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
Interpretation of our Analysis
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
Interpretation of our Analysis
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
Interpretation of our Analysis
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].