The Untested Assumption: Can a Net Promoter Study Be Used to Improve Net Promoter Score?

IF 2.4 4区 管理学 Q3 BUSINESS
Lance A. Bettencourt, Mark B Houston
{"title":"The Untested Assumption: Can a Net Promoter Study Be Used to Improve Net Promoter Score?","authors":"Lance A. Bettencourt, Mark B Houston","doi":"10.1177/14707853231198780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite scholarly critiques, use of the Net Promoter Score (NPS®) continues to grow in popularity among firms. Even researchers who criticize NPS recognize its potential for predicting desirable customer behaviors and revenue growth. However, a firm’s goal in measuring NPS is not to simply assess it, but to be empowered to improve that score. This goal begs an important question: Does a “net promoter” study provide the insights that a firm needs to improve their NPS? The critical, but untested, assumption in NPS use is that the insights gained from open-ended customer comments in a net promoter study can be used to set improvement priorities that will increase future NPS likely-to-recommend ratings. Through two distinct studies, one in a business-to-business context with auto dealership decision-makers and one in a business-to-consumer context with vehicle repair customers, we investigate this assumption. Our results reveal that the critical untested assumption of a net promoter study is questionable. The convergence is low to moderate between open-ended priorities from a net promoter study and predictors of the standard ‘likely-to-recommend’ NPS question. We also find that the convergence between customers’ open-ended priorities and their stated and derived priorities from closed-ended responses is higher for NPS detractors and passives than promoters, but it is still only moderate. The strength of this convergence of priorities is also impacted by the wording of the questions used to elicit customers’ open-ended priorities. Firms using open-ended comments to set priorities should ask customers, especially detractors, to identify areas for improvement. In addition, they should supplement open-ended customer feedback with closed-ended questions to get customers’ performance ratings in relation to their specific needs.","PeriodicalId":47641,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Market Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Market Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853231198780","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite scholarly critiques, use of the Net Promoter Score (NPS®) continues to grow in popularity among firms. Even researchers who criticize NPS recognize its potential for predicting desirable customer behaviors and revenue growth. However, a firm’s goal in measuring NPS is not to simply assess it, but to be empowered to improve that score. This goal begs an important question: Does a “net promoter” study provide the insights that a firm needs to improve their NPS? The critical, but untested, assumption in NPS use is that the insights gained from open-ended customer comments in a net promoter study can be used to set improvement priorities that will increase future NPS likely-to-recommend ratings. Through two distinct studies, one in a business-to-business context with auto dealership decision-makers and one in a business-to-consumer context with vehicle repair customers, we investigate this assumption. Our results reveal that the critical untested assumption of a net promoter study is questionable. The convergence is low to moderate between open-ended priorities from a net promoter study and predictors of the standard ‘likely-to-recommend’ NPS question. We also find that the convergence between customers’ open-ended priorities and their stated and derived priorities from closed-ended responses is higher for NPS detractors and passives than promoters, but it is still only moderate. The strength of this convergence of priorities is also impacted by the wording of the questions used to elicit customers’ open-ended priorities. Firms using open-ended comments to set priorities should ask customers, especially detractors, to identify areas for improvement. In addition, they should supplement open-ended customer feedback with closed-ended questions to get customers’ performance ratings in relation to their specific needs.
未经检验的假设:网络推广者研究可以用来提高网络推广者得分吗?
尽管有学术上的批评,但净推荐值(NPS®)的使用在公司中越来越受欢迎。即使是批评NPS的研究人员也承认它在预测理想的客户行为和收入增长方面的潜力。然而,企业衡量NPS的目标不是简单地评估它,而是获得提高该分数的能力。这个目标引出了一个重要的问题:“净推动者”研究是否提供了公司改善其NPS所需的见解?在NPS的使用中,一个关键但未经检验的假设是,在净推荐者研究中,从开放式客户评论中获得的见解可以用来设定改进优先级,从而提高未来NPS推荐评级的可能性。通过两项不同的研究,一项是在汽车经销商决策者的企业对企业环境中进行的,另一项是在汽车维修客户的企业对消费者环境中进行的,我们调查了这一假设。我们的结果表明,关键的未经检验的假设净启动子研究是有问题的。净推动者研究的开放式优先级与标准“可能推荐”NPS问题的预测因子之间的趋同程度为低至中等。我们还发现,在NPS诋毁者和被动者中,客户的开放式优先级与他们陈述的和从封闭式回应中衍生出来的优先级之间的趋同程度高于推动者,但它仍然只是适度的。这种优先级聚合的强度也受到用于引出客户开放式优先级的问题措辞的影响。使用开放式评论来确定优先事项的公司应该要求客户,尤其是批评者,找出需要改进的地方。此外,他们应该用封闭式的问题来补充开放式的客户反馈,以获得客户对其特定需求的绩效评级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Market Research is the essential professional aid for users and providers of market research. IJMR will help you to: KEEP abreast of cutting-edge developments APPLY new research approaches to your business UNDERSTAND new tools and techniques LEARN from the world’s leading research thinkers STAY at the forefront of your profession
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信