jeffrey henning - festival of new mr - 2014
TRANSCRIPT
The Fes'val of NewMR 2014 would not be possible without our sponsors. Thanks to:
Our Pla'num Sponsor for 2014
Silver Sponsors
Session Sponsors
Media Partner Fes'val Supporters
• Schlesinger Associates • GMI • krea
The Fes'val of 2014
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Embrace, Extend, Ex'nguish NPS Driving Revenue with BeKer Loyalty Measures
2014 Pla9num Sponsor
Jeffrey Henning President, Researchscape Interna'onal USA
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Embrace?!
My love affair with NPS:
• Very easy to implement
• Simple to explain
• Nega9ve scores can be improved
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
How likely is it that you would recommend [brand] to a friend or colleague?
Not Likely at All
Neutral Extremely Likely
Image credit: hGp://blogs.sas.com/content/customeranaly9cs/files/2013/06/B-‐Solis-‐Net-‐Promoters.jpg
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Follow-‐up Ques'on: “Why?!”
Ra'ng Segment Why?
0 Detractor “Because I don't give out recommenda9on unless under great or poor service instances.”
6 Passive “I have had good experiences with them in the past and my friends probably will too.”
8 Passive “They have the best cell coverage of all the networks by far. I get service in many areas that I did not before.”
8 Passive “Absolutely! I’ve shown my new phone off to a bunch of friends.”
10 Promoter “I don't have any problem with the service.”
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Dear Net Promoter Score,
It’s not you. It’s me. I mistook infatuation for love, and I am sorry if I hurt you. Wait a minute – it is you...
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Noise Masks the Signal
• 11-‐point scale has the lowest predic've value of any scale tested (Schneider, Berent, Thomas, Krosnick; 2008)
• “Sa'sfac'on” and “liking” are more predic've of recommenda'ons (diGo)
• Not predic've of loyalty (Keiningham, Cooil, Aksoy, Andreassen, Weiner; 2007)
• Segments are counter to how ques'on is asked and not differen'ated sta's'cally (Roberts; 2007)
• Less accurate than mul'ple ques'ons (Hill, Roche, Allen; 2007)
• Less accurate than ACSI (Keiningham, Cooil, Andreassen, Aksoy, Weiner; 2007)
hGp://bit.ly/NPSsucks
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Noise Masks the Signal
• 11-‐point scale has the lowest predic've value of any scale tested (Schneider, Berent, Thomas, Krosnick; 2008)
• “Sa'sfac'on” and “liking” are more predic've of recommenda'ons (diGo)
• Not predic've of loyalty (Keiningham, Cooil, Aksoy, Andreassen, Weiner; 2007)
• Segments are counter to how ques'on is asked and not differen'ated sta's'cally (Roberts; 2007)
• Less accurate than mul'ple ques'ons (Hill, Roche, Allen; 2007)
• Less accurate than ACSI (Keiningham, Cooil, Andreassen, Aksoy, Weiner; 2007)
hGp://bit.ly/NPSsucks
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Not the Ul#mate Ques'on!
NOT
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Not the Ul#mate Ques'on!
NOT
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Backfire
• “A natural defense mechanism to avoid cogni9ve dissonance” – Brendan Nyhan, University of Michigan
• Confidence in knowledge inversely correlated to actual knowledge – James Kuklinksi, University of Illinois
• “Facts don’t have the power to change our minds...
• “Like an underpowered an9bio9c, facts make misinforma9on stronger...
• “The more the par9cipant cared about the topic, the stronger the backfire.” – Joe Keohane
hGp://bit.ly/FactsBackfire
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Given that NPS Has Its Promoters, Too...
What Should YOU Do?
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Steal a Page From Microsob...
Embrace Extend Ex9nguish
“Embrace, extend and ex9nguish.” – Paul Maritz, Microsoj vice president, describing in 1995 Microsoj’s strategy towards Netscape, Java, and the Internet
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Steal a Page From Microsob...
Embrace Extend Ex9nguish
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Steal a Page From Microsob...
Embrace Extend Ex9nguish
• <marquee> • Ac9veX • VBScript • Java incompa9bili9es • Display Office documents
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Steal a Page From Microsob...
Embrace Extend Ex9nguish
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Internet Explorer Netscape Others
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Applying to NPS
Embrace Extend Ex9nguish
• “Absolutely we’ll include NPS in this survey!”
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Applying to NPS
Embrace Extend Ex9nguish
• “And so that we can put the NPS results in context, we’ll ask other ques9ons about sa9sfac9on, loyalty, and customer experience.”
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
But Let’s Not Be Just Like Microsob
Embrace Extend Ex9nguish
Let’s look at proprietary measures for inspira9on but modernize them and make them open:
� ACSI � Forrester Cxi � BOB
� ECSI � Temkin � Apostle
� NCSB � TNS � Vovici
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Survey Authors Ignore Research Into Scales
• Fully labeled scales have greater reliability and validity and are preferred by respondents
• 5-‐point scales are best for unipolar measurement (e.g., 0-‐100%)
• 7-‐point scales are best for bipolar measurement (e.g., end points are opposites)
• Avoid numeric values, which alter the meaning of labels and confuse respondents
• List nega9ve choices first for a slight bias against the most posi9ve choice
• Where possible use standard scales rather than write your own
Source: Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). “Designing ra9ng scales for effec9ve measurement in surveys.”
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Survey Authors Ignore Research Into Scales
• Fully labeled scales have greater reliability and validity and are preferred by respondents
• 5-‐point scales are best for unipolar measurement (e.g., 0-‐100%)
• 7-‐point scales are best for bipolar measurement (e.g., end points are opposites)
• Avoid numeric values, which alter the meaning of labels and confuse respondents
• List nega9ve choices first for a slight bias against the most posi9ve choice
• Where possible use standard scales rather than write your own
Source: Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). “Designing ra9ng scales for effec9ve measurement in surveys.”
For purposes of external benchmarking, use the benchmark’s scale, even if subop'mal
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Applying to NPS
Embrace Extend Ex9nguish
(When we’re done, you’ll see that these other methods provide more informa9on.)
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
The ACSI Score CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION (ACSI)
Sa'sfac'on Expecta'ons
Comparison with Ideal
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
85 Personal Care & Cleaning
84 Credit Unions Pet Food
83 Breweries Electronics (TV/VCR/DVD) Food Manufacturing Sob Drinks
82 Automobiles Express Delivery Internet Retail
81 Ambulatory Care Property & Casualty Insur.
80 Apparel Full Service Restaurants Search Engines Major Appliances
79 Athle'c Shoes
78 CigareKes Health Stores Life Insurance Limited Service Restaurants
76 Specialty Retail Stores Supermarkets
75 Banks Hospitals Hotels Internet News
74 Dept. & Discount Stores Energy U'li'es Gasoline Sta'ons Personal Computers
73 Fixed Line Telephone Health Insurance
71 Cellular Telephones Computer Sobware
70 Mo'on Pictures
69 Network/Cable TV News
68 Wireless Telephone
67 Broadcas'ng TV News
64 Cable & Satellite TV Newspapers
62 Airlines
ACSI Score
Source: TheACSI.org
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
One Method of Calcula'ng Score
• Actual formula is proprietary • Weights vary by industry and even by company • Real world validity
– Macroeconomically, ACSI has been shown to correlate to growth in GDP and PCE (Personal Consump9on Expenditure)
– Microeconomically, ASCI predicts stock market performance for indices as well as individual stocks, and even correlates to CEO bonuses!
– Source: "The Effect of Compe99on on the Contrac9ng Use of Customer Sa9sfac9on: Evidence from the American Customer Sa9sfac9on Index (ACSI)", Clara Xiaoling Chen, Ella Mae Matsumura, Jae Yong Shin, 2008
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
The ACSI Model – 15 Key Ques'ons
CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS
Reliability Overall
Customiza'on
PERCEIVED OVERALL QUALITY
Reliability Overall
Customiza'on PERCEIVED VALUE
Price Given Quality
Quality Given Price
CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood Price Decrease
Price Increase
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
(ACSI)
Sa'sfac'on Expecta'ons
Comparison with Ideal
CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS
Complaints Behavior
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
But The ACSI Model Is Showing Its Age
Embrace Extend Ex9nguish
• 20 years old
• Research shows many aspects are redundant or have liGle impact
• Doesn’t follow ra9ng scale best prac9ces
• Doesn’t incorporate new measures of loyalty or customer experience
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Customer Expecta'ons Diminish In Importance Over Time*
*Source: "The evolu9on and future of na9onal customer sa9sfac9on index models”; Johnson, Gustafsson, Andreassen, Cha; 2000.
CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS
Reliability Overall
Customiza'on
PERCEIVED OVERALL QUALITY
Reliability Overall
Customiza'on PERCEIVED VALUE
Price Given Quality
Quality Given Price
CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood Price Decrease Price Increase
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Sa'sfac'on Expecta'ons
Comparison with Ideal
CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS
Complaints Behavior
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Complaint Response Drives Sa'sfac'on Not a Consequence of Dissa'sfac'on*
*Source: "The evolu9on and future of na9onal customer sa9sfac9on index models”; Johnson, Gustafsson, Andreassen, Cha; 2000.
PERCEIVED OVERALL QUALITY
Reliability Overall
Customiza'on PERCEIVED VALUE
Price Given Quality
Quality Given Price
CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood Price Decrease
Price Increase
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Sa'sfac'on Expecta'ons
Comparison with Ideal
CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS
Complaints Behavior
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Quality and Value Overlap*
*Source: "The evolu9on and future of na9onal customer sa9sfac9on index models”; Johnson, Gustafsson, Andreassen, Cha; 2000.
PERCEIVED OVERALL QUALITY
Reliability Overall
Customiza'on PERCEIVED VALUE
Price Given Quality
Quality Given Price
CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood Price Decrease
Price Increase
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Sa'sfac'on Expecta'ons
Comparison with Ideal
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
NCSB Adds Price Comparisons + Quality Drivers That Vary by Industry*
*Source: "The evolu9on and future of na9onal customer sa9sfac9on index models”; Johnson, Gustafsson, Andreassen, Cha; 2000.
INDUSTRY-‐ SPECIFIC QUALITY DRIVERS
X Z
Y
PRICE COMPARISONS
To Expecta'ons To Quality
To Compe'tors CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood
Price Decrease
Price Increase
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Sa'sfac'on Expecta'ons
Comparison with Ideal
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
NCSB’s SERVQUAL/RATER Quality Drivers Had LiKle Effect*
INDUSTRY-‐ SPECIFIC QUALITY DRIVERS
X Z
Y
PRICE COMPARISONS
To Expecta'ons To Quality
To Compe'tors CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood
Price Decrease
Price Increase
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Sa'sfac'on Expecta'ons
Comparison with Ideal
*Source: "The evolu9on and future of na9onal customer sa9sfac9on index models”; Johnson, Gustafsson, Andreassen, Cha; 2000.
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
What Can We Replace The Quality Drivers With?
PRICE COMPARISONS
To Expecta'ons To Quality
To Compe'tors CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood
Price Decrease
Price Increase
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Sa'sfac'on Expecta'ons
Comparison with Ideal
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Evolu'on of Customer Research
Customer Sa9sfac9on (1980s)
Customer Loyalty (1990s)
Customer Experience (2000s)
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Forrester CXi (Customer Experience Index)
Forrester CXi components
1. Usefulness
2. Ease of Use
3. Enjoyability
• Although only launched in 2007, Forrester’s CXi (previously CxPi) has emerged as an important new index
• CxPi = (% of customers with a good experience)-‐(% with bad experience) for each ques9on
• CXi = (average()-‐1)/4*100 • Public results for 113 organiza9ons in
12 industries • Watermark Consul9ng correlates it to
stock market performance: • Stock of CXi leaders appreciated
23% from 2007 to 2011 • Stock of CXi laggards fell 46%
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
CXi Correlates To Loyalty
Source: Bruce Temkin, Experience Ma5ers blog
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
Effec'veness Enjoyability
Ease
CX Ques'on Wording
Forrester CXi Temkin Experience Ra'ngs
Generic Wording
Usefulness/ Func9onal
Thinking about your recent interac9ons with these firms, how effec9ve were they at mee9ng your needs?
Thinking of your most recent interac9ons with each of these companies, to what degree were you able to accomplish what you wanted to do?
How effec9vely did our organiza9on meet your needs?
Ease/ Accessible
Thinking about your recent interac9ons with these firms, how easy was it to work with these firms?
Thinking of your most recent interac9ons with each of these companies, how easy was it interact with the company?
How easy was it to work with our organiza9on?
Enjoyability/ Emo9onal
Thinking about your recent interac9ons with these firms, how enjoyable were the interac9ons?
Thinking of your most recent interac9ons with each of these companies, how did you feel about those interac9ons?
How enjoyable were your interac9ons with our organiza9on?
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Integra'ng Customer Experience Measurement into Our Model
CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
Effec'veness Enjoyability
Ease
PRICE COMPARISONS
To Expecta'ons To Quality
To Compe'tors CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood
Price Decrease
Price Increase
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Sa'sfac'on Expecta'ons
Comparison with Ideal
Source: Researchscape Interna9onal
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
ACSI Loyalty
• “The next 9me you are going to purchase a [category], how likely is it that it will be a [brand] again?”
• “Let us imagine that [brand] raises its prices. If other companies remain at the same prices, how much can [brand] raise its price before you definitely would not choose it the next 9me you purchase a [category]?” [0% to 25%]
• “Let us now imagine that [brand] lowers its prices. If other companies remain at the same prices, how much must [brand] lower its price before you would definitely choose it the next 9me you purchase a [category]?” [0% to 25%]
CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood
Price Decrease
Price Increase
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood
Reluctance to Switch
Recommend Likelihood
Common Loyalty Indices ACSI ECSI NCSB Forr-‐
ester TNS B2B
BOB Adv.
BOB Prch.
Price increase tolerance X
Price decrease recep9vity X
Reluctance to switch X
Likelihood to choose again for the first 9me X
Likelihood to repurchase X X X X X X
Likelihood to increase purchase size X X
Likelihood to increase purchase frequency X
Likelihood to purchase different products X
Likelihood to recommend X X X X X
Likelihood to speak favorably X
Compe99ve advantage X
Overall sa9sfac9on X X
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
CESL Model (Customer Experience/Sa'sfac'on/Loyalty)
CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
Effec'veness Enjoyability
Ease
PRICE COMPARISONS
To Expecta'ons To Quality
To Compe'tors CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood
Reluctance to Switch
Recommend Likelihood
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Sa'sfac'on Expecta'ons
Comparison with Ideal
Source: Researchscape Interna9onal
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
CESL’s 12+ Ques'ons 1. How likely is it that you would recommend Acme to a friend or colleague? 2. Why? 3. Thinking about your recent interac9ons with Acme... How effec9ve was Acme
at mee9ng your needs? 4. How easy was it work with Acme? 5. How enjoyable were your interac9ons with Acme? 6. What is your overall sa9sfac9on with Acme? 7. To what extent has Acme met your expecta9ons? 8. How well did Acme services compare with the ideal? 9. Given your ini9al expecta9ons, how you would rate the price that you pay for
Acme services? 10. Given the quality of our services, how would you rate the price that you pay
for them? 11. Given compe9tors' prices, how would you rate the price that you pay for
Acme services? 12. How reluctant are you to switch your business from Acme? 13. How likely are you to repurchase from Acme?
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
1. How likely is it that you would recommend Acme to a friend or colleague? > 0 -‐ Not likely at all > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 -‐ Neutral > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 10 -‐ Extremely likely 2. Why? >> ... 12. How reluctant are you to switch your business from Acme? > Not at all reluctant > Slightly reluctant > Moderately reluctant > Very reluctant > Completely reluctant 13. How likely are you to repurchase from Acme? > Not at all likely > Slightly likely > Moderately likely > Very likely > Completely likely
CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood
Reluctance to Switch
Recommend Likelihood
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
3. Thinking about your recent interac9ons with Acme...How effec9ve was Acme at mee9ng your needs? > Not at all effec9ve > Slightly effec9ve > Moderately effec9ve > Very effec9ve > Extremely effec9ve 4. How easy was it work with Acme? > Not at all easy > Slightly easy > Moderately easy > Very easy > Extremely easy 5. How enjoyable were your interac9ons with Acme? > Not at all enjoyable > Slightly enjoyable > Moderately enjoyable > Very enjoyable > Extremely enjoyable
CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
Effec'veness Enjoyability
Ease
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
6. What is your overall sa9sfac9on with Acme? > Not at all sa9sfied > Slightly sa9sfied > Moderately sa9sfied > Very sa9sfied > Completely sa9sfied 7. To what extent has Acme met your expecta9ons? > Not at all > Slightly > Moderately > Very much > Completely 8. How well did Acme services compare with the ideal? > Not at all close to the ideal > Slightly close > Moderately close > Very close > Extremely close to the ideal
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Sa'sfac'on Expecta'ons
Comparison with Ideal
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
9. Given your ini9al expecta9ons, how you would rate the price that you pay for Acme services? > Very poor given your expecta9ons > Poor given your expecta9ons > Average given your expecta9ons > Good given your expecta9ons > Excellent given your expecta9ons 10. Given the quality of our services, how would you rate the price that you pay for them? > Very poor given the quality > Poor given the quality > Average given the quality > Good given the quality > Excellent given the quality 11. Given compe9tors' prices, how would you rate the price that you pay for Acme services? > Very poor given compe9tors' prices > Poor given compe9tors' prices > Average given compe9tors' prices > Good given compe9tors' prices > Excellent given compe9tors' prices
PRICE COMPARISONS
To Expecta'ons To Compe'tors
To Quality
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
The Apostle Model
Apostle Hostage
Detractor
Mercenary
Low Medium High
Customer Sa'sfac'on
High Medium
Low
Customer Loyalty
• Jones and Sasser pioneered their own loyalty segmenta9on
• For sa9sfac9on scale, use CSAT ques9on or ACSI’s 3 ques9ons
• For loyalty, use likelihood to repurchase or a loyalty index
• “Apostle Model” a misnomer: top quadrant are really “Loyalists”
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
TNS Loyalty Model
Champion Cap've
Rebel
Moral Supporter
Low Medium High
Customer Advocacy
High Medium
Low
Customer Loyalty
• Can be used in addi9on to the Apostle Model
• Again, for loyalty, use a single ques9on or an index
• TNS segments into equal quadrants; best results by keeping Apostle Model’s smaller top quadrant
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Vovici Champion Model
None Completely
Customer Advocacy
Completely
None
Customer Loyalty
• Inspired by the TNS CLI model
• Goal: Turn the Bench into Starters, Players into All-‐Stars and All-‐Stars into Champions
Champions
All-‐Stars
Starters
The Bench
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Correlate Results Across 22 CESL Measures To Real-‐World Behavior*
• 12 closed-‐ended ques9ons • 4 main indexes
• 1 index of indexes (all 12 closed ques9ons) • 1 custom index (CSAT/repurchase/recommend)
• 4 segmenta9on models (NPS, Apostle Model, TNS Loyalty Model, Vovici Champion Model)
*Renewal, repurchase, upsell...
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Case Study • Wireless service provider
• NPS of -‐8% • Seeking to improve reten9on
• Correlated loyalty metrics against subsequent renewal (next 30 to 60 days)
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Case Study Rank Metric Correl
a'on
1 Customer Loyalty Index 0.762
2 CSAT/Loyalty Index 0.751
3 Vovici Champion Model 0.749
4 Likelihood to Repurchase 0.730
5 Likelihood to Recommend 0.728
6 Index of Indices 0.685
7 CSAT 0.639
8 Apostle Model 0.604
9 TNS Loyalty Model 0.590
10 Reluctance to Switch 0.585
18 NPS 0.502
22 Ease 0.402
• Wireless service provider
• NPS of -‐8% • Seeking to improve reten9on
• Correlated loyalty metrics against subsequent renewal (next 30 to 60 days)
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Correla'on of CESL Indices to Renewal
CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
Effec'veness Enjoyability
Ease
PRICE COMPARISONS
To Expecta'ons To Quality
To Compe'tors CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood
Reluctance to Switch
Recommend Likelihood
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Sa'sfac'on Expecta'ons
Comparison with Ideal
.762
.549
.534
.624
Source: Researchscape Interna9onal
.685
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Simplify CESL for Subsequent Fielding
CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
Effec'veness Enjoyability
Ease
PRICE COMPARISONS
To Expecta9ons To Quality
To Compe9tors CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Repurchase Likelihood
Reluctance to Switch
Recommend Likelihood
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Sa'sfac'on Expecta9ons
Comparison with Ideal
.762
.566
.528
.639
Source: Researchscape Interna9onal
.738
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Embrace, Extend, Ex'nguish
Embrace Extend Ex9nguish
Streamlined instrument
Champion Model segmenta9on for driver analysis
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
CESL Pros & Cons
Strengths
• Synthesis of best prac9ces from many vendors
• 4 possible segmenta9ons
• 22 different measures to test
• ACSI and CXi correlate to stock market performance
• Free, and public domain
Weaknesses
• 12+ ques9ons
• Not independently, academically validated
• Benchmarks to ACSI and CXi aren’t pure comparisons
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Different Results for Different Cases
Measure Different Real-‐World Behaviors • Small installed base, looking
to win lots of new customers
• Medium installed base with low spend, looking to increase amount spent by customers
• Large, stable market share, looking to maintain customer base
Different Measures Win for Different Companies • Customer Loyalty Index • CSAT/Loyalty • Likelihood to Recommend
Winning Segmenta9on: • TNS Loyalty Model • Apostle Model • Vovici Champion Model
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Special Thanks
• Bain & Company (NPS)
• Business Over Broadway (ALI, PLI) • CFI Group (ACSI) • Forrester Research (CXI, CLI) • Rela9on Monitor (ECSI)
• Temkin Group (Experience Ra9ngs)
• TNS (CLI, Loyalty Model)
• University of Michigan (ACSI, NCSB)
• Verint (Vovici Champion Model)
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
THANK YOU
2014 Pla9num Sponsor
Jeffrey Henning President, Researchscape Interna'onal USA
The Fes'val of NewMR 2014 would not be possible without our sponsors. Thanks to:
Our Pla'num Sponsor for 2014
Silver Sponsors
Session Sponsors
Media Partner Fes'val Supporters
• Schlesinger Associates • GMI • krea
The Fes'val of 2014
Jeffrey Henning, Researchscape International, USA Festival of NewMR, December 2014
Embrace, Extend, Ex'nguish NPS Driving Revenue with BeKer Loyalty
Measures
Jeffrey Henning President Researchscape Interna9onal [email protected] @jhenning Work: 888-‐983-‐1675 Mobile: 617-‐620-‐6142