CSISG 2018 Q1 RESULTS

INSTITUTE OF

SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

CSISG 2018 Q1 RESULTS

RETAIL AND INFO-COMMUNICATIONS RESULTS

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG Methodology

3

Customer Satisfaction

CSISG (Scale of 0-100)

1. Overall Satisfaction 2. Ability to Meet Expectations

3. Similarity to Ideal

How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? The CSISG Score

Qn. Overall Satisfaction Qn. Ability to Meet Expectations Qn. Similarity to Ideal

Qn. Repurchase Intention Qn. Price Tolerance

Qn. Complaint Behaviour

Qn. Perceived Product Quality Qn. Perceived Product Customisation Qn. Perceived Product Reliability

Qn. Perceived Service Quality Qn. Perceived Service Customisation Qn. Perceived Service Reliability

Perceived Service Quality

Perceived Product Quality

Perceived Overall Quality

(After Recent Experience)

Perceived Value

Customer Satisfaction

Customer Complaints

Customer Loyalty

Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality

Before Recent Experience)

Qn. Price / Quality Qn. Quality / Price

Qn. Expected Overall Quality Qn. Expected Customisation Qn. Expected Reliability

4

CSISG Structural Model (For Retail & Infocomm)

Singapore citizens and PRs are interviewed at their homes.

Homes are selected from a random address listing that matches the housing profile of Singapore resident population.

Departing tourists are interviewed at Changi Airport. (Applicable to Department Stores, Fashion Apparels, and Wireless@SG Sub-sectors only)

Typically 50-200 respondents per company would have answered the CSISG questionnaire.

Each respondent answers up to 21 CSISG questions and about 25 touchpoint questions about the company/brand they had recent experiences with. Each respondent evaluates only 1 company/brand.

5

General CSISG Fieldwork Methodology

6

Company Score

Sub-Sector Score

National ScoreSector Score

Incidence Study

• Identify companies with highest interactions with locals and tourists.

• Locals surveyed door-to-door. • Tourists surveyed at Changi Airport. • DOS population and STB Visitor

Arrival data used to further identify proportion of locals and tourist customers.

Local & Tourist Weights

Company Weights

Revenue / GDP Contribution Weights

• Identify revenue contribution of each sub-sector to its respective sector.

• Identify GDP contribution of each sector to the total GDP of sectors measured in the CSISG.

1 2 3 4

Revenue Share Study / DOS GDP Data

Overview of Score Calculation

Retail Sector Info-Communications Sector

• Department Stores

• Supermarkets

• Fashion Apparels

• e-Commerce

• Mobile Telecom

• Broadband

• PayTV

• Wireless@SG

7

CSISG 2018 Q1 Sub-sectors

8

Sectors Covered Retail Info-Communications

Survey Period Jan to Apr 2018

Total Questionnaires Completed 6,900

Locals 6,090

Tourists 810

Distinct entities measured 133

Entities with published scores 42

CSISG 2018 Q1 Sub-sectors

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2018 Q1 RESULTS

* Refers to companies/sub-sectors that are statistically significantly above their sub-sector/sector scores

QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with companies/

brands (Past 3 months) (2) Each respondent evaluates

satisfaction with 1 to 2 companies/brands from different sectors

How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? CSISG 2018 Q1 Results Overview

10

INSTITUTE OF


Retail Sector Results

70

Retail Sector

62

70

78Fashion Apparels

2007 2018

Supermarkets

e-Commerce Department Stores

▲▼ Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence ◼ No statistically significant change between the 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence

◼◼

◼

12

◼

Retail Sector CSISG Trends

13



Perceived Quality


Perceived Value CSISG Customer

Loyalty

Supermarkets 73.3 ▼ 74.1 74.6 ▲ 72.9 72.1(-1.6%) (+0.9%) (+2.1%) (+0.7%) (+0.4%)

Fashion Apparels 72.9 74.5 74.9 ▲ 72.8 71.6(+0.1%) (+1.6%) (+3.1%) (+0.3%) (-0.7%)

e-Commerce 73.2 73.2 73.2 72.0 71.1(-0.5%) (+0.9%) (+0.4%) (+0.7%) (-1.0%)

Department Stores 72.7 73.8 ▲ 74.0 ▲ 71.8 71.7(-0.6%) (+2.1%) (+3.0%) (+0.9%) (-0.4%)

▲▼ Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence ◼ No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence

Service Quality

Product Quality

Customer Expectations

Perceived Quality

Perceived Value CSISG

Complaints

Customer Loyalty

Perceived Value Up For Most Retail Sub-sectors (Year-on-Year Movement in Satisfaction Drivers)

NTUC FairPrice 73.1

Cold Storage 72.3

Giant 71.6

Sheng Siong 72.4

Other supermarkets 70.0

73.6 NTUC FairPrice

72.7 Cold Storage

71.9 Giant

73.1 Sheng Siong

70.7 Other supermarkets

CSISG

2017

CSISG

2018

62

70

78

2007 2018

Supermarkets72.9

Retail Sector

E.g., other supermarkets includes Prime, Market Place, Jasons

14

Satisfaction Scores Statistically Unchanged (Supermarkets)

15

Zara

Adidas

Uniqlo

H&M

Esprit

G2000

Bossini

Giordano

Hang Ten

Cotton On

Other fashion apparels

CSISG Scores (0 to 100 scale)

50 60 70 80

72.0

70.1

71.2

71.4

71.7

73.6

73.6

74.2

74.9

75.4

76.0

Fashion Apparels Sub-sector CSISG: 72.8

No statistically significant

year-on-year change in

scores across companies

No Year-on-Year Change in Satisfaction Scores (Fashion Apparels)

Amazon 70.0

Carousell 71.4

Ebay 72.6

Qoo10 71.5 Taobao/Tmall 71.7

Zalora 73.7

Groupon/ Fave 73.1

Other e-Commerce 69.2

71.2 Amazon 71.4 Carousell

73.4 Ebay

72.1 Qoo10 72.1 Taobao/Tmall

74.2 Zalora

73.7 Fave

69.8 Other e-Commerce

CSISG

2017

CSISG

2018

16

2018

e-Commerce

72.0

Retail Sector62

70

78

E.g., other e-Commerce includes Lazada, Ezbuy, Aliexpress

Note: Groupon is now known as Fave

2007

Satisfaction Scores Statistically Similar to 2017 (eCommerce)

DFS 73.6

Takashimaya 72.1 Robinsons 72.1

Isetan 70.9

Tangs 70.1

Metro 71.7

OG 69.2

BHG 71.2

Other department stores 70.3

74.2 DFS

73.0 Takashimaya

72.3 Robinsons 72.0 Isetan

71.3 Tangs

72.6 Metro

69.6 OG

71.5 BHG

70.4 Other department stores

CSISG2017

CSISG2018

62

70

78

2007 2018

Department Stores

71.8

Retail Sector

E.g., other department stores includes Marks & Spencer, Mustafa

17

Marginal But Insignificant Upticks for Some Stores (Department Stores)

INSTITUTE OF


Retail findings

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

66

72

78

84

Expectations Quality Value Expectations Quality Value

Department Stores

19

◼Locals ◼Tourists

CSISG 70.7 74.2

Fashion Apparels

Locals-Tourists Comparison (Department Stores & Fashion Apparels)


CSISG 72.8 72.4

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

66

72

78

84


Tourists Scored Significantly Higher for CSISG, Quality,

and Value

Department Stores

20


CSISG 70.7 74.2

Fashion Apparels

Tourists More Satisfied with Department Stores (Locals-Tourists Comparison)


CSISG 72.8 72.4

GREEN/RED scores indicates one segment performed BETTER/WORSE than the other segment with statistical significance

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

66

72

78

84


Department Stores

21


CSISG 70.7 74.2

Fashion Apparels

Perceived Quality & Value for Department Stores Increased for Both Locals & Tourists


CSISG 72.8 72.4

▲ ▲▲ ▲

▲▼ Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence

Higher Local Satisfaction for Various Attributes (Department Stores Attributes: Y-O-Y Comparison)

Variety of products that meet your needs

Organisation and orderliness of products in store

Ambience at department store

Helpfulness of staff

Attractiveness of promotions and discounts

Availability of products

Brand image complements your lifestyle

Availability of staff when needed

Ease of getting to what you need in the store

Product display at department store

Instore information on products and promotions

Variety of brands that interest you

Information on products and promotions in adverts

Competitiveness of the prices

Product knowledge of staff

Payment Process

Return and exchange policies

22

Satisfaction Rating (1 to 10 scale)

7.0 7.6 8.2


8.2 7.6 7.0

LocalsTourists


▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲ ▲

Sorted in descending order of Locals attribute ratings

Ease of getting to the stores

Variety of products that interest you

Variety of products that meet your needs

Product display

Cleanliness of storeAvailability of products

Instore information on products and promotions

Helpfulness of staff

Product knowledge of staff

Organisation and orderliness of products in storeAvailability of staff when needed

Payment process

Ease of getting to what you need in store

Brand image complements your lifestyle

Attractiveness of promotions and discountsAmbience at the fashion apparel store

Information on products and promotions in adverts

Return and exchange policies

Ability to accommodate to special requestsCompetitiveness of the prices

23


7.0 7.6 8.2


8.2 7.6 7.0

LocalsTourists

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲


Sorted in descending order of Locals attribute ratings

Variety of Products Rose from 2017 (Fashion Apparels Attributes: Y-O-Y Comparison)

Department Stores

Locals: Lowest 3 Rated Retail Attributes By Sub-Sector

24

Product knowledge

of staff

Payment process

Return & exchange

policies

7.0 7.5 8.0

7.44

7.54

7.55

Supermarkets

7.0 7.5 8.0

7.31

7.60

7.62Payment process

Ease of getting to

stores

Return & exchange

policies

Fashion Apparels

Return & exchange

policies

Ability to accommodate

to special requests


7.0 7.5 8.0

7.59

7.59

7.62

e-Commerce

Ease of indicating

special requests

Ease of tracking your

order

Return & exchange

policies

7.0 7.5

7.40

7.54

7.56

Department Stores

Locals: Return & Exchange Policies Is One Of The Poorest Rated Attribute

25

7.0 7.5 8.0

Supermarkets

Product knowledge

of staff

Payment process

Return & exchange

policies

Payment process

Ease of getting to

stores

Return & exchange

policies

7.0 7.5 8.0

Fashion Apparels

Return & exchange

policies

Ability to accommodate

to special requests


7.0 7.5 8.0

e-Commerce

Ease of indicating

special requests

Ease of tracking your

order

Return & exchange

policies

7.0 7.5

Note: Data is unweighted

n=4,052

How satisfied are you with the Return and Exchange

policies?

Retail: Return & Exchange Policies (Locals)

26

Rated 1 - 5 Rated 6 - 102.4% 97.6%

n=4,052


policies?

27



Rated 1 - 5 Rated 6 - 102.4% 97.6%

CSISG Score 32.8

Loyalty Score 27.9

Complaint Rate 12.2%

CSISG Score 73.2

Loyalty Score 72.6

Complaint Rate 0.4%

n=4,052


policies?

28



Rated 1 - 5 Rated 6 - 102.4% 97.6%

CSISG Score 32.8

Loyalty Score 27.9


CSISG Score 73.2

Loyalty Score 72.6

Complaint Rate 0.4%


n=4,052


policies?

29Note: Data is unweighted


Rated 1 - 5 Rated 6 - 102.4% 97.6%

CSISG Score 32.8

Loyalty Score 27.9

Complain Rate 12.2%

CSISG Score 73.2

Loyalty Score 73.2

Complain Rate 0.4%


Selected Verbatim From Customers Who Rated ‘Return & Exchange Policies’ Between 1 to 5

No exchange or refund policy as buying directly from personal sellers mostly

Items sent to me by the seller turn out to be poor in quality, and I’m unable to get a refund

Although seller is a trusted seller, the item I bought lasted less than 3 months from purchase and there

was no warranty coverage

n=4,052


policies?

30

I found out that there were some defects, went back the next day for an exchange and staff didn’t look

pleased when I tried to exchange, wanted me to go to other outlets to exchange instead; which I thought

was really a hassle. Upon my insistence, they agree to get that outlet to send here but needed quite some

time



31

Rated 1 - 5 Rated 6 - 102.4% 97.6%

CSISG Score 32.8

Loyalty Score 27.9

Complain Rate 12.2%

CSISG Score 73.2

Loyalty Score 73.2

Complain Rate 0.4%


Selected Verbatim From Customers Who Rated ‘Return & Exchange Policies’ Between 6 to 10

I like their assurance and refund policy, gives me an extra peace of mind when I buy from them

Items are good in quality, and I am able to do exchange if I find some defects

The brands that they carry are what I like, I can get the stuff that I want, and most of the time, there are

discounts and if the size does not fit, I can just return it with no questions asked

I can easily find their outlets anywhere. So if there’s anything I am not satisfied with, I can easily

exchange at any of their outlets

n=4,052


policies?

Cashier staff are very professional in explaining the return policy to me

They have the best return policy where I can easily reseal the item back and drop them in any post office



INSTITUTE OF


Omni-Channel vs Brick & Mortar

CSISG Loyalty CSISG Loyalty

Shopped at Store & Website/Mobile AppShopped at Store Only

65

70

75

80

CSISG Loyalty

33

Department Stores Supermarkets Fashion Apparels

Omni-channel vs Brick & Mortar: Comparing Satisfaction & Loyalty (Locals)

CSISG Loyalty

Shopped at Store & Website/Mobile AppShopped at Store Only

65

70

75

80

CSISG Loyalty

34


CSISG Loyalty

For Department Stores & Supermarkets, respondents who had shopped at both Store & online channels (Website or Mobile App) have higher Satisfaction and Loyalty scores than

respondents who only shopped from the Store.

Omni-channel vs Brick & Mortar: Comparing Satisfaction & Loyalty (Locals)


Shopped at Store & Website/Mobile App

Shopped at Store Only

65

70

75

80

CSISG Loyalty

35


CSISG Loyalty

e-Commerce

e-Commerce

Comparing Satisfaction & Loyalty: Omni-channel vs Brick & Mortar vs e-Commerce (Locals)



Shopped at Store Only

65

70

75

80

CSISG Loyalty

36


CSISG Loyalty

e-Commerce

e-Commerce

Comparing Satisfaction: Brick & Mortar vs e-Commerce (Locals)

Department Stores’ respondents who had shopped at the Brick & Mortar stores only have a lower satisfaction score than e-

Commerce respondents.

Comparing Loyalty: Brick & Mortar vs e-Commerce (Locals)

CSISG Loyalty


CSISG Loyalty

e-Commerce

CSISG Loyalty65

70

75

80

CSISG Loyalty

37

Department Stores Supermarkets Fashion Apparels e-Commerce

Department Stores & Supermarkets

respondents who had shopped at both the Store

and Website or Mobile App have higher Loyalty scores than e-Commerce

respondents. Supermarkets’ omni-

channel respondents have higher CSISG as well.

INSTITUTE OF


e-Commerce: Shopping Platforms

% R

espo

nden

ts (

n=1

60

0)

0%

50%

100%

Website Mobile App

47.5%52.5%

Most Frequent Shopping Platform

e-Commerce: Most Frequent Shopping Platform

39

Ease of comparing products

Ease of finding the products you need

Check-out and payment process

Satisfaction with the channels available to communicate with the seller(s)

Satisfaction with the product reviews

Clarity and usefulness of information on your delivery methods and fees

Ease of navigating the website or app

Ease of managing your shopping cart

Availability of feedback channels

Ease of indicating special requests

Ease of tracking your order

Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)

7.0 7.5 8.0

Website Mobile App

Descending Order Of Website

Attributes Ratings

e-Commerce: Navigation-related Attributes

40

Ease of comparing products

Ease of finding the products you need

Check-out and payment process

Satisfaction with the channels available to communicate with the seller(s)

Satisfaction with the product reviews

Clarity and usefulness of information on your delivery methods and fees

Ease of navigating the website or app

Ease of managing your shopping cart

Availability of feedback channels

Ease of indicating special requests

Ease of tracking your order

Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)

7.0 7.5 8.0

Website Mobile App

Difference in scores

statistically significant

Website Users More Satisfied with Navigation Attributes Than App Users (e-Commerce: Navigation-related Attributes)

Descending Order Of Website

Attributes Ratings

41

% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

50%

100%

Website Mobile App

47.5%52.5%

CSISG Score 72.6 71.3

Loyalty Score 71.7 70.5

Average Visits in the past 3 months 2.19 2.29

Average Spend (per visit) $187.03 $148.67

42

Customer Metrics By Platform Users (e-Commerce: Most Frequent Shopping Platform)

Website Users Spend More Than Mobile App Users (e-Commerce: Most Frequent Shopping Platform)

% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

50%

100%

Website Mobile App

47.5%52.5%

CSISG Score 72.6 71.3

Loyalty Score 71.7 70.5

Average Visits in the past 3 months 2.19 2.29

Average Spend (per visit) $187.03 $148.67

43

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2018 Q1 RESULTS Info-communications

55

65

75

2007

55

65

75

Mobile Telecom

55

65

75

2018

Info-Comms Sector

Broadband

PayTV Wireless@SG

▲▼ Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence ◼ No statistically significant change between the 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence

◼◼

◼◼

45

Info-Comms Sector CSISG Trends

46



Perceived Quality



Mobile Telecom 72.2 75.1 ▲ 73.8 71.1(-0.4%) (+2.7%) (+1.0%) (+1.2%)

Broadband 70.6 72.7 72.8 ▲ 68.9(-1.3%) (+2.2%) (+2.7%) (+1.1%)

PayTV 70.9 73.1 ▲ 72.3 ▲ 68.1(-0.6%) (+4.3%) (+5.2%) (+1.0%)


Service Quality

Product Quality


Perceived Quality


Complaints

Customer Loyalty

Rise in Perceived Quality & Value Scores

47



Perceived Quality


Perceived Value CSISG Customer

Loyalty

Mobile Telecom 72.2 75.1 ▲ 73.8 71.1 70.1(-0.4%) (+2.7%) (+1.0%) (+1.2%) (+0.9%)

Broadband 70.6 72.7 72.8 ▲ 68.9 69.6(-1.3%) (+2.2%) (+2.7%) (+1.1%) (+0.1%)

PayTV 70.9 73.1 ▲ 72.3 ▲ 68.1 69.1(-0.6%) (+4.3%) (+5.2%) (+1.0%) (-0.8%)


Satisfaction & Loyalty Remain Unchanged

Service Quality

Product Quality


Perceived Quality


Complaints

Customer Loyalty

Singtel Mobile 73.0

StarHub Mobile 69.2

M1 Mobile 66.6

74.1 Singtel Mobile

69.4 StarHub Mobile

67.9 M1 Mobile

CSISG2017

CSISG2018

2007 2018

Mobile Telecom 71.1

55

65

75

Info-Communications Sector

Satisfaction for Singtel Mobile Higher as Compared to Competitors (Mobile Telecom)

48

Singtel Broadband 68.0

StarHub Broadband 68.2 M1 Broadband 68.2

68.7 Singtel Broadband

68.9 StarHub Broadband

69.4 M1 Broadband

CSISG

2017

CSISG

2018

55

65

75

Satisfaction Scores Statistically Unchanged (Broadband)

2007 2018

Broadband

68.9


49

Singtel PayTV 66.9

StarHub PayTV 67.6 67.3 Singtel PayTV

68.8 StarHub PayTV

CSISG2017

CSISG2018

2007 2018

PayTV

68.1


Satisfaction Scores Statistically Unchanged (PayTV)

50

2018

Quality Loyalty

Network reliability of local voice calls

Network reliability of local voice calls

Makes you feel assured that your needs will be

taken care of


taken care of

Makes the effort to understand your needs


Has your best interest at heart

Innovative and forward-looking

Network coverage Proactively helps you when needed

2017

Quality Loyalty



Network coverage Range of subscription plans to meet my needs

Network reliability of local mobile data

Proactively helps you when needed

Range of subscription plans to meet my needs

Provides efficient service

Mobile data speed Good reputation

Increasing Impact

Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Quality & Loyalty (Mobile Telecom)

51Legend: Service Product

2018

Quality Loyalty






taken care ofNetwork reliability

Range of subscription plans to meet my needs

Innovative and forward-looking

Network reliabilityMakes you feel assured that your needs will be

taken care of

Legend: Service Product

2017

Quality Loyalty

Internet data speed Internet data speed

Network reliability Has your best interest at heart

Provides prompt serviceMakes you feel assured that your needs will be

taken care of




Loyalty & rewards program

Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Quality & Loyalty (Broadband)

Increasing Impact

52

INSTITUTE OF


Intent To Switch Providers

54Note: Data is unweighted

Will you consider switching to another service provider once your

current contract is up?

Infocomm Sector - Intent to Switch

Yes No

55

7.6% 92.4%

n=1,600





Yes No

56

7.6% 92.4%



CSISG Score 50.3

Loyalty Score 46.2

Complain Rate 27.9%

CSISG Score 71.0

Loyalty Score 71.6

Complain Rate 3.2%

n=1,600



Yes No

57

7.6% 92.4%



CSISG Score 50.3

Loyalty Score 46.2


CSISG Score 71.0

Loyalty Score 71.6

Complaint Rate 3.2%

GREEN/RED scores indicates that the score is HIGHER/LOWER with statistical significance


n=1,600


Yes No

58

7.6% 92.4%



Price

Loyalty & rewards program

Subscription plan

Product quality (such as network speed & reliability)

Product or hardware (such as phone)

Customer service

Others 12.3%

3.3%

8.2%

13.1%

18.9%

21.3%

23.0%

Main Reason To Consider Switching


n=1,600


Key Reasons To Consider Switching

Yes No

59

7.6% 92.4%



Less than 2 years

2 to less than 4 years




10 years and more 8.2%

6.6%

9.0%

22.1%

36.9%

17.2%

Current Tenure Of Those Who Consider Switching


n=1,600


Yes No

60

7.6% 92.4%



Less than 2 years





10 years and more 8.2%

6.6%

9.0%

22.1%

36.9%

17.2%

Current Tenure Of Those Who Consider Switching


n=1,600


Proportion higher than sector

average of 26.4%

INSTITUTE OF


Info-communication: Online Touch-point

62

% o

f In

foco

mm

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%

Did Not Use Website/

Mobile App

Used Website/

Mobile App


Mobile App

Used Website/

Mobile App


Mobile App

Used Website/

Mobile App

61.5%

38.5%

55.7%

44.3%42.2%

57.8%

Infocomm: Website/ Mobile App InteractionMobile Telecom Broadband PayTV

CSISG Score 70.1 72.6 68.2 69.5 64.7 70.5

Loyalty Score 69.6 70.6 68.3 70.7 65.8 71.2

63

% o

f In

foco

mm

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%


Mobile App

Used Website/

Mobile App


Mobile App

Used Website/

Mobile App


Mobile App

Used Website/

Mobile App

61.5%

38.5%

55.7%

44.3%42.2%

57.8%

Infocomm: Website/ Mobile App InteractionMobile Telecom Broadband PayTV

CSISG Score 70.1 72.6 68.2 69.5 64.7 70.5Loyalty Score 69.6 70.6 68.3 70.7 65.8 71.2

64

% o

f In

foco

mm

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%


Mobile App

Used Website/

Mobile App


Mobile App

Used Website/

Mobile App


Mobile App

Used Website/

Mobile App

61.5%

38.5%

55.7%

44.3%42.2%

57.8%

Mobile Telecom Broadband PayTV

Higher Satisfaction & Loyalty Among Digital Users

GREEN/RED scores indicates that the score is HIGHER/LOWER with statistical significance

Summary

• Both Retail and Info-communication sectors did not see any significant movements in CSISG Y-O-Y

• However, Perceived Quality & Value rose across various sub-sectors.

• Retail sector: Consider looking into how exchange policies are managed, and omni-channel strategies, as a source of competitive advantage.

• Infocomm sector: Consider how service elements and digital channels could be better leveraged.

65

INSTITUTE OF


Emerging Innovations in Customer Experience

67

Source: (1) New Google AI Can Have Real Life Conversations With Strangers, Tech Insider, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXUQ-DdSDoE (2) https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natural-conversation.html

Online Store / Mobile App Call Centres

Service CentresPhysical Stores

Customers

Current Physical & Digital Interactions

Current Interaction Channels

Interaction Channels Offered By Businesses Current Customer Experience

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXUQ-DdSDoE

Source: StarhubTaking Digital channels further with chatbots, virtual assistants for account management and selected value-add service application

Taking Digital Further: Customer Service StarHub Spectra Virtual Assistant, with Google Assistant integration

69Source: Voice Shopping with Alexa, Amazon, h8ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCjvV3iFsuw

Beyond brick-and-mortar channels, websites and mobile apps, making purchases through virtual assistants.

Taking Digital Further: Retail Channel Amazon Echo & Alexa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCjvV3iFsuw

70

Source: (1) New Google AI Can Have Real Life Conversations With Strangers, Tech Insider, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXUQ-DdSDoE (2) https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natural-conversation.html

Taking Digital Further: AI & Customer Experience Google Assistant with Google Duplex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXUQ-DdSDoE

71

How will AI change Customer Experience? From Businesses interacting with Customers to

Customers interacting with Businesses

Online Store / Mobile App Call Centres

Service CentresPhysical Stores

Customers

Physical & Digital Interactions

Virtual Assistants

Current Interaction Channels

Changing Nature of Customer Interactions With AI

Documents

CSISG 2018 Q1 RESULTS