X, a fitness and training group, conducted mystery shopping programs through IFM to evaluate customer reception, facility tours, sales consultations, and drive improvements. Mystery shoppers visited 8 locations over 6 months, rating areas like reception, personal training, classes, equipment, and atmosphere. Overall ratings improved, though some locations scored lower. Recommendations included cleaner facilities, more enthusiastic staff, and addressing issues at underperforming locations.

1. Mystery Shopping Report

2. 1. Background & Objectives
▪ X is a fitness and training group with 8 locations in Hanoi & HCMC. X offers a variety of fitness and
training programs. In an effort to increase both its service offer and generate higher customer loyalty,
EF wish to begin a Mystery shop program with IFM.
▪ The key objective of the consultation MS shop program is…
▪ “ to evaluating X Customer reception, Facility tour, MC sales and presentation consultation
capability, to drive improvements.
2. Methodology
▪ Due to the Benefits of utilizing Professional Mystery shoppers
for the customer evaluation visit, only IFM staff members/ MS shoppers shall conduct these.
▪ For the 2nd wave and 3rd wave, N = 96 individuals engaged professional Mystery
shoppers, who visited the clubs to experience EF’s gym services via the 1-week free trial,
in terms of potentially joining EF and buying a membership.
▪ IFM engaged a total of 96 Mystery shoppers in September, October, November,
December, January and February, for which the results are in the finding split by Total
and by each store and each section to be inspected and analyzed.

3. 3.1 OVERALL RATING & SATISFACTION ON 8 MEASURED AREAS
(Q.4 2016 vs Q.1 2017)
74 75 76
84
88 88
83 8381
86
96 97
100
92 93
98
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Reception PT GX Yoga Gym
equipment &
environment
Changing room
& bathrooms
Swimming pool
& Jacuzzi
Club
atmosphere
RATING & SATISFACTION ON 8 MEASURED AREAS
(Q.2 2016 vs Q.1 2017)
Rating wave 2 Rating wave 3 Satisfaction wave 2 Satisfaction wave 3
Generally, all assessment groups have improved since the 2nd wave in terms of rating and
satisfaction level.
BASE: N = 96

4. 3.2 OVERALL RATING BY FACILITIES ON 8 MEASURED AREAS
(Q.4 2016 & Q.1 2017)
84
85
81
81
67
66
83
7578
82
70
80
68
76 79
92
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
A B C D E F G H
RATING ON 8 MEASURED AREAS
Reception PT GX
Yoga Equipment & environment Changing rooms & bathrooms
Swimming pool Club atmosphere
BASE: N = 96
Reception and PT are the areas that often had more infractions than the other areas for all EF
facilities while the gym equipment, changing rooms & bathrooms got the top scores.

5. 3.3 NET PROMOTER SCORE OVERVIEW (Q.4 2016 & Q.1 2017)
50%
66%
-16%
100%
50%
0%
67%
100%
-50%
-30%
-10%
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
110%
a b c d e f g h
Net promoter score by facilities
While all the other facilities have positive promoter scores of 50 and above, X and T didn’t do
so well with negative scores.
BASE: N = 96

6. 3.5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS
Facilities
▪ Overall all X facilities are a real strong point for X. However,X can improve by:
▪ Making sure changing rooms and bathrooms are clean with amenities always available.
▪ Focusing more on the quality of the pool areas (adding pool attendants, updating notice
boards, first aid kits)
▪ Organizing GX and Yoga studios to give customers good impression on the cleanliness.
Staff attitude
▪ The main problem of X staff is that they often don’t express enthusiasm toward customers,
making the customers feel less interested in joining X.
o Reception staff
▪ Greet customers with smiles and eyes contact, say goodbye when they leave, remember
to always offer water and most importantly express welcoming attitude to customers.
▪ Actively giving information about different classes, even to trial customers.
▪ Carefully and happily handle customers’ requests
o Personal trainers
▪ Always take fitness tests of new members.
▪ Promote other departments because some classes may attract members to join EF.
▪ Introduce new members to regular ones for the impression of friendliness.

7. 3.5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
o GX trainers
▪ Always introduce the class to new members and support them more when they first
join the classes.
▪ Express caring attitude.
X IS TOP NOTCH IN TERMS OF FACILITIES / EQUIPMENT, BUT STAFF SERVICING REQUIRES IMPROVEMENT
Fitness Centre Satisfaction Overview
Hanoi
▪ Overall satisfaction rating in Hanoi is 74, while X fitness centres scores a low 51
▪ Excluding X fitness centre mean satisfaction score would be 77.3.
▪ Thus recommend to make drastic changes at X fitness
▪ Benchmark moving forward should be at least 77% satisfaction
HCMC
▪ Overall satisfaction rating in HCMC is 81, while D fitness centres scores a low 61
▪ Excluding D fitness centre mean satisfaction score would be 84
▪ Thus recommend to make drastic changes at D fitness
▪ Benchmark moving forward should be at least 84% satisfaction
Typically Hanoians rate satisfaction levels lower than Saigonese, so to accommodate for this cultural difference
we recommend to separate satisfaction benchmarks .

8. Research Findings

9. 5.1 PERSONAL TRAINER SERVICE COMPARISON
(Q.4-2016 vs Q.1-2017)
BASE: N = 87
100%
75%
89%
80%
68%
93%
0%
89%
100%
84%
93%
84%
70%
95%
88%
81%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Personal trainer service comparison (2nd wave vs 3rd wave)
2nd wave 3rd wave
In the 3rd wave, the personal trainer service has slightly improved in almost every assessment
criteria. The new assessment criterion “Friendly and helpful” can’t be compared to the
previous wave, but it shows great feedback from MS.

10. 5.2 PERSONAL TRAINER SERVICE SATISFACTION COMPARISON
(Q.4-2016 vs Q.1-2017)
2% 5%
20% 9%
55%
53%
23%
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2nd wave 3rd wave
Personal trainer service satisfaction comparison
(2nd wave vs 3rd wave) Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied
In the 3rd wave, the level of dissatisfaction for personal trainer service has shown a small raise
from 2% to 5%. However the percentage of “Very Satisfied” and “Satisfied” MS has also
increased from 78% to 86%.
78%
86%
BASE: N = 87

11. 5.3 REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION
(Q.4-2016 & Q.1-2017)
1
1
1
1
1
2
10
Ask too many private questions
unrelated to training purpose
Didn't introduce general information
and suitable training course for…
No namebadge/uniform, show little
interest in trial customer
Talked to somebody else a lot while
instructing MS
No schedule ahead from CS led to no
PT available for MS
Only introduced gym members,
equipments/classes when asked by MS
Didn't show enthusiasm in training MS
Q.24 What made you not yet satisfied with PT? (open ended)
Base: N = 29
Most of MS dissatisfaction was due to the lack of enthusiasm in PT, could be because MS were
trial customers.
“…PT only pay attention to
their regular customers, I have
to actively ask for support” X
MS
BASE: N = 16

12. 5.4 OVERALL PERSONAL TRAINER RATING SYSTEM
# PT ranking 3rd wave Score
1 I 94
2 J 91
3 K 86
4 L 85
5 M 77
6 N 77
7 O 76
7 P 60
Mean 81
The mean score has a small raise from 75 in the 2nd wave to 81 in the 3rd wave, showing
improvement in general.
# PT ranking 2nd wave Score
1 A 89
2 B 83
3 C 78
4 D 75
5 E 74
6 F 73
7 G 64
7 H 64
Mean 75
BASE: N = 87

13. 13. MS PICTURES

14. Ralf Matthaes
Managing Director
South East Asia
Tel: +84-822-627-627
Mobile: +84-903-949-531
Website: www.ifmresearch.com
ifmpanel website: www.ifmpanel.com
Email: Ralf.matthaes@infocusmekong.com
21 Phung Khac Khoan, District 1,
HCMC, Vietnam