2005 Customer Experience Management Study

(1)

2005 Customer Experience Management Study

No Money, No Love

At most companies, it’s still “show me the money”

(2)

Project Manager Rachel Yurowitz

All templates, questionnaires, and methodology contained herein remain the property of Strativity Group, Inc. and they are proprietary and confidential.

No part of this material may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Strativity Group, Inc.

Strativity Group, Inc.

1719 Route 10 East, Suite 311 Parsippany, NJ 07054, USA

(3)

Ta b l e o f C o n te n t s

Executive Summary...1

The Economics of Relationships ...4

Any Customer That Is Willing To Pay...5

The Strategy to Execution Gap Remains Strong ...6

Product-Centric Approach ...7

Employees At The Core of The Experience...8

On The Path To Resolution ...9

Conclusion and Recommendations...10

Additional Analysis ...12

APPENDIX A - Survey Form ...13

APPENDIX B - Survey Demographics ...14

APPENDIX C - Responses by Industry ...17

APPENDIX D - Responses by Company Size (In Employees) ...22

Strativity Group...27

(4)

Based on the study we concluded that companies remained self-centric, transaction-based and product focused.

E xe c u t i ve S u m m a r y

Overall the Global 2005 Customer Experience Management Study indicates that corporations remained consistent in their weak approach to customers. Results related to understanding the economics of relationships worsened as did the value of the customer relationship. Therefore, we decided to title the study results “No Money, No Love”. In the absence of understanding customer value, companies do not deliver the love and the relationships required to maximize this value. The result is that overall execution of customer strategies remains far from desirable. Based on the study, we concluded that companies remained self-centric, transaction-based and product-focused. They failed to capture the financial rewards associated with successful, value-based customer strategies.

> Only 46.1% of the global respondents agreed that their company deserves the customer’s loyalty, as opposed to 40.6% in 2004.

> 66.8% state that their company’s executives do not meet with customers frequently (another increase in 2005, from 65.4% in 2004).

> 59.2% state that their relationship with the customer is not well defined (up from 54.1% in 2004).

> 42% state that their company takes any customer that is willing to pay (compared to 46.1% in 2004). In B2B the number is 52.9%, up from 42.2%, and in services 35.2%, down from 39.7% in 2004.

> Only 22.4% state that their compensation is tied to quality of service (compared to 18.8% in 2004).

> Only 33.3% agree that they have the tools to service customers and resolve problems (up slightly from 31.4% in 2004).

> 31.8% agree that their company invests in people more than in technology (up from 24.3% in 2004).

> 55.6% of the respondents agree that their employer deserves their loyalty (down again in 2004 from 57.8%).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

DEGREE OF AGREEMENT

Is truly committed to the customer

Does not conduct true dialogue with customers

Executives don't meet frequently with customers

The role of the customer is not well defined

Does not deserve customer loyalty

Takes any customer that is willing to pay 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

43.5% 45.9%

57.6% 56.8% 58.0%

54.5%

65.4%

66.8%

53.8% 54.1%

59.2%

59.6% 59.4%

53.9%

44.6% 46.1%

42.0% 42.0%

SUPERFICIAL COMMITMENT TO TRUE CUSTOMER-CENTRIC CULTURE

Figure 1: Data demonstrates that executives hold a superficial commitment to a true customer-centric culture.

(5)

The 2005 Global Customer Experience Management Study, conducted

throughout 2005, indicates that the company / customer relationship is deterio- rating. The economic upsurge in 2005 did not translate into better customer relationships or more effective execution of customer strategies. Executives surveyed indicate that do not understand the basic financial drivers behind effective customer strategies. Over 90% of the respondents are unaware of the cost of a complaint, cost of a new customer or the annual value of a customer.

As a result, it was not surprising to see that over 50% of the respondents did not consider their company committed to customers or believe that they conduct a true dialogue with customers. In the absence of these financial drivers, companies simply could not justify the investment in customer strategies.

Only a minority of the executives (46.1%) believe that they actually do deserve the customer’s loyalty, based on the total value provided by the company.

The trend of companies taking any customer that is willing to pay

remained static. 42% of the respondents agreed that their companies take any customer that is willing to pay. This type of mass marketing approach often leads companies to take on unqualified customers who then become unprofitable and put a strain on the company’s customer service resources, creating a negative impact on the company’s bottom line.

In 2005, according to the study, the employee experience remained weak.

This resulted in only 55% of the respondents claiming that the company deserves their loyalty as an employee. This is the third year in a row where we see a decline in employee loyalty to their employers. Only 33% of the In the absence of…

financial drivers, companies simply could not justify the investment in customer strategies.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Current compensation plan emphasizes quality

of service

Employees have tools and authority to solve customer problems

Invests in its people more than technology

Deserves my loyalty as an employee

2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

18.8% 22.4%

32.8% 31.4% 33.3%

37.2%

24.3%

31.8%

36.9%

57.8%

55.6%

73.4%

LOW LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE

Figure 2: Respondents indicate low level of confidence in tools and commitment to employees.

(6)

Companies continue to talk about the importance of customer strategies, but fail to execute them.

The statement: “Companies are more committed to customer strategies than 3 years ago” shows a decrease in commitment from last year (73%

this year as opposed to 76% last year). This indicates that while this is still on the executives’ business agendas as critical to growth, they are strug- gling with what the strategies should be and how to deal with them.

The research indicated a strong correlation between perception of true commitment to customer and employee loyalty. Additionally, a strong correlation was identified between the availability of tools and authority, compensation plan linkage to quality of service, executives’ frequent visits to customers and a conviction regarding the company’s true commitment to customers. These positive correlations point towards the actions and solu- tions companies can take to transform their strategic intentions toward customers into reality. When companies focus on their employees and provide them with the tools and authority to serve customers, their perception of commitment and their actual commitment to customers increase. The first areas of action companies should deal with are: focus on providing adequate resources, giving employees authority to do their jobs properly and making information available to them. Companies should not conduct another customer survey to identify needs. The focus has to be on improving the overall company operation and the execution capabilities of employees.

In conclusion, companies continue to talk about the importance of customer strategies, but fail to execute them. They remain product-centric with transaction, not relationship based, business models. From customer dialogue to providing employees with the resources to deliver great experiences, the state of execution of customer strategies remains poor. The poor state of affairs can be understood better in light of the failure to understand the economics of customer relationships and the potential value associated with investing in delighting customers. The key to finding the solution is focusing efforts on strategy execution and equipping

employees with the tools and authority to do their jobs and not conducting customer data gathering or another strategic planning session.

24.8% 2.2%

CUSTOMER STRATEGIES ARE

73.0%

More important than 3 years ago As important

as 3 years ago

Less important than 3 years ago Figure 3:

Note: Results for Customer Strategy importance in Europe is very similar to those in the Americas.

(7)

T h e E c o n o m i c s o f R e l a t i o n s h i p s

This is the second consecutive year that the Global CEM Study included questions regarding the economics of relationships. In 2005 the level of understanding of the economics of relationships worsened. We derived this conclusion from the fact that more executives are clueless about the financial drivers behind their customer strategies

> 90.3% of the respondents did not know the cost of a customer complaint

> 90.0% of the respondents did not know the cost of total complaint resolution

> 73.8% of the respondents did not know their annual retention rate

> 87.1% of the respondents did not know their annual customer value

> 91.4% of the respondents did not know the cost of a new customer This lack of understanding of the economics of customer relationships explains the poor execution of customer strategies demonstrated by responses to other questions in the survey. The linkage between “No Money, No Love” is clearly demonstrated in the study. In the absence of knowledge, coupled with a lack of understanding of the financial drivers behind successful profitable customer strategies, the execution becomes lip service. Companies fail to make the proper investment required in both people and resources to ensure that they are capable of winning the customer-centric contest.

The lack of understanding of the economics of relationships is a clear indi- cation that companies are still running a product-centric business model and not a customer-centric business model. Transaction-based analysis supersedes relationship-based analysis in the eyes of executives. Without knowing their financial drivers, companies will be unable to justify the transformation required to become a customer-centric organization and the business model they need to build to do so.

To maximize the potential of long term relationships, companies must start managing their businesses in the context of a long term relationship and not a one-time transaction. Without these financial measurements, companies will never understand the real business potential associated with a relationship-based business model versus a transaction-based business model. The absence of these financial measures will result in companies either severely under investing or making superficial investments in customer strategies. In addition, they will not have the resources in place to realign themselves from being product-centric to customer-centric.

Companies fail to make the proper investment required in both people and resources…

(8)

A ny C u s to m e r T h a t I s W i l l i n g To Pay

Demonstrating a slight decline from 2004, in 2005 42% of the respondents claimed that their companies were willing to take any customer that was willing to pay. This alarming number indicates a product-centric approach where customer value is not fully measured and customer profitability is an afterthought. Lacking a customer selection process and qualification criteria will often lead a company to engage with unsuitable, and therefore unprofitable customers, who are likely to derail company resources and negatively impact their bottom line.

These results reinforce the lack of understanding of the economics of customer relationships. They demonstrate that even in the current transaction- based business model, companies do not apply financial logic to their choice of customers, but are seemingly desperate to take any customer.

…companies do not apply financial logic to their choice of customers, but are seemingly desperate to take any customer.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

OUR COMPANY DELIVERS CONSUMER

PRODUCTS

B TO B PRODUCTS

SERVICES

53.1%

48.5%

37.8%

OUR COMPANY TAKES ANY CUSTOMER THAT IS WILLING TO PAY

Figure 4:

Company is willing to take any customer willing to pay, by industry segments

(9)

T h e S t ra te gy to E xe c u t i o n G a p R e m a i n s S t ro n g

Again in 2005, a majority of the respondents (73%) claimed that customer strategies were more important to their companies than 3 years ago.

Customer strategies were touted in a wide variety of articles and books this past year and continued to occupy a very prominent position on the executive agenda. The execution, however, remained far less than desirable with companies failing to deliver basic respect in their customer relationships.

> Only 33% of the respondents agreed that their executives meet with customers frequently.

> 45.9% of the respondents agreed that their company is truly committed to the customer.

> Only 42% of the respondents agreed that their companies conduct true dialogue with customers.

> 46% of the respondents agreed that their company deserves the customer’s loyalty.

The assertion by the majority of the respondents that their companies do not deserve customer loyalty speaks volumes about the true execution of customer strategies. The trend over the last 3 years is very consistent and the 2005 results are only marginally different than those of previous years.

These results paint a picture of superficial commitment to customers, limited corporate resources available to deal with customer issues, and limited concrete corporate intentions to actually develop mutually respectful relationships with customers.

The results remain alarming due to the fact that they came from leaders and executives and not rank and file employees. If the conviction among executives is negative, it is easy to understand how employees relate to their companies’ commitment to its customers. This attitude easily

explains the prevailing low level of employee and executive quality of service to customers.

In light of the lack of financial data regarding the economics of relationships, it is easy to understand why companies make only incremental, superficial efforts toward customer relationships. As discussed before, if executives cannot see the money, they cannot justify the love. The study results dis- close that those superficial efforts are not credible, as a large portion of the respondents do not believe that these efforts represent a true intention to execute. The respondents stated that the efforts to delight customers delivered by their employer simply do not convince them. If employees are not convinced, it is highly unlikely that any customer will be.

The respondents stated that the efforts to delight customers delivered by their employer simply do not convince them.

(10)

…companies “think”

and measure themselves through their products and services and not their

customers.

P ro d u c t - C e n t ri c A p p ro a ch

When asked about the benefits and uniqueness of their products or services, 59% of the respondents claimed that these were beneficial and unique.

70.9% of the respondents claimed that their products and services are worth the price they charged. This greater conviction demonstrated regarding products and services reaffirms the fact that companies “think” and measure themselves through their products and services and not their customers.

It is important to note that close to 40% of the respondents did not believe that their products or services are beneficial or unique. This level of conviction is related to their perception of the total value that their company delivers to customers.

After all, if the company does not deliver unique and beneficial products and services, then it is not customer-centric. Before we can deliver great experiences, we need to have great products. If companies fail to achieve this preliminary milestone, they will not be able to attain the customer experience milestone and then successfully shift to becoming a completely customer-centric organization.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

PRODUCTS

B TO B PRODUCTS

SERVICES 58.2%

65.7%

58.2%

THE COMPANY HAS A UNIQUE AND BENEFICIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

OUR SIZE (IN EMPLOYEES) 61.8%

51.0%

66.0%

52.4%

61.1%

50+ 500+ 1000+ 10,000+ 50,000+

Figure 5: The company has a unique and beneficial product or service, by industry segments

Figure 6: The company has a unique and beneficial product or service, by company size (number of employees)

(11)

E m p l oye e s A t T h e C o re o f T h e E x p e ri e n c e

The state of affairs regarding employee experiences remains gloomy. The vast majority of the respondents indicated that their companies are not committed to employees and they cannot do their jobs well.

> Only 22.4% of the respondents claimed that their company’s compensation plan emphasizes quality of service.

> 33.3% of the respondents claimed they have the tools and authority to solve customer problems.

> 31.8% of the respondents claimed that their company invests in people more than in technology.

> 55.6% of respondents claimed that their company deserves their loyalty as employees.

Companies still fail to focus on employees, despite their strategic declarations.

The majority of employees are placed in a “no win” situation, without the tools and authority to do their jobs. Companies indicate, through their compensation plans, a focus on productivity over quality of service. This forces employees to “churn” customers rather than delight them. In the name of cost reduction, companies continue to invest in technologies rather than in people.

Employees are not regarded as strategic to the organization, based on the results above. The result of this sad state of affairs is a decreased level of loyalty by employees to their companies. Employee performance has become critically important to building experiences that differentiate.

However, companies continue to count on their products to differentiate.

They therefore fail to nurture the critical resource, the employee.

The lack of investment in employees is linked to the product-centric orientation of many organizations. They perceive their competitive advantage to be in their products and not their employees. As long as companies continue to focus on products as their core competency, the investment in employees will be secondary. It is only when companies make the true transformation to delivering on their customer strategies that they justify the investment in employees. Why?

At this juncture, the products become secondary to the customer experiences delivered by employees. Employees become more important than products.

The majority of employees are placed in a “no win”

situation, without the tools and authority to do their jobs.

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

AGREEMENT

25.5%

36.5%

25.8%

OUR COMPANY INVESTS IN ITS PEOPLE MORE THAN IN TECHNOLOGY

(12)

The focus should shift towards building the organization around customer-centric business models…

O n T h e Pa t h To R e s o l u t i o n

When calibrating the results, we were able to identify specific patterns that shed light on the actions required on the part of companies.

> A strong correlation was identified between true commitment to customers and employee loyalty. Employees tend to give their loyalty to companies they believe are honest about their commitment to customers and do not deal with customer relationships at the level of lip service.

> Respondents who claimed that their company provides them with the tools and authority to solve customer problems also strongly agreed that their company is truly committed to customers. A similar correlation was identified between companies which focus on quality of service in their compensation plan and the employee perception of true commitment to customers. These correlations all point to very concrete actions that companies can take to increase the effectiveness of their customer strategies and at the same time signal their true intentions to employees.

> Respondents who strongly agreed that they have the tools and authority to solve customer problems also strongly agreed that their company deserves customer loyalty. This was also true for respondents who strongly agreed that their company links employee compensation to quality of service. These correlations support the previous recommenda- tion of making visible changes and ensuring that all employees focus on delivering the best value to customers.

> Respondents who strongly agreed that their executives frequently visit customers, also strongly agreed that their company is truly committed to customers. This is another action which is simple to execute and can increase customer strategy effectiveness. Executives should increase their contact with customers and make these contacts more visible to ensure a better understanding of their customer needs and to signal their commitment to the rest of their organization.

The main agenda of executives should be execution effectiveness. Another planning session or customer survey will not improve customer strategy results. The focus should shift from theoretical data gathering and scenario planning to delivering tools and authority to employees to enable them to go out and do it. The focus should shift towards building the organization around customer-centric business models, justifying the investment and enabling every person in the company to deliver amazing experiences to customers. Executives are not exempt form the execution responsibility as they will have to be role models to demonstrate their commitment to execution. In short, find the money and then deliver the love.

(13)

C o n c l u s i o n a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

Despite the economic upswing experienced by companies in the last 18-24 months, their commitment to the customer has not improved. Throughout the last 3 years, the Global CEM study consistently indicates a very superficial commitment to customers by companies, with a growing gap between strategic intentions and corporate execution. At the core of the problem is the lack of understanding the economics of relationships which result in poor investment in customer strategy execution. Companies fail to capture and manage their business from a customer relationship viewpoint. This results in their remaining true to the familiar product-centric business model. At a time when corporate transparency reigns, the time has come for companies to develop methods to fully understand the scope of their customer relationships beyond the single isolated transaction. Identifying and measuring those financial drivers will allow companies to recognize the lost opportunities and inefficiencies associated with product-based experiences. It will allow them to justify the transformation required to achieve truly profitable customer strategies.

Execution Focus

Companies need to focus their efforts on building an organization that can execute on the customer relationship promise. The problem with customer strategies is not the lack of data or a strategic plan, it is lack of execution. It is this transformation that has to lead all efforts to become truly customer-centric.

Know Your Numbers

Companies must benchmark their cost of customer relationships and the total value associated with long term relationships. The heritage of product-cen- tricity blinds them both to the missed overall potential and the inefficiencies associated with servicing customers as individual transactions. The economics of relationships must lead the discussion and the strategic choices. This will also justify all the trade-off decisions that are required to justify building an organization that can execute on the customer strategies promise.

Employees Create Experiences

The dependency on employees to differentiate themselves from the com- petition is not fully understood by companies. They still rely on their products for differentiation and therefore do not equip employees with the right tools and authority to do their jobs. The focus must shift from products to Companies fail to

capture and manage their businesses from a customer relationship viewpoint.

(14)

Make The Experience Great

The total value proposition delivered to customers must be incisive and differentiated. When the company’s conviction is around its products and services the value they give the customer is poor and is therefore in the realm of “me-too” experiences. Companies need to renew their efforts to create order of magnitude differentiation that delights customers.

Customer Selection Criteria

Companies fail to delight customers not only because of their lack of investment in customer relationships, but also because of improper customer selection. Captivated by the perception of market share, companies are not sufficiently selective when taking on new customers. This leads to their customer pool being unprofitable and inherently unsatisfiable. Stricter, long term based selection criteria should be applied to ensure maximum profitability and suitability with the company’s experience and values.

No Short Cuts

Employees want to see sincerity and real actions on the part of their executives. They follow the actions not the memos. Executives will not be able to get away with short cut declarations. They need to get out there and meet customers. They need to do what they preach to others. The rule:

Lead by role model.

Authentically Yours

Like any relationship, authenticity matters. If employees and customers do not believe the strategic intentions of the company or they think that each has different intentions, they will not believe and therefore will not act. Companies need to create and nurture an environment in which the commitment to customers is honest and geared towards delivering real value and developing true relationships.

(15)

Ad d i t i o n a l A n a l y s i s

Tools and Authority

At business-to-business companies, only 24.6% of the respondents agreed that they have the tools and authority to solve customer problems. At service-based companies the number increased to 39.4%. The ranking of this question was consistent across different business sizes with no notice- able difference in response rate.

True Dialogue

Business-to-business companies scored the lowest with only 37.7% of the respondents claiming they have true dialogue with customers. Service- based companies ranked the highest, with 44.7% claiming true dialogue with customers.

True dialogue with customers ranked high among smaller companies, (48.3%) and dropped sharply to 24.1% among the largest companies.

Frequent Meetings with Customers

While consumer product companies scored the lowest, with 22.6% of the respondents agreeing with the statement, service companies scored the highest with 37.9% of the respondents agreeing that their executives visit customers frequently. Smaller companies ranked the highest, with 44.8%, while larger companies ranked the lowest with 21%.

Deserve Customer Loyalty

While 51.5% of the respondents from service companies agreed that their company deserves the customers’ loyalty, only 37.7% of the business-to- business respondents agreed with the same statement

Employee Loyalty

Employee loyalty had a 10 point range. Services companies scored 59.6%

while consumer companies scored the lowest with 49.2%.

(16)

A P P E N D I X A - S u r vey Fo rm

Customer Experience Management Survey

The objective of the survey is to identify global trends. You may complete this survey anonymously. We will share the results with all the participants of the survey who provide email addresses.

In your organization (Circle your answer: 1 = Strongly disagree 10 = Strongly agree) 1. The role of the customer in the organization is well defined 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2. Executives meet with customers frequently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3. Current compensation plan emphasizes quality of service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4. Our company is truly committed to the customer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5. Our company deserves my loyalty as an employee 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6. Our company deserves the customer’s loyalty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7. Our company takes any customer that is willing to pay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8. Employees have the tools and authority to solve customer problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9. The company has a unique and beneficial product or service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10. Our products / services are worth the prices we charge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. We conduct true dialogue with customers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12. Our company invests in its people more than in technology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13. Customers Strategies are:

> More important than 3 years ago

> As important as 3 years ago

> Less important than 3 years ago

The cost of a complaint is $________ Do not know The cost of total resolution is $________ Do not know Our annual retention customer rate is ____% Do not know Annual average customer value is $________ Do not know The cost of a new customer is $________ Do not know

Our company delivers: Consumer Products B to B Products Services Our location: Europe Asia North America Latin America Australia Africa Our Size (in employees): 50+ 500+ 1000+ 10,000+ 50,000+

Thank you for your participation.

(17)

A P P E N D I X B - S u r vey D e m o g ra p h i c s

Participant Demographics:

Consumer Products

46.6% 29.6%

PARTICIPANTS BY INDUSTRY

B to B Products Services

23.8%

2.2% 2.6%

3.5%

PARTICIPANT BY GEOGRAPHY

17.0%

7.0%

67.7%

Europe

Asia North America Latin America

Australia Africa

17.2%

13.7%

PARTICIPANT BY COMPANY SIZE (NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES)

38.8% 50+

10,000+

50,000+

(18)

AVERAGE ANNUAL CUSTOMER VALUE

12.9%

87.1% ^Know

Do not know

COST OF TOTAL RESOLUTION

90.9% 9.1% ^Know

Do not know

OUR ANNUAL RETENTION CUSTOMER RATE IS

26.3% Know

Do not know

73.7%

Economics of Relationships:

(19)

COST OF A COMPLAINT

90.3% 9.7% Know

Do not know

(20)

Consumer Products

46.6% 29.6%

PARTICIPANTS BY INDUSTRY

B to B Products Services

23.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

PRODUCTS

B TO B PRODUCTS

SERVICES

34.5%

43.4%

48.7%

OUR COMPANY IS TRULY COMMITTED TO THE CUSTOMER

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

PRODUCTS B TO B

PRODUCTS SERVICES

20.8%

40.3%

37.7%

EXECUTIVES MEET WITH CUSTOMERS FREQUENTLY

A P P E N D I X C - R e s p o n s e s by I n d u s t r y

(21)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

PRODUCTS

B TO B PRODUCTS

SERVICES

16.4% 16.4%

24.8%

CURRENT COMPENSATION PLAN EMPHASIZES QUALITY OF SERVICE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

PRODUCTS

B TO B PRODUCTS

SERVICES

30.3%

37.8%

50.0%

THE ROLE OF THE CUSTOMER IN THE ORGANIZATION IS WELL DEFINED

10%

15%

20%

25%

AGREEMENT 16.4% 16.4%

24.8%

(22)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

PRODUCTS

B TO B PRODUCTS

SERVICES

32.7%

43.5% 46.7%

OUR COMPANY DESERVES THE CUSTOMER’S LOYALTY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

PRODUCTS

B TO B PRODUCTS

SERVICES

53.1%

48.5%

37.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

PRODUCTS B TO B

PRODUCTS SERVICES

30.9% 31.3% 33.0%

EMPLOYEES HAVE THE TOOLS AND AUTHORITY TO SOLVE CUSTOMER PROBLEMS

(23)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

PRODUCTS

B TO B PRODUCTS

SERVICES

58.2%

65.7%

58.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

PRODUCTS

B TO B PRODUCTS

SERVICES

69.1%

76.6%

70.1%

OUR PRODUCTS / SERVICES ARE WORTH THE PRICES WE CHARGE

20%

30%

40%

50%

AGREEMENT 36.4%

46.5%

44.2%

WE CONDUCT TRUE DIALOGUE WITH CUSTOMERS

(24)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

PRODUCTS

B TO B PRODUCTS

SERVICES

25.5%

36.5%

25.8%

(25)

17.2%

13.7%

PARTICIPANT BY COMPANY SIZE (NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES)

38.8% ⁵⁰⁺

1000+ 500+

10,000+

50,000+

21.1% 9.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

OUR SIZE (IN EMPLOYEES) 48.3% 46.8%

38.2% 37.5%

34.0%

THE ROLE OF THE CUSTOMER IN THE ORGANIZATION IS WELL DEFINED

50+ 500+ 1000+ 10,000+ 50,000+

20%

30%

40%

50%

AGREEMENT

43.5%

27.7% 28.2% 26.5%

30.9%

EXECUTIVES MEET WITH CUSTOMERS FREQUENTLY

A P P E N D I X D - R e s p o n s e s by C o m p a ny S i ze ( I n E m p l oye e s )

(26)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

17.1% 16.5% 17.1%

21.8%

50+ 500+ 1000+ 10,000+ 50,000+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

35.4%

47.6%

43.7%

OUR COMPANY IS TRULY COMMITTED TO THE CUSTOMER

50+ 500+ 1000+ 10,000+ 50,000+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

44.7% 42.0% 47.3%

OUR COMPANY DESERVES MY LOYALTY AS AN EMPLOYEE

50+ 500+ 1000+ 10,000+ 50,000+

(27)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

42.5%

37.9%

34.9%

45.4%

OUR COMPANY DESERVES THE CUSTOMER’S LOYALTY

50+ 500+ 1000+ 10,000+ 50,000+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

44.7% 50.0% 52.4%

46.3%

50+ 500+ 1000+ 10,000+ 50,000+

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

AGREEMENT

37.9%

34.0%

24.5%

33.4%

23.6%

EMPLOYEES HAVE THE TOOLS AND AUTHORITY TO SOLVE CUSTOMER PROBLEMS

(28)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

51.0%

66.0%

52.4%

61.1%

50+ 500+ 1000+ 10,000+ 50,000+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

OUR SIZE (IN EMPLOYEES)

73.1% 71.8% 71.3% 72.6%

63.7%

OUR PRODUCTS / SERVICES ARE WORTH THE PRICES WE CHARGE

50+ 500+ 1000+ 10,000+ 50,000+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

40.5% 44.7%

29.1% 33.3%

WE CONDUCT TRUE DIALOGUE WITH CUSTOMER

50+ 500+ 1000+ 10,000+ 50,000+

(29)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

19.2%

28.1%

19.1%

35.7%

50+ 500+ 1000+ 10,000+ 50,000+

(30)

S t ra t i v i t y G ro u p

Strativity Group, Inc. is a global consulting firm advising organizations on creating lasting, profitable relationships with their customers and employees through the transformation of the strategies and execution to revolve around the customer experience. Customer Experience Management (CEM) strategies enable companies to bridge the inherent product focus and create true competitive advantages through focus on the customer.

Effective CEM strategies deliver fast, measurable return on investment within 6-9 months.

Strativity Group, Inc. works with both Global 2000 companies as well as emerging businesses around the world. Our clients include Computer Associates, FedEx Europe, Hewlett Packard, Honeywell, American

Management Association, SAP, Siemens, Seagate Technology, CDI Group plc, Orange, Tremco, Toyota, Tata Telecom, Herbalife, IPQC, Dimension Data, NICE Systems, Magic Software, Polivec and TMW Systems.

Strativity Group brings the experience and knowledge to allow organizations to successfully transform their business into a customer-centric operation.