Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

IFM mystery shopper case study

51 views

Published on

Mystery shopper case study

Published in: Marketing
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

IFM mystery shopper case study

  1. 1. Mystery Shopping Report
  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 8. Research Findings
  9. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13. MS PICTURES
  14. 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

×