
electricity and gas suppliers to quote their cheapest deal, and that deal is
then made available to people who have registered with the site. There is
usually no fee for registering. The best deal will depend on your
consumption and where you live. The theory is that the deal will be
cheaper because the supplier gets many customers if its offer is accepted.
So the supplier offers a better deal to the group of people who have
registered than it would to an individual acting alone.
Q10.
What do you think of this idea? Record main comments
Q11.
How likely do you think you would be to use a service like this?
Very likely
Quite likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
Q12.
Why do you say this?

Some price comparison tools can help you to analyse detailed data on
your consumption pattern, which you usually find in your monthly or
annual bills, to find the most suitable deal. For example, theres a
comparison tool called Billmonitor, which allows you to input detailed
data on your mobile phone usage. Billmonitor then analyses the
information in order to find the mobile phone contract that is most suited
to your lifestyle.
Interviewer: clarify if necessary that the consumer sources and enters
the data themselves - the tool does not access the users online account
or anything similar now, but may do so in the near future with YOUR
139
CONSENT
Q13.
What do you think of this idea? Record main comments
Q14.
How likely do you think you would be to use a site like this?
Very likely
Quite likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
Q15.
Why do you say this?
Mobile apps:
Q16.
Do you currently own or have access to a smartphone?

Interviewer: if respondent does not own/ have access to a smartphone,
skip to Q30.
Some price comparison providers are now beginning to develop dedicated
smartphones apps to allow people to access their services in this way.
Apps can make it easier for people to access the services on the go and
often also have more customisable features than websites.
Q17.
Q18.
We would like to know how likely you think you would be to use a
dedicated price comparison mobile app?
Very likely
Quite likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
I dont really use apps/ I
dont understand what
apps are
140
Q19.
Additional
comments
Conclusion
Thank you for your time. Is there anything else you would like to say about
your experience of using price comparison websites today?
Pay incentive and ensure respondent signs to confirm receipt
141
Appendix F: Qualitative depth interview discussion guide

Interviewer: at the start of the interview, speak into the recorder and note the following:
Your name
The respondents first name
The respondent ID number
The product and website the respondent has looked at in the quant interview
Please also note on the front of the quant paper questionnaire that they have completed a
depth interview
Setting the scene

/ ground-rules
Previous
switching
behaviour
Introduction
Thank you for taking part in this interview. Id now like to understand in a
bit more detail your experiences and views on price comparison websites
No right/ wrong answers
Section 2 Awareness and usage (15 minutes)
Can you start by telling me a bit more about your normal habits when
youre considering buying or switching products like broadband, mobile
phone, energy and insurance. What, broadly, are the steps for you?
Interviewer: Allow spontaneous response here, then ask:
How often, if at all, would you say you switch provider? Why?
- Interviewer: Probe to understand reasons for differences between
product categories.
- Do they tend to switch in the end, or ultimately decide to stick with
their existing provider?
I wonder whether things have changed for you since price comparison
websites started to be available. Did you switch provider regularly, or
research providers of services, before price comparison websites existed?
Awareness and
usage
Now that price comparison sites are available, has this affected the way you
consider these products and the way you go about purchasing them?
- What has changed? Why?
- Interviewer: Probe to understand how they previously accessed
information and whether they now shop around more/ less than
previously
Id now like to focus on your experience of price comparison websites:
So first of all, tell me about the price comparison websites that you are
aware of.
142
Thinking generally here, how do you find out about price comparison
websites?
- Probe on advertising vs. experience vs. recommendations etc.
And why do you use these sites?
- Interviewer: Probe to understand perceived benefits, issues of trust,
ease of use etc. Ask respondent,
In what way are things better when you use a price comparison site, than
when you dont? Can you give me some examples?
Which comparison site(s) have you used?

Which products or services have you used them for?
- Interviewer: Probe on broadband, mobile phones, landline phones,
electricity and gas, insurance (travel, home, car), holidays, and
travel (including train tickets).
How do you decide which site(s) to use?

- Interviewer: Probe to understand if going directly to a preferred site,
if Googling a specific site, or if searching for something less specific
such as best buy or best deal on the products.
And how do you actually go about using price comparison sites? Please talk
me through what you typically do after you have produced the table of
results.
- Interviewer: Probe to understand whether they compare findings
across different sites, whether they check with suppliers directly
(online or offline), whether they look at other sources (such as best
buy tables in the paper). Probe to understand whether they prefer
sector specific sites or generic sites etc.
Do you ever make the purchase/ switch directly through the price
comparison website? Why (not)?
- Interviewer: Probe to understand perceived advantages/ concerns.
You said that you have used price comparison sites for [insert categories].
Are there reasons why you havent used them for [other categories]?
Is this something youd think about doing in the future? Why (not)?
143
Experience
Section 3 Usage experience (10 minutes)

Please now think about your experience of using a site here today, and
also of any sites you have used in the past.
Overall, how easy do they find it to use price comparison websites?
What makes a site particularly easy to use? (Ask for examples)
What makes a site more complicated or difficult to use? (Ask for examples)
- Interviewer: Probe to understand best/ worst practice
- Probe to understand whether they prefer quick/ basic search
results, or whether they look for more accurate search results
specific to their personal needs
Trust, confidence
& accreditation
How confident are you in using the information provided by these

websites?
What are the main advantages for you in using these sites would you say?
Why?
Do you have any concerns about price comparison websites?
What?
How do these affect your usage of the sites? Have they stopped you using
any sites, or from using comparison sites for specific things? (Ask for
examples)
How impartial do you think the results are?
Interviewer: Capture spontaneous response, then probe:
To what extent do you believe the results cannot be influenced by the
product suppliers?
Do you think that suppliers can pay to influence their rankings?
Interviewer: Probe to understand what leads to this perception, their

perceived extent of the practice, and influence on their usage of these
sites.
And how do you think these sites work? How do you think the site
operators make their money?
Accreditation
There are independent accreditation schemes for price comparison

websites and some sites are accredited.
144
The accreditation schemes are voluntary codes of conduct that the

companies can sign up to. These guarantee consumers that the information
on the site is accurate, reliable and comprehensive. Examples of such codes
include the Consumer Focus Confidence Code and Ofcom Price Comparison
Have you heard of any of these codes of conduct?
Do you use them?
How useful do you think these schemes are?
What do you think it means if a site is accredited?
Who do you think does accredit sites?
Who should accredit sites? Interviewer: if respondent cannot answer,
probe on: Ofcom, Ofgem, Trading Standards, the Office of Fair Trading,
ABTA, Which? and the Citizens Advice Bureau
Interviewer [rotate order in which these are read out each interview]:
Organisations that accredit these sites include
Ofcom
Ofgem
Trading Standards
the Office of Fair Trading
ABTA
Which?
The Citizens Advice Bureau .
What do you think about these organisations?
Are they the right organisations to be accrediting these sites? Why (not)?
Would you like to see accreditation from anyone else? Who? Why?
Section 4 Collective switching/new breed of comparison tools (5 minutes)
Earlier we spoke about these.
Collective
switching
Interviewer: please read out if they would like a recap of the definition
These are websites where people can register their household, and act as a
group to get the cheapest electricity and gas. The websites ask electricity
and gas suppliers to quote their cheapest deal, and that deal is then made
available to people who have registered with the site. There is usually no
fee for registering. The best deal will depend on your consumption and
where you live. The theory is that the deal will be cheaper because the
supplier gets many customers if its offer is accepted. So the supplier offers a
better deal to the group of people who have registered than it would to an
individual acting alone.
You said earlier that you would be [very/ not very] likely to use one of
these.
145
Can you tell me more about why?

What do you think are the benefits?
What concerns do you have?
Interviewer: ladder if possible here to understand the implications of any
concerns
New breed price

comparison tools
We also spoke earlier about a new kind of price comparison tool where you
give detailed data on your usage (e.g. of energy, your mobile phone) to a
third party, who then helps you find the best deal.
Interviewer: please read out if they would like a recap of the definition
Some price comparison tools can help you to analyse detailed data on your
consumption pattern, which you usually find in your monthly or annual bills,
to find the most suitable deal. For example, theres a comparison tool called
Billmonitor, which allows you to input detailed data on your mobile phone
usage. Billmonitor then analyses the information, in order to find the
mobile phone contract that is most suited to your lifestyle.
How would you feel about providing detailed data on your consumption
(e.g. of energy, mobile phone usage) to a third party, to help them find the
best deal for you?
Interviewer, probe to understand willingness
What do you think would be the benefits to you of using a service like this?
What concerns do you have? Why do you say that?
concerns
Lastly, some price comparison providers are now beginning to develop
dedicated smartphones apps to allow people to access their services in this
way. Apps can make it easier for people to access the services on the go and
often also have more customisable features than websites.
What is your reaction to this idea?
Would you consider using a price comparison app on your tablet or mobile?
What concerns do you have? Why do you say that?
concerns
What would encourage you to use a price comparison app?
146
Additional
comments
Final check
Conclusion
Is there anything else that you would like to say on this subject to our
client?
Pay incentive and ensure respondent signs for it.
147
Consumer Futures
If you have any questions or would like further information about our research,
please contact Marzena Lipman, by telephone on 020 7799 7981 or
via email marzena.lipman@consumerfutures.org.uk
For regular updates from Consumer Futures, sign up to our
monthly e-newsletter by emailing enews@consumerfutures.org.uk or
follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/Futures_tweet
If you require this publication in Braille,
large print or on audio CD please contact us.
Deaf, hard of hearing or speech-impaired consumers
can contact Consumer Futures via Text Relay:
From a textphone, call 18001 020 7799 7900
From a telephone, call 18002 020 7799 7900
Victoria House, Southampton Row, London WC1B 4AD

t 020 7799 7900
f 020 7799 7901
Royal Exchange House, 100 Queen Street, Glasgow G1 3DN
t 0141 226 5261
Portcullis House, 21 Cowbridge Road East, Cardiff CF11 9AD
t 029 2078 7100
Elizabeth House, 116 Holywood Road, Belfast BT4 1NY
t 028 9067 4833
w consumerfutures.org.uk
Published: July 2013
ISBN: 978-1-907125-79-9

Price Comparison Websites Consumer Perceptions and Experiences

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Price Comparison Websites Consumer Perceptions and Experiences

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Price comparison websites:

consumer perceptions and

Price comparison websites: consumer perceptions and experiences

Similarly, there is limited understanding of consumer perceptions of

bargain hunt to get the best deal (85 per cent)

In addition consumers cite contract terms, high costs of early termination

Price comparison websites: consumer perceptions and experiences

ensure prices displayed are accurate, up to date and comprehensive

Price comparison websites: consumer

Prepared for Consumer Futures

This work has been conducted in accordance with ISO 20252,

Executive summary ........................................................................................................................ i

Date Last Edited: 4 July, 2013

Checked By: KD, KA, AP

Voluntary codes of conduct that price comparison

Recording, monitoring and reporting on the number of

Affinity partnerships consist of two parties. The affinity

When an airline collapses and fails to exist

A graphic image on a webpage used with the intention of

The Big Four

The four price comparison websites with the greatest

An online data analyser service that finds the mobile

Date Last Edited: 4 July, 2013

Checked By: KD, KA, AP

Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB)

An independent UK charity that gives free, confidential

In this context, when consumers click on a supplier shown

Collective switching site

Websites where people can register their household and

A payment to a price comparison website that is directly

Consumer Focus Confidence Code

A voluntary code of practice for online domestic price

An official organisation that works to protect the rights and

Otherwise known as contracts. Mobile phone service

Data analyser service

A new kind of price comparison tool where consumers give

A result that shows in the quotes section of the price

Date Last Edited: 4 July, 2013

Checked By: KD, KA, AP

A qualitative research technique used in market research

Making a payment for a product or service via a price

To transfer (software, data, character sets, etc.) from a

A menu that appears on a computer screen when its title is

A broadband internet connection using fibre-optic cables

Routing within a website, that tailors the information

To gain access to a computer file or network illegally or

A market research test where respondents are asked to go

The opening or main page of a website, intended chiefly to

In this context, results that appear in the quotes that have

Internet Protocol (IP)

The method by which data is sent from one computer to

Internet users who have used a price comparison website

Date Last Edited: 4 July, 2013

Checked By: KD, KA, AP

Abbreviation for hyperlink. A word, phrase, picture, icon, or

A list of available options as displayed on a screen

Mobile phone app

Software that runs on mobile phones and smartphones

Mobile phone package

Also known as a data plan, this refers to the data usage

Next generation price

Sites and services that provide new approaches for

Ofcom (Office of communications)

The independent regulator and competition authority for