Question 1

Why do NPS-defined promoters defect without complaining or contacting support?

Accepted Answer

Even loyal-seeming customers can leave quietly because being a "promoter" in NPS terms doesn't lock in their future behavior. A customer might give you a 9 or 10 on an NPS survey (meaning they'd recommend you) and still defect later without a peep if something changes for them or a better option appears. Often, these promoters don't complain because, in their eyes, nothing dramatic went wrong - they simply found a product that suits them better or their needs evolved. Many people won't contact support unless they hit a serious problem; if their switch was due to convenience, price, or a feature elsewhere, they just move on silently. It highlights that NPS captures sentiment at a moment in time, but loyalty can be fragile. That's why it's important to also monitor behavioral signals (usage drop-off, purchase frequency changes, etc.) and proactively check in with high-value customers. Promoters defecting silently remind us that companies must continuously deliver value and pay attention to subtle signs of waning engagement - not just rely on high survey scores.

Question 2

Where should AI detect bots without blocking genuine audience-shared devices?

Accepted Answer

AI-driven fraud detection in surveys or web analytics should focus on behavioral and pattern anomalies so it catches true bots but doesn't flag real users who share devices or networks. The key is to analyze how responses are given (speed, consistency, repeated patterns) instead of just using simple rules like one device = one user. For example, multiple respondents might legitimately come from the same household tablet or an internet cafÃ© - AI should recognize that their answer patterns, time spent, and inputs differ naturally, indicating genuine participation. In contrast, a bot might blast through a survey in seconds with identical answers or inconsistent data, which the AI can spot as non-human behavior. By training AI models on a wide range of normal usage scenarios (including situations where a device is shared) and focusing on suspicious signatures (like copy-paste text or improbable click timing), you ensure that detection algorithms zero in on actual automated bots. This way, the system can block or filter fake respondents while still allowing honest respondents who happen to share an IP address or device to participate freely.

Question 3

When should mixed-mode data collection be used to validate sensitive topics?

Accepted Answer

Use mixed-mode data collection for very sensitive topics when different methods can offset each other's biases and ensure respondents feel safe telling the truth. For instance, you might pair an anonymous online survey (to encourage candid answers) with a few follow-up phone interviews to probe any surprising or unclear results in depth. Another tactic is within the same study: if you conduct in-person or phone interviews, let respondents privately fill out the most delicate questions on a tablet or paper (so even an interviewer doesn't hear their answer) - this way they're more likely to be honest about embarrassing or personal details. The goal is to validate important findings across modes: if both the online responses and the interview insights point to the same conclusion, you can be far more confident that you've captured reality and not a quirk of one survey method. In summary, when a topic is delicate enough that people might alter answers based on how you ask, a mixed-mode approach is a smart safety net for data quality.

Question 4

When should AMI data calibrate survey-based load insights?

Accepted Answer

AMI data should be used to calibrate survey-based load insights whenever real usage patterns are needed to validate or adjust what people report. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) provides granular, objective measurements of energy load, which can correct for biases in survey responses (such as recall error or optimism about usage). For example, if customers claim certain peak usage times or conservation behaviors, comparing those survey insights with actual smart meter data helps align the findings with reality_x000D_. In practice, this calibration is most valuable in forecasting or program evaluation: by integrating AMI readings, you ensure that decisions (like grid planning or demand response strategies) are based on accurate, observed consumption rather than solely on self-reported data.

Question 5

Does a higher NPS always indicate higher loyalty or future growth?

Accepted Answer

A high Net Promoter Score (NPS) often signals strong customer sentiment, but it isn't a guarantee of loyalty or growth by itself. Context matters: a company could have a sky-high NPS yet see flat growth if the market is saturated or a competitor lures customers away with better deals. Likewise, NPS measures willingness to recommend, which doesn't always translate into behaviorâ€"someone might give you a 9 or 10 but still switch to a rival if a cheaper option appears. Think of NPS as a positive indicator, not a promise. It's wise to cross-check a high NPS with actual behavior metrics like repeat purchase rate, retention/churn, and revenue trends. If those metrics are rising alongside NPS, you're likely building real loyalty and growth. But if NPS is high and the hard numbers aren't moving, it flags that something else (pricing, competition, product issues) might be holding back growth. In sum, a higher NPS is encouraging but should always be validated against what customers are actually doing.

Indiefield

Why choose Us

What is Indiefield?

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

Why do NPS-defined promoters defect without complaining or contacting support?

Where should AI detect bots without blocking genuine audience-shared devices?

When should mixed-mode data collection be used to validate sensitive topics?

When should AMI data calibrate survey-based load insights?

Does a higher NPS always indicate higher loyalty or future growth?