Net Promoter Score Benchmarks

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email

NPS Case studies with Links to Business Value 

NPS may seem simple, it’s just getting a number right? Well the simplicity of the data collected means that the variables in how it’s done makes a huge difference. There are so many ways to implement it, and there is no one right way. In addition, your NPS process should always evolve and improve. But where do you start and what do you do? I’ve put together 34 of the best business case studies to help to answer this question. 

Links to Recency, Frequency and Monetary

Three of the variables when considering context and reliability of NPS data are RFM, ie Recency – how recently the customer interacted with your company, Frequency, how often they interact with you and Monetary, how much they have spent with you. It’s been proven in data marketing case studies that the higher these numbers, the more likely these customers are to respond and engage. 

There is a lot of evidence to show that response rates increase if there was a more recent interaction that took place. This is particularly evident in the success in the use of transactional NPS. 

These surveys are usually performed directly after a completed transaction be it face-to-face, on a website or over the phone. 

It’s logical to find that with this kind of a survey, the experience is fresh in the customers mind, they are more likely to give feedback as it is usually a more convenient time for them to do so and analysis is easier as we know what they were giving feedback about. 

However, the process isn’t perfect. What often happens with transactional NPS is the gamification of the surveys which may affect the scores. 

How to Set Net Promoter Targets for your Organisation and Staff

It may seem like a good idea at first to set your staff net promoter targets, but let’s think about this for a minute. By setting targets for NPS scores, the goal for staff often ends up being getting a number, not necessarily improving their customer service. 

This is called gamification of NPS, with people asking for higher scores, telling customers that anything below a 9 is a failure and other methods for artificially influencing their score. 

It’s not to say that setting NPS related targets are an absolute no, but there are right and wrong ways to do it. 

It’s time to stop giving people NPS targets

There’s a lot of proof out there that setting NPS targets doesn’t provide the outcomes that people hope for. The hope being that front line staff will provide better customer service. 

Telstra has made an extra effort to improve customer service across the board by rewarding their resellers a sales commission and a bonus for good NPS scores. This is a typical scenario that leads to gamification. 

Research has shown that when people are paid to do a task that they already enjoy doing, they are less likely to do it. In addition, a lot of the reasons behind the success of customer service are actually out of the control of front line staff. 

Take Care When Comparing Net Promoter Numbers 

When people start implementing NPS and gathering their first round of scores, the first thing they want to do is often to compare their scores to the scores of other businesses. This is often not beneficial as there are too many variables that have not been taken into account. 

Instead a better option is to set targets based on scenarios that are more similar to the business in question. It won’t do for a B2B software company to aim for the same score as Amazon. This kind of a target provides little to no measurable milestones that indicate success. 

The number one way to improve is to look at your own score and work at improving that. There are numerous cases of this working wonders to improve NPS scores.  If comparisons are necessary, look at businesses that score in the same country, economic climate and industry as your business. External comparisons can be comparable, as long as you are comparing apples to apples. 

New NPS Benchmarks Australia vs Europe 

One great example as to why economic variables need to be taken into account is the data taken recently from European and Australian NPS benchmarks. Across the board, it seems that Australia’s lowest scores are much lower than Europe’s lowest scores, while Europe’s highest scores are much higher than any of Australia’s highest scores. What could lead to this massive differences? 

Send this to a friend