5.8a ERMUSR 11-8-2022E I 'u �i r M u �i 'u 'u I �u Hfl
SatisfactionCustomer
Quarter 3, 2022
Q MARKET L,.j
RESEARCH
93
Elk River Municipal Utilities
Customer Satisfaction Survey — Quarter 3, 2022
Backgrourid
terceptions regarding communication satisfaction and community involvement. As part of this study,
Elk River Municipal Utilities will focus on these key areas:
1. Net Promoter Score (likely to recommend)
2. ERMU as a utility provider overall
3. Reliability of the utility services received from ERMU
4. Ease of doing business with ERMU
5. ERMU's efforts to be environmentally friendly
6. ERMU's efficiency rebate programs
7. ERMU's ability to handle customer requests
8. ERMU's efforts to be involved in the community
9. Overall satisfaction with ERMU staff
10. Overall value for the money with ERMU
11. Preferred contact methods with ERMU
12. Customer demographics
Survey N/Iet,[ioddogy
survey. This list of randomly selected customers was provided by ERMU. The mailed survey provided a
postage -paid, return envelope addressed to Q Market Research. The survey also contained a web link
and QR code to allow the respondent to complete the survey on a computer or mobile device. An email
invite was also sent to 500 ERMU customers to complete the same survey from their computer or
mobile device.
• rreTATIRANDEffe"A
2
MI
DaLa C.,,ohectJori
The Q3 2022 survey included 500 mailed surveys to ERMU customers and 500 emailed surveys to ERMU
customers, Both mail and email surveos were sent on Se.,ctember 8, 2022, and data collection was close4,
on October 7, 2022. 51 mail responses were received, and 58 email responses were received. In total,
109 responses were received (mail and email), at an overall 10.9% response rate (and are statistically
valid at a 95% confidence level to within +/- 9.3%). This is considered an average response rate for this
type of survey. Data collection is summarized below:
Medium Sent Returned Response rate
Email 500 58 11.6%
Mail 500 51 10.2%
Total 1000 109 10.9%
3
95
Key F::iindIiing I.: Over: HH satiisfactbn i-th ERMU is generaIIIIy Ngh.
ERMU gets a 6.2 for overall satisfaction out of 7 by customers, largely based on high scores for reliability
and ease of doing business. The lowest score among the satisfaction ratings is 5.3 for the efficiency
rebate programs.
Key F::iindIiing 2.:..rhe Net [:Irornoter Score in (D3 2.02.2..for ERMU is 52, ° Nch is in the
IiexceIIIIent" range, u.aip.frorn (D_I. 2022.
ERMU's Q3 2022 NIPS score jumped to 52 (in the excellent range, above 50) from ERMU's Q1 2022 NIPS
score of 42.5, in the "good" range (which is a score of 0-50). NIPS is a broadly recognized measure of
overall customer satisfaction. Based on customer comments in this report, the Q3 2022 score was strong
because customers appreciate ERMU's reliability and customer service. The score remains in the
excellent range even though some customers complained about utility costs or the fact that ERMU has a
Key F::indiing 3: EROrJllU gets rnediiu.airn....<;trong grad: es for inv IIvernent in the cornrinu.air inky.
Respondents rated ERMU 7.6 in Q3 2022 for efforts to be involved in the community, out of a 1-10
rating choice. The rating was 8.1 in Q1 2022, so it dropped slightly in Q3.
Key F::indiing 4.:...rhe cornrinu.airflcatbns experience Mkh ERMU is lflglfly poi: itive and
Overall, customers rated communications with ERMU through customer service staff at 8.5 out of 10,
which is high, and up slightly from Q1 2022, when the score was 8.2. While customer service staff were
characterized as prompt and helpful by 21 written comments, 3 respondents mentioned that some staff
were not friendly. Yet in another overall measure of all staff (not just customer service staff),
respondents rated their satisfaction as 8.9, even higher than they rated customer service staff. The
customer newsletter, followed by the ERMU website, is highly relied on by customers for information
about ERMU. There was a moderate interest in adding a text chat.
Key F::iindIiing : Va hale .for the rinoney was IIower than other scores, but stflIII Ngh or) an
Overall, customers rated ERMU's value for the money at 7.4. This is lower than other ratings and
represents a drop in the value rating from 7.7 in Q1 2022, it is still high on a 1 to 10 rating scale in
absolute terms.
Demographics are included at the end of the report.
All verbatims are included at the end of the report, organized by question.
A list of customers who want to be contacted by ERMU is provided separately.
4
.M
DeLaded FJri&ngs
Sal.Jsfacl.Jori hn&cal.ars
"Reliability of ERMUs Service" (6.5) and "Ease of doing business with ERMU" (6.4) were the highest
scoring satisfaction measures, out of as possible 1 to 7 score, where 7 is completely satisfied. A close
second was satisfaction with ERMU overall, at 6.2. Fhese are high scores. Fhe lowest satisfaction
measure was ERMUs efficiency rebate programs at 5.3.
The factors measured were:
1. Ease of doing business with ERMU
2. Reliability of the power, water and other services you receive from ERMU
3. ERMU's efforts to be environmentally friendly
4. ERMU's efficiency rebate programs
5. ERMU as my utility provider overall
The graph below compares the values for Q1 2022 and Q3 2022. In almost all measures, ratings were up
from Q1 to Q3 2022.
Satisfaction with ERML)
(I. is cornp�et6y dissatisfied; 7 is cornp�ete�y satisfied)
Q1., 2022 vs. Q3, 2022
f he ease of doing busMess with ERMU
f he rehabillfty of the power, water and other services
ERMU's efforts to be env�ronrnentally Mendly
ERMU's efficiency rebate prograrns
ERMU as rny unity proMer overall
W06 6.4
0
jr6 0 6.5
fUjj 6.0
5.7
5.3
5.4
F 6.2
.9
INA Q3, 2022 IN Q1, 2022
5
97
"fie'rbc:utIIrn': or) Ove'raIIII `za- Isl' ac��-tIIor'71 DIIs a- Isl' ac'tIIor'71
Respondents were then asked, "Why did you give us these satisfaction ratings." Respondents answered
with both positive and negative comments but note that a large number of responses were about being
satisfied (43). Some Q3 2022 common responses include:
II
I
IIII
43
Satisfied with
Positive
"We are thankful for the resources that ERMU
customer service,
provides and always appreciate anything you can
utility services
do to help save on our budget."
"Fairly new customers, great service so far. Love
the fact that three separate bills are put into one."
13
Expensive, fees too
Negative
"I truly believe you should have an off-peak
high
system available."
"Everyone is friendly and helpful with questions.
However, the extra $50 a month in fees seems
crazy high."
6
Not aware of rebates
Neutral
"I have no complaints or concerns regarding our
or environmental
utility services. As for ERMU's environmental
efforts
initiatives and efficiency rebate programs, I am not
informed enough to state an opinion."
"I'd like to know more about a rebate program, as
I've never heard of this."
4
Like online billing
Positive
"I am thankful for the easy recurring payments
and easy website."
"Love the effortless online billing. Good job
ERMU."
Other:
--Particular service issue
--Power disruption
--Particular billing issue that led to power interruption
All responses are recorded at the end of the report.
0
Net [:InOOOOterSCOPe: ExCeHent|
Respondents were asked: 'How likely is it that you would recommend £RMVosoutility provider, even
though we are the only local electric and water utility?' Using the results from the question, the Net
Promoter Score was calculated. Scores can range from -100 to +100. Ascore of to 49.9 is considered
good and oscore of5Oorabove isconsidered excellent.
The NPS for ERMU for Quarter 3, 2022 is 52.0. This compares to a score of 42.5 in Q1, 2D22.The Q3
score isinthe "excellent" range.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
momofiulow
�����NN ����� ��=������
m~mmn�n�� NIPS ~m����mmm~~m
Q1 2022 VS, Q3 2022
RE
The Net Promoter Score (NPS) is calculated by taking the percent of those who respond that are the
most satisfied (rated a 9 or 10, or promoters) and subtracting the percent of those who are the least
satisfied (rated o O to G, or detractors). Those scoring 7 or are considered "neutral." The WP6 is o
widely used benchmork.
7
\/erbatiOOGOr) WhVN[:IS Score iG&ven
Respondents were asked why they gave ERMU a particular NPSscnre (promoter or detractor). More
than half (26) of those responding gave positive comments. Their full responses for Q3 2022 are at the
end nfthe report, but common responses were:
W.
& . .
. .. . . . . . ; -, , , "
A
26
No problems,
Positive
"They actually pick up the phone."
satisfied
"Service has been reliable & rates seem
"Reliable power, water and other services. Easy
bill payment online."
10
Expensive
Negative
"Costs are getting way too high. Don't keep
spending like your budget is meaningless."
"You are wasteful. No incentives for seniors.
Charge way too much."
9
Only choice,
Negative or
"is the only provider in the area. Not like I can
monopoly
Neutral
refer anything else."
"We will recommend for sure, but also truthfully
don't know how we couldn't recommend it
because I believe it's the only choice for Elk River,
correct? Thanks!"
All verbatims for this question are at the end of the report.
100
Eff&rLs Lo L)e kw6ved k'i L[ie cmn�rm.A�l'i�Ly
Respondents to the survey were asked: "Please rate ERMUs efforts to be involved in the community"
where 1 is low involvement and 10 is high involvement. The number of customers giving each score is
shown in the chart, below. The average score for this measure was 8.1 in Q1 and is 7.6 in Q3.
Rating ERMU's Efforts to Be Involved
in Community
Q1, 2022 vs. Q3, 2022
(1 is Iow invoIvernent and 10 is high invoIvernent)
M Q1, 2022
0
IS Q3, 2022 23
20
16
13� I�
12
9
2 2 5 6 6
1 1 1
0 0
W= M NEWINOW, go iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillilI 1 01
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
M
101
arnrn u it i ii c t ii o it i I xIpenerice w i t Ih ERMU U Fl s t 12 M o it i t Ih
r.h e cornrinu.airflcatbns experience is rated very Ngh
51% of respondents (52) say they have communicated with ERMU in the past 12 months.
If customers had interacted, they were asked to rate their satisfaction with the interaction on a scale of
1 to 10, where 10 is satisfied and 1 is dissatisfied. Their responses are shown in the chart below. The
average interaction score in Q1 2022 was 8.2 and in Q3 2022 in increased to 8.5.
Rating of Satisfaction with ERMU Communications
1 = Dissatisfied and 10 = Satisfied
yJ'�/}y
Q1, 2022 vs. Q3 2022 ryp
30 28
2.5
2.0
15
15
9
10 III
5 0 321 0 0 1 1 2 y1 2 p2 1 1 2 3 3 0 IIIlll ��uuuuuuu� II�iVNk�Mnf II�i�i10lililil II�iVNRE uuuuuuuu�N iOII�iMM ��uuuuuuu� Ilu������� ililililililililiR iOII�iRM ��uuuuuuu� III I III
V b. 2. 3 4 5 0 i 3 9 10
iiiiiii Q1, 2.02.2. lun Q3, 2.02.2.
Verbatiirns or) �nteractbn wv-th ERMU
Respondents were asked to describe their interaction with ERMU. Comments were considerably more
positive than Q1 2022. In Q3 2022, 21 of 24 responses were positive!
10
102
ERMU custorner newsetter is the rinost preferred rine-thod of cornrnurflcatbn
Respondents were asked: "How would you like ERMU to communicate with you? Check your top 3."
Shown in the chart below, the customer newsletter is the most preferred way, and the ERMU website is
a close second. This is consistent with Q2. In the 3 rd quarter, "Text" became the third preferred way.
Pirefenred Method of Communication firoirn ERMU
Q1, 2022 vs. Q3, 2022
Custorner newsletter
ERMU website i�l+IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAIMIII 45.6%
33.0%
Locall newspaper IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII25.0%
fext(notcurrentlyavaflable)
INNOWNIM01W23.04%
Sociall rne6a 14.4%
INNOWNIN 14. 0%
Uve chat (not currently avaflable)
Social media mentions Q3, 2022
Facebook, 8 mentions
Nextdoor, I mention
Twitter, I mention
Other mentions Q3, 2022:
Email, 15 mentions
Mail, I mention
Phone call if needed, I mention
Live chat, I mention
ij�Q3,2022 iiiiQ1,2022
11
62.0%
103
I..ev6I of `zatisfactbn vvirkh ERMU Staff
Customers were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with ERMU's staff, on a scale of 1 to 10, where
10 is high satisfaction and 1 is low satisfaction. Their responses are shown in the chart below. The
average staff satisfaction score in Q1 2022 was 8.8. This compares to an average staff satisfaction score
in Q3 2022 of 8.9.
00
0
40
30
2.0
10
1
0 1
aou fif
0
1
2.
Rating of Satisfaction with ERMU's Staff
1 = low satisfaction and 10 = high satisfaction
Q,i., 2022 vs. Q,3, 2022 (nuarc ber giving each score)
0 0 0 0
3 4
M
40
11 14
II111 1 auu. 11111113111111 muimii it III
0 i 8 0 1C
111111111 Q1, 2022 IM Q3, 2022
Verb uti1rns or) "`zati1sfactbn vvi-th On::RO IU Staff"
Respondents were asked why they gave this staff satisfaction rating in Q3, 2022. This quarter was even
more positive than Q1 2022 (which was positive). 21 out of 22 who commented on ERMU staff were
positive!
12
104
Other comments:
--Cost too expensive
--Didn't talk to anyone
13
105
Rat�ng of ERMU's Vah.je for the Money
Customers were asked to rate ERMU's value for the money on a scale of I to 10, where 10 is high value
and I is low value. Their responses are shown in the chart below. The average value score in Q1 2022
was 7.7. The average score for Q3 2022 was 7.4.
Rating of ERMU's Value for the Money
1 = low value and 10 = high value
Q.1. 2022 vs. Q,3 2022 (nurnber giving each response)
30
25 2324
20 is
15 14
15 12
9 9
10 7
5 3 3 3 5 2 3 4 4 5 NNNNNN
0 0 1111 0 111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII uuuuuuuiui 111
1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10
iiiiQ12022 lunQ32022
Verbat�rns or) "Vah.je for -the Money"
Respondents were asked why they gave this rating for value for the money. The written responses for
Q3 2022 were largely critical of what they perceive as high costs.
14
106
Several respondents (4) said they had no idea what the market rates is or how to compare rates. Here is
an example:
"This is a hard one for me to rate because we don't have any other company to compare to because you
are the only choice. I do know that we have a Sensi thermostat system and have seen rebates and such
from other companies in the cities and wish that we could receive those. Thank you!"
15
107
[)e mogr aC)h�cs
Age: BeterdiGtribUtiOr) aOOOng age groups than (D-1. 2022�
The chart below breaks down the percentages of respondents to the survey by age in Q3 2022. The high
response rate of customers ages 50 and older is typical for utility respondents, with lower responses
among younger customers. This survey garnered 42% response from ages 49 and lower, which shows
better representation ofyounger age groups than Ll12O22.
15'Z-q A�' 1 1; qu
16
IM