Information Quality of Web Services: Payment Account Online Comparison Tools Survey in the Czech Republic and Slovakia
The paper is focused on the comparison and calculation of retail payment accounts. The latest development of digital services within the frame of a FinTech leaves out the product comparison so far and therefore a consumer has to rely on these online tools. Six comparison tools were found and analyzed in two selected countries. The information quality test was performed based on the EU methodology regarding accuracy and full price, relevance, language and concision, detail, uniformity, comparability, and verifiability. The user test profile is a retail mainstream client with e-banking preference. All comparison tools but one failed in the information quality test. Some of them provided a correct result for only 33% of compared offers. Most of the misguiding and incorrect results came from a miscalculation of specific conditional sales issues and ATM withdrawal from other bank’s network service. Only one comparison tool passed with the share of correct and plausible results above 90%. Unsatisfactory results can be explained by the incompleteness of CTs, not being up-to-date issues and by a specific pricing policy different from e.g. United Kingdom or Germany. The last part suggests possible ways how to improve current unsatisfactory situation by creating a test framework that would complement the Directive 2014/92/EU.
KeywordsShopbot Online comparison tool Information quality Payment account Price calculation Relevance Language Detail Uniformity Comparability Verifiability
This paper was written with the financial support of Specific Research Project “Investments within the Industry 4.0 concept” 2018 at Faculty of Informatics and Management of the University of Hradec Králové to the Department of Economics. I would like to thank Aneta Bartuskova, Ph.D. for her valuable comments. I would like to thank Lucie Silhabelova for her help with the calculator’s database.
- 2.European Banking Authority. Consumer trends report 2016. http://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1360107/Consumer+Trends+Report+2016.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2018
- 3.European Commission: Comparison Tools: Report from the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue (2013). http://edz.bib.uni-mannheim.de/daten/edz-a/gdgv/13/comparison-tools-report-ecs-2013_en.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2018
- 4.European Commission: Study on the coverage functioning and consumer use of comparison tools and third party verification schemes for such tools (2013). https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/final_report_study_on_comparison_tools_2013_en.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2018
- 12.Schwartz, B.: The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. HarperCollins Publishers, New York (2005)Google Scholar
- 14.Soukal, I., Draessler, J., Hedvičáková, M.: Cluster analysis of the demand side of the retail core banking services market. E & M Ekonomie a Manag. 14(4), 102–114 (2011)Google Scholar
- 15.Soukal, I., Draessler, J.: Retail core banking services comparison tools and the quality of information. In: Novak, P., Jurigova, Z., Kozubikova, L., Zlamalova, J. (eds.) Finance and Performance of Firms in Science, Education and Practice, pp. 994–1009. Tomas Bata University, Zlin (2017)Google Scholar
- 16.Soukal, I., Hedvičáková, M.: Retail core banking services costs optimization. Procedia Technol. 1(1), 177–182 (2012)Google Scholar