Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Survey

7/28/2019 Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Survey

1/135

CUSTOMERSATISFACTION

AND LOYALTYReport prepared for:


2/135

Fresh Thinking.Clear Advice.

Content

About the study Research findings

Cement traders

Best cement producer overall

Overall relationship

Strategic measures Brand image

Customer experiences

Overall priorities

Highlights

Cement users

Best cement producer overall

Overall relationship

Strategic measures

2March 2010


3/135


Content

Brand image Customer experiences

Overall priorities

Highlights

Concrete users

Customer profile

Customer needs and expectations as RMX plants choice factors

Brand image

Customer experiences

Loyalty profile and the drivers of loyalty Overall priorities

Highlights

3March 2010


4/135

ABOUT THE STUDY


5/135


About the study

Key objectives:

Cement segment

Evaluate the overall strength of relationship Holcim shares withcustomers (traders and users)

Assess customer-perceived quality of all product, system and peopleinterfaces of Holcim

Benchmark performance of Holcim with that of Lafarge and Titan

Analyze the impact of each dimension of performance on loyalty toderive key priorities

Derive key improvement areas and strengths based on impact andcompetitive performance

Concrete segment Provide a comparative evaluation of Holcims performance against

selected benchmarks

Determine the drivers of customer engagement

Determine an engagement profile ofHolcims customer base

Provide research insights to support Holcims customer strategy

5March 2010


6/135


About the study

Methodology

Cement segment

Phase 1: Exploratory research with key Holcim stakeholders

Phase 2: A quantitative study using a structured questionnaire

Face-to-face interviews with a sample of:

270 cement traders, out of which were 68 Titan, 182 Holcim, and 119 Lafargecustomers

186 cement users, out of which were 40 Titan, 116 Holcim, and 77 Lafargecustomers

Quota sample designed to reveal key market differences and cover the Holcimrelevant customer segments and micromarkets

Respondent who had dealings with asked to evaluate the relevant cementcompany

Concrete segment

70-90 minutes long in-depth interviews with the decision makingrepresentatives of concrete users in Belgrade

Total sample: 15 respondents (10 companies having Holcim as a main supplier,5 companies having other suppliers as main)

6March 2010


7/135Fresh Thinking.Clear Advice.

About the Study

7March 2010

* Some of the companies are at the same time involved in more than one type of businessmultipleanswers possible.

Customer Segment Overall Holcim Lafarge Titan Cemex

Construction material retail 262 174 119 67 10

Cement wholesale 68 46 26 13 4

Pre-cast elements production 70 44 27 16 4

Construction company 127 72 58 29 2

Dry-mortar production 23 14 9 4 0

Investment company 40 21 23 7 2

RMX plant 25 15 12 5 /

Cement segment: sample spread



About the Study: CustomerView Model for the

cement segment

8March 2010

Overall

Loyalty

Products

Prices

Ordering

Delivery

Sales Rep

Invoicing

Administration

Technical Support

Advertising

Seminars/ Events

Branding

Promotions

Brand

Image

Customer Experiences Market

Factors

Continuance

Engagement

Affective

Engagement


9/135

RESEARCH FINDINGS


10/135

CEMENTTRADERS


11/13511

Best overall


12/13512

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Holcim Lafarge Titan

96

8

3

99

27

1

65

1 1 0

Holcim Lafarge Titan Optima

OVERALL: Best Producer Nominations


12March 2010

% One of the things that can beused as an indicator that Holcimand Lafarge are the keycompetitors to each other whileTitan is seriously lagging behind,is even a simple fact that only 2/3

of Titan customers nominatethem to be the best producer.

Quality is most often stated to bethe reason for best producernominations for all three cement

producers in Serbia. The othertwo key nomination factors areconnected with the quality ofcooperation and the specificfactors of the market demand .

Cemex


13/13513

Overall

relationship



SUMMARY: Overall Relationship

Holcim and Lafarge are at par on overall loyalty index, with

Titan lagging behind.

Key behavioural dimensions (behaviours of loyal customers)

associated with loyalty in this market are:

Follow recommendations

Seek advice

Use new products

14March 2010




Analysis of the loyalty segments show that a quarter of the

trade customers are disloyal and not committed to any

company, i.e. not ready to say definitely would to any of

the behavioural statements.

This situation actually shows how specific is the cement

market, with customers being very difficult to reallyemotionally bond, but being prone to reevaluating costs

and benefits of the cooperation more often.

15March 2010


16/13516

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


63 6353

OVERALL: Index of Customer Loyalty


16March 2010

Loyalty index is derived from the

mean scores on loyalty variables.

It is indexed and adjusted to

reflect the distribution of the

loyalty segments.

The analysis shows competitive

advantage both Holcim and

Lafarge have over Titan.


17/13517

0 20 40 60 80

Follow any recommendations

Seek advice

Use new products and services

Only use its pruducts

Continue using in future

Recommend to friend or family

Share information for better service

Prepared to use more

52

41

44

29

63

54

30

51

OVERALL: Key Indicators of LoyaltyBase = 182

Strength ofAssociation

38

HOLCIM

significantly higher

No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

57

47

47

34

49

0.643

0.645

0.556

0.665

0.617

0.585

0.583

0.58766

Performance/ Top Box%

Definitely would

53

32

30

45

4

46

13

52

63


17March 2010

The higher the numberstronger the item indicates

loyalty

How many Holcimcustomers (%) gave

highest ratings

How manycompetitor

customers (%)gave highest

ratings

Shown aresignificant

differences atp


18/135


OVERALL: Key Indicators of Loyalty

Although the only significant differences are between Holcim

and Titan on only use its products and share information

for better services, it is obvious that Holcim and Lafarge aredoing better on all loyalty indicators.

On the other hand, despite the fact that the differences were

not significant even on p


19/13519

%

0

10

20

30

40

5060

70

80

90

100


30 32

12

23 22

26

21 22

36

26 24 26

Strongly Loyal Favourable Wavering Disloyal

OVERALL: Size of Loyalty Segments


19March 2010

Loyalty segmentation is based onthe 8 loyalty questions and theratings given.While strongly loyal customers arethose that tend to give top ratings,

disloyal customers are the ones notgiving any top ratings at all.In comparison to Holcim andLafarge, Titan has less stronglyloyal, and more waveringcustomers.


20/13520

Strategic

measures


21/135


SUMMARY: Strategic Measures

Customer loyalty is driven primarily by AffectiveEngagement and Brand Image, thus indicating that the

emotional and perceptual response overrides the more

rational response.

Key indicators of Affective Engagement are:

Feeling secure

Feeling proud

Key indicators of Brand Image are:

Understands/ helps my business

Reliable partner/ can trust/ credibility

21March 2010


22/135

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AffectiveEngagement

ContinuanceEngagement

Brand Image

65 65 6665 67 66

5657 59


LOYALTY: Indices of Strategic Measures


22March 2010

Indices of strategic measures arederived from the mean scores onaffective/continuanceengagement/ brand image. Theyare adjusted in order to reveal thedistribution of the customersrating of indicators of emotionalbonding, continuance and brandimage. Higher the index, themore favourable state is.

While Holcim and Lafarge standside by side, Titan strategicindices are significantly lower.


23/135

Overall

Loyalty

Products

Prices

Ordering

Delivery

Sales Rep

Invoicing

Administration

Technical Support

Advertising

Seminars/ Events

Branding

Promotions

Brand

Image

Customer ExperiencesMarket

Factors

LOYALTY: Impact of Strategic Measures

Continuance

Engagement

Affective

Engagement0.12

0.52

0.35

The higher the number thehigher the impact on loyalty

0.13


23March 2010


24/135

24

0 20 40 60 80

I feel really secure and taken care of

I feel proud to say

Many aspects that are much better

The company I feel close to

I am attracted because of its values

I trust its products and services

Usually first comes to mind

People would approve of my choice

44

47

40

45

42

55

47

46

LOYALTY: Affective EngagementBase = 182


32

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

49

47

40

48

47

0.752

0.780

0.653

0.815

0.752

0.708

0.693

0.74838


Strongly agree

57

59

30

19

38

41

32

27

28


24March 2010


25/135


LOYALTY: Affective Engagement

The most important indicators of emotional bonding is feeling

secure and taken care of as well as feeling pride to be a

customer of a certain producer.

Although with similar performance, Lafarge tends to be the

company that more often comes to mind when cement

production mentioned.

Lafarge and Holcim consistently outperform in comparison to

Titan.

25March 2010


26/135

26

0 20 40 60 80

Meeting your needs & expectations

Overall quality

Overall experience

Overall satisfaction

Quality in relation to fees & charges

Better than others

50

58

56

48

37

28

LOYALTY: Continuance EngagementBase = 182


31

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

58

61

65

37

0.806

0.736

0.849

0.772

0.736

0.75857


Excellent/

Extremely +ve

36

34

40

12

4

36


26March 2010


27/135


LOYALTY: Continuance Engagement

Meeting the needs and expectations seems to be slightly

more important for continuance engagement than the overall

quality in case of traders. Showing the understanding of the

market and the customers, again, is indicated as an importantthing to achieve in order to try retain the clients.

Although Holcim is performing significantly better than Titan

when it comes to indicators of continuance engagement, it isconsistently underperforming in comparison to Lafarge:

customers seem to find Lafarge to be more favorable.

27March 2010


28/135

28

0 20 40 60 80

Switching would require too much time andeffort

Switching will cost me more than its worth

Has special knowledge that would be difficultto learn quickly

Switching might jeopardize my customerrelations/ quality

Because of existing commitments it wouldbe impossible to switch

Continue using since it gives me additionalbusiness

Continue using due to additionalservices/support they offer

Only reason I continue using is because I donot have a choice

27

32

27

37

15

28

27

17

LOYALTY: Market FactorsBase = 182


5

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

24

30

32

28

10

0.751

0.797

0.494

0.798

0.742

0.611

0.581

0.70820


Strongly agree

22

32

5

9

13

9

16

14

0


28March 2010


29/135


LOYALTY: Market Factors

Switching is mostly prevented by the customers perceptions

that it would take too much time and effort, or that it wouldcost more than it is worth.

In comparison to Titan, Holcim customers see switching as

more difficult.

29March 2010


30/135

30

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

32

45

37

0 20 40 60 80

Really understands my businessIs a reliable partner

Is a company you can trust

Has credibility

Wants to help my business grow

Cares about its customers

Treats all its customers equally

Is easy to do business with

Provides individualized solutions

Is innovative

Has professional staff

Is dynamic, growing company

Has leading products

Is a socially responsible company

Cares about environmental protection

Follows consistent policies

Is committed to quality

Trusts its customers

Is a strong company

Brings global knowledge to the local

3655

54

61

28

39

40

54

38

44

61

58

55

52

45

55

56

48

65

54

0,21

0,19

0,17

0,17

0,16

LOYALTY: Brand ImageBase = 182

68

59


69 54

14

23

41

Impact on Loyalty

49

71

60

65

47

24

53

39

64

40

60 48

33

62

24

53

Strongly agree

56

40

55

26

37

53

46 27

54

67

65

65

57

47

53


30March 2010


31/135


LOYALTY: Brand Image

In terms of brand image development, investing in showing

better understanding of customers, being perceived as a

reliable business partner interested in customers business

growth and improving credibility are the things that will

influence the overall loyalty most.

In this light, having in mind the importance of understanding,

once more it becomes clear how vital it may be when Holcim

clients claim that strict rules and procedures seem as if the

market factors are not understood, and the relation with

them is distrustful.

31March 2010


32/135

32

Customer

experiences


33/135


SUMMARY: Customer Experiences

Key customer experiences driving loyalty among traders areto do with:

Products

Invoicing & Payment

Ordering Process Prices

Administration Rep

Top-box scores indicate that key competitor Lafarge has an

edge over Holcim on all of the above, and, although wecannot claim it to be a significant lead, the findings are

pretty consistent.

33March 2010


34/135

Overall

Loyalty

Products

Prices

Ordering

Delivery

Sales Rep

Invoicing

Administration

Technical Support

Advertising

Seminars/ Events

Branding

Promotions

Brand

Image

Customer ExperiencesMarket

Factors

EXPERIENCES: Impact on Loyalty

Continuance

Engagement

Affective

Engagement

0.20

0.05

0.05

0.08

0.04

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

The higher the numberthe higher the impact

on loyalty


34March 2010

xx denotesinsignificant

impacts


35/135

35

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

0 20 40 60 80

Products

Invoicing and payment procedures

Ordering

Prices

Administration representatives

Delivery and logistics

Mass advertising

Sales representatives

Educational events and seminars

Customer branding

Technical support

Informal events

Warehouse promotional events

59

38

60

14

63

63

38

53

51

61

65

63

71

0,20

0,08

0,05

0,05

0,04

EXPERIENCES: Impact vs. PerformanceBase = 182

68

48

23


Excellent

71

55

49

52

46

8

21

Impact on Loyalty

76

71

55

48

76

46

18

0*

0*

67

78 0*

67

54

33

39


35March 2010

* No responses for Titan

EXPERIENCES: Impact vs Performance Holcim and


36/135

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

EXPERIENCES: Impact vs. Performance Holcim and

Lafarge among shared customers

73

17


Excellent

74

72

71

86

61

59


36March 2010

0 20 40 60 80

Products

Invoicing and paymet procedures

Ordering

Prices


Delivery services


Technical support

59

49

73

5

73

56

65

91


37/135


EXPERIENCES: Impact vs. Performance

Compared to Titan, Holcim seems to be doing better in terms

of products.

On the other side, it seems that Holcim has certain advantage

in terms of delivery and logistics, as well as in terms of

customer branding.

37March 2010


38/135

38

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

0 20 40 60 80

Quality of the packaging

Consistency of the product quality

Color of the cement

Applicability of products

Availability of needed pack sizes

Early compression strength

End compression strength

Setting time

Additive compatibility

51

53

47

51

29

51

54

50

43

0,23

0,23

EXPERIENCES: Products (impact: 0.20)Base = 182

68

63

55


Excellent

55

54

54

22

45

Impact on Touchpoint

64

65

59

56

47

42

67 75

59 53


38March 2010


39/135


EXPERIENCES: Products

Product consistency and the quality of the packaging are most

important aspects oftraders product experiences.

Although the only significant difference (p


40/135

40

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

0 20 40 60 80

Terms of payment

Discount policies

Sending invoices on time

Invoice layout

Accurate invoicing

Policy on refunds and damagedproducts

Flexibility of the terms of payment

Bonuses and incentive schemes

Currency of the price list

26

19

58

57

62

41

20

20

28

0,46

0,23

EXPERIENCES: Invoicing & Payment (impact: 0.08)Base = 182

27

75

71


Excellent

69

28

66

79

70


42

27

33

24

26

48

39 37

38 41


40March 2010


41/135


EXPERIENCES: Invoicing & Payment

That improvements may be important in invoicing and

payment is obvious according to the fact that both Lafarge

and Titan are doing slightly better on different relevantaspects.

Previously identified higher level oftraders satisfaction with

more flexibility both Lafarge and Titan tend to exhibit, is oncemore shown here.

41March 2010

C S O d i


42/135

42

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

0 20 40 60 80

Simplicity of the procedure

Flexibility of the procedure

Taking the order accurately

Availability of the requestedvolumes

Possibility to place orders whenneeded

56

51

62

60

55

0,26

EXPERIENCES: Ordering (impact: 0.05)Base = 167

65

66


Excellent

57

59

54

61


65

61

68

63


42March 2010


43/135


EXPERIENCES: Ordering

When it comes to ordering process, the key suggestion is to

keep it as simple as possible that is the most relevant aspect

of the ordering experience.

It seems that in general both Holcim and competitors show

similar performance on this touchpoint. Maintaining the good

performance therefore is the only thing that should be done.

43March 2010

EXPERIENCES P i


44/135

44

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

0 20 40 60 80

Quality in relation to the prices

Clearly informing you on the pricechanges

21

42

EXPERIENCES: Prices (impact: 0.05)Base = 182


Excellent/

Extremely good

24 9


52 38


44March 2010

EXPERIENCES Ad i i i R


45/135

45

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

0 20 40 60 80

Easy to deal with

Handling of complaints/requests

Accessibility - easy to contact

Courtesy

Ability to explain policies adequately

Processing the orders withoutmistakes

Offering relevant information whenasked

Ability to finish tasks in a timelymanner

61

51

58

66

55

58

51

60

0,33

0,20

0,16

EXPERIENCES: Administration Rep (impact: 0.04)Base = 182

57

68


Excellent

74

65

71

73


67

68

66

69

55

52

68 73

64 63


45March 2010


46/135


EXPERIENCES: Administration Rep

The most important things about sales representatives is that

they have to be easy to deal with, to be able to handle

complaints and to be easy to contact.

The fact that this touchpoint is impactful on loyalty, paired

with Holcim performing slightly poorer than both Lafarge and

Titan, makes it one of key improvement priorities.

46March 2010


47/135

47

Overall priorities


48/135


SUMMARY: Overall Priorities

While Lafarge scores are higher as compared to Holcim on all

the key customer interfaces, its more noticeable in:

Invoicing & Payment (+17%)

Prices (+10%)

Not only Holcim seems at a competitive disadvantage when it

comes to invoicing and payment process, the same is also a

priority based on bottom-2-box scores in:

Payment terms

Discount policies

48March 2010

PRIORITIES C t E i


49/135

49Key Competitor: LAFARGE

PRIORITIES: Customer ExperiencesLower than/ Equal to Competition Higher than Competition

Products

Invoicing

Ordering

Prices

AdministrationSales RepDeliveryAdvertisingSeminars

Colour code: Key Priority

Secondary Priority

Key Strength

Key

Drivers

Other

Areas


49March 2010

PRIORITIES K Att ib t


50/135

50Key Competitor: LAFARGE

PRIORITIES: Key AttributesLower than/ Equal to Competition Higher than Competition

PRODUCTS: Packaging quality

PRODUCTS: Consistency of qualityINVOICING: Payment terms

INVOICING: Discount policies

ORDERING: Simplicity of procedure

ADMINISTRATION: Easy to deal

ADMINISTRATION: Complaint handling

ADMINISTRATION: AccessibilitySALES REP: Frequency of visits

SALES REP: Accessibility

DELIVERY: In agreed time

ADVERTISING: Can relate to

SEMINARS: Well organised


Secondary Priority

Key Strength

Key

Drivers

Other

Areas


50March 2010

PRIORITIES: Attribute Ranking


51/135

51

PRIORITIES:Attribute Ranking

Experience Key Drivers Bottom-2-Box % Impact on Loyalty Priority Index

INVOICING Payment terms 35,33 0,04 1,25

INVOICING Discount policies 45,57 0,02 0,80

PRODUCTS Packaging quality 6,63 0,05 0,31

PRODUCTS Consistency of quality 0,64 0,05 0,03

ADMINISTRATION Complaint handling 3,18 0,01 0,03

ORDERING Simplicity of procedure 0,60 0,01 0,01

ADMINISTRATION Easy to deal 0,60 0,01 0,01

ADMINISTRATION Accessibility 0,00 0,01 0,00

Colour code: Maintenance Area Secondary Priority Key Priority


51March 2010


52/135

52

Other areas


53/135



What matters most for traders on the level of specific

experiences are the following:

Delivery and logistics delivering at the agreed time

Sales representatives frequency of visits and ease to

contact

Mass advertising being able to relate to it

Educational events well organized

53March 2010


54/135

Highlights


55/135


While Holcim and Lafarge are at par on overall loyalty

index,Titan is clearly lagging behind both.

Analysis of loyalty segments show that a quarter of thecustomers are disloyal and not committed to any

company.

Customer loyalty is driven primarily by AffectiveEngagement and Brand Image, thus indicating thatemotional response overrides rational response.

Research highlights: cement traders

Fresh Thinking. 55March 2010


56/135


Top-box scores indicate that Lafarge has an edge over

Holcim on all key customer experiences, though cannot

definitively establish that it has a significant lead yet.

The above is more noticeable in case of invoicing and

payment process, with payment terms and discountpolicies the top priorities for Holcim currently.

Research highlights: cement traders



57/135

CEMENTUSERS


58/135

58

Best overall



59/135

59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


82

7 11

13

87

39

5 6

50



%

Most of customers using Holcim

products (82%) perceive Holcim

as the Best Cement Producer.

Similarly, Lafarge is seen as the

best among most of its customers

(87%). On the other hand, only

of Titan customers nominate

Titan, while almost 40% of themnominate Lafarge.

Quality is the main criteria for

choosing the best cement

producer among Holcim, Lafarge

and Titan customers.Good cooperation and closeness

of the cement plant are also very

important drivers for all cement

customers.


59March 2010

Note: Type of producer used is question with multiple

answers


60/135

60

Overall

relationship



61/135

61

Holcim and Lafarge are at par on overall loyalty index, while

Titan is slightly behind.

Key behavioral dimensions associated with loyalty among

cement users are:

o

Follow recommendations

o Use new products

Analysis of the loyalty segments however show Lafarge has

almost 1 times as many Strongly Loyal customers as Holcim.



61March 2010

Overall: Index of Customer Loyalty


62/135

62

While Holcim and Lafarge

are at par on overall

loyalty index, Titan is aslightly distant third.

Overall: Index of Customer Loyalty


62March 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


63 6353

Construction and RMX in Belgrade:


63/135

63


Index of Customer Loyalty


63March 2010

Among this group of

customers, Index of

Customer Loyalty is of

similar level among all

three companies.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


67 68 65



64/135

64

0 20 40 60 80

Follow any recommendations

Use new products and services

Recommend to friend or family

Only use its pruducts

Prepared to use more

Seek advice

Continue using in future

Share information for better service

54

41

65

33

51

42

71

23

OVERALL: Key Indicators of LoyaltyStrength ofAssociation

37

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

65

55

74

35

30

0.731

0.746

0.624

0.754

0.727

0.642

0.639

0.70546


Definitely would

51

72

18

39

14

26

50

15

33


64March 2010

Base = 116



65/135

65


Key indicators of Loyalty are related to following suppliers

recommendations concerning products, as well as with

readiness to use other products from suppliers palette.

Although scores do not show significant differences (p


66/135

66

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


2537

7

33

26

25

2019

29

22 19

39


OVERALL: Size of Loyalty Segments

%

Holcim has less Strongly Loyal

customers than Lafarge, but more

compared to Titan.


66March 2010

Analysis of loyalty segments

however show Lafarge has almost

1 times as many Strongly Loyal

customers as Holcim in the

current sample of cement users.



67/135

67


Size of Loyalty Segments

%


67March 2010

Lafarge has more Strongly Loyal

customers than Holcim in this

group of customers.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


2938

36

38100

14

13

2113



68/135

68

Strategic

measures



69/135

69

Affective Engagement and Brand Image are the dominant

drivers of loyalty, which indicates that the emotional andperceptual response wins over rational response.

Key indicators of Affective Engagement are:

o

Feeling secure

o Feeling proud

o Feeling close to

Key indicators of Brand Image are:

o Global knowledge/ leading products (Stature)

o Understands my business (Empathy)



69March 2010

LOYALTY: Indices of Strategic


70/135

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AffectiveEngagement

ContinuanceEngagement

Brand Image

66 65 6666 67 68

5356

58


LOYALTY: Indices of Strategic

Measures


70March 2010

Compared to Holcim and Lafarge,

performing relatively similar on

Affective and Continuance

Engagement and Brand Image,Titan regularly stays at lower level.


71/135



72/135

72

0 20 40 60 80

I feel really secure and taken care of

I feel proud to say

The company I feel close to

Many aspects that are much better

People would approve of my choice

I trust its products and services

I am attracted because of its values

Usually first comes to mind

51

54

49

38

53

56

41

61

LOYALTY: Affective EngagementStrength ofAssociation

26

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

56

57

54

50

63

0.835

0.838

0.711

0.861

0.783

0.747

0.735

0.76357


Strongly agree

57

35

19

19

14

39

16

25

32

Base = 116


72March 2010

I feel proud to say Im its customer

Many aspects are much better than

other producers



73/135

73


The most important indicators of Affective engagement are

related to feeling secure and taken care of, feeling proud to be

suppliers customer and feeling close to the supplier.

Holcim doesnt differ significantly from Lafarge on Affective

Engagement indicators. Yet, it can be relevant that while Holcim

and Lafarge have relatively similar scores, Titan is regularlystaying somewhat behind.


73March 2010

LOYALTY: Continuance Engagem


74/135

LOYALTY:ContinuanceEngagemStrength of

Association

0.825

0.844

0.812

0.719

0.755


Base = 116



75/135

75


Meeting customers needs and expectations, perception of

overall quality and overall satisfaction with supplier are

central indicators of Continuance Engagement.

Again, despite insignificant differences (p>0.05 but


76/135

76

0 20 40 60 80

Switching would require too much time andeffort

Switching will cost me more than its worth

Has special knowledge that would bedifficult to learn quickly

Switching might jeopardize my customerrelations/ quality

Continue using due to additionalservices/support they offer

Because of existing commitments it wouldbe impossible to switch

Continue using since it gives me additionalbusiness

Only reason I contunue using is because Ido not have a choice

27

31

18

32

20

16

17

18

LOYALTY: Market FactorsStrength ofAssociation

7

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

25

30

28

21

8

0.779

0.789

0.432

0.808

0.752

0.677

0.558

0.68925


Strongly agree

19

25

7

11

4

0

11

15

8

Base = 116


76March 2010

Switching might jeopardize quality of myproducts

LOYALTY: Market Factors


77/135

77

O : a et acto s

Market factors influencing Loyalty behaviour the most are Costs

of switching in terms of time and effort, on one hand, and

money, on the other.

Still without significant differences (p>0.05 but


78/135

78

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

46

42

36

0 20 40 60 80

Brings global knowledge to the local

Really understands my business

Has leading products

Wants to help my business grow

Cares about its customers

Treats all its customers equally

Is easy to do business with

Has credibility

Provides individualized solutions

Is innovative

Has professional staff

Is dynamic, growing company

Is a company you can trust

Is a reliable partner

Is a socially responsible company

Cares about environmental protection

Follows consistent policies

Is committed to quality

Trusts its customers

Is a strong company

65

29

59

29

42

50

54

63

38

51

68

62

62

66

60

4660

64

55

73

0,42

0,37

0,24


68

61


25 19

22

16

26

Impact on Loyalty

63

50

4265

69

23

46

46

30

32

72 50

60

49

32

22

Strongly agree

61

45

62

22

43

46

69 43

65

70

66

69

39

44

50

Base = 116


78March 2010

Brings global knowledge



79/135

79

g

Companies image attributes with the highest impact on UsersLoyalty are Brings global knowledge to local market, Really

understands my business and Has leading products.

Although Holcim does not differ in a significant manner from

competitors (95% confidence interval, but differs on 90%

confidence interval), it is important to notice that Lafarge

customers seem to believe more firmly that their cementsupplier truly understands how their business works. Titan has

fairly less differentiated image than Holcim and Lafarge.


79March 2010


80/135

80

Customer

experiences



81/135

81

p

The core offering that drives loyalty among cement users

comprises:

Products

Prices

Top-box scores on the abovementioned drivers for key

competitor Lafarge are somewhat higher than for Holcim.

Overall the key drivers indicate a value-seeking customer, with

prices directly associated with value perception and the key

attributes of products (quantity/economy and applicability/

ease) also contributing to it.


81March 2010

EXPERIENCES: Impact on Loyalty


82/135

82

Overall

Loyalty

Products

Prices

Ordering

Delivery

Sales Rep

Invoicing

Administration

Technical Support

Advertising

Seminars/ Events

Branding

Promotions

Brand

Image

Customer Experiences Market

Factors

p y y

Continuance

Engagem

ent

Affective

Engagem

ent

0.22

0.09

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx


82March 2010



83/135

83

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

0 20 40 60 80

Products

Prices

Ordering


Invoicing and payment procedures



Mass advertising

Educational events and seminars

Technical support

Informal events

46

18

53

48

35

47

53

35

36

29

67

0,22

0,09

pBase = 116

72

64


Excellent

47

48

36

25

25

36

Impact on Loyalty

59

47

63

55

31

0

0

33

50 0

61

28

32

25


83March 2010

EXPERIENCES: Impact vs. Performance Holcim andLafarge among shared customers


84/135

84

0 20 40 60 80

Technical support

Delivery services

Prices

Invoicing and paymet procedures


Ordering


Products

80

38

17

8

25

58

25

33

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

Lafarge among shared customers

17

33


Excellent

34

58

13

33

0

17


84March 2010



85/135

85

p

Experience with products and product prices are of mostrelevance for Users Loyalty.

Although there are no significant differences, general picture

shows that Lafarge has slightly better performance than Holcim

on most of experience areas, including the most important

ones. Titan can be described as underperformer lower level of

performance is found in all process areas except Prices (whichcan be seen as its main strength among Users).


85March 2010

EXPERIENCES: Products (impact:0.22)


86/135

86

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

0 20 40 60 80

Quantity needed in comparison

Applicability of products

Color of the cement

Quality of the packaging

Availability of needed pack sizes

Consistency of the product quality

Early compression strength

End compression strength

Setting time

Additive compatibility

53

58

48

55

27

58

56

57

52

67

0,29

0,26

Base = 116

62

57

67


Excellent

68

46

30

10

26


68

68

70

33

37

43

68 48

57 26

79 40


86March 2010

EXPERIENCES: Products


87/135

87

Most important characteristics for overall evaluation of Productsare Quantity needed and Applicability.

Consistently, but not significantly, outperformed by Lafarge,

Holcim significantly underperforms when it comes to availability

of needed pack sizes. Still, what is noteworthy is the fact that

users top rate the Lafarge cement color, early compression, end

compression, setting time and additive compatibility more oftenthat Holcim and Titan.


87March 2010

EXPERIENCES: Prices (impact: 0.09)


88/135

88

HOLCIM


No significant

difference

HOLCIM

significantly lower

0 20 40 60 80

Quality in relation to the prices

Clearly informing you on the pricechanges

19

23

Base = 116


Excellent/

Extremely good

24 0


36 29


88March 2010

EXPERIENCES: Prices


89/135

89

Quality in relation to prices and Clearly informing about

prices changes attributes do not have important influence on

overall evaluation of Prices touchpoint.


89March 2010


90/135

90

Overall priorities

SUMMARY: Overall Priorities


91/135

91

While Lafarge scores higher on the key drivers it is ahead inother areas as well compared to Holcim, particularly in:

o Ordering (top box +19%)

o Administration (top box +16%)

Though the primary focus should be on the product efficiency, it

could extend to other areas of operational efficiency as well,

such as:

o Taking order accurately

o Promptness in delivery

o Invoices sent on time


91March 2010

PRIORITIES: Customer Experiences


92/135

92

Key Competitor: LAFARGE

Lower than/ Equal to Competition Higher than Competition

ProductsPrices

Invoicing

Ordering

Delivery

Administration

Sales Rep


Secondary PriorityKey Strength

Key

Drivers

Other

Areas


92March 2010

PRIORITIES: Key Attributes


93/135

93

Key Competitor: LAFARGE

Lower than/ Equal to Competition Higher than Competition

PRODUCTS: Quantity needed

PRODUCTS: Applicability

INVOICING: Payment termsINVOICING: Invoices on time

ORDERING: Taking order accurately

ORDERING: Simplicity of procedure

DELIVERY: Promptness

ADMINISTRATION: Easy to deal

ADMINISTRATION: Offering information

SALES REP: Authority to decideSALES REP: Your interest as priority


Secondary Priority

Key Strength

Key

Drivers

Other

Areas


93March 2010


94/135

94

Other areas

SUMMARY: Customer experiences


95/135

95

When users are question, areas of customer experiences of less

importance concerning their relation with loyalty are invoicing

and payment, ordering, delivery and logistics, administration

and sales representatives, mass advertising, educational and

informal events and technical support.

Most important indicators on specific experiences are the

following: Invoicing and payment terms of payment and sending invoices on

time

Ordering - taking the order accuretely and simplicity of the

procedures

Delivery and logistics - promptness

Administration representatives easy to deal with and offering

relevant information when asked

Sales representatives authority to make decisions and having your

interest as a priorityFresh Thinking. 95March 2010


96/135

96

Highlights

Research highlights: cement users


97/135

97

While Holcim and Lafarge are at par on overall loyalty index,Titan is a slightly distant third.

Analysis of loyalty segments however show Lafarge hasalmost 1 times as many Strongly Loyal customers as

Holcim in the current sample of cement users.

Affective Engagement and Brand Image are the dominant

drivers of loyalty, indicating that emotional and perceptualresponse wins over rational response.


97March 2010




98/135

98

The key drivers Products and Prices among customer

experiences, point towards a value-seeking market with the

key attributes of products (quantity/ economy and

applicability/ ease) further buttressing this hypothesis.

Affective Engagement and Brand Image are the dominantdrivers of loyalty, indicating that emotional and perceptual

response wins over rational response.


98March 2010



99/135

CONCRETEUSERS


100/135

Customer

profile

Customer profile


101/135


Customer profile

Construction companies included in this study were from the

following segments high raise (residential, commercial and industrial objects),

low raise (infrastructural)

Apart from general constructors, finishing contractors wereincluded as well (stamped concrete)

101March 2010

Customer profile


102/135


Customer profile

Typical situation is the one

where the construction

company uses at least 2 or

more concrete suppliers dueto either:

having more building sites so

they are choosing according to

location,

or they like to make sure they

have back-up opportunities

102March 2010

Customer profile


103/135


Customer profile

Apart from Holcim, surveyed

companies buy concrete from:

103March 2010

Gradijent

Mobil Beton

Delta 90 Arma

InzenjenringBeton

Elita Kop

Art Gradnja Gradjevinar

Kocic

Gemex

Beton Plus

Icikom

Imkop Sigrad

Ager

Marmil

Cemprom

Customer profile


104/135


Customer profile

Holcim customers are buying concrete from Holcim RMX

within previous 2 years, while the services of other concreteproducers are being used from about a year to 18 years.

Annual volumes of concrete in this group vary from 500 to

8000 cubic meters of concrete, typical being around 2 000 to

3 000 cubic meters

104March 2010


105/135

Customerneeds and

expectations asRMX plants

choice factors

Key customer needs: overall


106/135


y

106March 2010

Price/quality ratio

Terms of payment

Plant location

Vehicles and equipment

Available quantities

General flexibility

Delivery accuracy

Recommendation

Reliable laboratory

Special concrete types

Main customer needs and

expectations can be

classified in several

categories

These categories, are, at

the same time, the key

factors taken into

consideration when RMXplants are being chosen.

Key customer needs: price/quality ratio


107/135


y p /q y

107March 2010

Price/quality ratio

Terms of payment

Plant location

Vehicles andequipment

Availablequantities

General flexibility

Delivery accuracy

Recommendation

Reliablelaboratory

Special concretetypes

Price concern is widely shared among theconcrete users it is connected with

business profitability

Still, the users do not claim there aresubstantial market differences in terms of

prices, although Holcim is being sometimes

pointed out as the one with higher prices.

The other facet of this factor, quality, is

mentioned in terms of reliability and

stability

Key customer needs: price/quality ratio


108/135


y p /q y

108March 2010

The core of the price and quality issues isthe price/quality ratio

Concrete users, although would prefer

cheaper product, have serious doubtsweather the quality could remain the same

It is noticeable that price concerns,

together with less caring about the quality,are more often seen among the smaller

companies, while the larger companies

tend to prioritize quality.

Price/quality ratio

Terms of payment

Plant location


Availablequantities

General flexibility

Delivery accuracy

Recommendation

Reliablelaboratory


Key customer needs: terms of payment


109/135


y p y

109March 2010

Price/quality ratio

Terms of payment

Plant location


Availablequantities

General flexibility

Delivery accuracy

Recommendation

Reliablelaboratory


Advanced payment is very unfavorableamong the concrete users, and it is alwaysmentioned as one of very important thingsin choosing the concrete producer

I can care about the quality as much as I like, and I

can like Holcim people and their professionalism, but I

cant afford risking not to get concrete if I have acash flowproblem

For all of the competitor RMX plants thereis either a chance for deferred payment(15-60 days), and some of them also allow

compensation Out of the 15 surveyed companies, just 2

did not mention Holcim terms of paymentbeing a problem at all

Key customer needs: plant location


110/135


y p

110March 2010

Price/quality ratio

Terms of payment

Plant location


Availablequantities

General flexibility

Delivery accuracy

Recommendation

Reliablelaboratory


Plant location is a very important factor

Some companies insist that the plant must

not be more than 30 minutes away from

the building site

Key customer needs: vehicles and

equipment


111/135


equipment

111March 2010

Price/quality ratio

Terms of payment

Plant location


Availablequantities

General flexibility

Delivery accuracy

Recommendation

Reliablelaboratory


Apart from the need for the equipment to

be modern and reliable, depending on theapplication, construction companies havesome specific needs:

For companies engaged in high raise it is very

important that the company has large pumps(such as trailer-mounted boom concrete pump)capable of pumping at very high volumes

For companies engaged in low raise, as well asfor finishing contractors, smaller pumps (line

pumps) are more suitable, since they normallypump concrete at lower volumes; for thesetypes of companies it is sometimes also veryimportant that the supplier has small vehiclesthat can enter specific building sites.


112/135

Brand image

Brand image


113/135


g

Image of Holcim is pretty distinctive and differentiated among

the concrete users in Belgrade

It is seen as a global company, bringing worldwide experience

to this market , reliable, respectful, a company that keeps its

promises, whose employees are very professional

113March 2010

Brand image


114/135


g

Holcims image is underlined with

different affective tone in two maingroups:

Among the loyal customers, Holcim is

respected as being foreign and reliablebecause there is always a set of rules and

procedures that are being followed, so the

customers can be sure about what they

can expect; to the standard image of

Holcim as a serious company they add the

Holcim proactivity, readiness to listen to

their clients and the ability to respond to

their needs

114March 2010

Brand image


115/135


Among the migrating customers, and those that do not intend to use

Holcim services although they havent been working with them before,this image of a reliable company has a negative undertone it is seen

as arrogant, and, as much as they are reliable, they (both Holcim as a

company and its employees) are showing a deep disrespect for the

Serbian market and its uniqueness; some of the people from this

group sometimes do have some understanding for the employeesthough, claiming that they have to follow the procedures although

they themselves are really very nice

115March 2010


116/135

Customer

experiences

Touchpoints


117/135


The key touchpoints

examined in this study were: Ordering


Administrative personnel

Invoicing and terms of payment Prices


Technical support

Educational/informal events

117March 2010

Touchpoints

Ordering

Salesrepresentatives

Administrative

personnel

Invoicingand

terms ofpayment

Prices

Deliveryand

logistics

Technical support

Educational/infor

malevents

Touchpoints Holcim performance


118/135

Fresh Thinking.Clear Advice. 118March 2010

Accurate, processed withoutproblems

Lack of flexibility, advancepayments, problems with bankingsector cause even moredissatisfaction paymentssometimes take time to be seen

on the account of the supplier,which makes advance paymentseven more difficult as a way ofdoing business; emergencydeliveries are basically impossibledue to this

INVO

ICINGAND

TERMS

OFPAYMEN

T



119/135

Fresh Thinking.Clear Advice. 119March 2010

Good value for money, loyalcustomers dont consider it as

too high or as vital for theirdecision

A bit higher, vital decisionmaking factor for less

profitable or smallercompanies

PRICES


benchmarked


120/135


benchmarked

Majority of the companies that weresurveyed do not have any significant

complaints about the companies they

are working with, so in some cases it is

difficult to differentiate Holcim from themain competitors

Despite this fact, it can be said that

Holcim is significantly outperforming

when it comes to delivery and logistics

(primarily due to technical capabilities,

but the drivers manners as well)

120March 2010


benchmarked


121/135


benchmarked

Performance in what can be called the human

capital touchpoints is very good

Although the competitors in fact also have

kind and friendly staff, Holcim representatives

are perceived as distinct due to their

professionalism and respecting the world

standards in business communication

121March 2010


benchmarked


122/135


benchmarked Still, Holcim is experiencing significant

underperformance that mainly stems from the strictordering and terms of payment procedures it is notjust the main hindrance in cooperation and an obstaclein gaining new customers, but a serious challenge informing a strong brand on the local market it makes

the company look arrogant, disrespectful of the localmarket conditions and distrustful towards its customers

Serbia is not still ready for the European way of doing business.Everyone owes money to everyone, and it is completely unrealexpecting a long-term cooperation with a supplier that charges

you in advance. Supplier that expects that just shows deepmisunderstanding of the market. How could I pay something inadvance, if there are 7 companies that owe me money? Whenwe started our business here during the nineties, we insisted onadvance payments, but we have recognized that we need tochange it. Thanks to that, we are surviving on this market.

122March 2010


123/135

Loyaltyprofile and

the drivers of

loyalty

Loyalty profile


124/135


Generally speaking, the main impression

is that loyalty is not very high among theconstruction companies.

In terms of the type of loyalty profiles, itcan be said that emotive loyalists, strongly

feeling the chosen concrete producer isthe best for them, can most probably befound only in the group of largercompanies, and among the companiesthat are present on the market for a longtime they tend to by more concrete andto be involved in multiple constructionprojects preferring having a stable andconstant relation with one or twosuppliers.

124March 2010

Loyalty profile


125/135


Loyal customers can be said to be

mostly from the groups of deliberative loyalists theyfrequently reevaluate purchasedecision and reaffirm the chosencompany based on merits

It seems that majority of surveyedHolcim customers could fall into thisloyalty segment, although in a few

cases it was possible to sense theexistence of certain emotionalbonding that was due to excellentrelations with the Holicmrepresentatives

125March 2010

Loyalty profile


126/135


Among the possible migrators, we can find three different

types of customers: Dissatisfied migrators they are actively dissatisfied, prompted to

reevaluate decisions based on a set of specific events

They (Delta 90) have failed to achieve what they have promised.

They didnt deliver the agreed quantities, and the quality of concrete

was not as agreed.

126March 2010

Loyalty profile


127/135


Deliberative migrators they are frequently

reevaluating purchase decision and choosing new

supplier based on merits; sometimes they might

seek variety (smaller companies)

I dont think we will be working with them

(Holcim) anymore. They are very rigid, they do not

really understand my business.

Wed immediately change the supplier the

moment on the market appears a supplier that can

deliver quality concrete that is even 1 RSD cheaper.This is business.

127March 2010

Loyalty profile


128/135


Lifecycle migrators purchase decisions based on change in need

We change suppliers depending on the building site, we need thesupplier to be as close as possible

I might work with them (Holcim) if it proves that we need small pumps

again, because they are the only that have them. Otherwise they do not

suit us.

128March 2010

Main drivers of loyalty


129/135


From the analysis of the main needs andexpectations, as well as the loyalty

profiles of the surveyed companies, it

clearly follows that understanding the

business needs and specific conditions ofwork of a construction company is the key

driver of loyalty.

A supplier that understands is the onethat has a certain flexibility, and is able

and willing to respect specific company

working setting.

129March 2010

Main drivers of loyalty


130/135


What is closely connected with thisperception of understanding, is the needfor building trust that is a two way process.Holcims strict rules and procedureschallenges trust-based business

relationship, that turns out to be veryimportant for customer loyalty.

Apparent lack of intensive emotionalbonding is another proof of this group of

customers being harder to reach andimpress, and the concrete suppliers beingless successful in building loyalty than it isthe case in some other industries.

130March 2010


131/135

Highlights

Research highlights: concrete users


132/135


Holcim RMX is perceived as delivering a high quality

products and service

Still, in the group of the companies using other concrete

suppliers it is sometimes not really seen as the company

significantly outperforming compared to its competitorswhich is an obstacle for the company business growth

Construction industry proves to be an industry where it isnot easy to form loyal relationships with the concrete

users they are very demanding, profit oriented, difficultto impress




133/135


Although maintenance of the quality and service

standards is one of the key priorities, for the growth of

the company it would be vital trying to show the

understanding for the way of doing business on the local

market that proves to be the key driver of loyalty

What has to be kept in mind is the consistent finding

from customer research which shows 60 to 80 percent of

lost customers across all industry segments reported onsurveys just prior to defecting that they were "very

satisfied" or "satisfied.




134/135


In the cooperation with Holcim, it is exactly this sense of

customers that the company either does not follow their

needs due to global procedures, or because they areforeigners, nicely polished, good mannered, but denyingthis market the right to be treated according to its

uniqueness, that jeopardizes the company position.



135/135

MASMITHANKS YOU

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nemanja-brkic
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Survey

Documents