Young investors are no longer just dipping their toes in the market – they’re taking the plunge.

According to our most recent Finance, Insurance, and Health Care Report, the percentage of respondents age 18 to 25 who’ve used internet investment services has nearly doubled year over year to 18%.

If only their level of satisfaction matched their eagerness.

While this generation’s participation in investment services is up, satisfaction is down, sliding 4% to an ACSI score of 71. This number is significantly worse than the industry average of 78.

So, why are younger investors so unhappy with their online investment experiences? How can brands not only attract, but retain these customers? Let’s take a look at where the industry is missing the mark (spoiler alert: it’s not just one thing).

Internet investment services are universally worse for wear

To say internet investment services aren’t meeting the demands of customers would be an understatement. And not just among younger investors.

The industry has the largest customer satisfaction drop-off in the Finance and Insurance sector at 3.7%, and not a single element of the investment experience improves.

Overall, internet investment services’ mobile apps fared best. But they’re still worse than the year before, with mobile app quality slumping 2% to 83 and mobile app reliability dropping 4% to 82.

Websites are struggling as well. Site performance, product selection, and the ease of making transactions all decline 4% to 79. Customers also find it more difficult to navigate sites, with satisfaction tumbling 4% to 78.

The remaining elements all decline to a score of 77: product descriptions (down 4%), customer support (down 4%), investment research (down 3%), and investment planning tools (down 3%).

Financial advisors don’t have the answers, either

Financial advisors have the same problem with younger investors. The percentage of survey respondents age 18 to 25 using financial advisors nearly doubled to 15% in 2020. Unfortunately, these young clients are less thrilled with their advisory experiences, as satisfaction sinks 3% to 72.

Among all demographics, we see similar patterns. While not as worse off as internet investment services, financial advisors also struggled to please customers in 2020, with satisfaction down 2.5% overall to a score of 77.

Mobile apps, like with internet investment services, have the highest marks. But, again, customers are less happy than last year, with satisfaction for mobile app quality and reliability both decreasing 4% to 81. Customers also want financial advisors to give them more mobile options to manage their accounts (down 1% to 76).

How to keep young investors engaged

The younger generation is more comfortable with digital tools. The problem is, both internet investment services and financial advisors are slipping in these areas. And it goes beyond tech.

Newer investors aren’t as pleased as seasoned investors. This year, customers who have worked with their online broker for less than a year are much less satisfied (72) than those who have been with their broker for more than one year (78).

Younger generations want to invest. However, the real challenge is keeping them interested. It starts with meeting their needs and focusing on what they want from an investment standpoint.

Online brokers should provide more digestible information for new investors. Everything from product information to investment research.

Financial advisors must establish a relationship. While trust and confidence are down 4% to 78, customers feel advisors could do a better job of explaining investment strategies (down 3% to 77) and prices and fees (down 3% to 76).

Determining how to relay this information effectively is another area of importance. Find a balance of communication. Most customers are less happy with the frequency of routine contact, by mail or by email (down 3% to 77), as well as contact by phone or meetings (down 1% to 75).

Improved digital services are a good place to start, but younger investors won’t just invest blindly. They don’t want to be bombarded with calls, but they don’t want to be left in the dark, either. You must walk a fine line.

The good news is younger investors are more receptive to investing. Only by meeting their needs can you keep it that way.

The banking industry has seen better days.

After slipping 1.2% last year, customer satisfaction with banks overall slides even further, dropping 2.5% to an ACSI score of 78, per our latest Finance, Insurance, and Health Care Report. This marks the first time since 2015 that satisfaction with banks resides in the 70s.

In 2020, no one escapes the swell of dissatisfaction, which has washed over national, super regional, and the smaller regional and community banks, and nearly every brand within those categories.

Yet, while the decline is industrywide, one category takes the brunt of the punishment: super regional banks.

Considerable satisfaction drops for super regional banks across the board

In 2019, national banks and super regional banks both had an ACSI score of 78, with the former lagging in six of 12 customer experience benchmarks. This year, much has changed.

As big banks decline 2.6% to a score of 76, super regional banks plunge 3.8% to a category-low 75. They also now trail both national players and smaller banks in every element except ATMs and branches, where they only outshine smaller banks – 73 to 70 and 73 to 64, respectively.

For super regionals, both staff courtesy (82) and in-branch transaction speed (80) decrease 5% year over year. By comparison, big banks and community banks decline just 1%-2% for these elements. Similarly, call center performance (74) for super regionals drops 6%, while large and small banks experience 1% and 2% dips, respectively.

Super regional banks also undergo substantial declines year over year in mobile app quality (down 4% to 81), website satisfaction (down 4% to 81), ease of understanding account information (down 4% to 78), variety of available services (down 4% to 78), and ease of making changes to accounts (down 5% to 77).

Super regionals don’t know where they belong

National banks have the power and money to go full steam ahead into digital services. The smaller banks have the personal touch that creates a quality in-person experience. Where does this leave super regional banks? They’re trying to figure that out themselves.

Not quite big enough to have the resources of larger banks, but not intimate enough to warrant the close connections to the community that smaller firms have created, super regionals could be having a difficult time finding the right balance of digital and human resources that customers want.

KeyBank, for example, faces this very problem. It’s considered by some to be too small to compete with the mega banks, yet too big to give off that community feel. It makes sense that it’s at the bottom of the super regional category, down 5% to a score of 72.

So, if you’re one of these super regional banks, what can you do? If you’re BB&T and SunTrust, you can go the merger route. Of course, while this “merger of equals” will make the newly formed Truist, the nation’s sixth largest bank, our studies have shown that mergers hamper customer satisfaction in the short term.

Walking a fine line

As super regional banks struggle with an identity crisis, the opposite can be said for the regional and community institutions.

Despite dropping 2.4% year over year, these banks still top the industry with an ACSI score of 81. Customers continue to appreciate the personal care they receive from these institutions, as regional and community branches are significantly better than their competitors in courtesy (87), speed of transactions (86), variety of financial services (83), ease of understanding information about accounts (83), and ease of making changes to accounts (83).

Surprisingly, the smaller banks are outperforming both national and super regional banks in digital services as well. They lead the industry in mobile app quality (86) and reliability (85), website satisfaction (85), and call center satisfaction (82).

It comes down to knowing who your customers are and what matters most to them. Smaller institutions, even with slight satisfaction declines, have this covered. Super regional banks, not so much. And with customers already frustrated with the banking industry as it is, these institutions have little room for error.

Customers’ dissatisfaction with retail is very real. And, since the pandemic, it’s only gotten worse – especially for internet retailers.

Internet retail’s once-comfortable lead over the supermarkets, specialty retail stores, department and discount stores, and drug stores has all but evaporated, per our special COVID-19 retail study, which is based on surveys collected from April 1, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2020.

Since our 2019-2020 Retail Report, customer satisfaction with internet retail plummets 4.9% to a score of 77 – the largest decline within the retail space – as zero internet retailers improve during the pandemic.

As if this weren’t surprising enough, no internet retailer has taken a bigger knock on the chin during COVID-19 than Amazon.

How has Amazon fallen behind the customer satisfaction game these past six months? Let’s take a look.

‘Amazon in the Middle’

It’s not just that Amazon no longer leads the category, it’s that Amazon is no longer even in the upper echelon of internet retailers.

After tumbling 7% to a score of 77, Amazon finds itself firmly in the middle, tying five other companies – Staples, Best Buy, Target, eBay, and Macy’s – for the industry average.

As it stands, seven online retailers currently outpace Amazon, with Costco, Nordstrom, and Etsy all square at the top with a score of 80.

Amazon’s fall from grace isn’t because of any one thing; it’s from a customer experience meltdown across the board.

Flailing customer experience

Amazon doesn’t have the sole lead in any customer experience benchmark. According to the data, the drops have been significant.

The online giant’s largest decreases come in inventory, navigation, variety, shipping, and customer support. By comparison, Etsy experiences substantial gains in customer support, while Sears, which has the lowest overall score, makes strong gains in shipping.

Many of Amazon’s losses aren’t as sizable, but they are still noteworthy, including site performance, images, and site-generated recommendations.

In most cases, Amazon’s scores aren’t bad. The company is near the top in mobile reliability, clarity, variety, and site performance, and it shares the lead in mobile quality, store speed, shipping, and inventory. However, its marks in these areas have all declined over the past six months.

Amazon’s sales aren’t suffering … yet?

And yet, you’d never know anything was wrong with Amazon based on its sales.

According to May 2020 data from eMarketer, Amazon currently owns 38% of U.S. e-commerce sales. Furthermore, spending on Amazon between May and July was up 60% year over year, per Facteus.

But just because Amazon dominates the online space now, doesn’t mean it will forever.

The pandemic has accelerated the shift to digital, and many businesses are changing with the times. Walmart, Amazon’s closest competition at just under 6% of the market, recently launched its own membership program – Walmart Plus – to challenge Amazon Prime.

No one’s suggesting that Amazon will lose its stranglehold anytime soon, but it’s no longer the only horse in the race. And while the online giant’s sales are through the roof, changes in customer satisfaction do influence a household’s willingness to buy.

Over the past six months, Amazon’s customer satisfaction is trending in the wrong direction. Although this hasn’t affected the company’s sales, it’s something to keep an eye on. If this trend becomes the norm, Amazon could see sales sink just like its customer satisfaction.

Disney had big plans for the live-action adaptation of “Mulan.” COVID-19 changed that. So, Disney did the only thing it could do in the face of a global pandemic: pivot.

On Sept. 4, Disney released the motion picture exclusively on Disney Plus in the U.S. and other countries where the streaming app is available. The film cost an additional $30, but subscribers own it.

Does this offer the viewer the same experience they’d have watching it in a movie theater? Of course not. But is it a worthwhile alternative at a time when social distancing limits options? Absolutely.

The pandemic enhanced consumers’ voracious appetite for streaming, and Disney adapted. And it’s not the only company to do so.

Here are three examples of companies shifting to meet customer needs during COVID-19.

1. Papa John’s is going the ‘fortressing’ route

The pandemic hasn’t slowed down Papa John’s.

With sales surging in the Northeast – same-store sales up 30.3% in July – Papa John’s is increasing its footprint in the region. The company will open 48 new locations in Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey by 2028 thanks to a deal with franchisee HB Restaurant Group.

Taking a page out of the Domino’s playbook, Papa John’s is going the ‘fortressing’ route by building more locations near one another. The goal is to shorten delivery time and make carry out orders more accessible.

Customer satisfaction with fast food restaurants’ speed of checkout and delivery was down 1.2% to a score of 81, according to our most recent Restaurant Report. Building more clustered locations could help swing things in the other direction.

2. Walmart launches Walmart Plus

Companies that expand digital options may see greater success. Walmart is the latest to take the plunge.

On Sept. 15, the retailer launched Walmart Plus, a new membership program that has its sights set on Amazon Prime. At just $98 per year – compared to $119 for Prime – Walmart envisions this subscription service as a more affordable alternative. Walmart Plus offers customers unlimited same-day delivery of over 160,000 in-store items, including groceries, everyday essentials, and various electronics.

Walmart customers can also use the Walmart app to scan and pay for items in the store using the Walmart Pay feature. According to the retailer, this automated scan and go checkout service gives customers “a quick, easy, and touch-free payment experience.”

While Walmart Plus was planned before the pandemic, it directly addresses consumer needs right now. Still, this is a classic case of David taking on Goliath, as Walmart sits near the bottom of the internet retail sector and Amazon sits alone at the top. Time will tell if Walmart Plus moves the needle.

3. Burger King is taking the ‘touchless’ approach

Burger King is below average from a customer satisfaction standpoint, and it struggles in three key customer experience benchmarks: store layout, accuracy of the food order, and speed of checkout and delivery. The fast food joint plans to rectify this.

To adapt to current customer behavior, Burger King unveiled two restaurant designs that will offer a completely touchless experience. The “Next Level” design has up to three drive-thru lanes, with one specifically for delivery drivers. A conveyer belt also delivers food to drive-thru customers.

With the “Your Way” setup, customers can park and have food delivered to their car by scanning a QR code and using the Burger King app. This concept will also feature two drive-thru lanes and a walk-up window for takeout orders. Both restaurant designs have curbside and mobile pickup.

Fast. Contactless. Convenient. Efficient. Burger King sees what customers want – as well as the shifting landscape – and is adapting accordingly.

The message remains the same

Even in the middle of a global pandemic, the message remains the same for businesses: Customer satisfaction is paramount to your success.

As the landscape changes, so does the mindset of the consumer. If companies want to stay afloat, they must pay attention to what their customers want and adjust to fit these needs. It’s either that or get lost in the shuffle.

The best way to describe customer satisfaction with PCs? Steady as she goes.

Following a 1.3% bump last year, satisfaction with personal computers – including desktops, laptops, and tablets – sits unchanged at 78 (out of 100), according to our most recent Household Appliance and Electronics Report.

This isn’t unusual within the industry. Since 2010, user satisfaction with PCs has been relatively stable, averaging an ACSI score of 78.

Another aspect of the overall PC experience that hasn’t changed much over the past three years: Desktop computer users (80) continue to be more satisfied than users of tablets (78) and laptops (77).

But the data goes deeper into the various aspects of each and what consumers are most satisfied with. For the first time, we broke down the elements of customer experience by device type.

What do 7,720 customers really want from their PCs? Let’s take a look.

Tablets have the “look”

All three devices received their highest overall scores for design. According to PC users, tablets lead the competition with an ACSI score of 84. But it’s not exactly a runaway.

Desktops are right on their heels at 83. Laptops aren’t too far off either with a mark of 81.

But while users generally like the looks of their devices, it’s what’s inside that counts, and that’s where the scores start to diverge.

Desktops have superior performance

Desktops and tablets are tied at the top in three categories: graphics and sound quality (82), ease of operation (82), and availability of accessories (81).

But, for the most part, desktop users are more satisfied in terms of performance.

Desktops (82) easily best tablets (80) and laptops (79) in satisfaction with the availability of software or apps. For processor speed, desktops (81) are ahead again of tablets (78) and laptops (77). While the margin is closer, desktop consumers report they experience crashes less frequently (81) than users of tablets (80) and laptops (78) do.

As far as features – including operating system, preloaded software or apps, memory, and data storage – desktops lead the way as well, besting both tablets and laptops with an ACSI score of 81.

Laptops leave much to be desired

Sixty-four percent of the interview pool for the Household Appliance and Electronics Report consisted of laptop users. Yet, based on their responses, laptops don’t perform nearly as well as the other devices in, well, everything.

Outside of design, laptops don’t crack 80 in any of the customer experience benchmarks.

While desktops and tablets tie for graphics and sound quality (82), laptops lag at 79. When the competition scores 81 each for the availability of accessories, laptops again fall short at 79. And, when desktop and tablet users give the devices 82 a piece for ease of operation, laptops miss the mark once more with a score of 79.

Laptops are the device of choice, according to our latest report. With more people than ever before needing mobile devices to work and learn from home, many more consumers are turning to laptops. But if these devices can’t get the job done, that feeling could change.

All of these scores demonstrate room for improvement in laptops and provide an opportunity for manufacturers to turn things around. A focused improvement in any one area could improve users’ perceptions and overall satisfaction.

Customer satisfaction in the automobile industry has fallen again, though the decline was not as steep as last year. But if automakers think this is cause for celebration, they might want to pump the brakes.

After a 3.7% drop a year ago, with 21 of 27 nameplates recording ACSI declines, the industry sinks another 1.3% in 2020 to a score of 78 (out of 100), according to our most recent Automobile Report.

While only 17 brands incurred worse satisfaction scores this year, automobiles and light vehicles slump to an industry low that hasn’t been seen since 1999. And it’s luxury vehicles that need a tune-up most of all.

Slumping satisfaction across the whole luxury segment

In 2019, six luxury nameplates took a hit in driver satisfaction, and the segment fell just 1% overall to a score of 82. This year, things are much worse.

Luxury cars backtrack 4% overall to an ACSI score of 79. And no one was impervious to the fallout. All nine nameplates suffer worsening driver satisfaction year over year

Lexus, which leads the luxury segment and the auto industry for the fourth straight year, falls 2% to an ACSI score of 82 – its lowest score ever.

Mercedes Benz (80) and Infiniti (79) each slip 4%. BMW and Volvo both take significant knocks as well, dropping 5% each to 78, while last-place Lincoln falters 6% to an all-time low score of 77.

What’s even more interesting is that the gap between luxury and mass-market vehicles has all but disappeared.

Advantage over mass-market vehicles is shrinking

The luxury segment’s customer satisfaction long-time advantage over mass-market vehicles has narrowed considerably.

From 2008 to 2012, luxury cars led mass-market vehicles by an average of 4 points for driver satisfaction. That gap has shrunk to just 2 points in 2020, as customer satisfaction with mass-market vehicles dips just 1% to a score of 77.

In terms of the overall driver experience, the luxury segment sees declines pretty much across the board. And in many instances, the luxury vehicles benchmarks are now just above – or even equal to – those in the mass-market segment.

For example, in dropping 3% to 83 for driving performance, luxury vehicles now hold just a 1-point advantage over mass-market cars (82). The same goes for vehicle safety, with luxury vehicles down 2% to 83, just a single point ahead of the mass-market segment (82). Mass-market vehicles are also just 1 point behind luxury vehicles for mobile app quality (81 to 82), mobile app reliability (80 to 81), website satisfaction (81 to 82), and gas mileage (76 to 77).

Furthermore, luxury cars are no longer considered as dependable as they once were. Thanks to a 2% slide to 82, that benchmark is now the same as mass-market vehicles.

Problematic pattern of declines

Following the arrival of COVID-19, U.S. automobile industry sales took a huge hit in Q2 of 2020. While they rebounded a bit in July as the country started reopening, it doesn’t change the fact that the industry was hit hard and must still contend with a problematic, pre-existing period of customer satisfaction declines.

Although the luxury vehicle segment still outpaces its mass-market counterpart by wide margins in areas like comfort (84 to 81), interior (84 to 81), technology (82 to 78), and warranties (80 to 76), the overall gap in driver satisfaction is the smallest it’s been in years. Luxury doesn’t have the same luster it once did.

The social media industry mirrored the overall e-business segment during COVID-19, experiencing foundering customer satisfaction despite surges in usage.

This continues a long-running trend.

Despite 79% of the American population having a social media profile as of 2019 – up 2% from the year before – customer satisfaction with social media slides 2.8% overall to a score of 70, according to our most recent E-Business Report. That mark puts social media among the bottom five of all ACSI-measured industries.

If this weren’t bad enough, social media has another problem: the sizeable gap between the first and last place individual platforms. Even with a 4% dip year over year, Pinterest (77) remains 13 points ahead of Facebook (up 2% to 64).

Facebook has its problems with privacy and advertising, among many controversies. But those aren’t the only reasons it continuously lags at the bottom of the social media industry. There are plenty of other reasons why customers aren’t satisfied.

Advertisements and privacy: An ongoing struggle

Users feel that the amount of advertising on social media sites improved slightly over the past year, rising 1.5% to 69. They also feel that privacy has gotten a tad worse, dipping 1.4% to the same score of 69.

Although these two customer experience benchmarks have inched in opposite directions lately, they remain the most dissatisfying aspects of social media overall. And Facebook scores the worst in both areas – by a wide margin.

With a score of 60 for advertisements, Facebook is six points worse than the next closet platform, Tumblr. It trails leaders Wikipedia and Pinterest by 15 points.

Facebook scores even worse in privacy, at 58. That’s 11 points below the industry average and 20 points less than top scoring Pinterest. Its closest competition is Twitter. However, there’s a 10-point gap between the two.

A content crisis

While not on the same level as advertisements and privacy, the freshness (73) and relevance (71) of content are also growing concerns among social media users. Facebook struggled mightily in these areas as well.

For content freshness, the social media site scored 66, seven points below the industry average. The next closet platform was Tumblr with a score of 69. Pinterest topped the category once again a full 10 points higher.

In terms of content relevance, Facebook scored much worse than its closest competitor, LinkedIn, with the former posting 63 and the latter 69. Who took top marks? You guessed it: Pinterest.

Mobile improvements aren’t enough

Social media users agree that mobile app performance remains the best aspect of the user experience. Mobile app quality ranks the highest, up 1.3% to 81. Mobile app reliability trails slightly but is still up 1.3% to 79.

Facebook progresses in both areas. However, it scores five points below the industry average and 10 points behind the leader.

Here are the facts: Customer satisfaction with Facebook climbed 2% year over year to a score of 64. But even with this jump, it can’t escape the bottom of both social media and the e-business category overall, proving that while advertisements and privacy issues are the main culprits, the social media giant has much more to fix if it hopes to turn around its customer satisfaction woes.

Not too long ago, we were discussing how everything in our lives feels like it’s politicized. At the time, we were talking about satisfaction in federal government services. This time, the topic is different: Boycotts.

The recent call to boycott Goya Foods after the CEO’s public endorsement of President Trump has people on both ends of the political spectrum picking sides. But, while this latest call for action will likely have ramifications, what will those effects be? How do boycotts impact customer satisfaction?

We decided to look at the data and see for ourselves.

Calls for boycott vs. customer satisfaction scores

We looked at several high-profile calls for boycotting in recent years and examined the subsequent customer satisfaction scores for the companies involved.

Take Nike, for example. In 2018, the company named Colin Kaepernick one of the faces of its “Just Do It” campaign to commemorate the slogan’s 30^th anniversary. While many responded to this decision by burning their Nike apparel and calling for a boycott, the company’s ACSI score climbed 5% to 81 – a near record high for the brand.

The same thing happened to Home Depot. Last year when shoppers railed against the company after cofounder Bernie Marcus said he planned to donate to President Trump’s reelection campaign, Home Depot’s ACSI score didn’t drop. It climbed 2.6% to an ACSI score of 78 – the only specialty retailer to improve considerably.

Despite repeated controversies from founder John Schnatter, Papa John’s managed to weather the storm from a customer satisfaction perspective, holding steady between 2018 and 2019 with an ACSI score of 80. At the time, Papa John’s remained tied for the lead in the pizza segment.

A public outcry to boycott a company might seem like it would have an adverse effect on customer satisfaction. But that hasn’t been the case. Yet, even if it were, it’s not something that would be reflected in ACSI measurements.

Why boycotts have no bearing on ACSI scores

The reason is boycotts aren’t factored into ACSI scores isn’t complicated: ACSI only measures consumers who purchase a service or product; it’s not interested in those who don’t.

ACSI scores reflect customers’ personal experience with the products, level of quality and service, and overall experience these companies provide, not the emotional reaction associated with customers’ opinions on the political or social perspectives of the company’s leaders or spokespeople.

For instance, during the #BoycottHomeDepot movement, the company improved in nearly every customer experience benchmark, including layout, store speed, variety, courtesy, discount, and inventory. Nike’s biggest issue – from an ACSI standpoint – at the time of the Kaepernick situation was pricing. The company ranked worst in class for value.

In both cases, ACSI scores were directly tied to the quality and value of services and products being experienced, not the feelings of individuals who didn’t use the services and goods for social reasons.

However, while boycotts might not be reflected in ACSI scores, companies can feel the effects just the same.

Brand reputation and the bottom line

Nike’s position turned out to be fruitful for the company’s bottom line. According to data from Edison Trends, online sales jumped 31% in the immediate period following the Kaepernick announcement.

With Home Depot, any potential boycott that may have occurred had seemingly no effect on the company’s revenue.

On the other hand, Papa John’s experienced the opposite. In July 2019, same-store sales fell 10.5% in North America. On the earnings call, executives blamed Schnatter’s controversial comments, and CEO Steve Richie noted that the company needed to move away from a “founder-centric marketing plan.”

Customer satisfaction might not be impacted by social stance, but an organization’s revenue, loyalty, and public perception certainly can be.

What’s important to your customer?

Boycotts don’t negatively impact customer satisfaction; customer-facing elements like product quality, variety, store speed, mobile app reliability, and customer service do. But that doesn’t mean companies can afford to look past calls for boycotts, either.

Organizations must keep customers top of mind — what they want from a product or service, and their expectations for the social positions of companies they buy from.

Both areas influence company reputation, both play a role in public perception, and both can impact whether a customer buys from a brand in the future.