Based on the business travel and expenses policy review survey, whilst most staff were supportive of Clarity two key primary concerns came up:
- that Clarity is more expensive than comparable providers or booking personally and;
- that Clarity is unreliable or difficult to use.
The business travel and expenses policy review group investigated both concerns to ensure any final policy is evidence-based and fully informed by staff input. Here are the findings.
The review group requested competitor analysis based on a range of fares against 3 major competitors. The analysis showed that Clarity, on a like-for-like basis, was more expensive on 4% of the fares booked, and cheaper on 92%. Regardless, the review group recognize that Clarity can initially seem more expensive and is a small amount of the time.
There are many reasons Clarity can seem more expensive. The main reason is in comparisons not being on a like-for-like basis. For example, competitor prices will not include many of the automatic benefits Clarity provides. For instance, Clarity automatically cancels or chase refunds such as during the emergence of Covid. Clarity track staff who are travelling and inform them of security and disruption issues, give 24-hour assistance in the event of disruption, and automatically capture the carbon impact of travel. Insurance is provided automatically, and you only need to set up the profile with passport number and personal details once. All these things would otherwise have to be provided by the University or the staff member.
There are many other reasons that one price can seem more expensive than another such as add-ons during the booking process or dynamic prices changing minute by minute. Taking all of this into account, on balance, Clarity would appear to be the cheapest, on a like-for-like basis most of the time.
- An average email response time from Clarity for 1st response of 70 minutes.
- A customer satisfaction score of 98%.
- A Customer effort score (capturing ease of website use) of 94%.
Whilst these results are positive, some staff feedback suggests a greater number of negative experiences. The review group want to reassure staff that they are taking into account this wider input and thank everyone for taking the time to feedback.