[This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research
Transcript of [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research
![Page 1: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
![Page 2: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
[This page intentionally left blank]
![Page 3: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results
The Issuer’s Role in Travel Card Program Success
Richard J. Palmer Professor of Accounting
Southeast Missouri State University
Mahendra Gupta Professor of Accounting and Management
Washington University in St. Louis
July 2016
© 2016, RPMG Research Corporation. No part of this manuscript may be duplicated, reproduced, or quoted without the
express written permission of Richard J. Palmer and Mahendra Gupta. To request permission, contact Richard Palmer by
phone (618.559.5137) or e-mail ([email protected]).
![Page 4: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Preface | 4
PREFACE
We are pleased to present the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results. The report is based
on data and analysis from over 1,300 travel card-using organizations across the U.S. and Canada, and our
intent is to identify and understand market trends and the factors that influence the use of and benefits
associated with travel cards. Our analysis of the survey data is divided into three documents to assist the
reader in finding the desired information in the most convenient manner, as follows:
► Market Trends and Best Practices (the “Main” report)
o Analyses of current trends in travel card use,
o In-depth examination of factors critical to the success of travel cards, and
o Identification of future trends and growth opportunities for travel card use.
► Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size
o Benchmark data to evaluate travel card programs, broken down within corporate (by size and
industry) and government and not-for-profit sectors (states and state agencies, city and county
governments, colleges and universities, schools, and not-for-profit organizations).
► The Issuer’s Role in Travel Card Program Success (this report)
o An examination of customer satisfaction with and importance of travel card features and services
(across economic, data transmission, service and support, reporting, integration, and card
management factors) and how they affect travel card program performance.
A Table of Contents for the current report, as well as a Quick Guide to Other Reports, which provides chapter
content for the other two reports, can be found on the next two pages.
We want to express our sincere thanks to the organizations and providers that participated in the Survey and
offered their valuable input. We hope that the unselfish commitment of their time results in more efficient
means to pay for travel.
Richard J. Palmer Mahendra Gupta
Southeast Missouri State University Washington University in St. Louis
![Page 5: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Table of Contents | 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Below is a listing of the chapters included in this Report. Click on a chapter title to jump to that page.
To return to the Table of Contents, click the link in the lower left corner of any page.
Chapter Title Page #
i Preface ............................................................................................................................. 4
ii Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. 5
iii A Quick Guide to Other Reports ........................................................................................ 6
iv Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 7
CONTENT
01 Introduction to Customer Satisfaction Analysis ............................................................... 11
02 Use and Value of Travel Card Features .......................................................................... 13
03 Importance of and Satisfaction with Card Economics, Service, and Support ................... 17
04 Importance of and Satisfaction with Card Technology and Reporting.............................. 21
05 Critical Dimensions of Customer Satisfaction .................................................................. 28
06 Customer Satisfaction and Travel Card Program Performance ....................................... 32
07 Customer Rationale for Intent to Switch Card Issuers ..................................................... 39
08 Other Reports of Interest ................................................................................................. 42
CONCLUSION, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, AND APPENDICES
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 43
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 44
About the Authors ........................................................................................................... 45
Sample Description and Outline to Appendices .............................................................. 46
Appendix A: Historical Review of Customer Satisfaction with Travel Cards.................... 49
Appendix B: Importance and Satisfaction Ratings by Market Segment .......................... 58
![Page 6: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
A Quick Guide 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results to Other Reports | 6
A QUICK GUIDE TO OTHER REPORTS
The analysis of the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey is broken into three reports to help the
reader find desired information in the most expeditious manner. The three reports are entitled:
► Main Report: Market Trends and Best Practices
► Report #2: Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size
► Report #3: The Issuer’s Role in Travel Card Program Success
The content of Report #3 is the subject of this document. Information on where analyses may be found in the
other two reports is identified below.
Main Report: Market Trends and Best Practices
Section Title Chapter
An Introduction to Corporate Travel Cards and the Survey Sample 1-2
Organizational Goals for the Travel Card Program and Travel Budget 3
Travel Card Spending Norms 4
Travel Card Spending Growth Trends 5
Travel Card Purchases and Areas of Potential Growth 6
Mobile Technology and the Sharing Economy 7
Travel Policy: Objectives and Trends 8
Changes in Booking Practices 9
Expense Reporting and Expense Management Software 10
Virtual Card Use for Travel 11
Best Practices 12-16
Global Travel Card Programs 17
Liability Regimes 18
Direct Billing 19
Meeting and Prepaid Cards 20
Trends in Control and Compliance 21
Fraud and Travel Card Misuse 22
Summary: The Advantages of Travel Cards and Best Practices 23
Report #2: Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size
Section Title Chapter
Benchmarks and Opportunities: An Introduction 1
Corporations (Fortune 500-Size, Large, Middle, and Small Market) 2-5
Government Agencies (Federal, State, City, and County) 6-8
Educational Institutions (Colleges, Universities, and School Districts) 9-10
Not-for-Profit Organizations 11
Other Government and Not-for-Profit Information and Opportunity 12
Benchmark Statistics by Organization Type App. A
Benchmark Statistics by Corporate Industry App. B
![Page 7: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Executive Summary | 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In December 2015, the “2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey” was
released to 6,013 travel card program administrators at organizations that were
either customers of one of thirteen major card issuers (including Bank of America
Merrill Lynch, BMO Harris Bank, Citibank, Comdata, Elan Financial Services, HSBC,
JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, Scotiabank, SunTrust Bank, US Bank, US Bank
Canada, and Wells Fargo) or members of the National Association of Purchasing
Card Professionals or the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. One
thousand three hundred eleven responses were received by March 9, 2016 for a
response rate of 21.8%. All major travel card-issuing brands (American Express,
Diner’s Club, MasterCard, and Visa) are represented in the survey response.
The 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results provide a
comprehensive examination of organizational use of travel cards. The benchmarks
and analyses in this Report are designed to provide readers with facts and tools to
help them evaluate and grow their travel card programs and maximize the benefits
they derive from travel card technology.
A broad spectrum of organizations is represented in the final sample, allowing
analysis of travel card practices in both Corporate and Not-for-Profit sectors.
Spending on travel cards is analyzed in this Report with respect to past, present,
and projected spending patterns.
On the whole, the survey results present a positive portrait of ongoing improvement
in travel card value and technology in the marketplace. The major findings of the
survey by chapter are as follows:
Use and Value of Travel Card Features
► Travel card-using organizations most frequently use and more highly value
card features such as fraud protection, cash back rebate given to the
company, travel-related insurance, and the higher spending limits sometimes
needed to support heavy travelers.
► Mobile applications supporting travel card use are used less frequently, but
are rated as highly valued and likely to be used more in the near future.
Travel card-using organizations more frequently use and more highly value features such as fraud protection, rebates, travel-related insurance, and higher spending limits to support heavy travelers
![Page 8: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Executive Summary | 8
► Some valued features of travel cards are less frequently used, including
loyalty points/awards given to company, loyalty points/awards given to
employees, global services, airline club membership, concierge services,
travel upgrades, and international companion travel.
► Compared to those who only travel domestically, organizations engaged in
international travel are more likely to use and place greater value on higher
spending limits, medical and legal services, mobile applications to support
travel card use, and extended deadlines before a late fee is assessed.
Importance of and Satisfaction with Card Economics, Service, and
Support
► Customer satisfaction with economic aspects of the travel card and
elements of customer service and support has risen steadily over the past
decade.
► Customer satisfaction ratings increased on most elements relating to
economic aspects of travel card use between 2013 and 2016.
► Customer satisfaction ratings held steady or increased for customer
service and support associated with travel card use between 2013 and
2016.
► The greatest positive satisfaction gaps (where satisfaction is greater than
importance) are for cash advance fees, loyalty awards/rewards, late
payment fees, and foreign exchange fees. Customers continue to report
significant negative satisfaction gaps for rebates/incentives tied to travel
card spending.
► Notable positive importance-satisfaction gaps are noted for travel
management services, expense management services, sponsorship of
commercial card user conferences or other training programs, and the
handling of delinquent accounts. Conversely, notable negative gaps
remain for the speed of lost/stolen card replacement and the handling of
disputed transactions.
Customer satisfaction with the majority of both the economic aspects of the travel card and elements of customer service and support has risen steadily over the past
decade
![Page 9: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Executive Summary | 9
Importance of and Satisfaction with Card Technology and Reporting
► A variety of data elements captured in travel card transactions have a
satisfaction score that is significantly higher than the corresponding
importance rating, including: carbon emission data related to travel
purchases, taxpayer identification number, VAT tax information, airline data
(travel leg), airline data (city pairs), hotel street address, and fare basis code.
► Customer satisfaction for most aspects of data integration increased between
2013 and 2016.
► There are no notable positive or negative satisfaction gaps associated with
travel card program management capabilities (e.g., real-time ability to modify
spending limits). Further, the level of customer satisfaction for all survey
items relating to travel card program management software features and
capabilities increased between 2013 and 2016.
► Travel card spend reporting appears to be a “pain point” for users, with
significant negative gaps between importance and satisfaction reported for
items of higher importance, including the ability to customize reports, ability
to track disputed transactions, readability of reports, overall reporting
package, integrity of data contained in reports, and access to past/present
cardholder statements. On a positive note, customer satisfaction improved
on many key reporting features and items between 2013 and 2016.
Critical Dimensions of Customer Satisfaction
► The ability of bank technology to support travel card program management,
the reporting package, and customer service and support are the three most
important “overall” issues for customers.
► There are three particular service categories of highest importance to travel
card-using organizations: (1) “real-time” program management capabilities,
(2) reporting (including the readability of reports, and access to past/present
cardholder statements), and (3) risk management (including liability
protection for lost/stolen cards, speed of lost/stolen card replacement, and
the handling of disputed transactions) are of highest importance to
customers.
There are three particular service categories of highest importance to travel card-using organizations: real-time program management capabilities, reporting, and risk management
![Page 10: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Executive Summary | 10
► The largest gaps between customer ratings of importance and their
satisfaction primarily relate to travel card spend reporting. Other gaps
are noted in the integration of data into the organization’s accounting and
other systems, rebates and incentives tied to card spending, speed of
lost/stolen card replacement, and handling of disputed transactions.
Customer Satisfaction and Travel Card Program Performance
► “Best practice” (BP) travel card programs assign greater importance to the
economic outcomes and data received from travel card use than “needs
improvement” counterparts. Further, BP programs report higher satisfaction with
card issuer performance, in particular as it relates to the integration of travel card
data into the organization’s accounting/information systems, customer service
and support, and the economic outcomes associated with travel card use.
► High aggregate satisfaction with travel card issuer performance is
associated with better travel card program structure and performance
(higher card distribution, higher travel card spending, card-promotive
mandates, and greater activities to maintain control over travel card
activities). A significantly important outcome of high satisfaction is a
multifold reduction in organization’s interest in considering switching
card issuers, an activity that is costly for both user and issuer.
Customer Rationale for Intent to Switch Card Issuers
► About 13% of survey respondents indicate that they are currently considering
switching their card issuer, down from 14% in 2013.
► Inadequate revenue sharing with rebates, up-front financial incentive
provided by another issuer, and benefits from consolidation of banking
business are the most important reasons the consideration for switching
travel card issuers.
13% of respondents are considering switching card issuers, down
from 14% in 2013
Higher satisfaction with travel card issuer performance is associated with better travel card program structure and performance, as well as reducing the organization’s interest in considering switching card issuers
![Page 11: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Introduction to Customer 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Satisfaction Analysis | 11
CHAPTER 01
INTRODUCTION TO CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION ANALYSIS
Customer Satisfaction with the Travel Card Issuer Relationship
This Report is designed to examine trends in customer satisfaction with their travel card
program and highlight opportunities for card users and issuers to strengthen the value of
their travel card product and related technologies. Our analyses are based on responses
to the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey, the details of which are included
in the Addendum at the end of this report.
This report is unique inasmuch as its purpose is to provide the card users and issuer with
information that will enable them to improve upon the suite of features that are imbedded
in travel card technology, the economics of the travel card relationship, the data
transmitted about travel card purchases, the level of customer service and support, and
(in broad terms) card technology itself (e.g., the reporting package, integration with other
software, the ability to self-manage the travel card program). Further, the report
documents the connection between card issuer performance (along a variety of
dimensions) and travel card program performance customer retention.
Introduction to the Satisfaction Analysis
Across six sections of the survey were embedded several questions related to card-
issuer performance that consisted of two parts. The first part asked respondents to rate
the importance of and the second part asked about their satisfaction with (1) economic
elements associated with the card product, (2) card issuer service and support of the
card product, (3) data capture, (4) integration of card data with business information
systems, (5) capabilities of travel card software technology, and (6) travel card reporting.
The ratings are made on a seven-point Likert-type scale, where “1” means not important
or very dissatisfied and “7” means very important or very satisfied. The value of the
importance/satisfaction component of the survey is that it reveals strengths to build upon
and opportunities to make improvements for both card issuers and users in current travel
card programs.
![Page 12: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Introduction to Customer 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Satisfaction Analysis | 12
When the level of importance is significantly higher than the level of satisfaction, the
resulting satisfaction dissonance could be addressed by redeploying resources to raise
the level of user satisfaction. Card users can benefit from this analysis by recognizing
satisfaction gaps specific to their organization and working within their organization and
with their card issuer to address those issues. The card issuer can benefit by proactively
addressing and managing these gaps for their users’ benefit.
Caution is warranted in interpreting some importance-satisfaction gaps discussed in this
Report as they may not be exclusively related to the travel card program. Some gaps
may be affected by factors other than the travel card program, such as external economic
events or customer experience with their internal information, expense management, or
travel booking systems. It is also important to note that any gap or year-over-year
difference in any importance-satisfaction metric of less than +/- 0.5 is not statistically
significant.
Analysis Parameters and Historical Context
Occasionally, one or more survey respondent may have given an incomplete response
resulting in a different number of responses for different questions. Throughout this
Report, our analysis of any given question will be based on usable responses to each
question. In addition, we have purged unusual outlier responses to specific questionnaire
items when appropriate to facilitate a meaningful understanding of the data.
Furthermore, unless otherwise specified, information provided in any exhibit represents
the average of the responses to a question (whether by all respondents or a subset of
respondents). Finally, as with other analysis in the 2016 Results, Small Market
Corporations (with annual revenue of less than $25 million) are excluded from the
importance-satisfaction analyses, but are discussed separately in summary fashion in
Chapter 5 of the companion report entitled, “Program Profiles by Organization Type and
Size.”
Finally, throughout this Report we make comparisons to our previously released Travel
Card Reports released in 2009, 2011, and 2013. Those reports reflect responses
collected in December (of the year prior to the report’s release) through March of the
report release year. Previously, we labeled data as being from the year preceding the
report release. To simplify comparisons and maintain a proper understanding of the time
interval between data collection points, we will refer to current and previous years’ data
based on the year of the survey closing date. Thus, this report will make comparisons of
the current “2016” responses to “2009," “2011,” and “2013” survey results where
appropriate. Because of continuously changing global economic climate over the 2009-
2016 time-period, we encourage readers to consider the timing of the responses in the
interpretation of the Report’s findings and historical comparisons.
![Page 13: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Use and Value of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Travel Card Features | 13
CHAPTER 02
USE AND VALUE OF
TRAVEL CARD FEATURES
In addition to their role as payment facilitator, travel cards have other value-
adding features for the organization. The purpose of this chapter is to
understand the extent to which various commercial card features are used and
valued by the customer base.
Travel Card Feature Use
Along the horizontal axis, Exhibit 1 on the next page provides a visual image reflecting
the percentage of respondents using particular travel card features. Thus, one can see
that fraud protection (used by 86% of respondents), cash back rebate given to the
company (64%), travel-related insurance services (62%), emergency services (56%),
higher spending limits (sometimes needed to support heavy travel, 35%) are frequent
features of travel card programs. Less common features of travel card programs include
medical and legal services (27%), mobile applications supporting travel card use (21%),
extended deadlines before late fee is assessed (19%), loyalty points/awards given to
company (18%), loyalty points/awards given to employees (17%), global services (13%),
airline club membership (12%), concierge services (12%), travel upgrades (10%) and
international companion travel (6%).
The vertical axis of Exhibit 1 reflects the overall value of the feature (on a 7-point scale,
where 1=little or no value and 7=very significant value) to the respondent organization.
Generally, the more frequently used features are those most highly valued by
respondents. Thus, fraud protection (6.3), cash back rebate given to the company (5.7),
higher spending limits (4.4), and travel-related insurance services (4.3) are most highly-
valued. In a deviation from the general rule, mobile applications supporting travel card
use (4.0) and extended deadlines before late fee is assessed (3.8) are more highly
valued than emergency services (3.7). Lesser used features are apprised of lower value
to customers, including loyalty points/awards given to company (3.7), medical and legal
services (2.9), loyalty points/awards given to employees (2.8), global services (2.8), travel
upgrades (2.8), airline club membership (2.5), concierge services (2.4), and international
companion travel (2.1).
![Page 14: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Use and Value of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Travel Card Features | 14
Exhibit 1: Percentage of Organizations with Travel Card Features and the Overall Value of Those Features (where 1=little or no value and 7=very significant value)
Not all travel card features will be of equal value to different type of organizations.
Exhibit 2 on the next page examines the use and value for features broken down by
whether or not the organization’s employees engage in international travel on a regular
basis.1 The Exhibit shows that organizations that engage in international travel on a
regular basis:
► are more likely to use and place significantly greater value on higher spending
limits, medical and legal services, mobile applications to support travel card use
and extended deadlines before a late fee is assessed,2
► are more likely to use and place moderately greater value on cash back to the
company and emergency services, and
► are more likely to use but place no greater value on global services and travel-
related insurance services.
1 An organization is identified as conducting “regular international travel” if it identified as “A multinational company with significant operations and sales in multiple continents around the globe” or answered affirmatively to the question “Does your organization conduct any travel card spending outside of the U.S. and Canada?” Organizations identified as not conducting regular international travel are not multinationals or answer “no” to the aforementioned question.
2 As is our convention throughout this Report, the customer ratings of importance, satisfaction, or value (all measured on 7-point scales) of any group is considered “significantly different” from another group if the mean difference exceeds 0.50. In Exhibit 1 we also highlight areas of moderate difference (0.30 or greater).
![Page 15: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Use and Value of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Travel Card Features | 15
Exhibit 2: Percentage of Organizations Using Travel Card Features and the Value Generated by Those Features
Percentage of Organizations
Conducting Regular
International Travel with
Feature
Percentage of Organizations With Little or
No International
Travel with Feature
Difference in Use
Value of Feature to
Organizations Conducting
Regular International
Travel
Value of Feature to
Organizations With Little or
No International
Travel
Difference in Value
Features More Often Used and More Highly Valued by Organizations with Regular Global Travel
Higher spending limits 43% 23% 20% 4.7 3.9 0.8
Medical and legal services 32% 21% 11% 3.1 2.6 0.5
Mobile applications supporting travel card use 25% 15% 10% 4.1 3.6 0.5
Extended deadlines before late fee is assessed 22% 15% 7% 4.0 3.5 0.5
Cash back (rebate) given to company 72% 53% 19% 5.8 5.5 0.3
Emergency services 64% 45% 19% 3.8 3.4 0.4
Features More Often Used by Organizations with Regular Global Travel, But No More nor Less Valued
Global services 16% 8% 8% 2.9 2.7 0.2
Travel-related insurance services 69% 51% 18% 4.3 4.3 0.0
Features Used and Valued Similarly by Organizations with and without Regular Global Travel
Fraud protection 88% 83% 5% 6.2 6.4 -0.2
Loyalty points/awards given to employees 17% 18% -1% 2.3 3.4 -1.1
Features Used Similarly by Those Organizations with and without Regular Global Travel, but Moderately More Valued by Those without Regular Global Travel
Concierge services 14% 10% 4% 2.3 2.7 -0.4
Airline club membership 14% 11% 3% 2.4 2.7 -0.3
Cash back (rebate) given to employees 6% 7% -1% 1.6 2.5 -0.9
Travel upgrades 11% 10% 1% 2.5 3.1 -0.6
International companion travel 6% 7% -1% 1.9 2.5 -0.6
Features More Often Used and More Highly Valued by Organizations without Global Operations
Loyalty points/awards given to company 15% 24% -9% 3.5 4.0 -0.5
![Page 16: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Use and Value of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Travel Card Features | 16
Conclusion
Travel card-using organizations most frequently use and more highly value card features
such as fraud protection, cash back rebate given to the company, travel-related
insurance services, and the higher spending limits sometimes needed to support heavy
travel. Some items that are highly valued but less frequently used include mobile
applications supporting travel card use and extended deadlines before a late fee is
assessed. Emergency services are frequently a part of the travel card suite of features
but are rated of moderate value by respondents. Other features of travel cards are both
less frequently used and rated of less value, including loyalty points/awards given to
company, loyalty points/awards given to employees, global services, airline club
membership, concierge services, travel upgrades, and international companion travel.
Organizations engaged in international travel are more likely to use and place greater
value on higher spending limits, medical and legal services, mobile applications to
support travel card use, and extended deadlines before a late fee is assessed. These
same organizations are more likely to use emergency services (global travel services),
assessing the same high (low) value to these features as organizations that do not
conduct regular international travel.
What features would you like to see that do not currently
exist for your travel card program?
Mobile (text) fraud notification.
Director, Global Travel Services, Fortune 500-Size corporation
Integration of travel plans into fraud detection systems to avoid false positives and transactions being declined while employees are traveling.
Procurement Analyst, Fortune 500-Size corporation
Mobile applications for card users with real time verification of suspect transactions.
Manager of Accounts Payable, Large Market corporation
Ability to utilize digital pay app.
Assistant Controller, Middle Market corporation
Mobile application where the card resides on the smart phone for use.
Business Services Supervisor, Government and Not-for-Profit organization
![Page 17: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Economics, Service, and Support | 17
CHAPTER 03
IMPORTANCE OF AND SATISFACTION WITH
CARD ECONOMICS, SERVICE, AND SUPPORT
This chapter will deal with the first two of the six satisfaction sections. The rest
will be discussed in the following chapter. A historical review of customer
satisfaction responses between 2007 and 2016 is presented in Appendix A of
this report.
Economic Aspects of Travel Cards
Exhibit 3 shows respondent ratings regarding the importance of and satisfaction with ten
factors associated with the economics of travel cards, in descending order of importance.
As shown in the Exhibit, the largest and only significant negative satisfaction gap (-0.59)
relates to rebates/incentives tied to travel card spending.
On the other hand, customer satisfaction with six of the ten financial aspects outweighs
the perceived importance of those factors. The greatest positive satisfaction gaps (where
satisfaction is 0.50 or more greater than importance) are for cash advance fees, loyalty
awards/rewards, late payment fees, and foreign exchange fees.
Exhibit 3: Importance of and Satisfaction with Economic Aspects of Travel Cards (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction Difference
Economic Item
Liability protection for lost/stolen cards 6.32 6.01 -0.31
Liability protection from card misuse 6.14 5.84 -0.30
Rebates/incentives tied to card spending 5.92 5.33 -0.59
Overall economic relationship with card issuer in relation to travel cards 5.84 5.52 -0.32
Cost of lost/stolen card replacement 5.59 5.86 0.27
Bank fees to obtain travel cards 5.41 5.68 0.27
Late payment fees 4.15 5.10 0.95
Foreign exchange fees 4.01 4.74 0.73
Loyalty awards/rewards 3.57 4.68 1.11
Cash advance fees 2.77 4.84 2.07
![Page 18: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Economics, Service, and Support | 18
Customer Service and Support
Exhibit 4 shows respondent ratings regarding the importance of and satisfaction with
seventeen different aspects of travel card customer service and support, in descending
order of importance. As shown in the Exhibit, notable negative gaps exist in speed of
lost/stolen card replacement (-0.57) and the handling of disputed transactions (-0.53).
Customer ratings of satisfaction significantly exceed importance with regard to several
items of lower importance, including travel management services (1.31), expense
management services (0.76), sponsorship of commercial card "user conferences” or
other training programs (0.74), and the handling of delinquent accounts (0.50).
Exhibit 4: Importance of and Satisfaction with Travel Card Customer Service and Support
(where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction Difference
Customer Service and Support Item
Speed of lost/stolen card replacement 6.20 5.63 -0.57
Handling of disputed transactions 6.14 5.61 -0.53
Friendliness and respect shown by card issuer personnel 5.94 5.80 -0.14
Service and support in travel card program implementation 5.93 5.48 -0.45
Quality of help from "help desk" 5.93 5.45 -0.48
Overall customer service and support 5.88 5.40 -0.48
Average time elapsed for "help desk" to resolve a problem 5.85 5.36 -0.49
Hours of "help desk" availability 5.72 5.54 -0.18
Training materials and support 5.26 4.89 -0.37
Level of assistance in identifying best applications for travel card 5.21 5.03 -0.18
Knowledge of the organization's information systems technology and expense reporting process 5.11 4.85 -0.26
Work with suppliers to ensure quality or suitability of data passed through system 4.81 4.75 -0.06
Assistance in obtaining supplier travel card acceptance 4.72 5.07 0.35
Handling of delinquent accounts 4.65 5.15 0.50
Sponsorship of commercial card "User Conferences" or other training programs 4.04 4.78 0.74
Expense management services 4.00 4.76 0.76
Travel management services 3.29 4.60 1.31
![Page 19: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Economics, Service, and Support | 19
A Historical Perspective
As noted above, Appendix A of this Report provides the reader with a history of customer
satisfaction responses for both economic items and customer service and support items
for the years 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2016. A review of those figures shows that
customer satisfaction ratings:
► increased for 9 of the 10 items relating to economic aspects of the travel card
(shown in Exhibit 3) and stayed the same for another item between 2013 and 2016,
and
► held steady or increased for 16 of the 17 aspects of customer service and support
(shown in Exhibit 4) that were previously reported between 2013 and 2016.
Taken together, it appears that card issuers are making ongoing efforts to maintain a
viable economic proposition with travel cards and are investing in their operations to
maintain customer satisfaction.
Importance and Satisfaction by Market Segment
Appendix B of this Report provides the reader with respondent evaluations of importance
and satisfaction with economic and customer service and support items for Fortune 500-
Size Corporations, Large Market Corporations, Middle Market Corporations, and
Government and Not-for-Profit Organizations.
Conclusion
Customer satisfaction with the economic aspects of the travel card and elements of
customer service and support has risen steadily over the past decade.
In terms of the economic relationship with the card issuer, the greatest positive
satisfaction gaps (where satisfaction is greater than importance) are for cash advance
fees, loyalty awards/rewards, late payment fees, and foreign exchange fees. Customers
continue to report significant negative importance-satisfaction gaps for rebates/incentives
tied to travel card spending.
In terms of customer service, we report notable positive importance-satisfaction gaps for
travel management services, expense management services, sponsorship of commercial
card “user conferences” or other training programs, and the handling of delinquent
accounts. Conversely, notable negative gaps remain for the speed of lost/stolen card
replacement and the handling of disputed transactions.
![Page 20: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Economics, Service, and Support | 20
What aspects of your relationship with your card issuer
(product, features, service) have been particularly
appreciated by or valuable to your organization?
The service has been outstanding. Help with reporting and other issues has been quick, clear and effective. We have received more value from the reporting that anticipated.
Controller, Middle Market corporation
Rebate, global acceptance of brand, extended grace period for before late fees are assessed; consideration of late fee reversal.
Business Process Manager, Large Market corporation
The management of our card issuer understands our systems and needs. We have a great rapport with them.
Travel Management Supervisor, Fortune 500-Size corporation
The cardholder conferences have been very valuable.
Manager AP, Large Market corporation
Great customer service and customizable programming without cost to our company.
Card Administrator, Fortune 500-Size corporation
We really appreciate the service level that is provided around administration of the program.
Accounts Payable Team, Fortune 500-Size corporation
Customer service for the cardholder and the administrators the most valued.
Commercial Card Administrator, Fortune 500-Size corporation
The customer service is phenomenal. The technical support team is always ready to help us and can get us any data we need within a few hours.
Manager, Accounting Operations and Systems, Government and Not-for-Profit organization
![Page 21: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Technology and Reporting | 21
CHAPTER 04
IMPORTANCE OF AND SATISFACTION WITH
CARD TECHNOLOGY AND REPORTING
Capturing relevant transaction data and integrating that data into existing
organizational information systems is of significant value to travel card-using
organizations. The challenge of integration continues to grow as card-supportive
software packages evolve and improve. For example, with appropriate software
and systems, card data can now be expected to integrate with general
accounting software packages, travel booking software, Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) software, data mining/audit software, tax estimation software,
and expense management software. In addition, the technology that enables the
program administrator to manage the travel card program and create the reports
that allow the organization to analyze, understand, control, and leverage travel
card spending is a very important aspect of the travel card value proposition. This
chapter will review all of the items related to travel card information technology as
well as the reporting process.
Data Capture
Exhibit 5 on the next page shows fifteen data elements often associated with travel card
transactions, including one overall measure of customer satisfaction with the capture of
transaction data. It is important to recognize that the description of the item rated as most
important (the overall capture of transaction-related information) indicates that customers
are looking for a portfolio of data elements and that no one particular data point dominates
in importance with regard to data capture. A variety of data elements have a satisfaction
score that is significantly higher than the corresponding rating of importance, including
carbon emission data related to travel purchases (1.59), taxpayer identification number
(1.07), VAT tax information (1.07), airline data (travel leg) (0.74), airline data (city pairs)
(0.74), hotel street address (0.73), and fare basis code (0.56). The item “overall capture of
transaction-related information” has the largest negative importance-satisfaction gap
(-0.39) in the group. Hotel folio information was the only data element about which
respondent satisfaction rated below the importance of the data point itself (-0.30).
![Page 22: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Technology and Reporting | 22
Exhibit 5: Importance of and Satisfaction with Travel Card Data Capture (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction Difference
Data Capture Item
Overall capture of transaction-related information 4.92 4.53 -0.39
Hotel folio data 4.32 4.02 -0.30
Airline data (itinerary) 4.23 4.41 0.18
Airline data (seats purchased by service class) 4.07 4.20 0.13
Airline data (seat upgrade data) 3.98 4.04 0.06
Sales tax information 3.87 4.17 0.30
Airline data (city pairs) 3.82 4.56 0.74
Enhanced auto rental data 3.80 3.98 0.18
Airline data (travel leg) 3.71 4.45 0.74
Information to support discount negotiations with travel service providers 3.64 3.93 0.29
Fare basis code 3.63 4.19 0.56
Hotel street address 3.49 4.22 0.73
VAT tax information 3.12 4.19 1.07
Taxpayer identification number 3.09 4.16 1.07
Carbon emission data related to travel purchases 2.10 3.69 1.59
Data Integration
Exhibit 6 on the next page shows respondent ratings of the importance and satisfaction with
eight items associated with data integration, in descending order of importance. As shown
in the Exhibit, customers report significant negative gaps between importance and
satisfaction relating to ability to integrate travel card data into resource planning, general
ledger, or AP applications (-0.57), and overall integration of travel card data with
organizational information systems (-0.56). Customer ratings of satisfaction significantly
exceed importance with regard to the ability to consolidate multiple North American site
spending into one report (0.66).
It is important to note that, as shown in Appendix A, customer satisfaction for five out of the
six data integration items tracked over the past decade increased between 2013 and 2016
(including the ability to transfer travel card data to expense reporting system, the overall
integration of travel card data with organizational information systems, the ability to integrate
travel card data into resource planning, general ledger, or AP applications, the ease with
which travel card spending is allocated to appropriate cost center, the ease with which travel
card spending can be reconciled with other organizational data about travel card purchases,
and the ability to transfer travel information to expense reporting system. Only for the ability
to transfer travel spending data to expense reports was there a slight decline in customer
satisfaction. Further, for all six repeated questions on data integration we found an
improvement in the gap between importance and satisfaction.
![Page 23: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Technology and Reporting | 23
Exhibit 6: Importance of and Satisfaction with Aspects of Travel Card Data Integration
(where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction Difference
Data Integration Item
Ability to transfer travel card data to expense reporting system 5.63 5.19 -0.44
Overall integration of travel card data with organizational information systems 5.61 5.05 -0.56
Ability to integrate travel card data into resource planning, general ledger, or AP applications 5.52 4.95 -0.57
Ease with which travel card spending is allocated to appropriate cost center 5.47 5.20 -0.27
Ease with which travel card spending can be reconciled with other organizational data about travel card purchases 5.29 4.90 -0.39
Ability to transfer travel information (other than from travel card) to expense reporting system 5.05 4.79 -0.26
Ability to consolidate multiple global site spending into one report 4.31 4.71 0.40
Ability to consolidate multiple North American site spending into one report 4.19 4.84 0.65
Card Program Management
Exhibit 7 on the next page shows respondent ratings of the importance of and
satisfaction with eleven travel card-related program management capabilities, in
descending order of importance. Generally, respondents place greatest importance on
card program management capabilities that enable them to self-manage their card
programs in real-time. Specifically, respondents place the highest importance on the
card program administrator’s real-time ability to (1) modify spending limits (2)
terminate/order travel cards (3) obtain access to information on card spending
approvals/declines (4) perform cardholder data maintenance.
There are no notable positive or negative satisfaction gaps associated with travel card
program management capabilities. However, it should be noted that the level of
customer satisfaction for all eleven items increased between 2013 and 2016 (see
Appendix A).
![Page 24: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Technology and Reporting | 24
Exhibit 7: Importance of and Satisfaction with Software Technology Features Related to Travel Card Program Management (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction Difference
Ability of the Card Administrator to:
Modify spending limits in real time 6.46 6.11 -0.35
Terminate/order travel cards in real time 6.39 6.13 -0.26
Obtain real-time access to information on card spending approvals/declines 6.34 5.84 -0.50
Perform cardholder data maintenance in real time 6.15 5.99 -0.16
Overall ability of card issuer technology to support travel card program management 5.97 5.59 -0.38
Self-manage the travel card program 5.72 5.46 -0.26
Monitor card program metrics 5.38 5.17 -0.21
Automate workflow processing for expenditure approval 5.14 5.22 0.08
Use technology to validate account codes 4.86 4.93 0.07
Allocate travel card spending to separate accounts on an ad hoc basis 4.81 5.26 0.45
Access administrative tools via mobile or tablet device 4.53 4.66 0.13
Reporting Technology
Card issuer reports related to travel card activity are basic tools that enable card administrators to better
manage and evaluate the success of their card programs. Exhibit 8 on the next page displays
respondent ratings of the importance of and satisfaction with fifteen aspects of travel card reporting, in
descending order of importance.
Card issuer reporting of travel card spending continues to be a major area of improvement potential, given
that there are significant negative gaps between the importance and satisfaction for six of the fifteen
elements of reporting presented in the Exhibit, including the five most important items. However, this a
marked improvement over 2013, where 10 items had notable negative gaps (see Appendix A).
The largest negative gaps occur between the ratings of importance and satisfaction for the ability to
customize reports (-0.83), the ability to track disputed transactions (-0.74), the readability of reports (-0.64),
the overall reporting package (-0.64), the integrity of data contained in reports (-0.54), and access to
past/present cardholder statements (-0.52).
On a positive note, Appendix A reports that customer satisfaction has improved on four of the six items
with notable negative satisfaction gaps and nine out of the fifteen items in total between 2013 and 2016.
Customer satisfaction related to the other six items (readability of reports, the ability to track disputed
transactions, the ability of cardholders to obtain statements by e-mail or from internet/intranet, the support
provided in development and/or interpretation of reports, the ability to analyze spending patterns, and the
ability to track payment delinquencies) did not change between 2013 and 2016.
![Page 25: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Technology and Reporting | 25
Exhibit 8: Importance of and Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Reporting Technology (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction Difference
Reporting Item
Readability of reports 6.09 5.44 -0.65
Access to past/present cardholder statements 6.06 5.54 -0.52
Integrity of data contained in reports 6.05 5.51 -0.54
Overall reporting package 5.90 5.26 -0.64
Ability to customize reports 5.79 4.96 -0.83
Length of transaction history 5.76 5.56 -0.20
Ability to track disputed transactions 5.74 5.00 -0.74
Ability of cardholders to obtain statements by e-mail or from internet/intranet 5.49 5.41 -0.08
Support provided in development and/or interpretation of reports 5.46 4.98 -0.48
Ability to analyze spending patterns 5.44 4.98 -0.46
Ease of submitting expense reports to proper person for approval 5.40 5.26 -0.14
Card misuse analytics 5.25 4.79 -0.46
Ability to track payment delinquencies 4.53 4.94 0.41
Ability to access travel card reports on mobile or tablet devices 4.53 4.60 0.07
Ability to locate a traveler in an emergency 4.47 4.68 0.21
A Historical Perspective
Appendix A of this Report provides the reader with a history of customer satisfaction responses
for data capture, data integration, program management, and travel card reporting for the years
2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2016. A review of those figures shows that customer satisfaction
ratings on:
► all 15 items relating to data capture (shown in Exhibit 5) that have been tracked for more
than one survey iteration slightly decreased or stayed the same between 2013 and 2016,
► five of the six items related to data integration (shown in Exhibit 6) that have been tracked
for more than one survey iteration increased between 2013 and 2016,
► all 11 survey items relating to travel card program management software features and
capabilities (shown in Exhibit 7) increased between 2013 and 2016, and
► all 15 survey items relating to travel card reporting (shown in Exhibit 8) stayed the same or
increased between 2013 and 2016.
![Page 26: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Technology and Reporting | 26
Importance and Satisfaction by Market Segment
Appendix B of this Report provides the reader with respondent evaluations of importance
and satisfaction with data capture, data integration, card program management features,
and reporting technology items for Fortune 500-Size corporations, Large Market
corporations, Middle Market corporations and Government and Not-for-Profit
organizations.
Conclusion
Capturing relevant transactional data and integrating that data into existing organizational
information systems is of significant value to travel card-using organizations. In addition,
being able to extract and manage key information about travel card program performance
from reports is a major factor in travel card value.
For data capture, the most important item is the “overall capture of transaction-related
data” signifying that users are looking for a breadth of information, and not solely one
specific item. A variety of data elements captured in travel card transactions have a
satisfaction score that is significantly higher than the corresponding rating of importance,
including carbon emission data related to travel purchases, taxpayer identification
number, VAT tax information, airline data (travel leg), airline data (city pairs), hotel street
address, and fare basis code.
Regarding the integration of travel card data into accounting and ERP systems,
we find that customer satisfaction for most aspects of data integration increased
between 2013 and 2016.
For program management technology, the most important items relate to the ability of the
user to self-manage and control travel card program spending on a real-time basis.
There are no notable positive or negative satisfaction gaps associated with travel card
program management capabilities. Further, the level of customer satisfaction for all
survey items relating to travel card program management software features and
capabilities increased between 2013 and 2016.
Travel card spend reporting appears to be a “pain point” for users, with significant
negative gaps between importance and satisfaction reported for items of higher
importance, including the ability to customize reports, the ability to track disputed
transactions, the readability of reports, the overall reporting package, the integrity of data
contained in reports, and access to past/present cardholder statements. On a positive
note, customer satisfaction improved on many reporting features and items between
2013 and 2016.
![Page 27: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Importance of and Satisfaction with 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Technology and Reporting | 27
What aspects of your relationship with your card issuer
(product, features, service) have been particularly
appreciated by or valuable to your organization?
The card management system works great. Changes are fairly simple to make.
Card Administrator, Middle Market corporation
Travel card data is easy to retrieve and self-manage. High level of acceptability by merchants globally.
Administrator, Fortune 500-Size corporation
Account maintenance using web portal.
T&E Manager, Fortune 500-Size corporation
Real time data management for day-to-day administrative duties (i.e. via card issuer web-based platform), reporting functionality, and cardholder support.
Global Card Manager, Fortune 500-Size corporation
Product team meets with us on a regular basis to discuss possible feature enhancements and issues.
Procurement Analyst, Fortune 500-Size corporation
Ability to transfer data to our ERP.
Business Services Supervisor, Government and Not-for-Profit organization
The ability to change cost centers and general ledger codes real time before integrating charges into our system.
T&E Administrator, Large Market corporation
Being able to do transactions in real time is excellent. The monthly training sessions about the new software upgrades are appreciated. Fraud protection and notifications to card holders is quick, efficient and valuable.
Assistant Director of University Payables, Government and Not-for-Profit organization
The ease of online capabilities to make real-time updates is very much appreciated.
Human Resources, Middle Market corporation
![Page 28: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Critical Dimensions of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction | 28
CHAPTER 05
CRITICAL DIMENSIONS OF
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the importance of and
customer satisfaction with key areas of travel card program value, examine areas
of the travel card program that are most important to respondents, and review the
biggest gaps (and opportunities for improvement) in current card issuer
performance.
A Comprehensive Look at the Importance of and Satisfaction with
Key Areas of Travel Card Program Value
Exhibit 9 on the next page summarizes the six comprehensive “overall” importance and
satisfaction questions in the areas of travel card (1) economics, (2) customer service,
(3) data capture, (4) data integration, (5) program management technology, and
(6) reporting, in descending order of importance. The Exhibit reveals that the ability of
bank technology to support travel card program management (5.97), the reporting
package (5.90), and customer service and support (5.88) are the three most important
“overall” issues for customers. Please note that the importance of a specific sub-element
within these categories may have a higher importance rating than the overall rating. The
largest overall gaps between importance and customer satisfaction involve the reporting
package (-0.64) and the integration of travel card data with the organizational information
system (-0.56).
The comprehensive overall gap analysis reflects ongoing improvement in the travel card
product offering. In comparison to 2013, all of the gaps between importance and
satisfaction have grown smaller, most notably for the overall ability of bank technology to
support travel card program management (with a gap of -0.62 in 2013), the overall
reporting package (with a gap of -0.81 in 2013), customer service and support (with a gap
of -0.60 in 2013), and the overall integration of travel card data with the organizational
information system (with a gap of -0.80 in 2013).
![Page 29: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Critical Dimensions of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction | 29
Exhibit 9: Summary of “Overall” Gap Analysis (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction Difference
Card Issuer Satisfaction Item
Overall ability of card issuer technology to support travel card program management 5.97 5.59 -0.38
Overall reporting package 5.90 5.26 -0.64
Overall customer service and support 5.88 5.40 -0.48
Overall economic relationship with card issuer in relation to travel cards 5.84 5.52 -0.32
Overall integration of travel card data with organizational information systems 5.61 5.05 -0.56
Overall capture of transaction-related information 4.92 4.53 -0.39
Items of Greatest Importance
Exhibit 10 on the next page identifies the ten items with the highest ratings of importance out of the
76 questions presented in the previous two chapters, the customers’ satisfaction ratings for those items,
and the gaps between importance and satisfaction. Within these ten items, three major themes of
emerge:
► “real-time” program management (modify spending limits in real time, terminate/order travel cards
in real time, obtain real-time access to information on card spending approvals/declines, and
perform cardholder data maintenance in real time),
► reporting technology (including the readability of reports, and access to past/present cardholder
statements), and
► governance and risk management (including liability protection for lost/stolen cards, speed of
lost/stolen card replacement, and the handling of disputed transactions).
The Exhibit also communicates key areas of improvement potential that would enable card-using
organizations to further advance their travel card product. Specifically, the Exhibit indicates that card-
using customers would benefit the most from improvements related to real-time travel card program
management, improvements in the handling of lost/stolen cards, more readable reports, better handling
of disputed transactions, and easier access to past/present cardholder statements.
In comparison to 2013, customer satisfaction has increased for seven of the ten most important items,
including the top three most important elements (modifying spending limits in real time,
terminating/ordering travel cards in real time, and obtaining real-time access to information on card
spending approvals/declines). However, customer satisfaction with the readability of reports did not
change in comparison to 2013, and two items report slight declines in customer satisfaction since then
(liability protection for lost/stolen cards and the speed of lost/stolen card replacement).
![Page 30: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Critical Dimensions of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction | 30
Exhibit 10: Importance/Satisfaction Gaps of the Ten Most Important Travel Card Aspects
(where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction Difference
Card Issuer Satisfaction Item
Modify spending limits in real time 6.46 6.11 -0.35
Terminate/order travel cards in real time 6.39 6.13 -0.26
Obtain real-time access to information on card spending approvals/declines 6.34 5.85 -0.49
Liability protection for lost/stolen cards 6.32 6.01 -0.31
Speed of lost/stolen card replacement 6.20 5.63 -0.57
Perform cardholder data maintenance in real time 6.15 5.99 -0.16
Liability protection from card misuse 6.14 5.84 -0.30
Handling of disputed transactions 6.14 5.61 -0.53
Readability of reports 6.09 5.45 -0.64
Access to past/present cardholder statements 6.06 5.54 -0.52
Ten Largest Gaps between Importance and Customer Satisfaction
Exhibit 11 on the next page presents the ten items with the largest importance-satisfaction gaps out of the
76 questions presented in the previous two chapters. The top ten gap items convey several important points.
First, only three items with large importance-satisfaction gaps rank in the top ten of the most important items
in the survey (the readability of reports, the speed of lost/stolen card replacement, and the handling of
disputed transactions as shown in Exhibit 10). Second, travel card spend reporting, analysis, and control
appears to be the major theme in seven of the ten items with the largest importance-satisfaction gaps.
► Travel card spend reporting, including:
o the ability to customize reports,
o the ability to track disputed transactions,
o the overall reporting package.
o the readability of reports,
o the integrity of data contained in reports,
► The second theme that arises in examining the largest gaps between customer satisfaction and
importance relates to the integration of travel card data with organizational systems as shown in
responses such as:
o the ability to integrate travel card data into resource planning, general ledger, or AP applications,
and
o the overall integration of travel card data with organizational information systems,
► Other major gaps of significance between importance and satisfaction include:
o rebates and incentives tied to card spending,
o speed of lost/stolen card replacement, and
o handling of disputed transactions.
![Page 31: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Critical Dimensions of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction | 31
Exhibit 11: Ten Largest Negative Gaps between Importance and Customer Satisfaction (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction Difference
Card Issuer Satisfaction Item
Ability to customize reports 5.79 4.96 -0.83
Ability to track disputed transactions 5.74 5.00 -0.74
Overall reporting package 5.90 5.26 -0.64
Readability of reports 6.09 5.45 -0.64
Rebates/incentives tied to card spending 5.92 5.33 -0.59
Speed of lost/stolen card replacement 6.20 5.63 -0.57
Ability to integrate travel card data into resource planning, general ledger, or AP applications 5.52 4.95 -0.57
Overall integration of travel card data with organizational information systems 5.61 5.05 -0.56
Integrity of data contained in reports 6.05 5.51 -0.54
Handling of disputed transactions 6.14 5.61 -0.53
Conclusion
The chapter summarizes customer ratings of the “overall” importance of and satisfaction
with travel card economics, customer service and support, data integration, data capture,
program management technology, and reporting. The results indicate that the ability of
bank technology to support travel card program management, the reporting package, and
customer service and support are the three most important “overall” issues for customers.
At a more detailed level, there are three particular service categories of highest
importance to travel card-using organizations: (1) “real-time” program management
capabilities, (2) reporting technology (including the readability of reports, and access to
past/present cardholder statements), and (3) risk management (including liability
protection for lost/stolen cards, speed of lost/stolen card replacement, and the handling of
disputed transactions) are of highest importance to customers.
The largest gaps between customer ratings of importance and their satisfaction primarily
relate to travel card spend reporting. Other gaps are noted in the integration of data into
the organization’s accounting and other systems, rebates and incentives tied to card
spending, speed of lost/stolen card replacement, and handling of disputed transactions.
![Page 32: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Customer Satisfaction and Travel 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Program Performance | 32
CHAPTER 06
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND
TRAVEL CARD PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize and evaluate the customer ratings of
the importance of and satisfaction with travel card economics, customer service
and support, data integration, data capture, program management technology,
and reporting. More specifically, we provide an overview of the importance of
and customer satisfaction with key areas of travel card program value, examine
areas of the travel card program that are most important to respondents, and
review the biggest gaps (and opportunities for improvement) in current card
issuer performance.
“Best Practice” Satisfaction with Card Issuer
“Best Practice” (BP) and “Needs Improvement” (NI) travel card programs (as constructed
in Chapter 12 of the main report entitled, “Best Practice: Key Program Performance
Measures” of the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results) have different
relationships with their card issuers, with some of those differences reflecting company
priorities and requirements about travel cards. Further the main report showed large
program performance differences between BP and NI travel card programs, including
over 4 times higher average monthly spending on the travel card ($2,267,083 versus
$516,813), over 4 times higher monthly travel card spending per employee ($305 versus
$70), a significantly higher percentage of travel spending paid by travel cards (88%
versus 64%), and about 5 times the annual travel card spending as a percent of sales
revenue (2.5% versus 0.5%).
Given the large differences in spending and card capture statistics between BP and NI
travel card programs, one might expect to find differences in travel card program priorities
and card issuer service levels being experienced by these two groups. To address this
point, Exhibit 12 on the next page shows the importance and satisfaction ratings of BP
and NI card-using organizations across six overall aspects of card use.
![Page 33: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Customer Satisfaction and Travel 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Program Performance | 33
The Exhibit indicates that, in comparison to NI travel card programs, BP programs report:
► notable differences in how important the overall economic relationship with their
card issuer is in relation to travel cards (6.13 versus 5.61) and the capture of travel
card data (5.25 versus 4.73),
► notable differences in their level of satisfaction with overall customer service and
support (5.77 versus 5.19) and overall integration of travel card data with
organizational information systems (5.38 versus 4.75). There are also large
differences in the overall economic relationship with card issuer in relation to
corporate travel cards (5.83 versus 5.35) and the overall ability of bank technology
to support travel card program management (5.86 versus 5.42).
In summary, it appears that organizations with BP travel card programs assign greater
importance to the economic outcomes and data received from travel card use than NI
counterparts. Further, there is a pattern of higher satisfaction with card issuer
performance, in particular as it relates to the integration of travel card data into the
organization’s accounting/information systems, customer service and support, and the
economic outcomes associated with travel card use.
Exhibit 12: Importance of and Satisfaction with Card Issuer Deliverables, by “Best Practice” and “Needs Improvement” Travel Card Programs (where 1=not very important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Best Practice Needs Improvement
Import-
ance Satis-
faction Gap
Import-ance
Satis-faction
Gap
Card Issuer Satisfaction Item
Overall economic relationship with card issuer in relation to corporate travel cards 6.13 5.83 -0.30 5.61 5.35 -0.26
Overall customer service and support 5.88 5.77 -0.11 5.84 5.19 -0.65
Overall capture of transaction-related information 5.25 4.55 -0.70 4.73 4.42 -0.31
Overall integration of travel card data with organizational information systems 5.85 5.38 -0.47 5.47 4.75 -0.72
Overall ability of bank technology to support travel card program management 6.01 5.86 -0.15 5.90 5.42 -0.48
Overall reporting package 5.97 5.41 -0.56 5.80 5.15 -0.65
![Page 34: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Customer Satisfaction and Travel 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Program Performance | 34
Expanded View of Satisfaction and Travel Card Program Performance
To expand upon the relationship of satisfaction and program performance, we performed
a simple analysis. First, we added the satisfaction scores (ranging from 1 to 7) of the 76
attributes relating to travel cards as shown in the last two chapters. Then, we divided the
summed satisfaction score for these items by the total number of questions (76) to get a
composite satisfaction score that ranged from 1 to 7. We then placed respondents in one
of two groups—those that had a composite satisfaction score that was either in the top or
bottom quartile of all survey responses within three size categories (less than 3,000
employees, 3,000 to 9,999 employees, and 10,000 or more employees). We then made
one high satisfaction (low satisfaction) group by combining the customers with
satisfaction in the top (bottom) quartile across the three size categories. Respondents
with top quartile composite satisfaction scores are labeled the “High Satisfaction” group
while those with a bottom quartile composite satisfaction score are labeled the “Low
Satisfaction” group.
Exhibit 13 on the following page shows the key organizational and card program
performance statistics of the High Satisfaction and Low Satisfaction groups. The Exhibit
reveals that the High and Low Satisfaction group have a similar percentage of employees
that travel on business more than twice per year (around 31%), yet the High Satisfaction
group provides a significantly higher percentage of its employees with travel cards
(19.5% versus 12.3%). Furthermore, in comparison to Low Satisfaction organizations,
organizations in the High Satisfaction group have:
► 26% higher average monthly travel card spending ($990,523 versus $785,588) and
25% higher monthly travel card spending per employee ($166 versus $133),
► a higher percentage of travel spending paid with travel cards (78% versus 70%),
and
► a significantly lower percentage of respondents that are currently considering
switching card issuers (4% versus 21%).
In addition to policies about the level of card distribution, another key difference between
the High and Low Satisfaction group relates to a mandate requiring employees to use the
organization’s travel card. As shown in the Exhibit, the High Satisfaction group is
significantly more likely mandate use of the travel card (78% versus 44%).
![Page 35: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Customer Satisfaction and Travel 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Program Performance | 35
Further, Exhibit 13 shows that, in comparison to the Low Satisfaction group, the High
Satisfaction group members are more likely to require mandatory initial training for new
cardholders (65% versus 52%) and approving supervisors (48% versus 36%), require a
credit check of employees prior to giving them a travel card (15% versus 9%),
review/investigate declined transactions (87% versus 71%), conduct data mining of travel
card transactions (72% versus 53%), evaluate spending patterns of cardholders with a
high number of disputed transactions (56% versus 36%), and have Internal Audit or other
authority evaluate and report on the adequacy of key travel card program controls (78%
versus 69%).
There is one item conducted more commonly by Low Satisfaction group members which
may speak to a degree of trepidation about driving travel spending to their travel card, to
wit: they are more likely to cancel the travel cards of infrequent travelers (50% versus
31%).
In summary, it appears high satisfaction with travel card issuer performance across a
spectrum of deliverable (economic, service and support, data capture, integration of card
data with business information systems, capabilities of travel card software, and
reporting) is associated with higher card distribution, higher travel card spending, card-
promotive mandates, and greater activities to maintain control over travel card activities.
A significantly important outcome of high satisfaction is that it reduces the organization’s
interest in considering switching card issuers, an activity that is costly for both user and
issuer.
![Page 36: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Customer Satisfaction and Travel 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Program Performance | 36
Exhibit 13: Organization Statistics and Travel Card Program Performance of Similar-Size
Organizations with High and Low Overall Satisfaction
High
Satisfaction Low
Satisfaction Percentage Difference
Organization Statistics
Number of employees 5,978 5,895 1%
Age of travel card program (in years) 9.80 10.44 -6%
Percentage of employees that travel on business more than twice per year 31.9% 30.3% 5%
Program Performance Measures
Number of travel cards 1,166 739 58%
Travel card-to-employee ratio 19.5% 12.3% 59%
Average monthly travel card spending $990,523 $785,588 26%
Monthly travel card spending per employee $166 $133 25%
Percentage of travel spending captured on travel cards (including plastic, ghost, and EAP) 78% 70% 11%
Management Policy
Percentage of organizations that mandate use of travel card for travel-related expenditures 78% 44% 77%
Training Percentage of organizations that have…
Mandatory initial training requirements for new cardholders 65% 52% 25%
Mandatory initial training requirements for individuals who approve card spending 48% 36% 33%
Control and Compliance Percentage of organizations that…
Require a credit check of employees prior to giving them a travel card 15% 9% 67%
Cancel travel cards of infrequent travelers 31% 50% -38%
Review/investigate declined transactions 87% 71% 23%
Conduct data mining of travel card transactions 72% 53% 36%
Evaluate spending patterns of cardholders with a high number of disputed transactions 56% 36% 56%
Have Internal Audit or other authority evaluate and report on the adequacy of key travel card program controls 78% 69% 13%
Intent to Switch
Percentage of organizations that are currently considering switching travel card issuers 4% 21% -81%
![Page 37: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Customer Satisfaction and Travel 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Program Performance | 37
Satisfaction with Financial Incentives and Travel Card Program
Performance: Does a Connection Exist?
Card issuers often provide financial incentives (i.e., rebates based on spending levels) to
encourage greater use of the travel card. To better understand the relationship between
those incentives and travel card spending performance, Exhibit 14 shows that average
monthly travel card spending per employee for Fortune 500-Size and Large Market
corporations is positively associated with improvements in their level of satisfaction with
rebates/incentives tied to card spending.3 Companies with lower satisfaction with rebates
(1 to 4 on a 7-point scale) report monthly travel card spending per employee of $163,
while companies reporting the highest level of satisfaction (7) report average monthly
travel card spending that is over twice that amount ($338).
There is a “chicken or the egg” quality to this relationship and the reader should be
cautioned regarding the inferences that may be drawn. While it may be true that
satisfaction with rebates or incentives drives travel card spending, it is equally plausible
that higher travel card spending itself results in higher rebates which, in turn, are
generating greater organizational satisfaction with incentives.
Exhibit 14: Monthly Travel Card Spending per Employee among Fortune 500-Size and Large Market Corporations, by Level of Satisfaction with Rebates/Incentives Tied to Card Spending (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied with rebates/incentives tied to card spending)
3 We limit our analysis to Fortune 500-Size and Large Market corporations to minimize the impact of organizational size as it relates to incentives. Among the different levels of satisfaction, there is no pattern to suggest that one group or the other (Fortune 500-Size or Large Market) is more or less satisfied.
![Page 38: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Customer Satisfaction and Travel 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Card Program Performance | 38
Conclusion
This chapter examined the relationship between customer satisfaction and travel card
program performance from three different angles. First, we report that high-performing
BP travel card programs assign greater importance to the economic outcomes and data
received from travel card use than NI counterparts. Further, BP programs display a
pattern of higher satisfaction with card issuer performance, in particular as it relates to the
integration of travel card data into the organization’s accounting/information systems,
customer service and support, and the economic outcomes associated with travel card
use.
Second, we report that high aggregate satisfaction with travel card issuer performance is
associated with higher card distribution, higher travel card spending, card-promotive
mandates, and greater activities to maintain control over travel card activities. A
significantly important outcome of high satisfaction is a multifold reduction in the
organization’s interest in considering switching card issuers, an activity that is costly for
both user and issuer.
Third, we looked more closely at one component of customer satisfaction— financial
incentives tied to card spending—and its relation to travel card program spending. We
found that that average monthly travel card spending per employee for Fortune 500-Size
and Large Market corporations is positively associated with improvements in the level of
satisfaction with rebates/incentives tied to card spending. It should be noted that, while
satisfaction with financial incentives drives travel card spending, higher travel card
spending itself results in higher incentives, which in turn, drive greater organizational
satisfaction with incentives.
![Page 39: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Customer Rationale for 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Intent to Switch Card Issuers | 39
CHAPTER 07
CUSTOMER RATIONALE FOR
INTENT TO SWITCH CARD ISSUERS
Switching card issuers is a business decision that can be costly for both the
customer and the card issuer. The purpose of this chapter is to determine the
extent to which organizations are considering switching card issuers and to
understand the reasons for those intentions.
Consideration of Switching Norms
As shown in Exhibit 15(a), currently 13% of respondents indicate that they are
considering switching card issuers. This figure is part of a continued decline since 2009
and a drop of 1 percentage point from the 2013 figure.
Exhibit 15(a): Percentage of Respondents Considering Switching Card
Issuers, 2007-2016
![Page 40: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Customer Rationale for 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Intent to Switch Card Issuers | 40
Exhibit 15(b) reveals that the intent to switch varies by category of respondent.
Specifically, the intent to switch card issuers has decreased among Fortune 500-Size
corporations (going from 21% in 2013 to 16% in 2016). The Large Market group had a
small decrease from 17% in 2013 to 15% in 2016, while the Middle Market group
experienced a modest increase from 8% in 2013 to 10% in 2016. The Government and
Not-for-Profit Organizations remained the same, with 12% considering switching card
issuers.
Exhibit 15(b): Percentage of Respondents Considering Switching Card Issuers, by Corporations and Government and Not-for-Profit Organizations,
2007-2016
Exhibit 16 on the next page provides importance of various reasons for switching card
issuers as rated by those who have switched card issuers in the past three years. The
Exhibit indicates that inadequate revenue sharing with rebates, up-front financial
incentive provided by another issuer, drawing near or at the end of current contract term
with issuer, customer service and support, and limited ability to gain insights from card
data and reporting tools are some of the most important factors prompting the switching
decision.
![Page 41: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Customer Rationale for 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Intent to Switch Card Issuers | 41
Exhibit 16: Importance of Reasons for Currently Considering Switching Card Issuers (where 1=not important and 7=very important)
Conclusion
Switching card issuers is a costly activity for both the card issuer and the card-using
organization. About 13% of survey respondents indicate that they are currently
considering switching their card issuer, down from 14% in 2013. Inadequate revenue
sharing with rebates, up-front financial incentives provided by another issuer, and
benefits from consolidation of banking business are the most important reasons the
consideration for switching travel card issuers.
![Page 42: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Other Reports of Interest | 42
CHAPTER 08
OTHER REPORTS OF INTEREST
There are two other reports to the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark
Survey Results that may be of interest to the reader described below:
Market Trends and Best Practices
This “main report” of the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results
provides a comprehensive independent examination of the organizational use of travel
cards, travel card spending growth trends and areas of potential growth, customer goals
for travel card use, travel card policies and objectives, the impact of mobile technology
and the sharing economy on travel management and payment practices, travel card
program control and compliance trends, travel expense reporting and management
technology trends, global aspects of travel card use, “best practices” relating to travel
card utilization, liability trends, and issues relating to card misuse. There are two other
companion reports that are part of the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Results.
Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size
In “Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size,” we provide benchmark data to
evaluate travel card programs, broken down within corporate (by size and industry) and
government and not-for-profit sectors (states and state agencies, city and county
governments, colleges and universities, school districts, and not-for-profit organizations).
![Page 43: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Conclusion | 43
CONCLUSION
Throughout all three reports in the 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey, we
focus on enabling organizations to assess their travel card program performance and
identify specific ways the program can be improved. It should be noted that travel card
spending tends to move in harmony with larger economic events. As shown in our
survey responses and widely known throughout the marketplace, most organizations
remain vigilant in their efforts to control costs wherever possible. Right or wrong, at or
near the top of the discretionary cost lists for most organizations is travel spending.
Consequently, comparisons of results reported in this document with our previous survey
results must be considered in the light of changing contemporary economic
circumstances.
We hope the data and analyses presented in this report will enable card users and
issuers to focus their efforts to improve travel card program performance and sustain
controlled growth of travel card spending. We urge organizations to consider the various
activities associated with “best practice” identified in this and in Chapter 23 of the “main
report,” including (but not limited to) expanded card distribution with appropriate line of
credit, a travel policy that mandates card use for travel expenditures, appropriate
governance and control activities, investment in technologies that integrate with and
enhance the benefits delivered by the travel card program, measurement of travel
expense management process performance, and use of travel card data to improve
employee compliance with policies and drive further cost savings.
![Page 44: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Acknowledgements | 44
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to Visa, MasterCard
Worldwide, and their travel card issuers—including Bank of America Merrill Lynch, BMO
Harris Bank, Citibank, Comdata, Elan Financial Services, HSBC, J.P. Morgan Chase,
PNC Bank, Scotiabank, SunTrust Bank, U.S. Bank, U.S. Bank Canada, and Wells
Fargo—for their participation in the survey. Additionally, they would like to thank the
National Association of Purchasing Card Professionals and the National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing for apprising their members of survey availability. Finally, a
hearty thanks goes out to the over 1,300 participant organizations who took valuable time
out of their schedules to make this study a reality.
The authors would also like to particularly acknowledge the support and insight of James
Brandt and Nathan Palmer whose diligent assistance was critical to the success of the
project. In addition, the authors express their gratitude to Natalie Reinhart and Sandra
Brandt for their contribution to the analysis and representation of information. In addition,
the authors thank Tina Raynes of Washington University in St. Louis and Amit Khetan of
Sumirama Technosoft Ltd. for their assistance in the administration of the study. Last,
but not least, the authors would like to thank their family members for enduring the many
long hours needed to bring these results to the marketplace in a timely manner.
![Page 45: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results About the Authors | 45
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Richard J. Palmer, Ph.D., C.P.A., C.M.A.
is a Professor of Accounting and Copper Dome Faculty Fellow in the Harrison College of
Business at Southeast Missouri State University. Previously, he held positions at
Washington University in St. Louis, Eastern Illinois University, and the University of
Tennessee, he held management positions in both public accounting and the banking
industry. Richard is a frequent speaker at commercial card conferences and is the author
of over 60 professional and academic publications, including award-winning articles
about industry use of e-procurement tools and bank commercial cards. His e-commerce
and commercial card insights have been quoted in U.S. Senate hearings, the Wall Street
Journal, ABC News Good Morning America, CNN Money, CBS News MarketWatch,
American Banker, Business Finance, Purchasing, CFO, Cost Management, Treasury and
Risk Management, Financial Executive, Credit Card News, Cards International, Credit
Card Management, Federal Times, Journal of Payments Strategy and Systems,
Government Procurement, and Business Integration.
Mahendra Gupta, Ph.D.
is a Virgil Professor of Accounting and Management at the Olin School of Business at
Washington University in St. Louis. He received his Ph.D. from Stanford University and
M.S. from Carnegie Mellon University. Mahendra has been a consultant to various
financial service and manufacturing firms, as well as government agencies. His writings
have appeared in top accounting and management journals. Professor Gupta also
served on the editorial board of several top journals in the accounting profession and
currently serves on the board of several organizations. He has written extensively and
speaks frequently on e-commerce, performance measurement, and commercial card
products.
![Page 46: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Sample Description and 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Outline to Appendices | 46
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND
OUTLINE TO APPENDICES
Sample Description
In December 2015, the “2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark
Survey” was released to 6,013 travel card program administrators
at organizations that were either customers of one of thirteen major
card issuers (including Bank of America Merrill Lynch, BMO Harris
Bank, Citibank, Comdata, Elan Financial Services, HSBC, JPMorgan
Chase, PNC Bank, Scotiabank, SunTrust Bank, US Bank, US Bank
Canada, and Wells Fargo) or members of the National Association
of Purchasing Card Professionals or the National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing. One thousand three hundred eleven
responses were received by March 9, 2016 for a response rate of
21.8%. All major travel card-issuing brands (American Express,
Diner’s Club, MasterCard, and Visa) are represented in the survey
response.
Exhibit 17 breaks down survey respondents by organizational type:
38% are privately-owned corporations, 28% are public corporations,
11% are not-for-profit organizations, 8% are city and county
government agencies, 7% are colleges and universities, 4% are
federal and state government agencies, and 4% are school districts.
Exhibit 18 on the next page separates the public and private corporations
into four size categories: 29% are “Fortune 500-Size” companies (annual
revenue of $2 billion or more), 24% are “Large Market” (annual revenue
greater than or equal to $500 million, but less than $2 billion), 37% are
“Middle Market” (annual revenue greater than or equal to $25 million, but
less than $500 million), and 10% are “Small Market” corporations (annual
revenue of less than $25 million).
Exhibit 17: Respondents by
Organizational Type
![Page 47: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Sample Description and 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Outline to Appendices | 47
Exhibit 18: Corporate Respondents by Size
Exhibit 19 separates the corporate respondents into groups using Standard Industrial Classifications (SICs).
The Exhibit shows that the response pool is well-distributed across the different industry segments, with
Manufacturing being the largest (31%).
Exhibit 19: Corporate Respondents by Industry
Age of Program and Length of Tenure with Provider
The sample also contains diverse levels of travel card program experience. Exhibit 20 on the next page
distributes the sample by the length of time that an organization has had a travel card program. It shows that
5% of programs are less than one-year-old, 14% are 1 to 3 years old, 25% are 4 to 7 years old, 22% are 8 to
11 years old, 16% are 12 to 16 years old, 8% are 17 to 20 years old, and 10% are more than 20 years old.
Exhibit 21 on the next page breaks down the sample by the length of time that an organization has been with
their current travel card provider. It shows that 8% of respondent programs have been with their current
provider less than one year, 25% are 1 to 3 years old, 33% are 4 to 7 years old, 17% are 8 to 11 years old,
12% are 12 to 16 years old, 3% are 17 to 20 years old, and 2% have been with their current issuer for greater
than 20 years.
![Page 48: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Sample Description and 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Outline to Appendices | 48
Outline to the Appendices
Appendix A presents a historical review of customer satisfaction for the six aspects of the travel card issuer-
organization relationship from 2007 to 2016. The exhibits will showcase the trends in satisfaction for (a) card
economics, (b) customer service and support, (c) capture of transaction data, (d) data integration, (e) card
program management capabilities, and (f) reporting software. Please note that some data items were not
present in previous surveys, resulting in a missing data point in those cases.
Appendix B presents the current importance and satisfaction ratings for the four major market segments of
our analysis, including: (a) Fortune 500-Size corporations, (b) Large Market corporations, (c) Middle Market
corporations, and (d) Governmental and Not-for-Profit organizations.
Exhibit 20: Age of Travel
Card Program
Exhibit 21: Length of Time
with Current Card Provider
![Page 49: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Appendix A: Historical Review of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction with Travel Cards | 49
APPENDIX A
HISTORICAL REVIEW OF CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION WITH TRAVEL CARDS
Information about the current respondent ratings of importance and satisfaction with a particular
card issuer activity or service is provided in Chapters 3 and 4 of this Report. This Appendix
examines the historical trends in customer satisfaction responses to the Corporate Travel Card
Benchmark Survey since 2007. Please note that some questions were not asked in previous
surveys, resulting in a missing data point in those cases.
Historical Perspective: Travel Card Economics
Exhibit A-1(a) and Exhibit A-1(b) on the next page display a historical perspective of customer satisfaction
ratings of the ten economic variables discussed in Chapter 3 of this Report. The Exhibits add satisfaction
ratings from our earlier surveys (in 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013) to this current edition and present them in
descending order of importance as indicated by respondents in their 2016 ratings. The Exhibits show that
satisfaction in 2016 increased from 2013 in 9 of the 10 items presented and stayed the same on another item.
Exhibit A-1(a): Satisfaction with Economic Aspects of Travel Cards in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016
(where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
![Page 50: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Appendix A: Historical Review of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction with Travel Cards | 50
Exhibit A-1(b): Satisfaction with Economic Aspects of Travel Cards in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
Historical Perspective: Customer Service and Support
Exhibit A-2(a) and Exhibit A-2(b) on the next page and Exhibit A-2(c) on the following page
display a historical perspective of customer satisfaction ratings of the seventeen customer service
and support variables discussed in Chapter 3 of this Report. The Exhibits add satisfaction ratings
from our earlier surveys (in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013) to this current edition and present them in
descending order of importance as indicated by respondents in their 2016 ratings. The Exhibits
show that satisfaction in 2016 has stayed the same or increased from 2013 in 16 of the 17 aspects
of customer service and support that were previously reported. And, where a decrease occurred
(speed of lost/stolen card replacement), the decline was minimal.
![Page 51: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Appendix A: Historical Review of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction with Travel Cards | 51
Exhibit A-2(a): Satisfaction with Aspects of Customer Service and Support in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
Exhibit A-2(b): Satisfaction with Aspects of Customer Service and Support in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016
(where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
![Page 52: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Appendix A: Historical Review of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction with Travel Cards | 52
Exhibit A-2(c): Satisfaction with Aspects of Customer Service and Support in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
Historical Perspective: Capture of Travel Card Transaction Data
Exhibit A-3(a) and Exhibit A-3(b) and Exhibit A-3(c) on the next page display a historical perspective of
customer satisfaction ratings of fifteen data capture variables discussed in Chapter 4 of this Report. The
Exhibits add satisfaction ratings from our earlier surveys (in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013) to this current
edition and present them in descending order of importance as indicated by 2016 ratings. The Exhibit shows
that satisfaction decreased or stayed the same on all of the data capture items that were previously reported.
Exhibit A-3(a): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Data Capture in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016
(where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
![Page 53: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Appendix A: Historical Review of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction with Travel Cards | 53
Exhibit A-3(b): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Data Capture in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
Exhibit A-3(c): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Data Capture in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
![Page 54: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Appendix A: Historical Review of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction with Travel Cards | 54
Historical Perspective: Data Integration
Exhibit A-4(a) and Exhibit A-4(b) provide a historical perspective on the customer satisfaction ratings of
eight data integration variables discussed in Chapter 4 of this Report. The Exhibits add satisfaction ratings
from our earlier surveys (in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013) to this current edition and present them in
descending order of importance as indicated by respondents in their 2016 ratings. The Exhibits show that
customer satisfaction on five of the six items that were previously reported relating to data integration
increased between 2013 and 2016.
Exhibit A-4(a): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Data Integration in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016
(where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
Exhibit A-4(b): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Data Integration in Descending Order of Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
![Page 55: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Appendix A: Historical Review of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction with Travel Cards | 55
Historical Perspective: Travel Card Program Management Capabilities
Exhibit A-5(a) and Exhibit A-5(b) give a historical perspective of customer satisfaction ratings of eleven
travel card program management software features discussed in Chapter 4 of this Report. The Exhibits add
satisfaction ratings from our earlier surveys (in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013) to this current edition and
present them in descending order of importance as indicated by respondents in their 2016 ratings. The
Exhibits show that all eleven items relating to travel card program management increased between 2013 and
2016.
Exhibit A-5(a): Satisfaction with Software Technology Features Related to Travel Card Program Management in Descending Order or Importance, 2007-2016
(where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
Exhibit A-5(b): Satisfaction with Software Technology Features Related to Travel Card Program Management in Descending Order or Importance, 2007-2016
(where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
![Page 56: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Appendix A: Historical Review of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction with Travel Cards | 56
Historical Perspective: Travel Card Reporting
Exhibit A-6(a) and Exhibit A-6(b) and Exhibit A-6(c) on the next page provide a historical perspective of
customer satisfaction ratings of fifteen travel card spend reporting features discussed in Chapter 3 of this
Report. The Exhibits add satisfaction ratings from our earlier surveys (in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013) to this
current edition and present them in descending order of importance as indicated by respondents in their 2016
ratings. The Exhibits reveal that all of the 15 items relating to travel card reporting have increased or stayed
the same between 2013 and 2016.
Exhibit A-6(a): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Reporting in Descending Order or Importance, 2007-2016
(where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
![Page 57: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Appendix A: Historical Review of 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Customer Satisfaction with Travel Cards | 57
Exhibit A-6(b): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Reporting in Descending Order or Importance, 2007-2016 (where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
Exhibit A-6(c): Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Reporting in Descending Order or Importance, 2007-2016
(where 1=very dissatisfied and 7=very satisfied)
![Page 58: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Appendix B: Importance and 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Satisfaction Ratings by Market Segment | 58
APPENDIX B
IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION
RATINGS BY MARKET SEGMENT
This chapter is meant to inform the reader on the current ratings of importance and satisfaction for
travel card issuer activities and services for the four major market segments in our Report,
including: (a) Fortune 500-Size corporations, (b) Large Market corporations, (c) Middle Market
corporations, and (d) Governmental and Not-for-Profit organizations.
A Market Segment Review of the Travel Card Issuer Relationship
Exhibit B-1 through Exhibit B-6 on the following pages display the importance and satisfaction ratings, by
market segment, for six aspects of the travel card issuer-organization relationship, including: (1) travel card
economics, (2) customer service and support, (3) capture of transaction data, (4) data integration, (5) card
technology for travel card program management, and (6) card reporting software.
Unless you reach 100% customer satisfaction, there is room for
improvement.
Horst Schulze ‘’
![Page 59: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Appendix B: Importance and 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Satisfaction Ratings by Market Segment | 59
Exhibit B-1: Importance of and Satisfaction with Economic Aspects of Travel Cards (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction
Fortune 500-Size Large Market Middle Market
Government and Not-for-
Profit
Fortune 500-Size
Large Market
Middle Market
Government and Not-for-
Profit
Economic Item
Bank fees to obtain travel cards 5.25 5.40 5.52 5.43 5.58 5.78 5.36 5.93
Rebates/incentives tied to card spending 6.57 6.08 5.42 5.86 5.58 5.51 4.81 5.47
Cost of lost/stolen card replacement 5.50 5.62 5.22 5.94 5.67 5.95 5.59 6.12
Liability protection for lost/stolen cards 6.35 6.15 6.04 6.59 5.83 6.03 5.83 6.23
Liability protection from card misuse 6.29 5.96 5.87 6.37 5.54 5.92 5.70 6.08
Cash advance fees 3.37 2.98 2.43 2.70 4.86 4.67 4.84 4.94
Foreign exchange fees 4.92 4.56 3.50 3.71 4.96 4.34 4.63 4.90
Late payment fees 5.08 4.75 3.76 3.78 4.98 5.20 4.87 5.36
Loyalty awards/rewards 3.11 3.95 3.95 3.31 4.61 4.89 4.64 4.68
Overall economic relationship with card issuer in relation to travel cards 6.18 5.79 5.55 5.91 5.62 5.74 5.18 5.63
![Page 60: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Appendix B: Importance and 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Satisfaction Ratings by Market Segment | 60
Exhibit B-2: Importance of and Satisfaction with Travel Card Customer Service and Support (where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction
Fortune 500-Size
Large Market
Middle Market
Government and Not-for-
Profit
Fortune 500-Size
Large Market
Middle Market
Government and Not-for-
Profit
Customer Service and Support Item
Training materials and support 5.49 5.20 4.83 5.53 4.75 5.14 4.92 4.86
Knowledge of the organization's information systems technology and expense reporting process 5.53 5.27 4.69 5.19 4.88 4.79 4.74 4.94
Friendliness and respect shown by card issuer personnel 6.27 5.72 5.69 6.04 5.94 5.86 5.54 5.88
Service and support in travel card program implementation 6.39 5.93 5.62 5.92 5.55 5.63 5.29 5.53
Level of assistance in identifying best applications for travel card 5.72 5.30 4.93 5.11 5.20 5.15 4.85 5.03
Assistance in obtaining supplier travel card acceptance 5.14 4.72 4.59 4.55 4.96 5.24 5.19 4.93
Work with suppliers to ensure quality or suitability of data passed through system 5.18 4.71 4.54 4.91 4.74 5.08 4.69 4.63
Quality of help from "help desk" 6.22 5.91 5.61 6.04 5.33 5.82 5.39 5.40
Hours of "help desk" availability 6.11 5.71 5.26 5.90 5.58 5.70 5.34 5.57
Average time elapsed for "help desk" to resolve a problem 6.17 5.66 5.52 6.05 5.18 5.49 5.30 5.43
Speed of lost/stolen card replacement 6.31 6.18 5.94 6.38 5.59 5.44 5.35 5.94
Handling of disputed transactions 6.19 6.00 5.82 6.43 5.58 5.54 5.42 5.81
Handling of delinquent accounts 4.92 4.67 4.69 4.45 5.28 4.87 4.97 5.33
Travel management services 3.51 3.36 3.50 2.99 4.75 4.49 4.67 4.51
Expense management services 3.77 4.26 4.08 3.86 4.56 4.63 4.73 4.89
Sponsorship of commercial card "User Conferences" or other training programs 4.98 4.24 3.49 4.00 5.22 4.81 4.68 4.65
Overall customer service and support 6.19 5.88 5.43 6.09 5.41 5.59 5.20 5.47
![Page 61: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Appendix B: Importance and 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Satisfaction Ratings by Market Segment | 61
Exhibit B-3: Importance of and Satisfaction with Travel Card Data Capture
(where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction
Fortune 500-Size
Large Market
Middle Market
Government and Not-for-
Profit
Fortune 500-Size
Large Market
Middle Market
Government and Not-for-
Profit
Data Capture Item
Airline data (city pairs) 4.27 4.00 3.69 3.68 4.70 4.47 4.57 4.60
Airline data (travel leg) 4.08 4.00 3.63 3.55 4.31 4.54 4.40 4.58
Airline data (itinerary) 4.76 4.27 3.99 4.18 4.49 4.40 4.45 4.42
Airline data (seats purchased by service class) 4.94 3.97 3.91 3.80 4.18 4.00 4.30 4.28
Fare basis code 4.34 3.76 3.47 3.39 4.24 4.00 4.28 4.25
Airline data (seat upgrade data) 4.60 3.97 3.94 3.77 4.12 3.64 4.21 4.10
Hotel folio data 5.02 4.20 3.97 4.38 4.00 3.77 4.11 4.13
Enhanced auto rental data 4.52 4.08 3.58 3.55 4.17 3.70 4.13 3.95
Taxpayer identification number 3.56 3.28 2.84 3.02 4.03 3.91 4.20 4.36
Sales tax information 3.93 4.24 3.25 4.23 4.39 3.73 4.16 4.32
VAT tax information 4.40 3.76 2.56 2.65 4.42 3.52 4.23 4.39
Hotel street address 3.95 3.68 3.15 3.52 4.17 3.69 4.33 4.43
Carbon emission data related to travel purchases 2.79 2.59 1.82 1.80 3.56 3.50 3.85 3.74
Information to support discount negotiations with travel service providers 5.02 3.84 3.00 3.40 3.97 3.61 3.93 4.11
Overall capture of transaction-related information 5.67 4.46 4.63 5.01 4.62 4.00 4.71 4.61
![Page 62: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Appendix B: Importance and 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Satisfaction Ratings by Market Segment | 62
Exhibit B-4: Importance of and Satisfaction with Aspects of Travel Card Data Integration
(where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction
Fortune 500-Size
Large Market
Middle Market
Government and Not-for-
Profit
Fortune 500-Size
Large Market
Middle Market
Government and Not-for-
Profit
Data Integration Item
Ability to integrate travel card data into resource planning, general ledger, or AP applications 5.71 5.32 5.34 5.63 5.07 5.08 4.49 5.16
Ability to transfer travel card data to expense reporting system 6.62 5.59 5.42 5.24 5.82 5.29 4.83 5.02
Ability to transfer travel information (other than from travel card) to expense reporting system 5.82 4.74 4.99 4.81 4.89 4.70 4.59 4.88
Ability to consolidate multiple global site spending into one report 5.62 4.78 4.13 3.54 4.79 4.81 4.72 4.58
Ability to consolidate multiple North American site spending into one report 5.34 4.73 3.93 3.62 5.24 4.97 4.74 4.67
Ease with which travel card spending is allocated to appropriate cost center 5.45 5.49 5.39 5.53 5.32 5.59 4.72 5.31
Ease with which travel card spending can be reconciled with other organizational data about travel card purchases 5.45 5.16 5.24 5.32 5.20 5.06 4.51 4.92
Overall integration of travel card data with organizational information systems 6.08 5.73 5.30 5.55 5.31 5.26 4.74 5.05
![Page 63: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Appendix B: Importance and 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Satisfaction Ratings by Market Segment | 63
Exhibit B-5: Importance of and Satisfaction with Software Technology Features Related to Travel Card Program Management
(where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction
Fortune 500-Size
Large Market
Middle Market
Government and Not-for-
Profit
Fortune 500-Size
Large Market
Middle Market
Government and Not-for-
Profit
Ability of the Card Administrator to:
Perform cardholder data maintenance in real time 6.43 6.09 5.76 6.39 6.09 6.33 5.57 6.08
Terminate/order travel cards in real time 6.64 6.24 6.20 6.47 6.15 6.42 5.91 6.16
Obtain real-time access to information on card spending approvals/declines 6.70 6.27 6.10 6.38 5.74 6.07 5.52 6.05
Modify spending limits in real time 6.57 6.39 6.40 6.50 6.27 6.56 5.86 6.03
Allocate travel card spending to separate accounts on an ad hoc basis 4.80 4.95 4.70 4.85 5.16 5.26 5.20 5.31
Automate workflow processing for expenditure approval 5.16 5.00 4.97 5.34 5.39 5.32 4.96 5.29
Monitor card program metrics 6.10 5.43 5.00 5.31 5.54 5.28 4.77 5.22
Access administrative tools via mobile or tablet device 4.59 4.79 4.65 4.35 4.50 4.59 4.83 4.60
Use technology to validate account codes 4.91 4.72 4.89 4.94 4.95 4.89 4.75 5.07
Self-manage the travel card program 5.98 5.68 5.59 5.74 5.54 5.58 5.26 5.50
Overall ability of card issuer technology to support travel card program management 6.32 5.86 5.68 6.05 5.80 5.74 5.25 5.65
![Page 64: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Appendix B: Importance and 2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results Satisfaction Ratings by Market Segment | 64
Exhibit B-6: Importance of and Satisfaction with Elements of Travel Card Reporting Technology
(where 1=not important or very dissatisfied and 7=very important or very satisfied)
Importance Satisfaction
Fortune 500-Size
Large Market
Middle Market
Government and Not-for-
Profit
Fortune 500-Size
Large Market
Middle Market
Government and Not-for-
Profit
Reporting Item
Length of transaction history 6.06 5.83 5.38 5.90 5.67 5.74 5.46 5.49
Access to past/present cardholder statements 6.40 6.16 5.77 6.04 5.88 5.56 5.36 5.48
Readability of reports 6.44 6.02 5.79 6.14 5.65 5.51 5.24 5.45
Support provided in development and/or interpretation of reports 5.82 5.73 5.04 5.53 5.02 5.21 4.87 4.93
Ability of cardholders to obtain statements by e-mail or from internet/intranet 5.79 5.27 5.49 5.39 5.76 5.31 5.40 5.24
Ease of submitting expense reports to proper person for approval 5.38 5.78 5.51 5.18 5.29 5.29 5.37 5.13
Ability to track disputed transactions 5.60 5.81 5.57 5.86 4.82 4.95 5.01 5.06
Ability to analyze spending patterns 5.77 5.57 5.09 5.48 5.16 5.10 4.83 4.91
Ability to locate a traveler in an emergency 5.23 4.60 4.04 4.40 5.12 4.50 4.70 4.49
Ability to track payment delinquencies 5.71 4.61 4.07 4.21 5.38 4.62 4.79 4.91
Ability to access travel card reports on mobile or tablet devices 4.52 4.83 4.51 4.40 4.56 4.54 4.68 4.54
Card misuse analytics 5.90 5.47 4.89 5.15 4.91 4.60 4.62 4.92
Ability to customize reports 6.26 5.88 5.46 5.75 5.16 5.00 4.65 5.06
Integrity of data contained in reports 6.43 6.14 5.71 6.08 5.75 5.50 5.18 5.62
Overall reporting package 6.16 5.90 5.54 6.06 5.50 5.41 4.96 5.28
![Page 65: [This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022050520/62727f7828167317a1435b3e/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
2016 Corporate Travel Card Benchmark Survey Results About the Authors | 65
[End of Document]
© 2016, RPMG Research Corporation