Friday 20 July 2012

Are customer surveys making for a bad experience?

Many companies are now focused on end to end experience design and measurement and set their KPIs accordingly. But are some in danger of seeing their ‘sophisticated’ measurements backfire?

Some companies these days present you with a survey at every touch point asking you to rate each interaction – however small. When it’s only one or two companies doing it, customers may put up with it.  Get everyone doing it and customers will feel like they spend more time answering surveys than getting what they want.

For the companies, these surveys have two inherent dangers.

1. Data collection is often skewed
A friend was trying to deal with a telco. Every time he called, he was promised resolution and it all seemed fine. Duly he was asked to stay on the line to answer a short survey. Of course, most call centre staff do not miss the chance to ask for a good score as ‘the survey rates their personal performance’.  And because the survey only refers to the specific touch point and operator, one feels obliged to give a good score. He even gave it happily – the interaction was pleasant and he thought his issue was resolved. But later, when they had screwed up again, and he sat there fuming, there was no survey, no opportunity to let them know. The good scores he gave previously had no connection with the reality of his experience. 

Another one. My wife wasn’t happy with our bank (ever since Ogilvy we’ve know this to be important!). So after 20 years it was time to break up. After just 2 weeks and without them having been able to achieve anything, my wife is told she will receive a call for a survey. She also receives an request from the manager to please give a 9 or 10 as anything below is considered unsatisfactory!

The reliance on KPI control and leads to people at every level finding ways to skew their numbers – leaving the entire system ad absurdum. 



2. Survey creates a bad experience
All these surveys are taken in the name of a great customer experience. But the surveys now become so intrusive, that their very existence has to be considered as part of the experience design.

Coming back to the telco and my friend. As a result of ‘having been tricked into giving good scores and not being able to report bad ones’ his experience perception is now worse than if the company had just screwed it up.

We tried it ourselves across a number of touch points. Then did a few interviews to see what people thought. Initially the request for feedback is considered a nice touch and suggests the company cares. But after a short time a feeling of annoyance sets in - ‘they only ask when it suits their purpose’. Those that had dealt with more than one or two of those survey heavy companies, start to think of them more negatively. It feels to them as if:

        - the onus of providing a good experience is put on the customer
        - the company has to ask constantly because they do not know how they are doing

Transfer this into personal life. Imagine you have an employee that asks you with every task for your appraisal. You’d just go nuts. If it is a supplier, you’d go nuts even faster.  It shows their insecurity, lack of internalised standards and inability to self-assess.

In designing customer experiences we will never be able to do without some form of measurement and setting customer focused KPIs.  But surveying and measurement has to be understood as an inherent part of the customer experience, not a tool for managers to chase their bonuses.

Tuesday 10 July 2012

What drives bank trust? Update on slideshare now.


First, why would you care? We all know that the banks are not trusted, right? All 4 major banks are, on average, not trusted or just sit on the trust threshold. In business banking none even comes close to an average trust rating.

Trust is the link between customer behaviour and company performance.

If banks could shift their average trust rating by just 5-10%, they would double positive predisposition. A shift of 20% would increase positive predisposition by 400%. On the company performance side, trust, satisfaction and propensity to recommend (NPS) always measure the same and the causality is obvious. So, if you can precisely build trust, you drive business results.

Looking at the facets of trust with HuTrust, all major banks have a similar HuTrust Profile. There is no differentiation (we all know that).  Banks are trusted for their stability and they are trusted for being there in the future. Our qual research repeatedly showed that this is partly perceived to be a result of tight regulation –‘being  kept on the leash by the government’. Considering that all banks say they are heavily investing into relationship building, they appear to miss the point and don’t understand what relationship customers actually want to trust them for.

On trust in a vision or purpose, none gets even close to the trust threshold. Vision is a curious one. Constituting one sixth of trust, it is totally overlooked as a driver of trust and customer engagement. Aside from knowing your strengths and weaknesses, which of the HuTrust facets actually drive trust the most and provide the biggest opportunity? What facets should banks invest into to increase trust – and thereby their KPIs and positive customer behaviour?

In nab’s case vision trust is not only the worst performing trust facet, it is also the most important one to drive trust and engagement. For nab it is also the one facet through which it could differentiate substantially and provide more meaning to 'breaking up' than minuscule rates and fees differences. 

Conversely, for Westpac it is competence trust. Interestingly, neither bank really appears to invest into either of these. Maybe that is the reason why none of the banks make any significant shifts in their satisfaction and NPS scores?

BTW - HuTrust facets account for 63-80% of trust variation & 52-88% of variation in propensity to recommend (NPS).


View more presentations from mext Consulting




Friday 6 July 2012

HuTrust® proves itself in politics



Every politician would agree that it is all about trust. 

This study, with 1500 respondents, employed our HuTrust® IP to also analyse trust in Canadian politicians. Apart from the interesting results for the Premier of British Columbia and the Mayor of Vancouver, the 6 drivers of trust in the HuTrust® methodology were statistically proven to fully explain trust. We were able to analyse the HuTrust® Profiles and the politician’s specific drivers to understand what they would have to do to build more trust.
Analysing Trust in Politicians
View more presentations from mext Consulting