CHAIR – Belinda Aanensen
Investment in big data has dominated most businesses when trying to understand the customer and brand experience. In today’s world, there has been a big pendulum swing towards the quantitative data with most businesses making decisions solely on the dashboards of big data. Although this frames what is going on in an organisation, it delivers a very rational of view of the user and we have seen evidence of this in recent Royal Commissions.
Historically, the gathering of ‘the why’, the qualitative investigation, has been expensive, slow and outsourced to traditional research agencies. A cost-effective way to solve problems, develop market relevant ideas, ideate quickly and feel more connected to the customer has not been available to clients until now.
Key Content Points:
1. The clients view on why ‘thick data’ is important in their business
2. The trials & tribulations when asking brand and marketing teams to talk to customers themselves
3. Examples of the benefits of clients doing it themselves
12:30 THE TRUST MYTH
Brand trust is one of the most common metrics in brand health tracking studies, it influences marketing strategies and informs marketing teams on the strength the brand’s relationship with customers and the broader market.
But what does ‘brand trust’ really measure? Why do we track it? Should we track it at all?
We will present the results of a robust investigation into the strengths and weaknesses of brand trust as a predictive business metric vs other consumer business metrics.
We want to encourage the research industry to take an evidence-based approach and to debate the metrics we recommend to our clients – as opposed to blindly including metrics into studies.
Get ready to have your opinions challenged!
Isn’t that what good research should do?
The Net Promoter Score (NPS) [Reichheld 2003] has become widely adopted as a key performance indicator [KPI] used by boards and senior managers.
The claim that NPS “is the best predictor of growth” has fuelled much interest among management, and substantial investment of resources. However, the validity of this claim has been subject to much debate. Attempts to confirm it through correlation of aggregate statistics, or time series analysis of tracking surveys are fraught with challenges. Longitudinal studies that follow individuals over time are better at determining causality but are difficult to design and execute.
This paper examines the fundamental issue of whether NPS predicts business outcomes and, if so, what is the monetary value of incremental improvements or declines in advocacy over time. We extract advocacy and behavioural data from DBM’s Atlas program that contains over 350,000 interviews, to undertake a longitudinal analysis among Australian retail banking customers.
This paper will help to dispel some of the myths around the validity of key metrics that are widely used to track business performance. It will provide our stakeholders with the right evidence to back investment decisions and allocate resources with greater confidence.
Vasha Azoor & Ben Sullivan – Potentiate
Do any of these signs of aging tell you that you need to put your CX into retirement?
– SHORT TERM MEMORY LOSS: Wait too long to send the survey?
– BLINDNESS Sent the same survey over and over to the regular customer?
– DEMENTIA Have forgotten who they are? Do you personalize?
– DEAFNESS: If they have a specific issue, do you let them know they have been heard?
– EXHAUSTION Does your survey cause “survey fatigue.” ?
– NOT NOW, I’M HAVING MY DINNER Do you send the survey to the customer at the right time?
– SCORES AS SHAMEFUL AS INCONTINENCE Are your satisfaction scores hidden in a report or on stage for the world to see?
– I CAN’T GET OUT OF MY CHAIR driving change when everyone has gotten stuck can be a challenge.
Our client will talk about how they did things differently and moved ahead from the well established program. Learn how we used techniques from the school of behavioural economics to bring vigour and youth to the CX program