Ziggu Research · Belgium · January and February 2017
Belgian Homebuyer Survey 2017
What 242 Belgian new-build buyers said about the months between signing and handover: how they were kept informed, what they were promised, and how they rated the developer afterwards.
Eight in ten buyers had no digital environment in which to follow their build. Eight in ten wanted one. That is the whole finding, and it was measured in 2017.
Ziggu ran this survey before the company had a product to sell. The aim was to find out where the relationship between a residential developer and a buyer actually breaks, and the answer was consistent: not in the showroom, but in the year that follows it. Buyers rated the sales conversation reasonably well and the construction period considerably worse, and the sharpest single split in the data is whether the developer offered any digital environment at all.
The figures below are the survey’s own. Where a number is often quoted without its base, this page gives the base. Every finding names the question as it was put to respondents and the number of people who answered that specific question. Those counts differ per question, because respondents could skip.
The figures at a glance
| Finding | Value | Base |
|---|---|---|
| Net Promoter Score for the buyer’s developer | −42 | n = 242 |
| Net Promoter Score, European definition (8 to 10 promoters, 0 to 5 detractors) | −13 | n = 242 |
| No digital environment to follow the build | 81,7% | n = 219 |
| Saw value in a client portal | 82,1% | n = 212 |
| Satisfied with the sales approach | 76,4% | n = 237 |
| Satisfied with updates during construction | 54,7% | n = 223 |
| Said not every promise was kept | 37,8% | n = 222 |
| Response time not fast enough | 31,2% | n = 221 |
| Named email as the main channel | 73,4% | n = 222 |
| Lacked information to operate the technical installations | 41,0% | n = 239 |
| Contacted the developer again after handover | 74,4% | n = 234 |
Method
The survey ran in Dutch under the name De Woonenquête, literally “the housing survey”. Every question on this page is given in English with the original Dutch wording underneath, so the instrument can be checked. It ran online in Belgium in January and February 2017 among people who had bought a newly built home or apartment from a residential developer. The consolidated dataset holds 250 responses, of which 242 are qualified and used here. Respondents were recruited through new-build neighbourhoods and an online call, so this is a self-selected sample rather than a random one.
The recommendation question was scored 0 to 10 and converted to a Net Promoter Score in the standard way: the share scoring 9 or 10 minus the share scoring 0 to 6. All 242 qualified respondents answered it. Every other question was optional, so each finding below carries its own n.
Percentages are calculated over the people who answered that question, not over the full 242. They are rounded to one decimal, so a column may not total exactly 100.
Finding 1
How did buyers rate their developer?
On a 0 to 10 recommendation scale, Belgian new-build buyers gave their developer a Net Promoter Score of −42 in 2017. Half of them (121 of 242) scored 6 or lower. Nineteen people, 7,9%, scored 9 or 10. The mean score was 5,6.
“Final question! To what extent would you recommend your property developer to family or friends?”
Original wording, Dutch“Laatste Vraag! In welke mate zou u uw projectontwikkelaar aanraden aan familie of vrienden?”
n = 242 / 242
- Detractors 121 of 242 · 50,0%
- Passives 102 of 242 · 42,1%
- Promoters 19 of 242 · 7,9%
Number of respondents at each score. Scores 0 to 6 count as detractors, 7 and 8 as passives, 9 and 10 as promoters.
| Score | Respondents | Share | Group |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 24 | 9,9% | Detractor |
| 1 | 9 | 3,7% | Detractor |
| 2 | 6 | 2,5% | Detractor |
| 3 | 10 | 4,1% | Detractor |
| 4 | 15 | 6,2% | Detractor |
| 5 | 41 | 16,9% | Detractor |
| 6 | 16 | 6,6% | Detractor |
| 7 | 47 | 19,4% | Passive |
| 8 | 55 | 22,7% | Passive |
| 9 | 16 | 6,6% | Promoter |
| 10 | 3 | 1,2% | Promoter |
| Total | 242 | 100% | NPS −42 |
The same answers on the European definition. The −42 above follows the standard definition, which counts only a 9 or 10 as a promoter. Belgian and Dutch respondents are often described as cautious scorers who sit in the middle of a scale, and this survey fits that description: the single most chosen score was an 8, given by 55 people. A widely used European variant treats an 8 as a promoter and a 6 as a passive, so that promoters score 8 to 10 and detractors 0 to 5. On that definition the same 242 answers gave a score of −13: 74 promoters (30,6%), 63 passives (26,0%) and 105 detractors (43,4%). The standard figure stays the headline, and the European figure is added for comparison only, because Ziggu’s later work reports both.
- Detractors, 0 to 5 105 of 242 · 43,4%
- Passives, 6 and 7 63 of 242 · 26,0%
- Promoters, 8 to 10 74 of 242 · 30,6%
The same 242 recommendation scores regrouped on the European definition. Net Promoter Score −13.
Ziggu asked the same recommendation question again between 2019 and 2026, this time to buyers surveyed through their developer’s client portal. That study, the Homebuyer NPS Study 2026, reports +9 on the standard definition and +46 on the European one across 1 936 answers, and discusses why the two samples cannot be read as a straight before-and-after. A third study, the Google Review Study: Belgian Property Developers 2026, looks at the same relationship from the outside, through 2 971 public reviews.
Finding 2
Did the developer offer a digital environment?
In 81,7% of cases the developer had no digital environment where the buyer could follow the construction of their home (179 of 219). Asked separately whether they saw value in a client portal, 82,1% said yes (174 of 212). Those two questions ran independently and landed within half a percentage point of each other, from opposite sides.
The interest is not confined to people who already had one. Among buyers whose developer offered nothing, 81,2% still said a portal would have added value. And of the small group who did have one, 73,7% said it delivered (28 of 38).
“Did the developer have a digital environment where you could follow the construction process?”
Original wording, Dutch“Beschikte de ontwikkelaar over een digitale omgeving waarop u het bouwproces kon volgen?”
n = 219 / 242
“Do you see added value in such a client portal?”
Asked immediately after the question above, so “such a portal” refers to a digital environment for following construction.
Original wording, Dutch“Ziet u een meerwaarde in zo’n klantenportaal?”
n = 212 / 242
| Question | Yes | No | Base |
|---|---|---|---|
| Developer had a digital environment | 40 (18,3%) | 179 (81,7%) | 219 |
| Sees value in a client portal | 174 (82,1%) | 38 (17,9%) | 212 |
| Of those with one: did it add value? | 28 (73,7%) | 10 (26,3%) | 38 |
| Of those without one: would it have? | 81,2% | 18,8% | 176 |
Finding 3
Where does satisfaction actually break?
Satisfaction does not fall evenly across the purchase. 76,4% were satisfied or rather satisfied with the sales approach. By the construction phase that had dropped to 54,7%: a fall of 21,7 percentage points on the same respondents. Guidance on choices sits in between at 65,8%.
The pattern says something specific. The people selling are doing a reasonable job. The months after the signature are where the experience thins out, and that is also the period in which a buyer has the least ability to do anything about it.
Share of each answer per stage, ordered from not satisfied (lightest) to satisfied (darkest).
| Stage | Not satisfied | Rather not satisfied | Rather satisfied | Satisfied | Base |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sales approach | 15 (6,3%) | 41 (17,3%) | 118 (49,8%) | 63 (26,6%) | 237 |
| Guidance on choices | 25 (11,3%) | 51 (23,0%) | 110 (49,5%) | 36 (16,2%) | 222 |
| Progress of the works | 36 (16,1%) | 65 (29,1%) | 80 (35,9%) | 42 (18,8%) | 223 |
Finding 4
What was different when a digital environment existed?
Buyers whose developer had a digital environment were more satisfied at every stage, but the size of the difference varies sharply. On the sales approach the gap is 15,9 percentage points. On guidance it is 20,7. On being kept informed during construction it is 40,6 percentage points: 87,5% against 46,9%.
In other words, the difference is roughly two and a half times larger in the phase where the relationship normally goes quiet than in the phase where a salesperson is still in the room. The recommendation scores follow the same shape: NPS −15,0 among buyers with a digital environment against −49,2 among those without.
Share satisfied or rather satisfied, split by whether the developer offered a digital environment. The emphasised bars are the buyers whose developer had one.
| Measure | Had a digital environment | Had none | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfied with sales approach | 89,7% (n=39) | 73,9% (n=176) | +15,9 pt |
| Satisfied with guidance | 82,5% (n=40) | 61,8% (n=178) | +20,7 pt |
| Satisfied with progress updates | 87,5% (n=40) | 46,9% (n=179) | +40,6 pt |
| Net Promoter Score | −15,0 (n=40) | −49,2 (n=179) | 34,2 pt |
Read this as an association, not a mechanism. Developers who already ran a digital environment in 2017 were probably better organised in other ways too, and this survey cannot separate the two. The honest statement is that buyers whose developer offered one were more satisfied. It is not evidence that adding a portal raises satisfaction by a given amount. The group that had one numbers 40 people.
Finding 5
How were buyers’ questions answered?
Email carried the communication: 73,4% named it as the channel used most. A client portal was named by 1,4% of respondents, three people in total. On speed, 19,0% waited more than five days for an answer, and 31,2% said the response time was not fast enough.
Channel used most during the project. n = 222.
How quickly most questions were answered. n = 221.
| Response time | Respondents | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Same day | 10 | 4,5% |
| Within 24 hours | 51 | 23,1% |
| Within 48 hours | 73 | 33,0% |
| Within 5 days | 45 | 20,4% |
| More than 5 days | 42 | 19,0% |
Finding 6
Promises, site visits, and what happened after handover
More than a third of buyers, 37,8%, said not every promise made during the sale was kept. A third (33,2%) found the number of site visits they were allowed insufficient. After handover, 74,4% contacted the developer again, and 41,0% said they did not have enough information to operate and maintain the technical installations in their own home.
That last pair is the aftercare problem in one line. Three in four buyers come back, and four in ten of them come back to a house they were not properly handed over. Nine years later a promise not kept was still the most named specific complaint in the Google Review Study: Belgian Property Developers 2026, and reviews touching aftercare were the most negative of any theme.
| Question | Result | Base |
|---|---|---|
| Not every promise from the sale was kept | 37,8% | n = 222 |
| Number of site visits was insufficient | 33,2% | n = 217 |
| Contacted the developer after handover | 74,4% | n = 234 |
| Not enough information on the technical installations | 41,0% | n = 239 |
What this survey does not show
- It is from 2017. Every figure describes the Belgian new-build market as buyers experienced it in January and February of that year. Nothing here should be written in the present tense. For the same question asked between 2019 and 2026, see the Homebuyer NPS Study 2026; for what buyers wrote in public, see the Google Review Study: Belgian Property Developers 2026.
- The sample is self-selected. Respondents opted in, and people with a strong experience, good or bad, are more likely to answer. Treat the direction as reliable and the precise level as indicative.
- Associations are not mechanisms. The digital-environment split in Finding 4 compares two groups of developers that differ in more ways than one.
- Small subgroups. Only 40 respondents had a developer with a digital environment. That is enough to show a direction and too few to quote a precise effect.
- Ziggu is the author. This is our own research, published by a company that sells software to the sector it surveyed. The dataset, the question wording and the bases are all on this page so the figures can be checked rather than taken on trust.
- Free-text answers are not published. Respondents named individual developers in their comments. Those responses stay in the dataset and out of this report.
Citing this research
Ziggu (2017). Belgian Homebuyer Survey 2017 (De Woonenquête). Survey of 242 buyers of newly built homes in Belgium, conducted January and February 2017.
