Главная

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CHECK assesses venues of EURO 2008

Munich – From mid-May to the end of May 2008, just before the start of the European Football Championship in and , Europe’s largest mystery shopping enterprise INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CHECK assessed the signposting and parking facilities of all stadiums and central tourist information centres by means of mystery shopping test customers. The results of the survey: The environment of the stadiums and the tourist information facilities, for the most part, presented a rather gloomy picture. If one considers both tested areas together, Salzburg scored highest and Geneva scored the lowest.

In order to obtain a truly representative result, the market researchers at INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CHECK had to assess every stadium environment and every tourist information facility for a total of 4 venues per country, checked at different points in time by 3 separate test customers - differing in gender, age and profession.

In the 24 checks completed at the stadiums, 3 scored “good“, 4 were “satisfactory“, 6 only “adequate“ and the remaining majority of 11 scored “inadequate”. The categories judged were appearance, information offered and parking. The biggest weaknesses in the stadiums as viewed by the mystery customers, was the lack of information boards with grouping, fixture and kick-off time information (only present in 12.5% of the tests), the lack of a map of the stadium site (present in only 54.2%) and information boards regarding public transport (only 58.3%). The most positive results found by the mystery customers around the stadiums were clean roadways (100%), fully functional and clean parking ticket machines (100%) and clearly positioned signposts in the parking lots and parking garages (95%).

With a maximum of 100% total possible score, the overall result of all 24 checks of the stadium environments combined was 73.4%. The Swiss stadiums, scoring 74.5%, were just ahead of the Austrian stadiums scoring 72.3%. The best individual result was achieved by the Letzigrund stadium in Zurich (85.2%) followed by the Ernst-Happel-Stadium in Vienna (78.9%) and the Wals-Siezenheim stadium in Salzburg (76.1%). The worst result was for the Wörthersee stadium in Klagenfurt (62.5%).

The 48 test customers all checked the signposting and parking facilities as well as the tourist information centres by following a questionnaire which comprised of several pages and was drafted especially for EURO 2008. The test customers then wrote a detailed report on every single check completed. Some of the comments made about the stadium environments by the test customers were, amongst others: On the stadium in Geneva (ranking 7th), “The stadium being grey on grey does not appear attractive from outside. Signposting to the stadium and the parking facilities is very poor”. On the stadium in Bern (ranking 5th), “The exterior view is impressive and appealing. Signposting around the stadium is very good; a visible information tower with directions was present at every corner of the stadium”. The parking garage at the stadium in Basel (ranking 6th) was praised as being “Well-lit, easy to navigate and clean” along with there being “very good signposting” both towards and inside the stadium. A deficiency found at the parking garage in Basel was that there were only 10 disabled parking spaces, which is not sufficient. Moreover, the test customers judged all of the signposting for the stadiums in Salzburg and Zurich to be “very good”, whilst it was “very poor” and “confusing” in Klagenfurt. Innsbruck (ranking 4th) lost one point for the “insufficient signposting from the stadium to the public transport facilities”.

The results for the provision of tourist information in general were better than for the stadium environments. Here the test customers performed their missions by fulfilling specific tasks: “Seek consultation at a central tourist information point about accommodation facilities for friends during EURO 2008”. In these tests, which were completed at all 24 venues checked, 3 tourist information centres scored “very good”, 5 “good”, 2 “satisfactory”, 3 “adequate”, the majority of 11, however, again scored “inadequate”. The criteria that was tested here was appearance, consultation (service/competence) and customer retention. The weaknesses criticized in most cases were missing name badges on the staff members (available only in 33.3% of the checks), a lack of initiative on the part of the staff member to offer different possibilities of accommodation and inform about the respective terms on their own initiative (only 37.5%) and active and direct approach by a staff member within two minutes (only 62.5%). Most important plus factors in tourist information were interior cleanliness, staff members being clean and tidy and staff being well-groomed (each 95.8%).

With again a maximum of 100% score possible overall, the total combined result of all 24 checks on tourist information centres was 72.2%. Here too, the Swiss scoring 73.4% had a slight lead over the Austrians reaching 71.0%. The winner in the individual ranking was the Salzburg Tourist Information at Mozartplatz (91.7%), followed by Bern Tourismus at Amtshausgasse (85.2%) and Basel Tourismus at Steinenberg (84.0%). The worst result of all the eight tourist information centres was reached by Tourist-Info Vienna at Albertinaplatz/Maysedergasse (56.9%).

The INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CHECK test customers made the following comments in some of their reports: On Tourist-Info Vienna “Staff members did not approach customers spontaneously. The staff member was not at all knowledgeable about my questions on EURO 2008” (1st test customer). “The staff member gave me the impression that I was a nuisance to him. I asked him ‘Can you help me in finding accommodation during the European Football Championship?’ He replied ‘No, call the hotline’.” (2nd test customer). “I did not receive any consultation or advice whatsoever. Tourists will unfortunately feel desperate here.” (3rd test customer). The Salzburg Tourist Information was judged “Very competent, very friendly and very helpful.” by all three test customers who visited.

The tourist information in Innsbruck at Burggraben (ranking 7th) made a negative impression in all the three checks. The test customers’ opinion was: “Coming here is a waste of time, because you will not receive any help. A very disappointing visit” (1st test customer). “An arrogant employee, I did not get the impression that I was welcome here.” (2nd test customer). “You will not receive assistance here.” (3rd test customer). And there were only negative points also for the Geneva Tourism & Convention Bureau at Rue du Montblanc in Geneva (ranking 6th). Test customer No. 1: “There was no personal initiative, and as a customer I seemed to be rather a nuisance for the employee.” Test customer No. 2: “I did not discover any information with respect to EURO 2008. The staff member made a completely unenthusiastic impression, and I was felt to be a nuisance rather than a valued customer.” Test customer No. 3: “I had the impression that the staff member wanted to get rid of me as quickly as possible. He reacted to my questions about options for accommodation during EURO 2008 with utmost indifference. The complete service received was absolutely inadequate”. For the sake of completeness: The Klagenfurt Tourismus (Neuer Platz) ranked 4th, and the Zurich Tourist Information at Hauptbahnhof (Central Station) ranked 5th.