We’ve probably all heard them–stories of sub-optimal customer service encounters.

Here’s one from a friend that happened today.

My friend needed to have a prescription filled. The doctor’s office asked where she wanted the script sent and my friend said CVS. National brand; convenient location; should be good service, right? She had not used CVS before and thus was not in their system.

When she arrived several hours later to pick up the script, she waited in line, and presented her both her health insurance and credit card. The clerk checked the script and told my friend that the paperwork needed to be redone because they now had the insurance information. The clerk asked my friend to wait while this was done.

My friend heard her name called and she presented herself at the counter. Now, what would any customer expect at this point? To finish the transaction, of course. Run the credit card and leave. Instead, my friend told that she would have to return to the end of the line and wait again for service. She protested mildly (didn’t I already wait in line; isn’t it customary to serve me now since I had already waited?), but the clerk insisted. That’s the way we do it here!

Several retorts present themselves: Oh, sorry Comrade. I thought we were in the United States, not the Soviet Union. Or turning to the waiting line and announcing, “I am a mystery shopper for CVS and this store just flunked!” Or (my favorite), “No thanks, I’ll go somewhere that wants my business.”

As market researchers, we must ask ourselves whether our customer satisfaction measurement system is capturing such incidents. I postulate that many do not. The perfunctory ratings on courtesy, friendliness, professionalism, and the like, an overall satisfaction rating and done.

English: Customer satisfaction rating scale

Image via Wikipedia

CVS kissed a potential customer goodbye. Poof! Just like that. With some dozen or more pharmacies within walking distance of one another there is no reason for anyone to tolerate poor quality service.

Will they know it? More saliently, would they learn of such incidents through market research?

More to follow.

Comments welcome!

Dr. Bob

Enhanced by Zemanta

{ 0 comments }

Welcome back to Market Research Optimized! After an hiatus, Dr. Bob returns. A quick one, today, to be sure. And a little macabre humor about market research. When yours truly began his career in the industry, MR was still pretty much a corporate backwater. Slightly suspicious. Since those days, MR has gone from shady to necessity. When I started hearing managers say let’s run that past some focus groups, I knew the trouble was finally starting. Not really; I jest. Interesting though that as the market research industry is evolving into an internet/social media-driven space, “old” MR is finally square in the public eye, both the the ad from Domino’s of late and the spot below developed by BBDO. Hope you enjoy it. I’m still laughing. (Hey, I think I’ve been in that facility!)

Regards, Dr. Bob

 

{ 0 comments }

In the delightful Marx brothers’ film, A Night at the Opera, Chico and Groucho discuss a contract.

Julius Henry

Image via Wikipedia

Groucho: “That’s in every contract, that’s what you call a sanity clause.”

Chico: “You can’t a fool a me. There ain’t no sanity clause.”

In many organizations, market researchers are often the sanity clause or, more rightly, the sanity check on squishy information.

Take for example the recent headlines around the web that Facebook is responsible for one out of every five divorces. Goodness, what a great headline!

Step back and investigate even a little and one soon discovers that the headline plays fast and loose with the underlying data.

The headline was generated based on a press release from Divorce-Online.co.uk. Here is the salient portion of the release:

“Divorce-Online scanned their divorce petition database for the use of the word Facebook, and found 989 instances of the word in over 5,000 divorce petitions sampled.

This means that just under 20 per cent of all the petitions filed through the company had references to Facebook within the text of the divorce petitions.”

That alone is a far cry from one in five divorces were caused by Facebook. When did mention morph into causality?

Turns out as well that the sample of divorce petitions skewed to the young and was sourced in Great Britain which does not allow divorce without cause.

However, the juiciness of the headline overrode any sense of subtlety or just plain old fact-checking. Besides, it sounds so plausible.

It may not be accurate but it sure is salacious. So, let’s publish!

Part of our responsibility as market researchers is to do the fact-checking, to understand the limitations of our data and help our clients apply research conclusions to the highest advantage.

And in today’s voracious world where public relations and spin often govern, that is a tall order.

Are we up for the job?

Comments welcome.

Dr. Bob

Enhanced by Zemanta

{ 0 comments }

Market Research: Sometimes It’s About Common Sense

April 25, 2011

Okay, time for a little rant! As a market researcher, I believe in and have seen demonstrated empirically over and over the power of market research in providing critical input to management issues. And I have participated in the development and deployment of customer satisfaction research and analysis for a number of years now. But [...]

Read the full article →

Review: Enchantment in Market Research

March 6, 2011

Guy Kawasaki’s latest book, Enchantment: The Art of Changing Hearts, Minds, and Actions, stands tall in the long history of self-help and self-improvement literature. And it is more than that. Purposely chock-full of tidbits and easily-accessible chunks of useful information, it is easy to turn to any page at random and pick up useful advice [...]

Read the full article →

Market Research: The Bottom Line, Part 6

March 1, 2011

Now, market research is rarely as dramatic as in the RJR example in the previous post. But this story conveys an essential point. The bottom line of market research is to guide organizations in making investments, large and small. We do so through both confirming the validity of product development, marketing strategies and campaigns, and [...]

Read the full article →

Market Research: The Bottom Line, Part 5

February 22, 2011

So what is the bottom line on market research? There is a delightful scene in the 1993 film, Barbarians at the Gate, the story of the hostile takeover of RJ Reynolds in 1988. The iconoclastic CEO of RJR, F. Ross Johnson, played by James Garner, is furiously fighting off Kravis Roberts for control of the [...]

Read the full article →

Skipping the Market Research: Bad Idea!

February 8, 2011

The big game has come and gone. I’m reading and hearing more about the advertising in the postmortem than about the game itself. Seems that the auto ads were the big hits, along with the Budweiser singing cowboys. And seems that the Groupon ad with Timothy Hutton was the big loser. Mr. Hutton opens with [...]

Read the full article →

Market Research: The Bottom Line, Part 4

February 4, 2011

Market Researchers generally occupy a world of perceptions, opinions, demographics, psychographics, and preferences, driven extensively by psychological or sociological thought paradigms. And sometimes we get caught up in the language of our specialization, particularly statistics. We live in a world of probabilities, where findings and conclusions are caveated with statistical significance or likelihoods and where [...]

Read the full article →

Market Research Surveys: Phone Calls (and Surveys) Are Alive and Well and……Changing

January 18, 2011

Amid all the clatter declaring market research dead is a growing perception that phone calls, and requisite phone surveys, are going the way of tape back-up drives and floppy disks. Not so fast, says the Economist newspaper, in a January 1 article titled “Hanging Up.” Mobile web and text messaging may be growing rapidly, especially [...]

Read the full article →