Customer Effort Score: a new ‘single’ metric to stare at? 4C Consulting | The proof is in the people By Geert Martens & Geert Teunkens Page 1 / 4 Image credit: http://momanddadmoney.com The Rise of a New Metric We measure the world by what we see and what we want to reach. With this in mind it is easy to explain the success of the Net Promoter Score along with the increasing popularity of social media since 2004. Suddenly digitised versions of word-of-mouth had a major impact on marketing objectives. NPS, a simplified way to measure customer engagement has proven very successful in detecting how our brands and products will survive the ultimate market test: Will customers promote me among their peers? The rise of NPS was a great way to put the customer’s opinion back on the agenda of management boards around the world, an evolution we at 4C Consulting can only cheer upon. But the times are ever a-changing and a new metric is making way: the Customer Effort Score (CES) introduced by C.E.B. in 2010. If NPS taught us one thing it is that customers are more likely to share negative experiences as opposed to positive ones. Therefore it is not a coincidence that this new metric helps companies focus on internal process improvements, still with better customer experiences at the centre of attention. And it sure is simple; the score consists of a 5-scale answer on one single question: How much effort did you personally have to put in to get your problem fixed? Research has shown CES to be a better predictor for customer loyalty then both traditional customer satisfaction surveys and NPS. Should we stop everything we are doing and simply jump on the next train? Yes and no. CES offers a lot of value but no single metric will ever suffice to effectively evaluate the total customer experience chain. At 4C Consulting we believe the smart thing to do is to integrate CES in the metric ecosystem.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Customer Effort Score:a new ‘single’ metric to stare at?
4C Consult ing | The proof i s in the people
By Geert Martens & Geert Teunkens
Page 1 / 4
Image credit: http://momanddadmoney.com
The Rise of a New Metric
We measure the world by what we see and
what we want to reach. With this in mind it is easy to
explain the success of the Net Promoter Score along
with the increasing popularity of social media since
2004. Suddenly digitised versions of word-of-mouth
had a major impact on marketing objectives. NPS, a
simplif ied way to measure customer engagement has
proven very successful in detecting how our brands
and products wil l survive the ultimate market test:
Will customers promote me among their peers?
The rise of NPS was a great way to put the customer’s
opinion back on the agenda of management boards
around the world, an evolution we at 4C Consulting
can only cheer upon.
But the times are ever a-changing and a new metric
is making way: the Customer Effort Score (CES)
introduced by C.E.B. in 2010.
If NPS taught us one thing it is that customers are
more likely to share negative experiences as opposed
to positive ones. Therefore it is not a coincidence that
this new metric helps companies focus on internal
process improvements, stil l with better customer
experiences at the centre of attention.
And it sure is simple; the score consists of a 5-scale
answer on one single question: How much effort did
you personally have to put in to get your problem
fixed? Research has shown CES to be a better
predictor for customer loyalty then both traditional
customer satisfaction surveys and NPS. Should we
stop everything we are doing and simply jump on
the next train? Yes and no. CES offers a lot of value
but no single metric will ever suffice to effectively
evaluate the total customer experience chain. At
4C Consulting we believe the smart thing to do is to
integrate CES in the metric ecosystem.
4C Consult ing | The proof i s in the people Page 2 / 4
September 2013Customer Effort Score
Introducing ‘Effort-elasticity’
When customers refer to the effort they had
to invest in researching, purchasing or using a product
or service, they are usually referring to the combined
effect of different types of effort:
• Cognitiveeffort:theamountofmentalenergy
required,suchasreadingtermsandconditions;
• Timeeffort:theamountoftimeittakestowait,
consumeortransact;
• Physicaleffort:theamountofefforttodo
something;
• Emotionaleffort:howmuchnegativevspositive
energyisrequired,i .e.theextenttowhich
somethingfrustratesthecustomer.
From the research we do for our clients, we have
learned that a customer ’s will ingness to invest effort
into an interaction depends on:
• thenatureoftheinteraction
• theperceivedvalueoftheoutcomeofthe
interaction
• thereasonwhytheinteractionistakingplace:
intendedbythecustomerornot
Let’s i l lustrate this with Tomorrowland, the Belgian
dance festival of which, in 2013, the ticketing system
was the victim of its major worldwide popularity.
With more than a mill ion likes on Facebook it is no
surprise that the festival sold out in a flash even
when forcing customers to stick to their screens
for over eight hours on a sunny day. Tomorrowland
was asking their customers to invest tremendous
effort in buying a ticket, yet an NPS survey among
visitors would most certainly stil l turn out positive
since customers promote the festival on a holistic
level; DJ’s, catering... not only the ticketing service.
In this example, the perceived value of the outcome
of the interaction was very high and the interaction
was initiated by the customer. As a result, customers
were will ing to invest ‘timeeffort’, and to some
extent even ‘physicaleffort ’ in this interaction.
Product characteristics can compensate for negative
experiences on single interactions and brand
advocates will even endure very negative experiences
-for a l imited time- in order to get to your product.
But what if you would compare ‘Havingtowaitfor
hoursinarowtobuyaticketforTomorrowland’
with ‘Havingtowait30minutestotalktoacontact
centeragenttohaveyourinternetconnectionfixed ’?
The will ingness to invest effort in the latter, would
be very low: the outcome is of l imited ‘true’ added
value (‘ I alreadypayforaninternetconnectionthat
shouldworkallthetime ’) and a perceived failure of
the supplier triggered the event (‘ I didn’tevenwantto
callyouinthefirstplace’).
The lower a customer ’s will ingness to invest effort
into an interaction, the more important for an
organization to make the interaction as easy as
possible and, hence, increasing the value of CES as a
strategic metric for this interaction.
The Metric Ecosystem
Customer experiences happen at three levels:
the overall relationship, customer journeys, and
discrete interactions.
As often seen with new hypes, the ‘newkidintown’
proves strongest where its predecessor lost track.
Where NPS is a good way to measure performance
of the overall brand and distinct end-to-end
journeys, it is not always easy to pinpoint actionable
improvement areas for specific interactions. This is
where CES offers a major advantage. Since customer
effort is best measured on an interactional level
it brings a lot of information exactly on which
interactions are causing negative arousal, making
immediate steering possible.
Not only do NPS and CES differ with respect to
the level of the experience at which they are best
September 2013Customer Effort Score
4C Consult ing | The proof i s in the people Page 3 / 4
measured, they also measure fundamentally different
components of the customer experience.
CES, much like customer satisfaction (CSAT) is a
perception metric. Perception metrics do not measure
reality but, hence the name, measure customers’
subjective perception of their interactions. This
includes measuring what a customer thinks and feels
at every step in the customer journey. CES does not
tell you an interaction was difficult or easy, but how it
was perceived.
‘Reality ’ metrics, or descriptive metrics measure
observable and objective characteristics of customer
interactions: when, where,and through which
channels customers touched the company. (Average
call time, Calls lost before answered, Average pages
per visit, Average transaction value,...)
NPS belongs to a third type of metrics: outcome
metrics. Outcome metrics measure what customers
are likely to do or actually did after their interaction
(Likelihood to recommend, Likelihood to purchase,
Churn rates, Actual purchases made, Policy renewals)
NPS is the result of a broader, more holistic view,