Your-Research-Resource: E-RM

Unified, Tripartite CRM Modeling with Bifurcated Curve Fitting

2011-09-08T01:37:00.003-05:00

Don't you love jargon?

That multi-syllabic jumble actually does denote an innovative use of some good old, tried and true measurement and analysis tools in a really clever way. The result is a conventional, but also efficient and comprehensive, drivers analysis of overall customer relationships or event-based service quality tracking. This CRM tool kit is also versatile and easy to administer.

The model is "unified" because it discovers and integrates drivers of customer attitudes from three analytical territories that we create by bifurcating our special criterion measure (an overall rating scale) into opposing subscales for comprehensive, three-way - "tripartite" - examination. The insight-laden results reveal:

1. Drivers of the full range of overall relationships for the entire customer base

2. Drivers of satisfaction - i.e., "satisfiers", but without using the "S" word

3. Drivers of dissatisfaction - i.e., "dissatisfiers", but without the "D" word

...consistent with the concept behind the Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene Theory.

Our innovative “Bifurcated Curve Fitting” extracts these insights from two divergent criterion measures adapted from our overall rating – all within a single survey and respondent sample. This approach can be applied just as well to a Customer Support or Operations department’s event-based Service Quality Survey Program - just Rinse and Repeat!

If you thought you liked NPS, try this and you'll never go back!

Moving Parts Theory of Customer Service

2010-08-31T14:49:00.001-05:00

Image by tanitta via Flickr

I'm quoting myself here again, but this piece is so old by now that I'm giving myself permission to do so. Oh yes, it's also terribly dated as you'll see - but it makes a point that still seems relevant

"Try to remember back to the first time you rode in a car with modern features like power steering, brakes, antenna and windows, a stereo tape deck, air conditioning and a sun roof. With all those new and complicated moving parts, didn't it occur to you that, sooner or later, something was bound to go wrong? And didn't it, usually?

This is the principle behind the "Moving Parts Theory of Customer Satisfaction", which originated from a series of research studies I managed for the personal services side of a full-service bank (Northern Trust Bank, to be specific, my employer at the time) on the topic of customer satisfaction. When the findings showed areas like Personal Banker services, credit cards and checking services getting relatively lower satisfaction scores (though still quite high), while regular savings accounts and especially safe deposit box services (remember them?) received the highest scores, the Moving Parts Theory was born.

According to this theory, service areas or accounts having greater transaction volume and/or more personal interactions (i.e., more "moving parts") are presumed naturally to produce relatively lower satisfaction levels. After all, what can go wrong with delivery of a safe deposit box service? Originally called the "Moving Parts Hypothesis of Customer Service", the concept was elevated to a theory when, upon subsequent studies by the same bank, the effect persisted.

Implications of the Moving Parts Theory

One lesson learned from this experience was that the appropriate frame of reference for analyzing such satisfaction scores is to compare the bank's overall scores and those of each department, not against each other, but each against itself over time. Otherwise, ridiculous conclusions such as this can be drawn: "The Safe Deposit Box area is providing higher quality service than are the Personal Bankers."

Management must decide how high is up for satisfaction scores for the firm as a whole and for each service area. Only then can judgments begin to be made about the quality of service provided and progress toward goals. Of course, those management decisions need to observe the strategic imperatives of the firm. The bank that is committed to growing its "upscale" business with more sophisticated services and accounts may be well advised to expect increased volume of customer contacts, inquiries, and, perhaps, even lower satisfaction scores as it embarks on that program.

However, in the credit card business, it has been shown that while the Moving Parts Theory does seem to apply relative to cardmember volume, it need not automatically lead to lower overall satisfaction levels. The answer seems to lie in developing a professional and efficient customer service process as a proactive and strategically integrated program, not merely a remedial one."

Could it be - is this old message still on target?

"How satisfied are you with the way we 'dunned' you?"

2010-08-10T22:26:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Believe it or not, I actually saw a Quality Assurance manager present findings in response to this question in an Operations Dept. quarterly customer service review meeting. One of my not-so-fond - but definitely hilarious - memories from the corporate side of my career.

So enamored was that group with the concept of obtaining customer feedback re: its service delivery, that it laid down a template imposing a regimen so rigorous, uniform and mindless in its application, that this ridiculous question was the proud result. I remember commenting to a colleague in the coffee break room, that this question is like asking the wife how satisfied she is with the way her husband is beating her this year.

Can you top this one? If so, leave a comment and explain! I can't wait.

Like Analogies? How about WikiLeaks vs. Pentagon Papers, and Social Media Analysis vs. Traditional Marketing Research?

2010-07-27T00:04:00.001-05:00

Why are the similarities and differences in the 90,000 released emails and other documents about the War in Afghanistan, on the one hand, and the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War, on the other, like the current divide between traditional marketing research vs. the vast digital online world of Social Media and the SEO business?

• Newly released Afghanistan War documents = raw, granular data dump of on-the-ground episodes, i.e., reality bites, at the micro level intended originally, and primarily, for use by the participants themselves at that same micro level.

• Pentagon Papers = official, big-picture deep analytical look from the top down at the rationale, strategy and progress of the Vietnam War, at the macro level, intended originally, and primarily, for policy makers at that same macro level.

Thus, they are not directly in conflict or competition with each other - both are necessary and valuable sources, or vehicles, of useful information. But a real problem arises if we become so enamored of one of these sources that we use it (i.e., over use it) for its own best purposes AND for purposes that are really best achieved by the other vehicle.

How does this apply to obtaining valuable market insights?

At the macro level, we have Traditional Marketing Research, by which I mean qualitative or quantitative sampling-based, “reach-out” methods of information gathering following a predetermined script, discussion guide, questionnaire or other plan that governs what information will be obtained, from whom, and how. It’s a “big picture”, top-driven, structured look at a client’s market situation, its product or brand position, customer relationships, etc.

At the micro level, we have today’s Digital SEO/Social Media readings, which are certainly excellent examples of granular information in bulk - quantity: high, but, in raw form, the quality pieces are often scarce, i.e., the gold nuggets are few and far between, and need to be culled, collated, counted, summarized and systematically analyzed.

Each has its place and value. Properly integrated and mingled, in ways that employ - and apply - each tool’s best features, they are complementary and can be awesomely powerful. In a mad rush to make this integration valid and comprehensible, these new approaches and models are emerging fast and furiously. I’ve already got my favorites – what are yours?

"I Can't Get No Satisfaction"

2010-07-25T15:02:00.004-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

When I see some customer satisfaction surveys, I can't help but hear that memorable Rolling Stones song title: "I Can't Get No Satisfaction".

What most offends me are those scales that use "expectations" as a key criterion, e.g., "Exceeded My Expectations" at one end to something like "Failed to Meet My Expectations" at the other end. At E-RM, two major objections prohibit use of this approach:

Unless I know what your customers' expectations are, how do I know how to interpret their responses to this scale?
Over time, a customer becomes accustomed to the level and quality of a brand's product, service, or the service itself. Thus, by definition, that customer's response should trend toward the mid-point of this scale, usually labeled "Met Expectations".

My most fundamental problem with this line of inquiry/measurement method is the vast amount of unknowns it embraces - indeed, it welcomes them! Questions abound as to what the firm’s long term goal is and whether exceeding expectations means something totally good (e.g., genuinely, pleasantly surprising and impressing the customer) or indicates some mismatch of customer communications and targeting. Ironically, a similar dilemma may inhibit the opposite result: ratings of a failure to meet expectations. Did the product (or service) really fail to deliver, or were customers misinformed about the level of service or product quality to “expect”? Data interpretation is tough enough without adding to the ambiguity with all these unknowns (or are they “unknown unknowns”?). My hope is that, now, they are at least “known unknowns”.

So, as a criterion measure for “satisfaction”, the expectations scale only adds to the problem. Can we please banish it forthwith?

Related articles by Zemanta

Basic Purpose of Marketing Research: Reduce Risk and Uncertainty

2010-07-24T01:13:00.000-05:00

"Judgment doesn't walk off the field when research walks on."
A former boss of mine - a most impressive and charismatic businessman - told me that once many years ago and I've remembered it ever since.

It reminds me that, at its best, what customized marketing research must do is reveal fresh insights specifically on target to the most pressing strategic issues on the table. Then, that vital and indispensable managerial judgment can be exercised with more confidence, amid fewer risks and less uncertainty than otherwise.

It’s Not Enough to Uncover Needs and Wants

2010-07-24T00:01:00.000-05:00

At E-RM we endeavor to go beyond basic “needs and wants” to uncover “whims and wishes”, so our clients know what "bells & whistles" are best to include when building (or re-building) a brand.

Consumers, whether B2C or B2B, want more than table stakes when they buy. E-RM believes they often end up choosing based on which brand best fulfills, not just their “needs and wants”, but also their “whims and wishes”. When well understood, insights about these potent “whims and wishes” can lead directly to meaningful - not frivolous - “bells and whistles” that can separate market leaders from the pack. When “whims and wishes-based bells and whistles” are linked to brand identify, you’re off to the races!

For a Usable Measure of Customer Satisfaction, Don’t Use the “S” Word

2010-07-23T23:50:00.001-05:00

E-RM prefers to avoid the “S” word – satisfaction – in our quantitative customer "satisfaction" studies. That’s because it’s such a wimp-word; it packs no punch and is often abused (deliberately or otherwise) to show high ratings by applying it in an undemanding scale.

At E-RM we prefer to sue a scale that asks how Delighted vs. how Disappointed the respondent is with the brand, service, etc.

With a sufficiently stringent top box adjective (e.g., Very or Extremely) the scale becomes a solid and useful measure of attitudes and behavior tendencies. It also produces a nicely balanced positive / negative scale for discrete modeling of motivator and demotivator effects.

Try it, you'll like it!

Amid Social Media Fury, Don’t Forget Old Faithful Research Tools

2010-07-23T23:41:00.000-05:00

Data abounds in today’s digital world of information abundance, but when - and how - do you determine how broadly representative the feedback is?

How do you work your way through the abundant, but raw, unstructured commentary from multiple Social Media channels to produce a fair, comprehensive composite picture of the view from the outside looking in?

A view that you can then integrate, tabulate or correlate w/specific brand, product, service quality ratings, rankings, and other preference or choice data from those same customers (or prospects, users, site visitors, etc.).

How, indeed, unless you have a solid program of primary research work on your agenda!

Research Cannot Serve Two Masters

2010-07-23T20:18:00.003-05:00

If you'll pardon the Biblical paraphrase, here's why research cannot serve two masters.

Master #1: Publicity for the firm in the form, for example, of high scores on customer satisfaction, to be bragged about in customer relations and PR efforts, newsletters, direct mail, blogs, corporate LinkedIn Profile, Facebook page, Twitter and other Social Media venues.

Master #2: Honest market or customer feedback that’s useful for business decisions and competitive strategies because it’s valid, tough and unbiased.

The latter requires internal confidentiality and a demanding measurement regimen; the former shuns both like the plague. To design an appropriate research project for customer satisfaction, competitive brand allegiance, etc., I need to know which purpose is being served.

Of course, only one of the above purposes works for me, in any case.