White Paper:

An alternative method of reporting customer satisfaction scores

by Rajan Sambandam and George Hausser of TRC
 

Though customer satisfaction evaluations are widely used, reporting of these scores has varied from one study to another. This is likely the result of each method’s advantages and disadvantages, as well as the personal preferences and habits of the researcher. In this article we review various reporting methods and outline our method with an example.

 

Though customer satisfaction evaluations are widely used, reporting of these scores has varied from one study to another. This is likely the result of each method’s advantages and disadvantages, as well as the personal preferences and habits of the researcher. We recently had the opportunity to report customer satisfaction scores in a unique format that assimilates the advantages of various methods and provides the manager with a clearer picture of where to take action. In this article we review various reporting methods and outline our method with an example. Further, we also discuss a type of reporting that is becoming increasingly common especially in the health care arena, i.e., the issue of comparing the performance of various facilities or centers that belong to a single network or organization. We show how our method can be applied for this purpose and why it is advantageous.

 

Current reporting formats

First, consider the prevailing methods for reporting attribute satisfaction scores.

  • Mean scores
  • Top two box scores
  • Top box scores
  • Top two box and bottom two box scores

 

(Whether it is the top two box or top three box score that is reported is irrelevant because the principle remains the same.)

The advantage of reporting the mean is that it is a summary score that takes into account the frequency of answers for each scale point. As often found in practice, the disadvantage is that the manager doesn’t see much difference between the mean satisfaction scores on various attributes.

For example, on a seven-point satisfaction scale, the mean satisfaction scores on many attributes tend to be clustered in the five to six region. Thus, even though some of them may be statistically different from others, for a manager, it is not easy to understand where efforts need to be focused to improve overall satisfaction. Further, means of attributes which have bimodal distributions (high top two box and bottom two box scores) could have the same mean as those with normal distributions.

Reporting top two (or top three) box scores has the advantage of providing more variation in the data. Thus, it is easier to identify the attributes where the company is performing poorly. The disadvantage with a top two box score is that it is often quite high. This sometimes leads to complacency because its high value seems to indicate that respondents are very satisfied. However, reality could be quite different because the measure doesn’t take the full distribution into account. Consequently, even though the bottom box scores may be different, two attributes with equal top two box scores could be considered to be equal.

Top box score has been suggested more recently as a better way of reporting satisfaction scores. It includes only "totally satisfied" customers and hence the lower value associated with a top box score discounts any notion of managerial complacency. However, as in the previous case, top box scores ignore the rest of the scale, potentially masking trends in bottom box scores.

To overcome this problem, in some cases researchers report both top two box and bottom two box scores. While this provides a more complete picture, it forces the manager to integrate two pieces of information for each attribute. This is especially hard when there are many attributes included in the study and, more important, when scores are compared across many attributes and locations.

 

Alternative format

The solution we developed for this situation was to create a single statistic which utilized both top two box and the bottom three box data from a seven-point scale. More specifically, we subtracted the bottom three box score from the top two box score to provide a single rescaled score that not only varied between attributes but also took both ends of the distribution into account.

Having constructed this new score, we took it a step further. Rather than just subtract the bottom three box score, we subtracted twice the bottom three box score from the top two box score. (Refer to the example below.)

This formulation has several implications. Marketing studies conducted by us and other researchers have shown that there exists an asymmetric effect on satisfaction. That is, the impact of negative attribute performance on overall dissatisfaction is higher than the impact of positive attribute performance on overall satisfaction. By using twice the bottom three box score, the formulation proposed here takes asymmetry into account by saying that a customer in the bottom box hurts a company more than the gain provided by a customer in the top box.

It also means that moving a customer out of the bottom two box is harder than moving a customer into the top two box. Therefore, the former achievement should be rewarded more than the latter. Because the bottom two box score is weighted to twice its value in this formulation, moving customers in and out of the bottom boxes has a greater impact on the scaled attribute score than moving customers in or out of the top boxes.

The number of scale points to be included in the top and bottom boxes is dependent on the scale used in the study and the distribution. Similarly, the extent to which the bottom boxes should be weighted (twice, thrice, etc.) is dependent on the particular study. But the principle remains the same. A single score is obtained that has more variation than the mean score, includes both ends of the scale and is weighted to include the asymmetric effect.

 

To read the rest of this white paper in pdf format, click here.

This article was written by Rajan Sambandam and George Hausser of TRC, a full-service market research provider located in Fort Washington, PA.

 

 

Other content shared by TRC



White Paper
Better Questions For Segmentation: Use of MAX-DIFF

by Rajan Sambandam, TRC

Better Questions For Segmentation: Use of MAX-DIFFUsing Maximum Difference Scaling as a method in designing surveys may ensure more useful results in your market research. It is a comparative method based on importance that sidesteps the problems associated with traditional importance scales. TRC explains the mechanics behind this method through a detailed example in this white paper. Read Article »

White Paper
Database Scoring with Object Based Segmentation

by Rajan Sambandam, TRC

Database Scoring with Object Based SegmentationSegmentation created from company databases are often lacking the rich segmentation schemes formed by attitudinal surveys. A new approach is Object based segmentation that uses database variables at the basis for forming attitudinal segments, leaving both markets classifiable with clear demographic segments. TRC compares traditional segmentation analysis with Object based. Read Article »

White Paper
Asymmetry in Product Features: Use of the Kano Method

by Rajan Sambandam, TRC

Asymmetry in Product Features: Use of the Kano MethodThe presence or absence of product features strongly affect consumer satisfaction with the design. Comparing these features using asymmetry analysis can help identify satisfiers and dissatisfiers from among the features of a product. The Kano method is similar but results in categorizing each respondent's answers. TRC presents this essential method of deciding new product features in detail. Read Article »

White Paper
Conjoint Analysis versus Self-Explicated Method: A Comparison

by Rajan Sambandam, TRC

Conjoint Analysis versus Self-Explicated Method: A ComparisonDetermining feature importance in a product can be divided into two techniques - top-down methods where a customer evaluates the whole product at once, and bottum-up methods where features are evaluated individually or in sets. The former method, Conjoint Analysis, is more common while the latter method, Self-Explicated Method, is not widely used but has practical advantages. TRC compares the two methods in this white paper. Read Article »

White Paper
Product Configurator

by Rajan Sambandam, TRC

Product ConfiguratorTo help customers purchase the right product, companies often use product configurators - tools that let customers design their purchase before ordering. This method is employed as a market research technique, similar to conjoint analysis but without some of the constrictions. This white paper from TRC explains an appropriate use of the product configurator method. Read Article »

Case Study
Market Segmentation: One Method, Four Examples

by Rajan Sambandam, TRC

Market Segmentation: One Method, Four ExamplesEffective market segmentation requires an understanding of the market and the skilled art of finding the appropriate segments. TRC gives four examples of this method's application with results. Read Article »

White Paper
How to Measure the Value of a Brand

by Rajan Sambandam, TRC

How to Measure the Value of a BrandBrand name evokes an inherent value; finding a way to reliably measure that value is crucial in determining product development. A technique called discrete choice conjoint analysis is described in this paper by TRC. Read Article »

White Paper
Deriving Value from Research: the Use of Conjoint Analysis for Product Development

by Rajan Sambandam, TRC

Marketing research has been used by firms over the last several decades to provide information for decision making. Over time, increasingly sophisticated statistical methods have been developed and deployed in the service of this goal. This article focuses on one such method - conjoint analysis - and its application to product development. Read Article »

White Paper
Cluster Analysis Gets Complicated

by Rajan Sambandam, TRC

Cluster Analysis Gets ComplicatedSegmentation studies using cluster analysis have become commonplace. However, the data may be affected by collinearity, which can have a strong impact and affect the results of the analysis unless addressed. This article investigates what level presents a problem, why it's a problem, and how to get around it. Simulated data allows a clear demonstration of the issue without clouding it with extraneous factors. Read Article »

White Paper
Identifying Feature Importance: A Comparison of Methods

by TRC

Identifying Feature Importance: A Comparison of MethodsUnderstanding what customers want is fundamental to the new product development process as well as to the process of keeping existing products fresh and relevant. To be successful in this area we need to be able to correctly identify what features are important to consumers. Feature importance can be measured using a variety of methods of differing effectiveness. In this paper we will deal with the following methods: Importance Scales, Pick data, Pairwise Comparisons, and Max-Diff. Read Article »

White Paper
Monadic Price Testing vs. Price Laddering

by TRC

Compares two popular pricing methods to understand the difference in take rate information. Read Article »

White Paper
New Product Development: Stages and Methods

by Rajan Sambandam, TRC

New Product Development: Stages and MethodsTRC identifies the best methods for each stage of the product development process, from Idea Generation through Feature Development, Product Development and Product Testing. Read Article »

White Paper
Understand Choice in Banking: Use of Discrete Choice Conjoint Analysis

by TRC

Conjoint analysis provides incentive for survey respondents to determine which features must not be omitted in their final purchase. The method closely mirrors decision-making in the real world, and as shown by TRC in this white paper, is applicable to many situations including how customers choose their bank. Read Article »

White Paper
Want better product ideas? Try smart incentives

by Rajan Samandam, TRC

Want better product ideas? Try smart incentivesIdea generation from survey respondents is strongly dependent on incentive. Introducing competition strengthens the quantity and quality of creative responses. TRC provides examples of smart incentives in this white paper. Read Article »

Service
Identifying the Key Drivers of Brand Image

by TRC

Measuring brand image requires looking at direct effects as well as indirect effects of a company's performance. TRC compares traditional multiple regression with SatiscanTM, a method that can review all possible path models. Read Article »

Case Study
Improving Call Satisfaction: A Case Study

by TRC

Improving Call Satisfaction: A Case StudyTRC presents a case study of analyzing and improving a call center as an on-going data collection process. Read Article »

Case Study
Improving Claim Satisfaction: A Case Study

by TRC

A case study on applying full-service market research to help an insurance company improve their client satisfaction with claim handling. Read Article »

White Paper
Non-Response Bias In Survey Sampling

by TRC

Non-Response Bias In Survey SamplingMarket research accounts for many scenarios to ensure high quality of data. One of the most overlooked problems is non-response bias. TRC describes ways to reduce its effects through survey design and data adjustment in this white paper. Read Article »

White Paper
Segmentation Success

by Michael Sosnowski, TRC

Segmentation SuccessThis paper explains the basic building blocks of the segmentation process and its implementation. Read Article »

White Paper
Survey of Analysis Methods Part I

by Rajan Sambandam, TRC

Survey of Analysis Methods Part IPractical marketing research deals with two major problems: identifying key drivers and developing segments. In this two-part series TRC looks at key driver analysis and segmentation. Read Article »

White Paper
Survey of Analysis Methods Part II

by Rajan Sambandam, TRC

Survey of Analysis Methods Part IIThis is Part II of a series looking at aspects of practical marketing research: identifying key drivers and developing segments. This content describes specific segmentation methods: cluster analysis, neural networks, self-organizing map (SOM), and mixture models. Included is a discussion on ideas for developing good segments. Read Article »

Service
Validating Satiscan Using A Split Sample Approach

by TRC

TRC's SatiscanTM model is tested for validity using call center data and a split sample approach. This shows that SatiscanTM produces similar models when run on random halves of an energy industry dataset. Read Article »

Service
Satiscan and Regression Analysis: A Comparison

by TRC

The comparison shows the advantages of SatiscanTM, an analytical method from TRC, over regression in identifying the correct and cost efficient action steps. Read Article »

White Paper
TURF: New Methods for Implementation

by Westley Ritz, TRC

TURF: New Methods for ImplementationTURF is a long-established and quite useful marketing research tool, but not everyone is familiar with how it works, or with the latest developments that can make TURF even more effective. The purposes of this paper are twofold: (1) to explain the technique and (2) to describe the latest methods for implementation. Read Article »

White Paper
Product Configuration: A Research Approach for the Times

by Rajan Sambandam & Pankaj Kumar, TRC

The marketplace has shifted in the last decade with the ability of consumers to configure the product they want. This white paper explains the basics of configuration, an approach that mimics the real world of customer driven product design to obtain insight into consumer decision-making. Read Article »

White Paper
Product Configuration: Evidence for Effectiveness

by Rajan Sambandam & Pankaj Kumar, TRC

Product Configuration: Evidence for EffectivenessThis white paper looks at the examples from one product configuration study, the kinds of information that can be derived and the possibilities provided by statistical analysis. Read Article »

Article
New Product Research: A Dynamic Approach to Feature Prioritization

by Pankaj Kumar, Westley Ritz and Rajan Sambandam of TRC

New Product Research: A Dynamic Approach to Feature PrioritizationFeature prioritization is a very common new product research problem. Over the last few years, the most popular technique has been Max-Diff. However, as the number of features increases it becomes difficult to use. Bracket is a tournament-based approach that produces Max-Diff like results and can easily prioritize fifty or more features. Read Article »

Media
Doing More with Less: Getting Greater Value from Mobile Quant

by TRC

Doing More with Less: Getting Greater Value from Mobile QuantWhat “more with less” means with respect to mobile MR, and examples from traditional online studies to challenge existing assumptions about what will and will not work on a mobile device. Read Article »

Media
How to measure the value of a brand?

by TRC

How to measure the value of a brand?Knowing how to price your product that you can optimize your ROI is key. This video explains various ways to measure the value of a brand and talks about a discrete choice conjoint technique as a perfect approach to measuring the value of a brand. Read Article »

Media
Product Configuration with Michael Sosnowski

by TRC

Product Configuration with Michael SosnowskiConsider a person who wants to buy a personal computer. The customer can select exactly the combination desired, subject to a price constraint. Would it be possible to use such a process for research? Read Article »

Media
How to Improve Your Market Segmentation

by TRC

How to Improve Your Market SegmentationBob Hull from TRC talks about a market research technique for market segmentation and ways of improving them. Read Article »

Media
Rich Raquet Market Research Consulting

by TRC

Rich Raquet Market Research ConsultingRich Raquet is introducing TRC, a research & analytics firm, specializing in new product research, conjoint, segmentation, brand equity, sat & loyalty. Read Article »