January 2007 GfK GroupAd Hoc Research OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY ER- 0484/1/00 2006 OHIM USER...

January 2007GfK Group Ad Hoc Research

OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY

ER- 0484/1/00

2006 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY

Executive summary

January 2007

4

GfK Group Ad Hoc Research

OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY January 2007

DATA SHEET

TARGET PUBLIC: Any individual who has contacted the OHIM between June 2005 to June 2006, whether as an agent or as a proprietor(*)acting directly.

TARGET GROUP: The unit will be the individual.

FIELDWORK: 30/11/2006 to 3/1/2007 QUESTIONNAIRE:

CAWI (Computer Assisted Web Interview), with 2 reminders.

Language: 5 office languages.

(*)INCLUDING EMPLOYEES OF PROPRIETORS (“type-5”agents)

RESPONDENTS: 956 users (520 Agents/436 Proprietors)

• RESPONSE RATE: 8,2% of net mailing addresses• Sampling margin of error: +/-3.23 % on a level of confidence of 95%.



RESULTS

12



2006 was an entirely atypical year in terms of Office activity, as the first RENOVATION of the Community Trade Mark took place, after celebrating its first ten years of existence.

This resulted in attending to six times the number of users when compared to the year before: going from 11,600 to more than 64,000.

The Office has been able of maintaining levels of user satisfaction very similar to those of last year,

while more than satisfactorily carrying out the RENOVATION of the Community Trade Mark:

RESULTS

13



RESULTS: RENOVATIONRESULTS: RENOVATION

PROPRIETOR (N : 59)AGENT (N : 241)

46% 14%

55%(minimum)

82 8067

83 79 70

How satisfied are you with the ...?

... CTM RENEWALS

PROCEDURE?

...payment system of renewals?

... information available on the

state of renewals?

Renewal of a CTM:

Every users satisfied

No user satisfied

PROPRIETORSAGENTS

15



AGENT NOT HAVING COMPLAINED

AGENT HAVING COMPLAINED

68,6

USI

67,0

USI AGENT

59,0

USI

RESULTSUser-Satisfaction -Index (USI) 2005 / 2006User-Satisfaction -Index (USI) 2005 / 2006

PROPRIETOR NOT HAVING COMPLAINED

PROPRIETOR HAVING COMPLAINED

62,5

USI

61,9

USI PROPRIETO

R

55,0

USI

68,3

USI

66,2

USI AGENT

59,5

USI

63,5

USI

62,8

USI PROPRIETO

R

57,3

USI

-0,8

+0,9

2005 2006

PROPRIETORS

AGENTS

Users in general, and especially Agents: satisfied with the OHIM. We don’t see any significant changes but it’s a product of the

compensation of several increases and decreases in the various areas of action that comprise the indicator. As explained below, the changes with regard to last year are substantial in many aspects.

23



RESULTSRESULTSStrengths and WeaknessesLEVEL1: CORE BUSINESS, IMAGE, INFORMATIONLEVEL1: CORE BUSINESS, IMAGE, INFORMATION

PROPRIETORAGENT

59%

49%

58%

41%

20052006

57%62%59%

53%

55%(minimum)

CORE BUSINESS

INFORMATION

20052006

IMAGE INFORMATION


No user satisfied

-9

-8

(N : 520) (N : 436)

67% 65%

IMAGE

50%57%

CORE BUSINESS

+7

Significant increase in satisfaction with the Core Business by Proprietors, positioning it above the bar of “minimums”.

Large decrease in the evaluation of the Information and Communication area in both user groups (Agents and Proprietors). As described in the corresponding section, we believe that the dissatisfaction from both groups comes from different causes.

25



RESULTSRESULTSStrengths and WeaknessesLEVEL2: OVERALL IMAGELEVEL2: OVERALL IMAGE

swiftness

transparency

modernity

prestige

conscientiousness

professionalismquality of

service

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

2005 2006

quality of service

professionalism

conscientiousness

prestige

modernitytransparency

swiftness

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

2005 2006PROPRIETORAGENT

INFLU

EN

CE

SATISFACTION

+

+

-

-

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

INFLU

EN

CE

SATISFACTION

+

-

-

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

+

The diagnosis of GLOBAL IMAGE for the OHIM continues to be very positive and reflects a situation without any major changes in regard to last year.



CORE BUSINESS

USI (Users Satisfaction Index) USI (Users Satisfaction Index)

CORE BUSINESS

APPEAL REGISTERCTM RCD RENEWALS

28



INFLU

EN

CE

SATISFACTION

+

+

-

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

INFLU

EN

CE

SATISFACTION

+

+

-

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

RESULTS: RESULTS: Strengths and WeaknessesCORE BUSINESS

CTM

RCD

REGISTER

APPEAL20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

20062005

CTM

RCD

REGISTER

APPEAL30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

20062005PROPRIETORAGENT

+ 9

+ 5 + 8

+ 7

+ 15

+ 4

20%

--

Satisfaction is significantly improved in the area of Appeals and with the Register. Both CTM and CD maintain the favourable

positions from last year.

Significant improvements in the satisfaction with the four areas,

especially in its evaluation of the Register.

30



RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of needs for action: CTM APPLICATIONS

Simplicity procedures

Ease forms

Speed publication

Time processing & application

Clarity decisions

Completeness grounds decisions

Consistency decisions

Quality/price

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

2005 2006

+7

+9

+5

- 4

AGENT

INFLU

EN

CE

SATISFACTION

+

+

-

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

+

+

-

Like last year, all the aspects of relatively high importance are found in the quadrant of strategic weaknesses. Agents significantly

change their perceptions in:

Spectacular increase in the evaluation of “time”.

Improvement in the Simplicity of administrative procedures

Considerable decline in the evaluation of the “Consistency of the examiners’ decisions”. The influence of this aspect in the overall satisfaction is so strong that it neutralized the positive effects of the improvements.

31


OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY January 2007IN

FLU

EN

CE

SATISFACTION

-

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

+

+

-

RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of needs for action: CTM APPLICATIONS

2005 2006PROPRIETOR

Ease forms

Speed publication

Clarity decisions

Quality/price

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%



Time processing & application

Simplicity proceduresIn the case of

Proprietors the evaluation is kept practically the same as that of

2005

32



INFLU

EN

CE

SATISFACTION

-

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

+

+

-

RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of needs for action: CTM OPPOSITIONS



Clarity decisions

Time for decisionTime for processing

Ease forms


20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

2005 2006AGENT

- 5

+8+7

AGENT (N : 376)

The AGENTS maintain their scores (low) in aspects of importance, but:

considerably improve their satisfaction of Times, both in terms of processing as well as decisions.

decline in the evaluation of the ease of use of forms

33



INFLU

EN

CE

-

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

+

+

-

RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of needs for action: CTM OPPOSITIONS

Ease forms

Time for processing

Time for decision

Clarity decisions



10% 20% 40% 50% 60% 70%Simplicity procedures

2005 2006PROPRIETOR

+12

+13

+8

+8

PROPRIETOR (N : 111) SATISFACTIO

N

The PROPRIETORS improve their evaluations in practically all measured aspects, placing their scores in parameters very similar to those of the Agents.

Keep in mind that last year their evaluations were considerably lower than those of the Agents.

34


OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY January 2007IN

FLU

EN

CE

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

SATISFACTION

AGENT (N : 108)

RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of needs for action: CTM INVALIDITY

INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE

PROPRIETOR

Consistency of decisions


Time for processing

Ease forms


10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

+10 -7 Clarity decisions

-7

2005 2006AGENT The priorities for action must continue to focus on: “Completeness and depth of grounds for decision” “Consistency of examiners’ decisions”. Improvement in processing Time.

Decline in the evaluations of the ease of use of forms and clarity of decisions.

Significant…

36



RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of needs for action: RCD APPLICATIONS

20052006

AGENT

Substantial improvement in satisfaction with regard to…

Speed of publication Completeness and depth of grounds for decisions

Decline in the evaluation of Ease of use of forms

RCD area doesn’t present any weakness, not even in aspects of low importance: this must be considered in itself

as one of the major strengths of the Office.

INFL

UE

NC

E

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

SATISFACTION

Filing design application


Ease forms

Speed of publication

Security and confidentiality


Completeness grounds decisions Quality/price

40% 45% 50% 55% 75% 80%

Clarity decisions

+7

+3

-4

37



RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of needs for action: RCD APPLICATIONS

INFL

UEN

CE

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES SATISFACTION

Security and confidentiality

Quality/price



Ease forms


Filing design application

45% 50% 70% 75% 80% 85%

Clarity of decisions


-4

+3

-8

+8

2005

2006PROPRIETORSubstantial improvement in satisfaction with regard to…


Simplicity of administrative procedures

Decline in the evaluation of…

Filing a design application

Security and dealing confidentially with information

39



2005 2006AGENT

RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of needs for action: APPEAL APPLICATIONS

2005 2006PROPRIETOR

The APPEALS area presents the most positive development of all of those analyzed: it improves in all the measured aspects, both in the Agents’ opinion as well as that of the Proprietors. These improvement include:

Overcoming two significant “weaknesses”: simplicity in administrative procedures and ease of use of forms.

Placing Clarity of decisions and Completeness and depth of grounds for decisions very close to being considered “strengths”.

INFL

UE

NC

E

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

+4


Completeness

grounds decisions

TimeEase forms

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Simplicity procedures+8

+11 +7

+6


SATISFACTION

INFL

UE

NC

E

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

SATISFACTION

+7

Ease forms

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

+11

+18

+5

Time


of decisionsConsistency

Completeness

grounds decisions


41



RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of needs for action: REGISTER

INFL

UEN

CE

SATISFACTION

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

INFL

UEN

CE

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

2005 2006PROPRIETOR2005 2006AGENT

PROPRIETOR (N : 260)AGENT (N : 354)

Swiftness

Quality

Swiftness 2005

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Swiftness 2006

Quality

Accuracy

Swiftness

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Accuracy

+7

In 2005, the only aspect that was measured was the OHIM’s swiftness in the issue of documents such as licenses…. The Proprietors very significantly improve their evaluation, while the Agents do so moderately. 2006 included two additional characteristics:

Accuracy of the information: the most important aspect for the users and the highest evaluation, converting it into a “strength” for the area.

Quality of the documents: an

aspect of secondary

importance for the Agents, but highly

valued / very important for the Proprietors, with

acceptable evaluations.

43



CTM EMPLOYEES

2005 2006AGENT RCD EMPLOYEES

APPEAL EMPLOYEES OHIM employees constitute the Office’s greatest strengths. And this affirmation applies to all of the areas of the Core Business.

In many cases this is the element that takes the overall evaluations of core business areas to a higher position.

Employees maintain very high evaluations in terms of professionalism, reliability and competence, but…

we observe a strong decline in aspects that have to do with its “accessibility”: easy to contact and efficient in responding to telephone enquiries.

INFL

UEN

CE

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS


Responsive to users ’needs

Polite, friendly

Easy to contact

Efficient telephone enquiries

With professionalism

Reliable

Competent

40% 50% 70% 80% 90%

-7

+3

+3

-3

INFL

UEN

CE

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS


Competent

Polite, friendly

Responsive to users ’needs

45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 75% 80% 85%

-3

-4

Easy to contact

Reliable+4

With professionalism

INFL

UEN

CE

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

SATISFACTION

-4

-4

+4

+4 +8

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

’



Easy to contactPolite,

friendly

With professionalism+4

Responsive to usersneeds

Reliable

Competent

46



STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

2005 2006

AGENT

SATISFACTION

USI (Users Satisfaction Index)

INFORMAT. & COMMUNIC.

RESULTS: RESULTS: Strengths and WeaknessesLEVEL2: INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION

Ease of identifying the right person

Ease of obtaining the right

information

Clarity

replacing paper by e-communication

Speed of response enquiries

Accuracy

Command of the languages

Completeness

Fees system

Handling of fees

Current accounts

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

-5

-4

-3

AGENT (N : 520)

They continue to positively evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the information, but their opinion significantly declines in terms of ease of identifying the right person to speak to, ease of obtaining the right information and clarity of information.

It’s clear that this perception is related to the low evaluations given to employees when referring to their accessibility.

47



Are you aware of/have you ever visited the OHIM’s website?

YES 2005: 97%

Please rate OHIM’s website with regard to the following aspects:

RESULTS: RESULTS: Strengths and WeaknessesLEVEL2: INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION / OHIM´s website

YES 2006: 99%

AGENT

40% 45% 50% 60% 70% 75% 80%

Clarity of the structure

Completeness of the contents

Speed at which the information is

updated

Usefulness of contents

+5

2005

2006

Their overall evaluation of the OHIM website exceeds the already high evaluation obtained last year. The clarity of information, which constituted their only weakness, has improved to the extent that it has become one of their strengths.

In terms of tools: • CTM Online continues to be the most used

and highly evaluated tool of them all: 9 out of 10 agents say they frequently use it and their evaluations remain at last year’s optimum level.

• The use of e-filing CTM is growing (70% of the Agents use it), which maintains the positive evaluations from last year in speed and security/confidentiality.

• The use of My Page also increases, which goes from 28% of users to 38%, significantly improving its evaluation in all the measured characteristics.

• On the other hand, we observed a loss of users in Design tools (e-filing RCD and RCD Online), accompanied by a decline in their evaluations.

48



STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS


2005 2006

PROPRIETOR

USI (Users Satisfaction Index)

INFORMAT. & COMMUNIC.


Current accounts

Handling of fees

Fees system

Completeness

Command of the languages

Accuracy

Clarity

20% 30% 40% 60% 70% 80%

replacing paper by e-communication

Ease of identifying the right person

Ease of obtaining the right information

Speed of response enquiries

-10

+7

PROPRIETOR (N : 436)

They maintain their poor evaluations from last year in all aspects related to information provided by the OHIM, except in the aspects related to completeness and accuracy, whose results have improved.

Their evaluation of the fees system dramatically declines.

49



-8 Clarity of the structure

Are you aware of/have you ever visited the OHIM’s website?

Please rate OHIM’s website with regard to the following aspects:

RESULTS: RESULTS: Strengths and WeaknessesLEVEL2: INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION / OHIM´s website

YES 2005: 88% YES 2006: 94%

PROPRIETOR

40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%

Usefulness of contents

Speed at which the information is

updated

Completeness of the contents

PROPRIETOR

2005

2006

+6The use of all e-business tools decreases, especially the ones related to RCD, but also those related to CTM.

Nevertheless, among those who continue to use them, the evaluations improve with regard to last year.

We believe this is explained by the fact that the more “expert” Proprietors have continued using them, as many complaints were collected on this aspect in the suggestions section of the survey.

50



68 70

AGENTS

26%

I receive it but I don’t

usually read it

7%

Don’t know3%

I am not aware of

it32%

I don’t receive it

32%

Do you regularly receive and read Alicante News?

How would you evaluate Alicante News?

I regularly receive

and read it

RECEIVE IT

33%

PROPRIETORS

I receive it but I don’t usually read

it4%

Yes, I regularly receive and

read it6%

Don’t know6%

36%

48%

I don’t receive it

I am not aware of

it

10%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS


55%(minimum)


No user satisfied

We recommend making an increased effort to

distribute it since, when looking at the

results, it could contribute very favorably to the Office’s image



RESULTSOther questions

54



AGENT PROPRIETOR

RESULTSRESULTSPERCEIVED EVOLUTION OF THE OHIM

Generally speaking, do you feel that the OHIM has performed better than, the same as or worse than last

year?

TOTAL AGENT (N : 520) TOTAL PROPRIETOR (N : 436)

The same

41%

Better35%

Don’t know

17%Worse7%

The same

31%

Better16%

50%Worse3%

Don’t know

55



Generally, and taking into account all the aspects covered by the questionnaire, what is your OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE

OHIM as a whole?

RESULTSRESULTS BY COUNTRIES

7163 66

58

45 46

80 8274

70 66

54 51

38

5867

Germany France United Kingdom

Italy SpainGermany France United Kingdom


No user satisfied

55%(minimum)

N= 156 N= 45 N= 60 N= 52 N= 63 N= 105 N= 72 N= 55

MEDIA AGENT: 64 MEDIA PROPRIETOR: 55

AGENT PROPRIETOR20052006

20052006

Once again we found that, whatever aspect is analysed, for both Agents and Proprietors (when the data is available), British users are the least satisfied group of users, while Italian users -including the addition of Spanish users this year-, are the ones who show the highest level of satisfaction with the OHIM.



CONCLUSIONS and DIAGNOSTICS

59



CONCLUSIONS

A good level of overall satisfaction from both types of users (Agents and Proprietors), but better among the Agents and without significant changes in regard to last year in both groups.

Appreciable differences between agents and proprietors, not only in their level of satisfaction, but also in their evaluation criteria and requirements.

The number of complaints increases, but the efficiency and level of resolving them improves.

Significant improvements in satisfaction with the area of Appeals and with the Register, in both groups of users. In the case of the Proprietors, the increase in satisfaction extends throughout all areas of the Core Business.

There is a generalised feeling of loss of accessibility of Office employees.

Just like last year, the main strengths (aspects of importance and very highly valued) of the OHIM, for both Agents and Proprietors are: its Global Image, the Community Design and Models area, and its employees (in all areas). The Information area (with a special mention of the website) is a strength for the Agents, but with aspects to be improved for the Proprietors.

There is a decline in the use and satisfaction with e-business tools among the Proprietors, while this improves among the Agents.

Majority perception of improvement in the functioning of the OHIM in regard to a year ago.



Ángeles Bacete; e-mail: [email protected]

THANK YOU!

January 2007 GfK GroupAd Hoc Research OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY ER- 0484/1/00 2006 OHIM USER...

Documents

Transcript of January 2007 GfK GroupAd Hoc Research OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY ER- 0484/1/00 2006 OHIM USER...