Have you ever had a retail experience that starts with a bang and ends with a thud?

That’s what happened to me recently at Wachovia Bank, and I share it as it illustrates a core practice of Customer Satisfaction surveys that needs re-engineering.

I had occasion to open an account at Wachovia and the experience was the best I have had in retail banking for many years. It was influenced by two key factors:

• To my good fortune, the branch was in a small community and oriented to personal service
• The staff were all old school bankers who take time to know their customers and listen to their needs

The very next day, I received a call at home (yes, it was at dinner time) as a follow up to my visit to the branch. Impressed with the quick follow up, I agreed to participate in a live survey that was to take “3-5 minutes“. The questions were general and asked for rating on a 1-7 scale.  I made a mental note that many questions were repetitive and, like many Customer Satisfaction surveys, seemed to be crafted to elicit as many “7’s” as possible.

When we wrapped up, the operator asked me if I would be willing to participate in an additional “3-5 minute” survey that would hone in on branch specific questions. I agreed as I wanted to give props to the branch personnel. As the automated survey devolved into no more than a digital repetition of the first survey and did not provide me an opportunity to recognize the people who provided such good service in the branch, I disconnected.

Just like on Gilligan’s Island, when they started out for a “3 hour tour, a 3 hour tour”, I felt that I had been invited to spend 3-5 minutes and then duped into a 12-15 minute experience that was artificial and frustrating.

I really do not understand how corporate executives continue to be lulled into attaching importance to Customer Satisfaction surveys. Most surveys are prefaced by indicating that “only a 10 or 7 will indicate full satisfaction” and the questions are too generic to allow any real insight to be collected. When consumers are lulled to sleep with too many questions and too little discernible differences, responses become less and less meaningful. Face it, in that circumstance, consumers just want to wrap it up and could care less what number rating is offered up.

This is one more item of evidence that cements my conviction that Customer Satisfaction surveys are not reliable indicators of future customer loyalty or intent to repurchase. The survey I would like to conduct would be to gauge the level of skepticism associated with Consumer Satisfaction awards, the ones you often see as part of automobile advertisements. Given the customer experience I had with survey execution,  why should we really think that one of those trophies means that the car next to it is worth our hard earned money?

It is time to rethink, restructure, and rewrite how these surveys are executed if they are to continue to have relevance in the market.

How often have you seen trophies, plaques, and crystal featured in advertising as evidence that a product or service has received the “highest ranking” by the survey company? If you are channel or web surfing your haste might benefit the advertiser. Associating the award with the brand triggers a quick mental linkage between the two as you log a positive impression in your memory banks and move to the next channel.

If you pop the hood and investigate how these rankings are assembled, you’ll know why Gen Y (Millennial) consumers rely increasingly on recommendations received through social networking sites as well as word-of-mouth from friends and family.

The flaw in the system could not have been more clearly stated than in the sign next to where I was swiping my debit card to pay for car repairs at a local dealer.

“Did you know that a score of 9 or less is a failure? Please grade us “10” or tell us why you can’t.”

I paraphrased this a bit, but imagine if this customer satisfaction rating system were applied to kids in school or “us” at work. Try telling your child that anything less than an “A” is a failure and see how motivated they will be to climb that mountain. Or, imagine that the annual employee performance evaluation allowed raises only for those scoring a perfect 10 across the matrix of KPI’s (Key performance indicators) outlined by the boss.

Insisting on delivering a perfect 10 does nothing but dilute the scoring system itself. There are few customer experiences which are perfectly executed and there should be nothing wrong with being graded less than 10, especially if comments are provided to help interpret the score.

The proactive management of customer satisfaction scores continues “after the sale”. Every time I take my VW to the shop, I receive a phone call asking me to participate in a “short survey about my experience”. The first call comes within 3 days of my visit and the firm will continue to call every other day or so for up to 2 two weeks until I speak with them. Even though they tell me that participation is voluntary, it clearly is not, for they will chase me down like a hound-dog on a good scent trail.

Vladimir Putin might approve of this methodology. Consumers WILL participate in surveys and they WILL give us a rating of 10. Flip this around and imagine how the conversation goes between the sales rep from the survey company and a large auto dealer. Does the supplier go beyond assurances that they will manage the process and seek high participation levels, making promises to deliver the highest scores ever? Do they bring a catalog of award trophies to that sales meeting, encouraging the client to choose the one they will advertise before the campaign even kicks off?

Much has been written about how we have raised an entire generation of young people on participation trophies and certificates in fear of hurting someone’s feelings. We can argue that elsewhere, but I do not believe this approach helps consumers make better decisions about spending their hard earned money.

The appeal of recommendations made in social networking sites is the focus on content and not integers. I may not know the difference between a 9 and 10, but I can learn a bunch from reading a description of a post-sale service experience from another VW owner.

Marketers would be better served to change the game before their customers stop reading their survey results. Making the process more transparent will encourage more subjective input from customers. Don’t be afraid to learn what your customers really think about you. If you can’t stand this idea and stick with the old system, dissatisfied customers will leave anyway. I think anything less a 10 has the sound of a slamming door as they go across the street! …………. Bill Hanifin

That’s the cry heard from an increasing number of frequent flyers today. When primary research is commissioned to help diagnose the complaint, it may be surprising to learn that the same program features are often reported as both a Key Complaint and Delight.

Three examples:

Program Feature	Delight or Complaint
Options to earn miles	Lots or not enough
Ability to redeem miles for desired travel	Satisfactory or Impossible
Value of miles beyond air travel	Wonderful or Nil

These consumer opinions form a classic two edged blade that slices for or against depending on your point of view. To a great extent, the airlines and issuers of cobranded airline cards could do more to relieve frequent flyer angst.

Let’s take the issues sequentially:

In defense of the airlines and their card issuing partners, options to earn miles have grown to the point of near saturation. Miles can be earned on activities as diverse as sending flowers or obtaining a mortgage. It is well publicized that many airline cobrand cardholders earn the majority of their miles without stepping on an airplane. As a consumer, the complaint that not enough options exist falls on deaf ears. By making this statement, you serve witness that either you are not paying attention to program communications, or that you are not the best candidate to benefit from a frequent flyer program. In this case, your failure to redeem can’t be blamed on the Loyalty Asterisk™.

Consider the options to redeem mileage beyond air travel and hotel stays. After nearly wearing out my calculator, I can’t make the math work in favor of swapping miles for merchandise and magazines. In fact, the only time I have gone the magazine route is when I was striving to beat an expiration date on mileage earned with an airline I no longer frequent. In that case, I was willing to ignore the value exchange and was satisfied to get something for what otherwise would have turned to dust.

The complaint that “I can’t use my miles when I want” is the most delicate to correct. The early premise of frequent flyer programs was “travel now and take your family to Hawaii next Christmas” (fill in your own dream destination). And over the years, the sense of entitlement created by loyalty program sponsors has created a difficult fan base to satisfy. Let’s face it, the air travel experience has changed and consumer expectations for using miles should change as well.

The perceived value of air travel rewards has always been measured in emotional terms. Redeeming to attend a family reunion or take a vacation increases value, while redeeming to attend yet another business meeting is evaluated through careful fare comparisons.

I have not experienced difficulty redeeming miles for my desired travel destinations. It’s not because I am lucky, just that I try to match the destination with the season and am flexible on dates. Applying common sense to the process would help consumers tremendously and reduce frustration, but the airlines can play a big role in the process.

The challenge for the airlines is to tone down the aspirational messaging that has driven demand for frequent flyer programs since their beginning, and subtly reposition with a more practical approach to mileage redemption. Flying the family to Cleveland to visit friends may not play well in full page advertisements, but in today’s economy it represents a valuable savings to a family of four.

I humbly suggest that the airlines limit their promotion of exotic destinations where obtaining a seat with miles carries the same odds as hitting the lottery. Traveler preferences can be refined through use of the massive data the airlines possess and would allow the suggestion of secondary destinations to meet the needs of frequent flyers, reduce frustration, and increase the perception of value across the flying base.

The change is subtle and not easy to execute, but will pay off through higher customer satisfaction over time. The airlines have contributed to the present frustration with their yield management systems and can just as directly relieve the pressure by changing the focus on what constitutes a worthwhile reward.

Bill Hanifin