Louise McGregor Editorial

The Day The Earth Shook

I am writing this in Lisbon, a city whose history includes an earthquake as a defining moment. In 1755 the city was devastated by an earthquake estimated at 8.5 – 9. The earthquake was followed by a tsunami and widespread fires across the city. Thousands of people died and more lost their homes. Even the city’s geography was changed as foreshore was pushed up out of the sea. Economists estimate that the immediate impact cost the country between 32 to 48 % of GDP (source; The Economic Impact of the Lisbon 1755 Earthquake (pdf) )

Contemporaries described the city following the triple disaster as an apocalypse and it took years to recover and rebuild. In the rebuilding and recovery phase there was significant innovation; new buildings had to include techniques to withstand future earthquakes. And the seeds of scientific thinking around earthquakes is in evidence in a parish survey following the earthquake.

I grew up in New Zealand, a country with a history of earthquakes, I have an enduring mental image of railway tracks flicked into two steel ribbons through the force of the 1987 Edgecombe earthquake. So this is a subject of long-term interest to me.

We know from history that it takes years after a big earthquake to recover and rebuild. So I’m watching the news from Nepal, looking at the devastation and thinking how challenging it will be for this relatively poor country to recover. It is frightening. On social media I’ve seen all sorts of coverage; drone footage of the damage, statistics in updates, and endless photos of rescues, devastation and tent cities.

Someone has collated a twitter list of those reporting on the Nepal Earthquake, and there’s also a Facebook page offering help, and advice.

It’s easy to get the news, it’s harder to know what to do. In this early, emergency, phase the best thing to do is to donate whatever amount you can. The Rubin gallery which focuses on arts from the Himalayan region has put together a list of charities working in the region. Donate if you can. Donate now for emergency relief, and/or in the months to come for the incredible rebuilding work that will be needed across a wide part of the country.

It took Portugal years to recover, and it was at the head of an incredibly wealthy empire back in 1755. For a country as poor as Nepal this disaster could wipe out an entire year’s GDP.

 

image Katmandu

Louise McGregor Customers, Marketing

Gaming NPS

I was asked in a survey recently “How likely would you be to recommend this tool to your colleagues?”

At first glance it seems like a fair enough question, and one we’re all used to seeing since NPS (Net Promoter Score) became ubiquitous. But here’s the problem; the tool in question was an internal HR tool. I have no choice but to use it. Whether I would recommend it or not is therefore irrelevant.

It’s not the first time I’ve questioned the use or implementation of NPS. And I’m not alone.

What is NPS?

NPS or Net Promoter Score is a single number that represents how likely a customer is to recommend your product/service/company to their friends, family or colleagues.

People are divided into detractors, passives and promoters based on their score. The number of promoters (those who gave a score of 9 or 10) minus the number of detractors (those who scored between 0 – 6) gives you your net promoter score. So the score can be negative.

It seems that the distribution of responses falls on a bimodal distribution with people scoring either strongly supporting or strongly detracting, with 65% of all scores being either 0, 9, or 10.

What’s Wrong with NPS?

It’s culturally insensitive; I used to see survey data from training courses, we used a 10 point scale and noticed that Dutch people tend to score any survey question on quality 1-2 points lower than their US colleagues. One respondent famously took points off because the food was too good! It was incredibly unlikely to ever get a 10 from a Dutch participant. I’m sure this has implications on NPS scores.

Limited use in B2B; because the decision cycle is more complex, with multiple stakeholders and influencers an NPS based on the scores of just the person known to the survey sender is not a useful measure.

It can be gamed; on a  holiday last year I was asked to give a company feedback, and advised that only scores of 9 or 10 would count as positive. As it happens I was happy to score a 9 without the guilt trip, but how accurate are surveys when they come with scoring instructions?

It’s not actionable; it can be really hard to understand what to improved when the NPS score is calculated across a team or across an audience as a whole. NPS Monitoring blog gives a nice hypothetical example about how breaking out an audience according to time spent with the product might help understand what approach to take to improve user experience (and therefore NPS).

Some of the issues above are around implementation; if frontline people don’t benefit individually from NPS then the risk of gaming NPS drops for example.

Is it Useful?

Yes.

NPS can be useful either as a single figure that allows a manager to see a changing trend of customer reaction, or compare businesses or markets across a large company – preferably using trend data rather than absolutes to limit any cultural biases.

If set up properly it can also be used to diagnose areas for attention by drilling into the reactions of specific groups or analysing where a respondent is in the product purchase cycle.

But it should never be used to asses a compulsory tool.

Image: Emoticon via pixabay