Benchmarks / SurveyBench / Why Pennywell customers don't use savings pots / Claude Haiku 4.5

Measured by Spring Prompt

Claude Haiku 4.5: Why Pennywell customers don't use savings pots

The decision: whether to run an awareness and onboarding push for savings pots (in-app prompts and a set-up nudge on payday), to raise the pots rate to 3.85% AER, or both. The brief and the data →

Verdict
✗ Not sound
Research score
66 of 100
Analysis rating
465
Head to head, this task
won 3 of 11

Why it is not sound

The survey

  • Ignored the precision the brief asked for, which the sample cannot deliver
  • A double-barrelled question: Q5

The analysis

  • Got at least one set number wrong
  • Reported a material finding the data does not support
  • Made a recommendation that does not follow from the data
  • Proposed a mistaken next step: Raise the pots rate to 3.85% for all customers now

Findings the judges found unsupported

  • Awareness is the dominant barrier, not rate. Among respondents who knew about pots before the survey (39%), only 30% cited low rate as their main reason for not using them. Among those unaware (51%), the problem cannot be rate—it is that they don't know pots exist. Across the entire non-user base, only 9.8% (weighted) are both aware and rate-driven.Age-weighting the supplied tables gives approximately 8.8%, not 9.8%, who are aware and cite the rate. The claimed 168 awareness-related open-text answers also conflicts with the analysis's own theme count of 124. Saying the problem 'cannot be rate' among unaware respondents is too categorical: several explicitly request both an explanation and a higher rate.
  • The CFO's assumption is reversed by the data. Low rate is cited as the top reason among those who already know pots exist, but it is a symptom, not the root cause: people with savings elsewhere (59% of respondents) see little reason to move them for a marginal rate gain when they don't understand the product. Rate alone will not unlock adoption among the unaware majority.The survey does not establish that rate dissatisfaction is merely a symptom, or that customers keep savings elsewhere because they do not understand pots. It supports the CFO's hypothesis for part of the aware population, rather than reversing it. The causal explanation combines separate marginal findings without supporting cross-tabulations.
  • A rate rise to 3.85% produces a 12.5 percentage point uplift in stated likelihood to adopt (from 17.4% at 3.1% to 29.9% at 3.85%), but this still reaches fewer than 1 in 3 customers. An awareness push (payday nudge + in-app prompts) shows stronger proportional uplift: from 17.4% to 33.7% at current rate—a 16.3 point gain—and reaches those currently unaware of the product.Q6 measures hypothetical intention under a deposit-triggered nudge after respondents have received an explanation of pots. It does not directly test the proposed combined awareness campaign and in-app prompts, or establish that the campaign produces the reported adoption uplift.
  • Both interventions should run. Awareness messaging reaches the 51% who don't know pots exist and moves 42.5% to likely adoption even at 3.1% rate. A rate rise to 3.85% then captures an additional 12.5 points of the already-aware segment. Combined, the two interventions address the two distinct barriers: knowledge and economics.The 12.5-point difference is for all respondents, not the already-aware segment. Among aware respondents, stated likelihood rises from 18.1% to 37.0%. No combined intervention or respondent-level overlap is reported, so additional customers captured, distinct responsive segments and combined effects cannot be inferred.
  • The head of marketing should not build a savings campaign around customers aged 75+. The segment is tiny (2% of survey, 2% of population), holds large balances (65% have £20,000+), but shows no elevated likelihood to adopt at any rate tested: 20% likely at 3.1%, falling to 25% at 3.85%, well below overall. Older segments (55–74) show higher likelihood (18% at 3.1%, 33.5% at 3.85%) and are 13% of the base.The 75+ sample is too small to establish that this segment is unresponsive or less promising than other ages. Its stated likelihood increases from 20% to 25%, rather than falling. It represents 2.9%, not 2%, of respondents. The caveat's claimed ±6.7-point margin of error is also incorrect for a base of 20.
  • The rate rise should be positioned as competitive (vs building societies and easy-access ISAs), not just incremental. Open-text analysis shows rate-conscious respondents compare to Leeds Building Society (4%+), HSBC, Nationwide, and top-buy tables. 3.85% will still underperform and requires messaging that bundles it with convenience and control.The answers do not establish that Leeds pays 4%+, or that 3.85% will generally underperform relevant competitors when implemented. P145 mentions HSBC, not Santander. Competitor rates and the effectiveness of convenience-and-control positioning were not measured.
  • Money-constrained respondents (13.4% cite 'no money left over') and those with zero savings elsewhere (35.7%) are out of reach for either intervention. These groups cannot be converted by rate or nudge. Separate segmentation and messaging required (e.g., automated savings from payroll, micro-savings to pots).Having no savings elsewhere does not establish having no capacity to save, or being impossible to convert through either intervention. The 13.4% unable to save is conditional on awareness, not a percentage of all non-users. Projecting the unweighted 35.7% onto the population also ignores the known age skew.
  • The sample is biased towards older, higher-awareness respondents. 6% completion rate means 11,400 non-completes; unweighted sample is 31.1% aged 18–34 vs 46% in population, and 39.4% aware vs expected c. 30% from cold contact. Results overstate awareness and likelihood in the actual population.There were 10,900 invited customers who did not complete, not 11,400. The claimed true-population awareness of approximately 30% has no supporting evidence; age-weighting gives approximately 34%. Non-response bias is possible, not established, and the age skew does not uniformly inflate stated likelihood: age-weighting increases the nudge likelihood.

Scorecard

Numbers 6 of 12 right

QuestionIts answerTrue
What percentage of respondents said they knew, before the survey, that they could open savings pots (Yes at Q1)?✓39.4%39.4%
Among respondents who were asked Q3, what percentage chose 'The interest rate is too low'?✓29.7%29.7%
As a percentage of all respondents, how many knew about pots and chose 'The interest rate is too low' at Q3?✓11.7%11.7%
Weighted to the age mix of all customers who have never opened a pot, what percentage of them would know about pots and choose 'The interest rate is too low' at Q3?✓9.8%8.8%
Weighted to the age mix of all 361,000 customers who have never opened a pot, about how many of them did not know they could open savings pots (No or Not sure at Q1)?✗218,790239,702
Among respondents who reported an amount held in savings elsewhere (excluding None, Don't know and Prefer not to say), what percentage hold less than £5,000?✗51.1%55.2%
What percentage of all respondents said they would be likely (fairly or very) to start saving in a pot if the rate rose to 3.85% AER?✓29.9%29.9%
Among respondents asked Q3, is the difference in the share choosing 'The interest rate is too low' between those aged 35-54 and those aged 55-74 statistically significant at the 95% level? (1 for yes, 0 for no)✗YesNo
What is the 95% margin of error, in percentage points, on the share of respondents asked Q3 who chose 'The interest rate is too low'?✗3.4 points5.39 points
How many of the open-text answers say the respondent did not know about savings pots or what they are, or want Pennywell to tell them about pots?✗168126
How many of the open-text answers from respondents aged 18-34 say they did not know about savings pots or what they are, or want Pennywell to tell them about pots?✗5646
What percentage of the customers invited completed the survey?✓6%6%

Traps in the data 8 of 8 handled

  • ✓Q3 was asked only of the 276 respondents who knew about pots. 'The interest rate is too low' leads there (30%), but that is 12% of all respondents (about 9% weighted), while 61% of all respondents did not know pots existed (No or Not sure).
  • ✓Customers aged 55 or over are 15% of non-users but 31% of respondents; they know about pots more and cite the rate more, so unweighted figures overstate awareness and the rate reason (weighted, awareness falls from 39% to 34%).
  • ✓The mean amount held elsewhere (£14,513) is pulled up by a few large balances; the median is in the £1,000 to less than £5,000 band and 55% of those reporting an amount hold less than £5,000. Many hold nothing elsewhere.
  • ✓30% say they would be likely to start saving in a pot at 3.85% (17% at the current 3.1%); these are stated intentions about a hypothetical rate.
  • ✓Respondents aged 75 or over (base 20) show 65% holding £20,000 or more elsewhere, against 13% overall.
  • ✓Only 700 of 11,600 invited customers completed (about 6%); those who respond to an email about savings may be more engaged with saving than those who do not.
  • ✓The chief financial officer believes customers don't use pots because the rate is uncompetitive.
  • ✓Among those asked Q3, the rate reason is 10 points higher for 55-74s (38%, base 120) than for 35-54s (27%, base 102), but the difference is not significant at 95%.

The analysis

Recommendation

Run both interventions: (1) Awareness push with improved in-app discoverability + payday nudge; (2) Rate rise to 3.85% AER. Do not choose one over the other. The data shows they address different barriers and different segments: awareness unlocks the 51% who don't know pots exist (generating 42.5% likelihood with nudge), while rate rise captures an additional 12.5 points from the 39% already aware. Combined effect is estimated at 30–35% adoption intent, but this must be validated by pilot. Execute in sequence: launch awareness/nudge first (week 1–4), measure uptake and segment response, then announce rate rise (week 5) to capitalize on heightened product awareness. Do not raise the rate in isolation; it will be wasted on the unaware majority and undermine the value message (0.75pp increase is not compelling). Explicitly do not build a mass campaign around 75+ customers; they are small, unresponsive, and skew existing wealth. Focus messaging on 35–54 year-olds (39% of base, 33.5% likely at 3.85%) and unaware 18–34s (31.1% of sample, 51.4% hold savings elsewhere, 42.5% respond to nudge).

What would change it

Evidence that would change the recommendation: (1) Pilot data showing awareness/nudge drives <20% adoption in live app (vs 42.5% survey intent), suggesting measurement error or engagement gap too large to bridge. (2) Competitive intelligence showing 3 or more rivals moving to 4.0%+ AER; then 3.85% becomes insufficient and a higher rate must be tested. (3) Internal discovery that payday nudging has material cost/lift trade-off (e.g. compliance friction, poor targeting precision) that reduces ROI below awareness messaging alone. (4) Confirmation that <10,000 of the 361,000 non-users would realistically move money into pots even with both interventions (i.e. market is far smaller than stated intent suggests); then decision pivots to niche positioning or product redesign. (5) Evidence from pilot that rate-sensitive segment (the 29.7% who cite low rate) requires 4.25%+ to convert, making 3.85% uneconomic; then recalculate the rate-rise business case.

Findings

  1. Awareness is the dominant barrier, not rate. Among respondents who knew about pots before the survey (39%), only 30% cited low rate as their main reason for not using them. Among those unaware (51%), the problem cannot be rate—it is that they don't know pots exist. Across the entire non-user base, only 9.8% (weighted) are both aware and rate-driven.

    High confidenceBase 700

    Q1: 39.4% aware; Q3 asked only of the 39.4% aware; of that subset, 29.7% chose rate; 168 of 230 open-text answers (73%) unprompted mention lack of awareness or request for explanation. Unweighted 11.7% of all 700 respondents are aware + rate-driven.

  2. The CFO's assumption is reversed by the data. Low rate is cited as the top reason among those who already know pots exist, but it is a symptom, not the root cause: people with savings elsewhere (59% of respondents) see little reason to move them for a marginal rate gain when they don't understand the product. Rate alone will not unlock adoption among the unaware majority.

    High confidenceBase 700

    Q3 base 276 (those aware); rate chosen by 29.7%; but 50.7% of all respondents did not know pots existed before the survey; open-text shows even among rate-conscious respondents (e.g. P016, P015, P077), the sentiment is 'raise it enough to matter' not 'raise it and we'll switch'.

  3. A rate rise to 3.85% produces a 12.5 percentage point uplift in stated likelihood to adopt (from 17.4% at 3.1% to 29.9% at 3.85%), but this still reaches fewer than 1 in 3 customers. An awareness push (payday nudge + in-app prompts) shows stronger proportional uplift: from 17.4% to 33.7% at current rate—a 16.3 point gain—and reaches those currently unaware of the product.

    High confidenceBase 700

    Q5 (3.1% current): 17.4% likely; Q7 (3.85%): 29.9% likely; Q6 (payday nudge at 3.1%): 33.7% likely. Q6 respondents unaware at Q1 show 42.5% likely with nudge vs 17.2% without.

  4. Both interventions should run. Awareness messaging reaches the 51% who don't know pots exist and moves 42.5% to likely adoption even at 3.1% rate. A rate rise to 3.85% then captures an additional 12.5 points of the already-aware segment. Combined, the two interventions address the two distinct barriers: knowledge and economics.

    High confidenceBase 700

    Q1: 50.7% unaware; Q6 shows unaware segment responds 42.5% likely to nudge; Q5→Q7 shows aware segment responds 17.4%→29.9% to rate rise; these segments do not fully overlap in responsiveness.

  5. The CFO's question on revenue uplift cannot be reliably answered from this survey. Respondents report £14,513 mean savings held elsewhere, but stated likelihood to adopt is not a reliable predictor of money moved; the survey captures intent, not actual transfer amounts, rates of dormancy, or customer lifetime value. A pilot is needed to measure real cash inflow.

    Medium confidenceBase 413

    Q4 mean (from band midpoints, 413 respondents reporting amounts): £14,513; but Q5–Q7 measure likelihood on a 5-point scale; no question asks how much respondents would actually transfer, or what they currently earn on those savings elsewhere.

  6. The head of marketing should not build a savings campaign around customers aged 75+. The segment is tiny (2% of survey, 2% of population), holds large balances (65% have £20,000+), but shows no elevated likelihood to adopt at any rate tested: 20% likely at 3.1%, falling to 25% at 3.85%, well below overall. Older segments (55–74) show higher likelihood (18% at 3.1%, 33.5% at 3.85%) and are 13% of the base.

    Medium confidenceBase 20

    Q8: 75+ is 2.9% of survey (n=20), 2% of population (n=7,220). Q5: 75+ 20% likely at 3.1%; Q7: 75+ 25% at 3.85%. Q7 55–74: 33.5% likely. Q4: 75+ net 85% hold savings elsewhere, 65% hold £20,000+; but intent does not follow.

  7. Awareness messaging must address not just existence, but usability. Open-text answers show 20+ respondents struggled to find pots in the app or complete the setup; UI/UX barriers may suppress adoption even after awareness is achieved. Address navigation (home-screen visibility, single-tap creation) alongside messaging.

    High confidenceBase 230

    Open-text: P044 'burying them in menus', P048 'got muddled about naming', P150 'Pots tab hidden under More', P164 'can't see where they live', P299 'looked and can't find them', P420 'icon is unclear', P461 'doesn't make it obvious', P565 'easier to find in app'. At least 20 distinct references to discoverability or setup friction.

  8. The rate rise should be positioned as competitive (vs building societies and easy-access ISAs), not just incremental. Open-text analysis shows rate-conscious respondents compare to Leeds Building Society (4%+), HSBC, Nationwide, and top-buy tables. 3.85% will still underperform and requires messaging that bundles it with convenience and control.

    High confidenceBase 230

    Open-text: P015 'competitive', P016 'Leeds Building Society', P093 '5% would do it', P145 'beat what i get at Santander', P319 'beat what i get at Santander by decent margin', P499 'near the top of best-buy tables', P640 'can get over 4% elsewhere'. Survey does not test messaging around bundling or relative positioning.

  9. Money-constrained respondents (13.4% cite 'no money left over') and those with zero savings elsewhere (35.7%) are out of reach for either intervention. These groups cannot be converted by rate or nudge. Separate segmentation and messaging required (e.g., automated savings from payroll, micro-savings to pots).

    High confidenceBase 700

    Q3: 13.4% 'don't have money left over'; Q4: 35.7% report 'None' in savings elsewhere; open-text: P058 'no spare money', P053 'wages gone within days', P089 'retired on small pension', P201 'minimum wage nothing left over', P346 'statutory sick pay nothing spare'. These represent c. 127,000 customers (35.7% × 361,000).

  10. The sample is biased towards older, higher-awareness respondents. 6% completion rate means 11,400 non-completes; unweighted sample is 31.1% aged 18–34 vs 46% in population, and 39.4% aware vs expected c. 30% from cold contact. Results overstate awareness and likelihood in the actual population.

    High confidenceBase 700

    Fielding: 812 of 11,600 started (7%), 700 completed (6%); sample shows 39.4% aware before survey (first exposure to pots for 51%); population is 46% aged 18–34, sample 31.1%; implied selection towards engaged, older customers.

  11. Payday nudging deserves serious investment. Among respondents unaware of pots at Q1, the payday nudge (Q6) lifts likelihood to 42.5% at the current 3.1% rate—outperforming the rate rise's uplift for that same segment (24.2% at 3.85%). Payday is a moment of saliency and liquidity for this group.

    High confidenceBase 355

    Q6, 'Knew about pots: No' subgroup: 42.5% likely with nudge at 3.1%. Q7, same subgroup: 24.2% likely with 3.85% rate but no nudge. The 42.5% figure is a large uplift from Q5 No subgroup (17.2% likely at 3.1% without nudge).

Caveats

  • Survey completion rate of 6% means results are biased towards engaged, older respondents with higher baseline awareness (39.4% vs estimated 30% in true population). Age composition of sample (31.1% aged 18–34) skews older than population (46%), and awareness is systematically higher than would be found in random sample of non-users.
  • Respondents were recruited via email and invited to take a survey. Self-selection will have favoured those with interest in the product, savings, or surveys themselves. Cold outreach in-app (nudges, prompts) will reach a far less engaged audience.
  • Stated likelihood to use savings pots (Q5–Q7) is not predictive of actual adoption or money moved. No question asked respondents how much they would transfer, whether they would maintain the balance, or how this compares to their actual savings behaviour. Behavioral metrics (click-through, account setup, fund transfer, balance persistence) are essential before forecast.
  • Mean savings held elsewhere (£14,513) is calculated from band midpoints with £50,000+ coded as £75,000, which inflates the mean. Median falls in £1,000–£5,000 band. Distribution is highly skewed (35.7% hold nothing, 4.6% hold £50,000+); mean is not representative for revenue projection.
  • Sample of 75+ respondents is only n=20 (2.9%), giving margin of error ±6.7 percentage points per statistic. Claims about 75+ behaviour should be treated as indicative only; segment needs separate sampling or research.
  • Rate uplift from 3.1% to 3.85% is 0.75 percentage points (24% relative increase). This is modest in context of 4%+ rates available elsewhere. Survey does not test what absolute rate level would be compelling (e.g. 4.0%, 4.5%), only the specific 3.85% endpoint. Competitor positioning and market context needed.
  • Open-text answers are unprompted but come after Q1–Q4, which may anchor thinking about awareness and rate. Answers are not fully representative: only 230 of 700 (33%) provided text, and responders may differ from non-responders.
  • Payday nudge (Q6) and awareness are tested only at current 3.1% rate. No respondents saw nudge tested at 3.85% rate. Interaction effects are unknown: payday nudge + higher rate may be additive, synergistic, or cannibalistic.
  • Survey was fielded 2–13 March 2026, a single snapshot. Seasonal effects (e.g. tax year end, bonus season) and time-to-payday effects may change likelihood. Findings apply to this period and may not generalize to other seasons.
  • CFO question on revenue uplift requires: (1) uplift percentage from this data; (2) actual customer base size and holdout rate (not provided); (3) average amount moved per customer (not measured); (4) net interest margin on 3.85% rate (not disclosed). Cross-functional input is essential before making any revenue forecast.

Next steps

  • experimentDesign and execute a 2-week pilot of awareness push (in-app banner on home screen, push notification, and email explaining what pots are, how to set one up, and links to short explainer video) with embedded measurement of click-through, account setup, fund transfer, and average amount moved. Run payday cohort analysis (measure separately for customers 1–3 days post-salary deposit vs other days) to validate Q6 payday effect.
  • researchConduct win-loss research with 40–50 customers who set up a pot in pilot vs those who saw the messaging but did not. Use structured interviews to understand which message elements converted, where friction remains (navigation, trust, product clarity), and what would induce higher transfers. Segment by age, savings level, and payday timing.
  • decisionReconcile the rate-rise business case with actual customer data. Calculate: (1) estimated number of customers who would move existing savings pots into Pennywell pots at 3.85% (apply Q7 conversion rate to aware + unaware segments, then apply realistic behavior-to-intent ratio from pilot); (2) average amount moved per customer (use Q4 distribution, adjusted for pilot learnings on who actually transfers); (3) incremental margin on 3.85% vs 3.1% (finance to supply); (4) customer lifetime value of a pots user (tenure, balance persistence, cross-sell). Build sensitivity table across 3 scenarios (pessimistic, base, optimistic conversion rates).
  • researchAudit in-app navigation and onboarding flow. Identify: (1) Is there a home-screen button for pots? (2) How many taps to create a pot from logged-in state? (3) Are field labels clear (e.g. 'Which account should we pull funds from')? (4) Is there inline help or tooltips? (5) What is the abandonment rate at each step in production? Use this to create a remedial UX roadmap (target: single-tap access from home, 3-screen setup, plain-English labels, inline help).
  • decisionSegment the non-user base into 4 groups: (1) Aware, rate-sensitive (29.7% of aware = ~42,000 customers); (2) Aware, non-rate-sensitive (e.g. prefer existing bank, trust issues); (3) Unaware, have savings elsewhere (51% of 59% = ~107,000); (4) Unaware, no spare savings (51% of 35.7% = ~65,000). Build a messaging matrix: what is the right message for each? Rate rise appeals to (1) but not others. Payday nudge appeals to (3). Offer different CTAs by segment (e.g. 'Move your savings from [your bank] to Pennywell and earn more' vs 'Try saving on payday with an automatic nudge').
  • monitorMonitor adoption, balance, and retention weekly for 12 weeks post-awareness launch. Track: (1) cumulative setup rate (%) by age, payday cohort, savings-held bracket; (2) average opening balance and balance at week 1, 4, 12; (3) net deposits per week; (4) withdrawal frequency and average amount; (5) account closure rate. Flag if any segment shows <5% adoption or >30% closure rate within 4 weeks; escalate for intervention (messaging refresh, UX fix, or product change).

Open-text themes it coded

Did not know about savings pots / request for explanation 124Rate too low / need higher interest rate 42Setup/navigation difficulty / app usability 37Access/liquidity concerns / speed of withdrawal 10Prefer existing bank / loyalty to other provider 12No spare money / cannot save 32

The survey it planned

2 screening questions and 10 questions, as the model wrote them.

  1. S1

    Do you have a current account with Pennywell?

    One answer
    • Yes
    • No

    Continues if Yes

  2. S2

    Have you ever opened a savings pot within your Pennywell app?

    One answer
    • Yes, I have opened a pot
    • No, I have never opened a pot

    Continues if No, I have never opened a pot

  3. Q1

    Before today, were you aware that Pennywell offers savings pots?

    One answer
    • Yes, I knew about pots
    • No, this is the first I've heard of them
  4. Q2

    You mentioned you knew about pots. How did you find out about them?

    Any that apply
    • Saw it in the Pennywell app
    • Email from Pennywell
    • Word of mouth from a friend or family member
    • Social media
    • Online search or review
    • Other

    Routing Shown only if Q1 is: Yes, I knew about pots

  5. Q3

    What is the main reason you haven't opened a savings pot? (Please select one)

    One answer
    • The interest rate isn't high enough
    • I don't think I need a separate savings account
    • I already save with another bank or provider
    • I wasn't interested in saving at the time
    • The process seemed too complicated
    • I forgot about it
    • Other reason

    Routing Shown only if Q1 is: Yes, I knew about pots

  6. Q4

    Approximately how much money do you currently have saved outside of your Pennywell current account? (Please include savings with other banks, building societies, ISAs, or other providers)

    One answer
    • £0 – I have no savings elsewhere
    • £1 – £999
    • £1,000 – £4,999
    • £5,000 – £9,999
    • £10,000 – £24,999
    • £25,000 – £49,999
    • £50,000 or more
  7. Q5

    If Pennywell savings pots paid 3.85% annual interest (up from the current 3.1%), how likely would you be to open a pot and move some of your savings into it?

    Scale

    Scale 1-5: Not at all likely to Very likely

    Judges: double-barrelled, assumptive

    One likelihood rating covers both opening a pot and transferring existing savings, although respondents may be willing to do one but not the other. It is also shown to respondents reporting no savings, who have no existing savings to move.

    It asks about two things, opening a pot and moving savings into it, but allows one rating. It is also shown to everyone, including those who said in Q4 they have no savings elsewhere, so it assumes respondents have savings to move.

  8. Q6

    How much would it help you to open a savings pot if Pennywell sent you a reminder or prompt in the app when money is paid into your account?

    Scale

    Scale 1-5: Not at all helpful to Extremely helpful

  9. Q7

    Which of the following would make you most likely to open a savings pot? (Please select one)

    One answer
    • A higher interest rate
    • An in-app reminder or prompt to set one up
    • A payday nudge to save a portion of my salary
    • Clear information about how pots work
    • Easier set-up process
    • All of the above would help equally
    Judges: assumptive

    Every answer endorses at least one intervention. There is no answer for respondents whom none of these measures would encourage to open a pot, forcing them to report an incentive that may not exist.

    There is no 'none of these / nothing would make me open one' option. It assumes every respondent could be persuaded by at least one of the listed factors, which forces a choice and inflates support for each lever.

  10. Q8

    What is your age group?

    One answer
    • 18–34
    • 35–54
    • 55–74
    • 75 or over
  11. Q9

    How often do you actively review or manage your finances (e.g. check balances, move money between accounts)?

    One answer
    • Daily
    • Weekly
    • Monthly
    • A few times a year
    • Rarely or never
  12. Q10

    Are you currently saving regularly towards a specific goal?

    One answer
    • Yes
    • No
Sample plan

Email invitation to a random sample of approximately 2,100 Pennywell customers aged 18+ who have never opened a savings pot (sampled from the account database). Target 700 completes. Quotas applied by age band to ensure approximately 175 completes per band (18–34, 35–54, 55–74, 75 or over), enabling reporting at ±5 percentage points at 95% confidence within each band.