Coffee culture: a global phenomenon?
Consumers the world over are highly in favor of coffee giants and the vast array of choices they offer, reveals research agency Synovate.
In a study that sought to illuminate coffee culture around the globe, Synovate spoke to 5,806 respondents in the U.S., U.K., France, Brazil, Hong Kong, Singapore, Serbia, Morocco and Australia. Overall, 76 percent of respondents agreed that “large multinational coffee chains are good because they expand choices for consumers.”
However, it’s clearly a trade-off between enjoyment and principles for many, with 28 percent also agreeing that these “large multinational chains have negatively impacted local culture.”
According to the survey, a huge 74 percent of Moroccans agree that coffee from large international chains is of better quality than coffee from small, independent shops. Next came Hong Kongers at 50 percent, closely followed by Brazilians. Surprisingly, Australians and Americans show particularly low agreement on this score (11 percent and 14 percent respectively), suggesting that these nations are more likely to support the “little guys.”
When asked whether these chains have negatively impacted local culture, Moroccans again answered yes in the largest numbers, a paradox which suggests an element of moral conflict in their coffee choices. At the opposite end of the spectrum, however, only 11 percent of Hong Kongers and 20 percent of Serbians felt this was an issue. “Asians don’t have the almost automatic negative reaction to big business that Westerners seem to have. They are much more accepting and tolerant of big companies. Perhaps this finding says more about the West than about Asia,” says Jill Telford, Synovate managing director Hong Kong.
What is the favorite type of coffee bought outside the home? While preferences vary from country to country, it seems that the majority of us prefer the simpler things in life. Almost half of the U.S. respondents would opt for regular coffee, along with some two out of five Brazilians and French and about a third of Brits and Singaporeans. Meanwhile, the cappuccino is king in Australia (45 percent) while Moroccans love their lattés (38 percent). Unsurprisingly, espresso is relatively popular in France, while mocha seems to go down better in Singapore and Hong Kong than anywhere else.
When asked which coffee shop or café first comes to mind for quality ready-to-drink coffee, a majority of respondents from Hong Kong and the U.S. mentioned Starbucks. The ubiquitous coffee giant was also recalled by a significant proportion of Brits and Singaporeans.
Over in France, however, unspecified bars, restaurants or cafés were top of mind, with Starbucks cited by a mere 2 percent. The top result for Australians was Gloria Jean at 32 percent, while two in five Serbians mentioned Nescafé.
This latter finding makes sense to Synovate Serbia’s Milica Vulicevic: “Ready-to-drink coffee is very expensive for people in Serbia - the country is suffering economically, and considering that people here easily drink five to 10 coffees a day, most will opt for instant.”
It seems that the English (63 percent), Australians (70 percent) and particularly the Moroccans (90 percent) are glugging coffee the entire day. The Asian markets, however, hold the fewest caffeine-lovers, with only 21 percent of Hong Kongers and 44 percent of Singaporeans reliant on their morning coffee and as little as 12 percent and 31 percent, respectively, admitting to drinking coffee throughout the day.
Finally, it seems that “coffee culture” as typified (or perhaps accelerated) by popular American sitcoms is very much alive and well in the markets surveyed. Unsurprisingly, 78 percent of respondents overall prefer to buy coffee from a café that has an inviting atmosphere. Moreover, four out of five Serbians, two-thirds of Moroccans and nearly two-thirds of the French say that the main reason for going to a coffee chain shop or café is to hang out with friends, rather than for the coffee itself. Ironically, Americans came lowest on this score - only 14 percent agreed versus an average of 44 percent across all countries! For more information visit www.synovate.com.
Expect to wait a little longer in Baltimore
When it comes to service, Baltimore is the slowest city in America, according to the Mystery Shopping Providers Association (MSPA). The results were based on a national survey geared to measure the average amount of time people spend waiting in line to check out at the grocery store, see a bank teller, purchase clothes or get a quick meal.
The 2006 Wait Time Survey solicited more than 10,000 responses from mystery shoppers throughout North America. The survey focused on wait times throughout the continent, zeroing in on the top 25 U.S. cities based on population.
The survey asked consumers to measure the time they spent waiting in line at the following locations: banks, clothing retailers, department stores, fast-food restaurants, sit-down restaurants and grocery stores. Gas station convenience stores, retail outlets and retail specialty stores also were measured.
Phoenix earned the title of fastest city in America. It scored an average wait time of 3.05 (3 minutes, 5 seconds), beating out Portland (3.30) and Minneapolis (3.41).
In the centuries-old battle for supremacy between New York City and Los Angeles, the survey showed the residents of both cities were the losers: both cities tied for 21st out of 25 cities in terms of overall wait time at 4.31, beating only Detroit (4.52), Washington, D.C. (4.58) and Baltimore (5.13).
In addition to wait times, shoppers were asked if the amount of time they waited in line would affect their desire to return to the same location. This information was used to create a “return ratio” that helped to measure the tolerance of shoppers to wait times in each city.
Not surprisingly, Baltimore had the worst return ratio of the 25 U.S. cities surveyed, at 77.3 percent. This means that only 77.3 percent of shoppers would return to the same location in Baltimore based on the wait time.
Mirroring the slowest average time, Washington, D.C. was next, with a 77.6 percent ratio. These cities were followed by Cleveland (77.7 percent), Orlando (78.1 percent) and Detroit (79.6 percent).
Cleveland and San Francisco performed poorly when comparing wait times to wait time satisfaction levels. Cleveland tied for 10th out of 25 cities in average wait time, but dropped 13 places to 23rd when asked if wait time negatively affected the shopper’s decision to return. San Francisco dropped 10 spaces from a tie at 10th to 20th. These results suggest shoppers in these cities expect much lower wait times than they are receiving, which makes them less likely to return to the same location again.
Conversely, several cities saw improvements when comparing wait times to wait time satisfaction levels. Miami ranked 19th in wait time but 12th in wait time satisfaction; Pittsburgh ranked 16th in wait time and 9th in wait time satisfaction – an improvement of seven places. This suggests shoppers from these cities expect longer wait times in general, and put up with longer wait times better than people in other cities.
Not surprisingly, gas station convenience stores were the fastest category, with the typical customer wait averaging 2.17. Convenience stores were followed by fast-food restaurants (3.16) and sit-down restaurants (3.28). Retail categories scored the worst, starting with department store average wait times (5.23) followed by outlet stores (5.11) and clothing stores (4.55).
Waits get worse for consumers later in the day. The slowest time for consumers is between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. (average wait is 4.22), followed by 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. (4.20) and 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. (4.03). 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. is best (2.40), followed by 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. (3.36) and 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. (4.02). More complete results of the survey are available at www.mysteryshop.org.
Midwesterners have cut the (phone) cord
More and more U.S. households are dropping their landlines and opting to go completely wireless. According to San Francisco research firm Telephia, households in Detroit and Minneapolis-St. Paul have the highest rate of wireless substitution among the 20 largest cities in the country. Detroit and Minneapolis-St. Paul posted household wireless substitution rates of 19 and 15.2 percent, respectively. The Tampa metropolitan area secured a 15.1 percent rate, representing nearly 177,000 households. Nearly 219,000 (14.3 percent) households in Atlanta and 220,000 (13.6 percent) households in Washington, D.C. cut the cord. Rounding out the top 10 were Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, Boston and Los Angeles.
San Francisco, which generally leads the nation in the adoption of many new technology products, landed at the bottom of the list. According to Telephia, the San Francisco metropolitan area posted just a 5.5 percent wireless substitution rate, which works out to be a little over 105,000 households. “San Franciscans have traditionally been early adopters of advanced technologies. It is a bit of a surprise to see this metro much lower on the list, but this could be driven by the area’s high income level or its relatively low level of mobile network quality,” says Kanishka Agarwal, Telephia’s vice president of new products. “For topology and zoning reasons, mobile networks in San Francisco are not as reliable as compared to other top cities and it’s a less attractive substitute.” For more information visit www.telephia.com.
Best-regarded insurance firms have rapport with the public
It takes more than good service to impress consumers these days, reveals an Ipsos survey of insurance company reputations. Other than service, what distinguishes the most highly regarded and most trusted insurance companies in America from the industry as a whole is the public’s perceptions about their social responsibility and management.
“We found that the best performers are both market leaders and smaller companies that occupy a niche,” says Nicolas Boyon, a senior vice president with Ipsos Public Affairs and author of the study on consumer perceptions of the insurance industry. “What they have in common is a strong rapport with the public. They’ve regularly and consistently communicated their social values and contributions. They are seen to care about the community, about their employees and about being ethical.”
After Hurricane Katrina devastated many parts of the Gulf Coast in 2005, Ipsos began tracking the insurance industry’s overall reputation - and that of over 30 companies - on a continuous basis, interviewing thousands of American adults in the process, on a range of issues.
The Ipsos study shows that while the reputation of the insurance industry as a whole is relatively poor, every single individual company is doing better - and in some cases, far better.
More Americans hold an “unfavorable” opinion of the insurance industry (44 percent) than have a “favorable” opinion (21 percent) while 35 percent are neither favorable nor unfavorable. Among other sectors measured, only the oil and gas industry fares more poorly (11 percent favorable vs. 72 percent unfavorable). At the other end of the spectrum, the food and beverage industry and charity sector enjoy favorability scores of 61 percent and 60 percent respectively.
The area the insurance industry is perceived to be the best at is “being profitable and providing a good return to shareholders.” This is also the characteristic that is least likely to generate favorability from the general public, ongoing tracking shows.
The industry continues to suffer from a poor image around social responsibility, which has a much greater impact on favorability. More Americans rate the individual insurance industry’s performance as “poor” for being trustworthy, having ethical practices and for caring about communities than rate it as “good.”
The image of individual insurance companies contrasts with that of the industry. Some of the 30 leading companies studied are viewed favorably by as many as 50 percent of the American public, and none is viewed unfavorably by more than 12 percent.
Insurance companies with the highest favorability scores tend to be those with the most policyholders and/or the better-known ones, showing that, as in other sectors, market share and awareness are major predictors of favorability.
However, favorability scores are also largely driven by perceived performance related to service, social responsibility and management. This is how certain insurance companies, some large and some not so large, distinguish themselves from their competitors.
The best-regarded insurance companies also capitalize on the favorable opinion of their policyholders and can count on their active support as advocates. The best-rated companies, many of which are market leaders, receive a favorable opinion from over 80 percent of their policyholders.
This may explain why, one year after Katrina, an Ipsos survey revealed that that nine in 10 homeowners in the Gulf Region (89 percent in Louisiana and 93 percent Mississippi) were satisfied with their insurance company.
Results are based on interviews conducted online with a representative sample of 4,167 adults nationwide, August 3-28, 2006 and interviews conducted by telephone with a representative sample of 881 adults homeowners in Louisiana and Mississippi, August 1-7, 2006. For more information visit www.ipsos-na.com.
USDA food pyramid is working, respondents say
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) food pyramid and manufacturers’ food labels are intended to help adults follow a healthier and more nutritious diet. A Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive Health-Care Poll confirms that many people make use of these information sources. In fact, two out of five (40 percent) adults say they have changed their eating habits to conform to the USDA’s food pyramid and half (51 percent) always or very often refer to food labels when making food choices for themselves or their families. These adults are most likely to cite eating a balanced, nutritious diet as their main reason for utilizing food label information. These are some of the results of an online survey of 2,706 U.S. adults, ages 18 and older, conducted by Harris Interactive, Rochester, N.Y., between September 15 and 19, 2006 for the Wall Street Journal Online.
Most adults (95 percent) have read food labels at some point when making food choices for themselves or their family in order to learn nutritional information about a product. Of adults who read food labels, 39 percent say their most important reason for doing so is to eat a balanced, nutritious diet, compared to managing a medical condition (such as diabetes, high cholesterol or blood pressure) (23 percent), and losing weight (19 percent). Adults whose most important reason for reading food labels is to manage a medical condition are slightly more likely than the others to always or very often read the labels (63 percent vs. 58 percent for a nutritious diet; 52 percent to lose weight).
When making food choices for themselves, adults who read food labels are most likely to look for information regarding fat (83 percent), calorie (76 percent) and sugar content (72 percent). Apart from organic information (26 percent), fiber content was least cited, though still looked at by a majority (56 percent).
When making food choices for a child, parents are most likely to focus on sugar content (82 percent), nutritional value (80 percent) and fat content (73 percent). Interestingly, one-third (34 percent) of parents say they look for organic content information when choosing food for a child.
Of the adults who say they have altered their diets to conform to the USDA’s food pyramid guidelines, 22 percent say they have done so with regard to daily recommended food group servings and 19 percent say they have done so with regard to portion size. For more information visit www.harrisinteractive.com.
Annuities suffer from awareness problem
Recent reports from Chicago researcher Mintel indicate that there are both challenges and opportunities remaining for the annuities industry. Less than half (48 percent) of all respondents to a Mintel consumer survey conducted this year were familiar with annuities, and only 46 percent of those were 65 and over. Of the respondents who were familiar with annuities, more than 60 percent expressed concern with being “locked in” - a significantly higher number than those who cited fees and expenses as a major issue (32 percent).
Total U.S. annuity sales were estimated at $216.5 billion for 2005, and are projected to grow to $261.6 billion by 2009. As the Baby Boom generation reaches retirement, an entire new “retirementality” has emerged - one focused on a much more individualized planning experience than in years past. As retirees look for more flexible options to address retirement planning, annuity providers are adding features to their products to address these concerns.
“Consumers are looking at retirement in a totally different way, and this is where annuities can find their greatest opportunity for expansion,” says Susan Menke, senior financial analyst for Mintel. “Annuities have previously taken a back seat to mutual funds, and now they have the chance to tap into a fresh audience. As Baby Boomers and beyond look for more diverse avenues to grow their retirement funds, annuity companies can take advantage of this.”
Mintel’s research further showed that women were more likely to value the safety aspect of annuities. Men were more likely to state that they valued the fact that purchasing an annuity freed them from making investment decisions. These differences illustrate an even greater need for flexibility in annuity products, combined with a reinforced emphasis on safety and security in simplified consumer marketing campaigns. “So many retirement options are blooming for Boomers now, and companies really need to reposition themselves as having the best possible retirement options,” says Menke. “Since consumers are not as familiar with annuities as they are with other investments, these companies will need to work hard to make their products stand out.” For more information visit www.mintel.com.