Net promoter score

Abhijith Radhakrishnan 5152331

Hao Xingguang 5292621Ruhi Rukadikar 5158564

Wang Yu 5175938

Mark 977 : Presentation

An idea developed by Frederick Reiehheld (2003) in Harvard Business Review. A tool for measuring customer loyalty on a scale from 0 to 10 An indicator of your company’s growth potential. Studies show that over 78% of educational decisions are made based on peer-

to-peer recommendations, while only 14% are based on advertisements. A simple to understand concept Adaptability

Net Promoter Score

How likely are you to recommend us?

Critical Remarks

The model is too simple

No distinctions between 0 to 6

Not much difference in % promoters and % detractors in

final score Inaccurately

measures customer behavior

Using IBM SPSS Statistics Data Editor

Findings

How likely would you recommend UOWD and your course of study to a friend or colleague?

NPS: -16

NPS: 1

Interpretation of our Analysis

A total of 341 respondents. Largest group of the passively satisfied with 45%. 21% and 3% of students are promoters and detractors. Net promoter score of -16, while course of study on the other hand side is

1 which is positive.

NPS in terms of Gender

NPS: -19NPS: -13


A total of 341 respondents. 21% and 34% of male students are promoters and detractors. 19% and 38% of female students are promoters and detractors. Male students have a higher NPS of -13 compared to Female students NPS

of -19

NPS in terms of type of degree

NPS: -21

NPS: -3


A total of 341 respondents. Post graduate students tend to have a more positive outlook about the

university than undergraduates with NPS score of -3 compared to Undergraduates NPS score of -21.

NPS in terms of Nationality


A total of 341 respondents. Indian students tend to have more respondents and having positive response

with NPS score of 2. Sri Lanka Nigeria and Philippines students have positive responses with NPS

score of 20, 20 and 15. Jordanian and Moroccan students have the most negative response with NPS

scores of 72 and 71

Tactical blueprint, Analysis, Interpretations, Results

Recommendations

Measuring feedbacks consistently Through constant feedbacks from promoters, passives

and detractors, we understand what we did right for the promoters and applying the same to detractors and passives.

Student focus groups to constantly monitor and report the results of the feedbacks from detractors to the board.

Objective is to understand in detail what the students value to draw upon to make process and policy refinements.

Fast and granular feedbacks, helps create a student centric culture.

Use Net promoter score as an engagement tool to start conversation and continue dialogue.

Using the right tool the right way Creating platforms and programs to put promoters to work.

For E.g. Increasing testimonials, videos and Vlogs. There by spreading the positive word out

Engaging passives, giving them reasons to promote. Show them you are listening and taking actions. Also have a conversion target about converting 30% to promoters.

Target specific detractors. Ask them to help you improve. Show them you are taking actions. Approach them with a target goal of converting them.

Prone to switching to competitors. Show them you are taking actions by constantly reaching out.

Taking action on insights, regular progress updates. Goal should be to implement on improvement plan.

Simplify structure. Use simple language internally and externally. Create a business simplification strategy.

Simplify structural Processes

References

Journal Articles, Books, Reviews

Mandal, P., 2014. Net promoter score: a conceptual analysis. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 8(4), p.209.

McDaniel, C. and Gates, R., 2005. Marketing research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Rocks, B., 2016. Interval Estimation for the ‘Net Promoter Score’. The American Statistician, pp.1-

24. Reichheld, F., Markey, R. and Reichheld, F., 2011. The ultimate question 2.0. Boston, Mass.: Harvard

Business Press. Faltejsková, O., Dvořáková, L. and Hotovcová, B., 2016. Net promoter score integration into the

enterprise performance measurement and management system – a way to performance methods development. E+M, 19(1), pp.93-107.

Seth, S., Scott, D., Svihel, C. and Stephen, M., 2016. Solving the Mystery of Consistent Negative/Low Net Promoter Score (NPS) in Cross-Cultural Marketing Research. amj, 17(4), p.43.

Mackintosh, D., 2015. Net promoter scores: monitoring practice performance. In Practice, 37(7), pp.370-372.

Shaw, R., 2008. Net Promoter. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 15(3), pp.138-140.

Jeanjean, F., n.d. High Correlation between Net Promoter Score and Evolution of Consumer’s Willingness to Pay (Empirical Evidence from European Mobile Markets). SSRN Electronic Journal.

Keiningham, T., Aksoy, L., Cooil, B. and Andreassen, T., 2008. Invited Commentary —Net Promoter, Recommendations, and Business Performance: A Clarification on Morgan and Rego. Marketing Science, 27(3), pp.531-532.

Tweneboah-Koduah, E. and Yuty Duweh Farley, A., 2015. Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty in the Retail Banking Sector of Ghana. IJBM, 11(1), p.249.

Anon, 2016. How To Improve NPS Without Focusing on the Score. [online] YouTube. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bc8pRGkiO0> [Accessed 25 Oct. 2016].

Anon, 2016. Loyalty Expert Fred Reichheld @Rotman. [online] YouTube. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP-q0w81E0E> [Accessed 25 Oct. 2016].

Anon, 2016. Turn Customers into Promoters. [online] YouTube. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr5EzwfiQdM> [Accessed 25 Oct. 2016].