Question 1

How do fee-policy tests affect revenue, satisfaction, and regulatory risk?

Accepted Answer

Fee policy experiments often boost immediate revenue but can hurt customer satisfaction and even invite regulatory scrutiny if not handled carefully. Testing a new fee or price increase on a small segment will typically show a revenue uptick per customer, but you must also monitor how those customers react--do complaint rates rise, or do usage and loyalty drop due to frustration? Any significant dip in satisfaction can signal future churn risk that might outweigh the short-term revenue gains. It's also crucial to design these tests with compliance in mind: unclear or unfair fees can draw regulator attention and penalties, especially in industries like finance or telecom. By measuring customer sentiment and behavior alongside revenue in a controlled trial, you can judge whether the fee change is sustainable or if it simply trades long-term trust for short-term profit.

Question 2

Will retirement decumulation needs change our advice research priorities?

Accepted Answer

Yes — growing retirement decumulation needs are shifting advice research priorities toward understanding how retirees draw down their savings. Historically, financial research focused on accumulation (how to invest and save for retirement), but as more clients enter retirement, firms are now prioritizing studies on sustainable withdrawal strategies and post-retirement behaviors. This means examining how retirees actually spend their money, manage longevity risk, and make decisions about things like downsizing or healthcare expenses. For example, research might explore whether retirees prefer a steady income stream from annuities or more flexible drawdown plans, and what guidance helps prevent them from outliving their assets. Insights on decumulation help advisors tailor their advice and develop new tools (like withdrawal calculators or managed payout funds). In short, an aging client base is refocusing research on delivering advice that supports clients through the spend-down phase of retirement, not just the build-up.

Question 3

When should survey signals calibrate model-based churn predictions for banks?

Accepted Answer

Banks should incorporate survey signals into model-based churn predictions whenever customer sentiment shifts noticeably or on a regular refresh cycle to keep models honest. For instance, if satisfaction or NPS surveys indicate rising discontent in a customer segment that the transactional data model still scores as low-risk, it's a cue to adjust the churn prediction. Customer attitudes can change due to factors a model might not capture (like a PR issue or fee changes), so calibrating with survey insights helps catch those early. As a best practice, many banks periodically (say annually or quarterly) feed survey results into their predictive models, either retraining them or adding an adjustment factor. This ensures that the quantitative churn model remains aligned with the qualitative heartbeat of customer sentiment, improving accuracy in anticipating defections.

Question 4

How can we prove whether CX dashboard use drives decisions and outcomes?

Accepted Answer

To show that a CX dashboard is influencing decisions, track and document instances where its use correlates with positive changes in the business. For example, measure whether teams or regions that log in to the dashboard frequently also see improvements in customer metrics like satisfaction or churn over time, implying that acting on the data makes a difference. You can supplement this with case studies: gather stories of managers who spotted an issue on the dashboard — say a drop in a service quality metric — took action, and then saw that metric rebound or complaints drop. Some organizations even conduct A/B style pilots (one group uses the dashboard, another doesn't) to directly observe differences in outcomes. By combining usage analytics with performance results and concrete anecdotes, you build compelling evidence that the dashboard isn't just a passive report, but a driver of decisions and improvements.

Question 5

When should MMM reconcile with platform conversion-lift studies?

Accepted Answer

You should reconcile your MMM with platform conversion-lift studies whenever you have credible lift data for a channel — especially if the MMM's findings differ from what those experiments show. Platform lift studies (like Facebook's or Google's conversion lift tests) provide hard evidence of incremental impact. So, for example, if your MMM says social media contributed X%, but a well-run Facebook lift test shows a different contribution, that's a flag to align the two. Typically, this reconciliation happens during MMM updates or recalibrations: you feed the lift results into the modeling process as calibration points or constraints. In practice, many firms do this annually or quarterly. After big campaigns, if a platform provided lift metrics (say, YouTube showed a 10% sales lift from ads), you'd use that to tweak your MMM so it doesn't over- or under-credit YouTube going forward. In short, whenever high-quality lift studies are available, use them to sanity-check and refine your mix model. It ensures your MMM stays anchored in experimental reality, improving its accuracy and the trust stakeholders place in its guidance.

ALTIANT

Why choose Us

Features and attributes

What is ALTIANT?

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

How do fee-policy tests affect revenue, satisfaction, and regulatory risk?

Will retirement decumulation needs change our advice research priorities?

When should survey signals calibrate model-based churn predictions for banks?

How can we prove whether CX dashboard use drives decisions and outcomes?

When should MMM reconcile with platform conversion-lift studies?