Customer Education and Awareness of On-Demand Mobility (2023)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

22 The research team assembled a list of 107 total transit agencies or governmental entities that were identified as having an on-demand service pilot/program using some combination of TNCs, taxicabs, or microtransit technology providers. The list was trimmed down to 87 agencies to create a group of agencies to target for the survey based on including a variety of agency sizes, geographic settings, private company partners, and maturity of the service. Invitations were sent to the trimmed-down list once contacts at each agency were identified. After the survey was issued, 40 people clicked on the survey link, with 35 providing some level of response. Some responses were determined to be either invalid (not complete enough for analysis) or not eligible (respondent was not from a transit agency); a few other responses were duplicates of previous responses provided from the same person and merged by question based on the most complete response provided. The data cleaning process left a total of 29 usable responses, which are used in this discussion of the survey results. Marketing and Outreach Campaigns Agencies that responded to the survey identified 48 total on-demand services, 85 percent of which were active at the time the survey was completed. A total of 18 different mobility/ technology companies were identified as being partners with transit agencies in some manner for the on-demand service. Respondents were asked about the purposes of the on-demand services; the most common purposes were improving service in transportation-disadvantaged areas (62 percent), testing functionality of new service models (59 percent), providing first/ last mile gap service connections (55 percent), and providing service in new geographic areas (52 percent). Next, agencies were asked how factors of the service impacted either the marketing or branding of the service. Respondents indicated that marketing was influenced by many factors, including service area location (79 percent), transit agency goals (72 percent), demographic information (66 percent), and points of interest in the service area (62 percent). The same factors were frequently influential to defining specific customer populations for the service as well. Branding of the service was less influenced by these factors, with transit agency goals being the highest cited factor (55 percent). Figure 3 shows the results of marketing and branding factors. Researchers asked how services were branded in name and features to customers. Nearly 69 percent of services from respondents were branded as a part of the transit agency, as opposed to being a stand-alone service or part of a private provider’s service. On branding for service features, most services were branded as available to everyone (general public), whereas some were branded as premium services in terms of either fare/availability (17 services) or comfort/ vehicle type (11 services). C H A P T E R 3 Survey Results

Survey Results 23   Roles and Responsibilities Respondents indicated that a variety of departments with their agencies play a role with customer education and awareness efforts for their on-demand services. Marketing or community outreach departments play either a lead or support role in these eorts for all respondents, followed by planning or innovation departments (which tend to be in supporting roles). Depending on the agency, operations departments can play a key support role in these eorts as well. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the split of lead and support roles by department from respondents. Respondents indicated that their mobility/technology partners (such as TNC, taxi, or micro- transit companies) can play a variety of roles in customer education and awareness depending on 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other Language Local organizations in the area Demographic information Geographic characteristics of the area Service radius Community input Points of interest in the service area Transit agency goals Service area location Factor impacted the branding for the service Factor impacted the marketing strategy for the service Factors used to de ne speci c customer populations Figure 3. Q15: How did your agency dene specic customer populations for on-demand mobility service(s) while the service was being developed? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Marketing Planning Innovation Operations – Fixed- Route Operations – Demand Response Community Outreach Other Department Figure 4. Q19: Which department within the agency where you work contributes to the customer education and awareness efforts for the on-demand service(s)? (Lead department).

24 Customer Education and Awareness of On-Demand Mobility the service. e most common response for partner roles was in the area of customer feedback for the service, but marketing, customer education, and incentives/promotions for the service were also a frequent role of these partners. On the subject of marketing, mobility/technology partners frequently use social media (55 percent of respondents) as well as print collateral (48 percent) and digital ads (34 percent) for advertisements. For partners that developed and administered customer education programs, examples from respondents included the following: • How-to-ride videos • Face-to-face customer engagement • Street teams • Website information • Customer support phone lines • Social media posts • Printed demonstration materials A few respondents provided copies of their agreements with mobility partners, which include stipulations on marketing and outreach through a variety of means. Some agreements list responsibilities between the public entity and the mobility partner in marketing and promo- tions, including developing programs together, leveraging existing resources for promotion, and specics on the provision of promo codes and rates. Contracts can include pricing the costs of marketing/promotions planning and implementation as a line item up front in the agreement through a specic price per driver hour charge. Contracts can also stipulate that the mobility/technology partner track certain metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs); customer satisfaction may be tracked using rider survey data (through the smartphone app or other means) and then compared to service baselines and/or target improvement rates. Part- ners may also be required to conduct interviews with riders about their service experience and provide the information back to the transit agency/government entity for purposes of service improvement. Public entities can also require review and approval of partnerships between the mobility/technology company and other local organizations that are aimed to help improve awareness/utilization of the service. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Marketing Planning Innovation Operations – Fixed- Route Operations – Demand Response Community Outreach Other Department Figure 5. Q19. Which department within the agency where you work contributes to the customer education and awareness efforts for the on-demand service(s)? (Support department).

Survey Results 25   Nearly 59  percent of respondents also reported having local stakeholder partners that were involved with customer education and awareness eorts for their on-demand services. Examples of local stakeholders provided included municipalities and other local governments, other transit agencies, chambers of commerce, private businesses, universities, steering and advisory committees, housing authorities and shelter services, social services and area agencies on aging, food pantries, local foundations, neighborhood groups, and even the Boy Scouts of America. Local stakeholder partners are most frequently involved in customer education eorts (36 percent of responses) but also can provide assistance in marketing (27 percent); these part- ners can have more of a role with generating word-of-mouth buzz about the service, assisting and coordinating with community meetings, making connections between the transit agency and potential customers, and holding in-person events with customers to teach them about the service. Scope of Marketing Efforts Respondents were asked about the types of marketing used in association with their on-demand services; most service examples provided used both social media and print collateral for marketing. Several agencies also used physical mailers and digital advertisements in marketing the services, whereas billboards and commercial media (such as local television and radio paid advertising) were used to a lesser extent. Transit agencies also reported putting ads at bus stops, stations, or benches about the service, as well as even using door hangers (instead of mailers) in marketing media. Some respondents tailored the messaging toward specic audiences or ridership groups, particularly with respect to social media postings and print collateral; respondents were asked about specic audiences and the types of marketing used for each audience. Rider groups fre- quently targeted by these marketing eorts were persons with disabilities and older adults (44 and 43 responses, respectively), as well as low-income households or community organizations (37 responses each). Figure 6 shows the responses for marketing campaigns directed at spe- cic rider groups. Respondents also tailored customer education eorts to specic rider groups, although to a lesser extent than marketing eorts; for example, travel training teaches customers how to ride a transit service with one-on-one instruction on using the digital platform, planning 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Commercial media Social media Print collateral Mailers Billboards Digital ads Other types r n ti Older adults Veterans Low-income households n rg n ti n Other target audience(s) Figure 6. Q38: Please indicate any marketing campaigns that were directed at specic audiences/ rider groups (more specialized than people living in the service area) and which population groups were the target audience for these marketing campaigns.

26 Customer Education and Awareness of On-Demand Mobility trips, purchasing fares, and finding their vehicle. Customer education in the form of print collateral was cited most frequently (52 responses), followed by workshops/events (37 responses), travel training (29 responses), and how-to-ride videos (22 responses). Enhanced Participation Agencies were asked about enhanced participation efforts using technology, incentives, or other innovative tools for engaging customers on their on-demand services. Approximately half of respondents (48 percent) said they did use some form of enhanced participation for their on-demand service pilot/program. Respondents often collected dynamic/post-trip feedback through the smartphone app for the service (20 responses); some agencies also had push messages through their smartphone app to remind customers about service news/availability (18 responses). Incentives/rewards (12 responses) or referrals (11 responses) were also incor- porated into the service design by some agencies and their partners. Respondents typically did not tailor enhanced participation efforts toward specific user groups, instead using them more generally for all service customers. Communication and Engagement Agencies were next asked about primary means for communication and engagement with local stakeholders about on-demand mobility services. Overall, communication tends to be the responsibility of the transit agency rather than the service/technology partner or any commu- nity partners; this communication is handled through a combination of community meetings, website announcements/portals, and phone lines/help desks (one respondent also uses text and email alerts/notifications for communication to customers). Respondents said that communica- tion occurs fairly uniformly between the period prior to the service launch, the service launch announcement, and ongoing engagement during the service period; however, communication tends to not continue after the service ends (in the form of follow-up surveys or engagement). Figure 7 shows the responses for communication by entity for the pilot/service period. Sometimes agencies use feedback gathered from customers in decision making for adjust- ments to the on-demand service. Most commonly, agencies make adjustments to the service 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Prior to service launch Service launch announcement Ongoing engagement during the service A er the service ended (if applicable) Transit Agency Service/Technology Provider Community Partner(s) Figure 7. Q53: When did the transit agency and other service partners communicate with local stakeholders about the on-demand mobility service(s)?

Survey Results 27   zone (69  percent) or the hours-of-service span (45  percent) based on customer feedback. A few agencies responding also adjusted the service cost (fare or subsidy rate for the rider) or the service span by days of the week. Most respondents did not report the targeted audience for the service changing as a result of the engagement. Budget and Acquisition Agency responses varied widely in terms of the amount of budget set aside for marketing of the on-demand service. Agencies were asked about the approximate budget and time frame of that budget for their marketing campaigns; 18 services had marketing budgets between $500 and $100,000, 7 services had budgets between $100,000 and $500,000, and 4 services had no marketing budget specied. On marketing campaign time frames, 11 services had campaigns lasting less than a year from the service launch (some of which may be due to a limited pilot period), 9 services had budgeted campaigns for at least a year, and 7 services have ongoing or monthly budgets for marketing. For the source of the marketing budget, 55 percent of respon- dents indicated that this was part of the overall marketing budget for the agency, and 38 percent of respondents said this is part of the overall project budget for the service. e survey did not ask respondents about the percentage of the overall on-demand project budget spent on marketing and outreach eorts. Agencies were also asked whether they have tracked customer acquisition costs of the services, shown in Figure 8. Most respondents (75 percent) do not track any customer acquisition costs. For the agencies that do some tracking, 18 percent track only overall customers of the service, and 7 percent track both rst-time customers and repeat customers. Methods provided for tracking customer acquisition costs provided by respondents included the following: • Isolated by service zone • Cost per rider calculations from monthly reports • Tableau soware • Voucher code oered to customers Overall customers only 18% First-time customers and repeat customers 7% Not tracked 75% Figure 8. Q60: Do you track the cost of customer acquisition for rst-time customers versus repeat customers of the on-demand service(s)?

28 Customer Education and Awareness of On-Demand Mobility Lessons Learned, Benets, and Challenges Measurement of outcomes from customer education and awareness eorts occurred at some transit agency respondents through tracking whether certain performance measures improved. Respondents were rst asked whether they tracked a performance measure and then asked whether the result was better through being “higher” (such as higher ridership) or lower (such as lower customer complaints) depending on the measure. Figure 9 shows a list of performance measures presented to survey respondents and whether respondents measured or did not measure each of them. Most agencies track ridership of the on-demand service (96 percent) as well as new customers (85 percent) and customer complaints (81 percent). Factors such as online engagement, service rating, and recurring customers were also tracked by a majority of agency respondents (between 74 and 78 percent). Consistent with previous survey questions, costs of customer acquisition were tracked by fewer than half of respondents, and most agencies did not track eects of the on-demand service on multimodal trips (linked trips taken by customers between multiple transit modes). Other ndings were as follows: • Factors directly tied to the on-demand service (such as ridership, number of customers, complaints, and ratings) were the easiest for respondents to measure. • Cost of customer acquisition for the on-demand service (either new or recurring customers) was measured by less than half of respondents. • Factors such as ridership on other transit services or multimodal trips were less commonly measured by respondents compared to factors only tied to the on-demand service. Note: N/A = not available. 78% 59% 56% 52% 44% 44% 37% 33% 26% 22% 22% 19% 15% 4% 22% 41% 44% 48% 56% 56% 63% 67% 74% 78% 78% 81% 85% 96% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other Cost of new customer acquisiti n (lower) Multimodal trips (higher) Cost of recurring customer acquisiti n (lower) Paratransit ridership (lower) Area business acti (higher) Fixed-route ridership (higher) Ridership from targeted groups (higher) Recurring customers (higher) Ser ice rating (higher) Online engagement (higher) Customer complaints (lower) New customers (higher) On-demand ser ice ridership (higher) N/A or Not Measured Measured Figure 9. Q63: For each of the following measures used at your transit agency, please indicate the extent of the impact that customer education and awareness efforts for on-demand mobility services have had on [these] factors. (Agency measurement).

Survey Results 29   Figure 10 shows whether agency respondents found factors measured as improving or not improving as a result of the customer education and awareness eorts. All respondents that tracked ridership of their on-demand service found that ridership improved and the number of new customers was higher (85 percent) as the result of these eorts. Other factors that were at least somewhat better as the result of these eorts included lower customer complaints, higher online engagement, higher service ratings, higher recurring customers, and higher ridership from targeted groups of campaigns. Factors that were found to have no impact from these eorts by at least 25 percent of respondents were customer complaints, cost of recurring customer acquisition, and cost of new customer acquisition. Only three factors (xed route ridership, paratransit ridership, and multimodal trips) were reported as being lower as a result of agency eorts by a few respondents, indicating that respondents did not nd many negative impacts from their customer education and awareness eorts. • Most respondents indicated increased on-demand service ridership and increased new customers as a result of their eorts. • Service ratings, online engagement, and ridership from targeted groups were also improved for more than half of respondents. • A few respondents indicated measured lower ridership on their xed route ridership or higher ridership on their ADA paratransit service as a result of customer education and awareness eorts for the on-demand service. 4% 4% 11% 19% 26% 19% 33% 15% 15% 15% 11% 15% 15% 22% 30% 7% 15% 11% 26% 26% 37% 37% 41% 37% 26% 37% 33% 41% 4% 7% 7% 4% 11% 15% 19% 19% 26% 30% 15% 52% 56% 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Other Cost of new customer acquisiti n (lower) Multimodal trips (higher) Cost of recurring customer acquisiti n (lower) Paratransit ridership (lower) Area business acti (higher) Fixed-route ridership (higher) Ridership from targeted groups (higher) Recurring customers (higher) Ser ice rating (higher) Online engagement (higher) Customer complaints (lower) New customers (higher) On-demand ser ice ridership (higher) Made Significan Worse Made Somewhat Worse No Impact Made Somewhat Better Made Significan Better Figure 10. Q63: For each of the following measures used at your transit agency, please indicate the extent of the impact that customer education and awareness efforts for on-demand mobility services have had on [these] factors. (Measured benets)

30 Customer Education and Awareness of On-Demand Mobility Some factors for performance measurement are dependent on data from the service/technology partner, whereas others can be determined by the agency themselves. At least 48 percent of respondents reported that metrics for on-demand service ridership, new customers, recurring customers, and service rating were dependent on service/technology partner data. Agencies also provided examples of other factors used in evaluation of customer education and awareness campaigns, including number of customers from particular origins or destinations, biannual rider surveys, onboard and mobile surveys, sign-ups for the service (as opposed to trips), and trip purpose. Agencies were asked about the level of challenges presented by various customer education and awareness issues, shown in Figure 11. Overall, most agencies did not report having major challenges with the factors presented; less than 20 percent of respondents had major challenges with measuring the benet of engagement eorts, teaching customers how to ride the service, attracting new customers, or getting data from service/technology providers. Several issues presented were reported as slight challenges by respondents. • Most respondents were challenged in measuring the benet of their engagement eorts, even as agencies were still able to obtain and measure data from the service (as discussed previously). • Teaching customers unfamiliar with on-demand mobility how to ride the service was reported as the greatest challenge for respondents. 52% 81% 67% 52% 44% 33% 67% 33% 11% 19% 48% 15% 30% 44% 52% 59% 22% 56% 74% 63% 4% 4% 4% 4% 7% 11% 11% 15% 19% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Coordination with local stakeholder partners, organizations, and businesses on marketing and education efforts Coordination with the service/technology provider on marketing and education efforts Available budget for marketing and education efforts Ensuring equity in marketing and education outreach Reaching the target ridership audience Retaining riders after they’ve used the service the first time Getting data from the service/technology provider on engagement levels Attracting new customers (higher) Teaching customers unfamiliar with on-demand mobility how to ride the service Measuring the benefit of engagement efforts Not a challenge at all Slight challenge Major challenge Figure 11. Q67: Please indicate your agency’s experience with the customer education and awareness issues presented. Note that some bars do not add up to 100% because of rounding.

Survey Results 31   • Retaining riders, attracting new customers, and reaching target ridership audiences were also slight challenges for more than half of respondents. Finally, agencies were asked to provide any overall lessons learned about their customer education and awareness campaigns. Those that responded provided the following information as advice to the transit industry (summarized by the research team here): • Market the on-demand service early and often; continuing marketing efforts after the pilot launch is beneficial to help engage and re-engage both non-users and existing users of the service. • Create a targeted marketing campaign that speaks to the interests of the targeted group. • Examine the number of people who download the smartphone app/sign up for the on-demand service but never actually try the service for a trip; this can reveal barriers in service accessibility. • Using in-person advertisements (such as posters, billboards, and vehicle wraps) tends to be more successful than social media posts about the on-demand service. • Leveraging support of businesses and residential developments can be a helpful strategy, particularly for services aimed at increasing commuting trips on transit. • Make marketing of the on-demand service a part of the project budget. • Decide how engagement with advertising will be measured before the service begins and determine how that necessary data will be provided. • Experiment and adapt with different types of media and engagement depending on the service area, as they are different and cannot all be treated in the same way. • Have a “boots on the ground” approach in the community to educate customers about the service and increase understanding of marketing efforts that will be effective. • Go beyond translated posters for advertising to non-English speakers; examples include radio/television advertisements on other language stations or staff on hand to answer ques- tions from these customers. • Learn about engagement efforts done at other transit agencies with similar services, including agency motivations and outcomes. • Meet with stakeholders to ensure that service goals (including goals in awareness and engage- ment) are in sync and messaging of engagement is tailored to meet those goals. • Partner with city agencies and community groups to improve customer education for popula- tions that are traditionally difficult to reach. • Prepare all operations staff (including drivers, schedulers, and dispatchers) about how to use the service and smartphone platform so that they can in turn teach customers who need assistance.