“We measure the hell out of everything” one of our guests ironically remarked in London, at the coffee table following the Düsseldorf meeting on Customer Satisfaction Surveys (CSSs). “Customer Satisfaction Surveys are not dead at all…” one of the other participants remarked. A wide variety of directors, all from renowned companies, exchanged their experiences again on this subject.
Quite different from Duesseldorf, though. It all started off by Ms. Neele Kistemaker, our guest from the academic world (Technical University Delft), who bluntly stated that she was “a professional ticker” as she called it, implying that she would personally fill in anything as long as there would be a reward involved, especially if as little effort as possible need be invested. The Harvard Business Review also recently stated in Reading The Public Mind (October 2010), that a class of “professional respondents” is arising, doing tens of surveys a month, making the value of these methods more and more doubtful. We exhaustively discussed the growing importance of qualitative methods as opposed to just relying on large scale quantitative customer research. “From statistics to stories”, is how one participant put it. One participant argued to do both quantitative and qualitative, depending on the "why". For what reason does one do research in the first place? More and more it became clear, that there is no such thing as a one size fits all solution to the questions posed.
The second coffee table on Customer Satisfaction Surveys took place on 18th February in the home of The Institute of Directors. Hosted by Steve Downton this elegant venue was quite different from the Youth Hostel that hosted the Düsseldorf conversation. Both occasions offered informal discussion forums, limited number of customers and friends, on invitation only. Some are perfectly happy with what they do regarding CSS, some are not quite satisfied, some don’t do this kind of thing at all – all agree on the problems of information value. It was not clear what the drivers are for loyalty, for example – and action as a result of a survey – the outcome seldom lead to improvement initiatives.
One of the interesting topics was that participating companies sometimes use a variety of surveys, so as to be able to address a number of levels and interested parties within a company's Decision Making Unit (DMU). So directors, management, engineers, end users, etc. would be asked to complete a specific set of questions, corresponding with their use and responsibilities. This in any case would enhance the quality of the information, and would make the outcome more convincing. The Net promoter Score (NPS) customer survey mechanism is also frequently used by a number of companies, being attractively simple, (but liable to be criticised), as it claims it scores better than other surveys in forecasting behavioural loyalty – according to academic research, however it does not.
The makeup of the DMU is an issue in itself - very often we see that investments are made to improve services and to enhance customer satisfaction, ignoring those elements in the DMU that actually decide on or influence the continuation of the business, are not being reached. This is especially relevant for Business to Business (B2B) environments, although it was also argued that Business to Consumer (B2C) is becoming more like B2B in a number of ways.
There is also a strong marketing element connected with CSS. The way a company executes such a survey can have a strong communicative element in itself: The way a business approaches its customers tells the respondent a lot about the company’s intentions. Taking into account your brand values, and making them strongly visible in the way you ask your customer’s opinion, is therefore crucial.
We feel that a new initiative in the customer survey arena is needed. The London group confirmed that, with widespread agreement that present day customer satisfaction and loyalty surveys were not entirely up to standard and represented an outdated approach. Results remain similar over many years, therefore outcomes can usually be expected and explained. Management teams are therefore not being forced into action, and if any actions are taken, the risk is fairly high that they will not be optimal or even worse they could worsen the situation. Ultimately there is no inspiration for progress. The standard formula has run out of fuel. Time for a change!
Therefore summarising the outputs of the two events if we really want to improve our business, we have to:
Focus much more on our customer’s needs Build a "customer feedback mechanisms" or "customer insight mechanisms" that provides us with the specific information that we are looking for.
Recognise future demands
Create flexible structure
Combine Quantitative and qualitative research
Create building blocks of information extendable if needed.
Create an on-line Web based capability if possible.
Recognise the value of utilising Social Media,
Ultimately ensure cost effectiveness.
We were very happy with the results of our Düsseldorf and London coffee tables, and thank the participants for their valuable contributions. Our guests confirmed that they also valued the session, and with such feedback we will continue the sessions.
Date:
February 28, 2011
Time:
12:30
Location:
London
Contact information:
Please contact Jenny Tryfonos
Host:
Noventum Service Management Consultants, London, London
