Like we reported before, PTA earlier in September/October 2011 had launched this SMS based consumer perception survey for cellular companies to measure consumer’s perception about services of five mobile phone operators.
PTA is issuing the results for the said survey tomorrow morning through full page supplements (paid textual content that is published in papers; usually at the end). But we are going to bring you those results before time, thanks to a generous tip from a source who obviously wanted us not to name him.
According to details that we do have, this survey system was designed in a way that it could randomly send SMS to mobile phone users to invite them to participate in the survey by replying the SMS with score ranging from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) as per his/her perception about his/her respective mobile operator.
Without mentioning the number of responses or the demographics of participants, PTA in it’s results has said that Mobilink was ranked as excellent by 30 percent users, while Warid was termed as excellent by 29 percent of it’s customers. 22.5 percent customers of Telenor marked it as excellent. Zong managed to get 20 percent votes for excellent rating while Ufone could convince 16 percent customers to rate it as excellent service.
On other hands for poor service rating Zong topped with 44 percent votes, Ufone stood at 42.5 percent, Telenor at 40 percent, Mobilink at 26 percent and Warid at 25 percent.
PTA didn’t rank the companies comparatively but just mentioned the feedback in percentages.
Check below graph to have a detailed look at customers’ feedback for all five operators:
In addition to SMS survey results, PTA will also highlighted some other survey results (from past) in the supplement – but we aren’t discussing them here (just because we have already covered those in the past), but you can get full version of supplement below including messages from PTA top officials.
On a side note, after going through all the content, this supplement didn’t make much sense to me, just because this is a usual (valuable though) news information that papers should have published without such an arrangement. But again, printing a news against cellular companies is like axing your publishing business. I will write on this some other time.
You can go ahead with the supplement for now: