Customer satisfaction studies have become a very important part of our country' s attempt to improve the quality of our products and services. The studies provide the information necessary to determine the elements which are considered important in order to put a program in place. Then, further studies are used to measure the success of these programs.
The cost of the research often runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars - obviously far too high for a majority of the nation's companies. Because of the belief that the costs will be too great to bear some firms have either decided to forego them or they attempt in-house projects that may not provide valid data.
A major firm I worked with some years ago developed a method to help their franchised dealers begin customer satisfaction studies which would obtain reliable data at an affordable cost. The dealers were not the only ones who reaped the benefit, because the sponsoring firm also obtained valuable data at a lower cost than if they had the study done only for themselves.
The program worked as follows: The sponsoring firm conducted focus groups to determine the parameters of the study. Based on the results of these focus groups a questionnaire was developed which would be the basic interviewing instrument used across the country. In addition, the focus groups provided a basis for a qualitative research outline.
After the preliminary work had been completed the sponsor began to approach selected dealers. These dealers were asked to participate in the pilot program to improve customer satisfaction within their trade area. The sponsor would assist by providing the qualitative research outline for focus groups as well as the questionnaire for collecting quantitative information. The costs would be split evenly between the sponsoring firm and the franchised dealer and both would have access to the results.
The dealers selected for the pilot program were those known to be more receptive to innovations and looked upon as leaders by the other franchisees. The sponsoring firm wanted to insure that the program get off to a favorable start so that those who might normally be slow to join up would only hear good things.
Virtually all the dealers who had been contacted agreed to participate. The research firm set up a meeting to describe details of the program. Because customers known to the dealer would be involved in the focus group sessions it was decided dealers would not attend these meetings as observers. However, there was sufficient flexibility in the quantitative questionnaire that the dealers were able to add specific questions which were applicable to their own territory.
The qualitative and quantitative parts were completed within six weeks after obtaining approval on the questionnaires. Shortly thereafter we made a presentation of the results was made to both the sponsoring firm and the franchisee. The presentation included specific recommendations regarding ways to upgrade service and quality.
At the conclusion of the presentation the sponsoring company and the franchisee met to consider our recommendations and develop a strategy to implement a program of upgrading both product and service. Their strategy included a timetable for each objective as well a method of measuring success or failure.
Virtually every individual study earned enthusiastic approval of the program to improve the product and service quality. When other franchisees heard about what was going on they, too, asked to be included in the program. The sponsoring firm did not have the problem of trying to drag reluctant dealers into their program. Rather the problem was trying to keep franchisees from complaining because the company could only conduct a limited number of programs at one time and thus priorities had to be set.
By the time the initial part of the program was completed more than 100 dealers had participated. The company benefited in a number of ways. First, they had obtained the enthusiastic support of their dealers in the upgrading of product quality and service. Second, the sponsoring firm obtained nationwide data at a cost far less than what it would have been without the cost sharing. And third, they set in place a method to measure the effectiveness of their actions to determine if changes were needed.
I'm sure other smaller firms have also developed methods that allow them to accurately judge the success of their customer satisfaction programs at an affordable cost, but the one I've just described is one of the more effective ones that I have seen.