Member Introductions
I'm an exclusive Sprint retailer, and at a recent meeting with our Indirect Rep, we discussed the newest Sprint C-SAT survey. Supposedly, they plan for the survey results to be the driving factor in our commissions. The way they do it is: the customer is asked a series of satisfaction/performance-related questions pertaining to the store where the account was modified. The questions are answered on a scale of 1 - 5. Anything but a 5 counts as zero. They claim that this is the industry standard and that this <5=0 method is used accross the board by ATT, Verizon, Tmob, etc. Can any multi-carriers or non-Sprint retailers shed any light on this?
The other funny part is that they require us, at the point of sale, to attempt to alter the customer's answers in the survey, by actually REQUESTING from the customer that they rate us a five. I do not understand this. I always thought surveys of that nature were for gathering telling info about your clientel and the performance of your locations. But it seems that if you attempt to alter the outcome of a survey then the info becomes erroneous and can no longer be used for decision making. Doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose of the survey? They claimed that customers who rate a 5 tend to be "net promoters" - people who's satisfation with their carrier makes an impression on others - so they want influence all the people scoring 4s to score 5s instead. This way of looking at numbers also seems artificial. I cannot imagine that someone who previously scored a 4 is turned into a "net promoter" at a certain magical point, just by having been influenced to score a 5. Yes, they may give higher scores on average when they are directly asked to by the staff, but how can this change in the outcome be considered "real" statistics? Does getting them to press a different button really turn them into a net-promoter? What is the motive, what am I missing? I guess they are actually GOING for artificially inflated statistics so that they can report a higher c-sat estimate in public reports. And they claim that the the survey is third party and unbiased, though they are clearly able to manipulate the results on a large scale. Something smells fishy.
The other funny part is that they require us, at the point of sale, to attempt to alter the customer's answers in the survey, by actually REQUESTING from the customer that they rate us a five. I do not understand this. I always thought surveys of that nature were for gathering telling info about your clientel and the performance of your locations. But it seems that if you attempt to alter the outcome of a survey then the info becomes erroneous and can no longer be used for decision making. Doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose of the survey? They claimed that customers who rate a 5 tend to be "net promoters" - people who's satisfation with their carrier makes an impression on others - so they want influence all the people scoring 4s to score 5s instead. This way of looking at numbers also seems artificial. I cannot imagine that someone who previously scored a 4 is turned into a "net promoter" at a certain magical point, just by having been influenced to score a 5. Yes, they may give higher scores on average when they are directly asked to by the staff, but how can this change in the outcome be considered "real" statistics? Does getting them to press a different button really turn them into a net-promoter? What is the motive, what am I missing? I guess they are actually GOING for artificially inflated statistics so that they can report a higher c-sat estimate in public reports. And they claim that the the survey is third party and unbiased, though they are clearly able to manipulate the results on a large scale. Something smells fishy.
Sign in or join to post a comment