Tell them to get lost

Editor's note: Elaine Buxton is president and CEO of Confero, a Raleigh, N.C., customer experience measurement firm. 

Modern in-store customer experience is complicated. Omnichannel is omnipresent and creates either smooth experiences or customer service nightmares. The in-store journey is a series of customer experience (CX) and user experience (UX) touchpoints, woven together like a spider’s web. Every touchpoint is a place to train the customer on what to do next. UX would call this being “intuitive.” CX would call this having “ease of use.” Those intersections between CX and UX, between the personal and the digital, can become pain points for customers. 

In an organization, UX and CX each work together toward success. At its simplest definition, the realm of UX encompasses customer interactions with apps, websites, in-store technology and digital signage. The in-store experience in total falls under CX. Within an organization, there can be multiple owners of UX (tech, IT, developers, facilities management, engineering, design) and multiple owners of CX (marketing, operations, human resources) with the research function potentially serving all of them. When pain points arise, who owns the pain and who owns the remedy?

Corporate researchers bridge this gap and balance these all the time. Research creates data that can be respected by all parties. When research is involved early and often, data can provide specific direction to owners of UX and CX and, ultimately, reduce or eliminate pain points. 

For the in-store experience, applying traditional in-store research methods, in traditional ways, does not always find those pain points. Mystery shopping is an example of this. In the traditional sense, mystery shopping is a prescriptive type of in-store, quantitative, observational research. Mystery shoppers are sent to observe conditions and interactions and report back on findings. The required observations (Did this happen?) are based on a list, or prescription, of what should be happening while in-store, which the client has determined will constitute success. There are many good use cases for traditional mystery shopping which create valuable data for managing known processes but this method does not always uncover those UX/CX pain points.

To find them, use mystery shopping in a qualitative way to report on what happened. This gets at the heart of issues customers do not typically tell you about which create roadblocks to success. To do this, give mystery shoppers tasks to do and learn from their attempted journeys. Unlike traditional mystery shopping, which collects data points from specific, observed processes, this qualitative approach collects verbatims from which new insights and opportunities can be found.

As with any study, use reasonable sample sizes for the purpose at hand to produce reliable results. And, when possible, match elements of the mystery shoppers’ situations to the task. Mystery shoppers can be selected based on demographics, psychographics, familiarity with the store or other characteristics to realistically simulate customer journeys. 

Here are some examples of how to use mystery shopping to find pain points.

Send mystery shoppers to go find the omnichannel pain

Omnichannel can bring omni pain points. A simple way to discover the pain points is to dispatch mystery shoppers to order an item online, await confirmation and go to the store to pick up the item. Or send mystery shoppers to the store to find an out-of-stock item and place an in-store kiosk order and await product delivery. Rather than asking for a report on “Did this happen?” (quantitative, traditional approach) ask for reporting on what happened (qualitative, nontraditional approach).

When using mystery shopping in this qualitative way, it is important to provide as little direction as possible. Provide the mystery shopper with the task but do not provide too much detail about how to accomplish it. The goal is to seek out what confused the mystery shopper when left on their own, as a customer would be. 

Studies such as this have revealed key CX-UX disconnects within the in-store experience. For example, buy online/pick up in-store (BOPIS) creates a large set of possibilities for disconnects between UX and CX. With BOPIS, the personal and digital interact in multiple ways. A study using mystery shopping qualitatively – in the nontraditional way – found many pain points within the same organization:

• Online order confirmation e-mail wording was not the same as in-store signage wording, causing confusion for the customer. 
• Online order confirmation appearing on screen after ordering showed different store hours than those included in the e-mailed confirmation to the customer.
• Available pick up times shown on the order confirmation e-mail were later than the times the store was scheduled to be open.
• In-store kiosk orders had the same wording as online order confirmation, making it sound like the customer ordered online when they were really in the store ordering. This created some confusion.
• In-store department names were described differently in-store than on the store’s smartphone app.
• An in-store ordering kiosk required customers to request a purchase receipt before the transaction and gave no option to obtain one at the end of the transaction.
• For the same store, online orders for printing simple business cards were promised within two hours if ordered online and promised within one day if ordered in-store. This was because the store did not have the capacity to accept the number of orders coming in, so store employees were quoting longer print times. 

Send mystery shoppers to get lost

Wayfinding can be particularly tricky in some venues, such as airports, sports arenas, shopping centers and big-box retailers. Getting lost can be especially frustrating for in-store customers. And, considering that modern stores have traditional printed signage and digital signage, there is ample opportunity for pain points. 

Using mystery shopping in a nontraditional way allowed for a wayfinding study to deploy mystery shoppers to get lost, literally. Shoppers were sent to specific starting points at an airport, from which they would attempt to find specific end points without using navigation devices. Mystery shoppers, selected because they were unfamiliar with the airport, were assigned to navigate onto airport property using signage only and try to figure out how to get to parking, passenger drop-off, the cell phone lot, etc. 

The study identified many issues: parking signs blocked by trees; signs placed where drivers had little time to change lanes; signs that could not be read at night; and user-experience entry and exit confusion points at parking lots. Signs at one concourse entrance were ill-placed and passengers had trouble finding their flights. Arriving passengers could not find where to go to get rental cars, as only signs for “Ground Transportation” were in place.

Results of this study informed the airport’s decisions prior to spending millions on an upgraded signage system.

For another study, this one inside a big-box retailer, mystery shoppers were told to find specific items on the company’s smartphone app, noting the aisle and shelf number of the item on the app. While at the store, the mystery shopper was tasked with locating the item. Findings revealed that not all items were correctly located inside the store. Further, store employees were using that same app try to locate items for customers and simply quoting the aisle and shelf number of the item when mystery shopper asked where to find the item. Clearly, this was a disconnect all around, with mystery shopping research identifying the issue.

Send mystery shoppers with a persona-driven purchase intent

Omnichannel can mean omni-persona. Customers move in and out of personas, based in part on their purchase intent. 

Using mystery shopping in a nontraditional way allowed a computer purchase study to find pain points among four purchase personas. Mystery shoppers were screened and selected to meet specific criteria for real personas, then tasked to go on a specific purchase path and report back on what happened. Personas included “gamer,” “tech newbie,” “tech manager” and “needs connections.” 

Results of the study found that store associates were well prepared to sell to “tech managers,” “gamers” and “needs connections” but were less adept at selling to “tech newbies.” Most importantly, the study revealed that the “tech manager” who needed a PC for business use might also be “needs connections” for a home PC or a “gamer” for personal use. The study revealed that the amount of knowledge the customer had about PCs did not determine the success of the in-store experience; the ability of sales to meet the persona or purchase intent did. Results of the study were used to train store staff, create additional information for customers and inform a new marketing approach.

A mystery shopping study inside quick-service restaurants (QSR) helped a client determine the best path toward a migration to kiosk ordering. Years ago, when in-store tech first started evolving, the assumption was that digital would immediately replace current methods of serving customers. This did not materialize. For example, self-service checkout did not replace cashier-assisted checkout in grocery stores, it simply evolved into operating as an option for customers. The QSR company wanted to find the best way to introduce kiosk ordering without alienating customers and without simply converting and leaving some customers behind. 

Mystery shoppers were tasked with visiting multiple restaurant kiosk-ordering configurations at multiple restaurant companies and were asked “What happened when you went to place an order?” Results boiled down to three buckets of options: 1) restaurant employees used the tech (tablets); 2) ordering-kiosks were available with no assistance; and 3) ordering-kiosks were available with employees there to train customers on how to use them. During the study, mystery shoppers who encountered employees using the tech, such as carrying mobile ordering tablets, reported that employees seemed preoccupied – attending more to the tablet than the customer. The kiosk-only option was frustrating for mystery shoppers as they tried to navigate learning how to order at an unfamiliar restaurant. The study informed the company’s decision to deploy kiosks to the dining area along with an employee to train customers and served as proof that every UX/CX touchpoint is a place to train customers.

Bridge the divide

Tasking mystery shoppers by persona or purchase intent provides laser-focused insight into the experience of customers as they interface with people and digital. This nontraditional, qualitative use of mystery shopping can be deployed to find CX/UX pain points and to prove or disprove insights from focus groups, exit interviews and customer surveys. It is also a clear research method that can bridge the divide between tech and people, CX and UX, the digital vs. the personal. Results can start and keep conversations going between various owners of the customer and user experience to create seamless touchpoints for customers.