Being direct... AdVantage Jan 2004
Customer Satisfaction Research …
Merely Numbers, or an Opportunity to Listen ?
Are your customers the reason for your customer-satisfaction surveys, or are they just statistically valid respondents?
Some 20 years ago, when we first started building customer databases, we targeted the motor industry for this service, because there was an appreciation that motor-vehicle purchase was cyclical and repetitive on the one hand, and it also had a cost/value relationship that could justify the long-term investment nature of direct database communication, on the other.
As part of our learning at that time, we visited both the US and UK divisions of the major motor manufacturers, and were exposed to the idea of sending customer satisfaction surveys to the people who buy cars, and whose details are captured into the databases.
In the beginning our clients seemed all too happy to allow us to wrap these surveys in our unique relationship-focused wrapping, our concept being to use customer recognition, customer feedback opportunities and the idea that the customer was important enough to listen to - as a justification for talking directly to that customer.
But, how naïve we were then…all the motor-industry head-honchos really always wanted, was a stick with which to beat certain retail dealers around the head - in the name of 'caring' for the brand's customer. This may appear a little strong when one looks back on it now, but this analysis characterises the sales-driven view of marketing which sees the customer merely as a short term source of cash, rather than as a partner in strengthening overall perceptions of a brand, over time.
We eventually went by the wayside as a supplier of customer-focused communication, because our philosophy of direct, written, one-to-one interactions with each and every customer - to encouraging their feedback (so as to be seen to better serve) - was replaced with a pure research-oriented process.
Sample-sizes became more important than individual relationships; the telephone was touted as a cheaper (not to mention absolutely intrusive) means to harvest the survey data; and our idea of encouraging customers to tell US what was wrong - rather than to bad mouth the brand to 30 others - was seen as far too negative a reflection on the brand's good name - than could be swallowed by company senior management. If you DON'T ASK customers what they don't like…then there WON"T BE any customer complaints… see!!! We need more CUSTOMERS, not more complaints!!
This week, I received an e-mail from an ex-client (who was once research manager of one of those very companies, some years back, and who is now Professor of Marketing at a large Australian University) in which he refers to a piece in the US publication - Automotive News, dated October 13 2003, containing the following headline: 'National Automobile Dealers Association (Nada) works to revamp carmakers' CSI surveys'.
The story quotes NADA as today saying that the way that CSI is measured across the board by the industry is flawed in three ways:
- They don't really measure customer satisfaction because they blur the distinction between customer satisfaction with the vehicle itself (which the manufacturer controls), and satisfaction with the dealership experience (which the dealer controls).
- CSI has lost credibility with many dealers because factories use CSI scores to award or deny new franchises.
- CSI surveys undermine and interfere with dealership operations, when dealers divert resources to chase higher CSI scores.
The article also points out that when these surveys were first used in the 70's they were useful because they helped dealers to improve their operations, and were not necessarily used as a potential weapon. Finally, it points out that some current sales and service surveys are up to 8 pages long - which discourages customers from completing them, and this at a time when customers are far more aware of their privacy, and have developed 'survey fatigue'.
It is quite sad that our relationship-focused communication technique, which invited the customer to add to their sense of being valued (they were acknowledged as the final arbiter of product quality and service environment/orientation through their providing feedback on these matters) should have been replaced with the 'relationship' equivalent of an 8-page survey, where the customer's primary value is as respondent, nothing more.
As soon as any process takes on more importance than the end that it is supposed to serve, then it is ultimately doomed to fail. The 'end' for customer satisfaction surveys should be satisfied customers, not the surveys themselves!
Am I surprised that the 'backlash' seems to be happening now? Not at all. The final coup de grace against the CSI research purists is a study by Oliver published in 1999, which indicates that some 65-80% of 'satisfied' customers actually defect - so the business focus is clearly on the wrong thing!
It is the ultimate irony to me too, that over the same time-frame, we have also seen a virtual explosion in the availability of Customer Relationship Management systems and software, where once again, the means (the software and the systems) is so hyped that many people consider such systems to be 'the answer'. In truth, without management's genuine desire to better serve their customers (for the purpose of 'win-win'), no stand-alone CRM system is going to turn a 'sow's ear' attitude into a 'silk-purse' group of happy and supportive customers.
When will we ever learn……?