Jeffrey Henning - Festival of New MR - 2014

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

Embrace!

Embrace?!

My
love
aﬀair
with
NPS:

•  Very
easy
to
implement

•  Simple
to
explain

•  Nega9ve
scores
can
be

improved

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

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.”

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...

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

Not
the
Ul#mate
Ques'on!

NOT

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

Given
that
NPS
Has
Its
Promoters,

Too...

What
Should
YOU
Do?

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

Steal
a
Page
From
Microsob...

Embrace
Extend
Ex9nguish

Steal
a
Page
From
Microsob...

Embrace
Extend
Ex9nguish

•  <marquee>

•  Ac9veX

•  VBScript

•  Java
incompa9bili9es

•  Display
Oﬃce

documents

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

Applying
to
NPS

Embrace
Extend
Ex9nguish

•  “Absolutely
we’ll
include
NPS
in
this
survey!”

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.”

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:

Ÿ
ACSI
Ÿ
Forrester
Cxi
Ÿ BOB

Ÿ
ECSI
Ÿ
Temkin
Ÿ Apostle

Ÿ
NCSB
Ÿ
TNS
Ÿ Vovici

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.”

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

Applying
to
NPS

Embrace
Extend
Ex9nguish

(When
we’re
done,

you’ll
see
that
these

other
methods

provide
more

informa9on.)

The
ACSI
Score
CUSTOMER

SATISFACTION

(ACSI)

Sa'sfac'on
Expecta'ons

Comparison
with
Ideal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Evolu'on
of
Customer
Research

Customer

Sa9sfac9on

(1980s)

Customer

Loyalty

(1990s)

Customer

Experience

(2000s)

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%

CXi
Correlates
To
Loyalty

Source:
Bruce
Temkin,
Experience
Ma5ers
blog

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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”

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

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

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...

Case
Study

•  Wireless
service

provider

•  NPS
of
-‐8%

•  Seeking
to
improve

reten9on

•  Correlated
loyalty

metrics
against

subsequent
renewal

(next
30
to
60
days)

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)

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

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

Embrace,
Extend,
Ex'nguish

Embrace
Extend
Ex9nguish

Streamlined

instrument

Champion
Model

segmenta9on
for

driver
analysis

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

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

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)

THANK
YOU
2014
Pla9num
Sponsor

Jeﬀrey
Henning

President,
Researchscape
Interna'onal

USA

Embrace,
Extend,
Ex'nguish
NPS

Driving
Revenue
with
BeKer
Loyalty

Measures

Jeﬀrey
Henning

President

Researchscape
Interna9onal

jhenning@researchscape.com

@jhenning

Work:
888-‐983-‐1675

Mobile:
617-‐620-‐6142

Jeffrey Henning - Festival of New MR - 2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Jeffrey Henning - Festival of New MR - 2014

Similar to Jeffrey Henning - Festival of New MR - 2014 (20)

More from Ray Poynter

More from Ray Poynter (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jeffrey Henning - Festival of New MR - 2014