顾客抱怨问题研究

Using Complaints for Quality Assurance Decisions1 © 1997, TARP, All Rights Reserved Regardless of the type of industry involved, Quality Assurance (QA) has traditionally depended upon systematic inspections as a source of information for decision making and subsequent product/service adjustment or modification. Typical strategies have been to examine the product in the plant, take it off the shelves in the store, examine service/warranty data from durable goods, examine a sample of service/account transactions, or survey the consumer who has purchased the product/service. Additionally, QA has traditionally seen its responsibility ending when the customer receives a product that meets internal product specifications. Therefore, problems in design, installation, distribution, and after sale use and maintenance were not fully addressed. This paper suggests how to quantify the implications of such problems and how to set priorities in allocating scarce QA resources to mitigate them. It has been suggested that customer complaints provide a valuable additional source of QA data. Further, it has been shown that using complaints in this manner is less costly than systematic sampling and inspection and provides more timely information than typically available from warranty data. An additional benefit of using complaint data accrues from the ability to diagnose the root, or underlying, cause(s) of the customer’s problem. By combining problem experience reports with other information from a comprehensive complaint 1 TARP can be reached at 1300 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 950, Arlington, VA 22209; 703- 524-1456; www.e-Satisfy.com. © 1997 TARP, All Rights Reserved 2 classification system, it is possible to discern such things as manufacturing defects vs. incorrect consumer expectations regarding the product/service.2 Each of these root causes of problems would require a different remediation strategy for effective prevention. Thus, complaint data can serve to improve QA’s ability to provide rapid feedback into the system to enhance the customer’s overall perception of product/service quality. In addition to identifying the specific problems which consumers are encountering, complaint data facilitates diagnosis of the root cause of many types of problems, especially those connected to product design, sales, distribution, and after-sale use and maintenance. Finally, complaint data can be used as a basis for extrapolation to the customer base to determine the potential market implications of the problem. This paper first outlines the quantifiable aspects of complaint behavior. Secondly, it provides a methodology for incorporating complaint data into decision making in terms of extrapolation to the marketplace and estimation of market impact for use in priority setting. Finally, limitations of complaint data are discussed. CUSTOMER BEHAVIOR In order to use complaint data for QA decisions, one needs a basic understanding of customer complaint and market behavior. This understanding provides the framework for interpreting the data and extrapolating it to the customer base. Specifically, the following are the eight factors about customer behavior that should be considered: ¨ There is a propensity for dissatisfied individual and business customers not to complain. 2 In fact, TARP has found that at least one third of consumers’ dissatisfaction with a product/service typically stems from either unfulfilled expectations or lack of knowledge regarding use, while one third stems from company policies and procedures and a final third from product defects. © 1997 TARP, All Rights Reserved 3 ¨ The problem complained about is not necessarily the same as the root cause of the problem. ¨ Retail and field sales and service organizations tend to filter and discourage complaints to manufacturers and corporate headquarters. ¨ By merely getting customers to articulate their problems, brand loyalty can be improved. ¨ The propensity to complain is directly proportional to the perceived severity of the problem. ¨ Those who do complain tend to be the heaviest users of the product/service. ¨ Increasing ease of access to the company and provider can reduce the ratio of complaints to problem instances in the marketplace. ¨ Problem experience, particularly in the case of consumers who remain unsatisfied, results in substantial amounts of negative communication to friends, family, and business associates, or word-of-mouth. Each of these factors is discussed in some detail on the following pages. Dissatisfied customers tend not to complain. Research by TARP3 and by A.C. Nielsen4 has ascertained that most customers will not complain when encountering a problem. TARP found that, for major problems where there would have been an average loss of $142, about 31 percent of individuals who encountered the problem did not complain. Nielsen found that, for small problems, which resulted in either a loss of a few dollars or a minor inconvenience, only 3 percent of consumers would complain and 30 percent would return the product. Further, 70 percent of consumers encountering this type of problem would either do nothing or discard the product. 3 TARP, Consumer Complaint Handling in America: Final Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs, 1979). 4 A.C. Nielsen Company, The Consumers' View of Product and Package Performance (Northbrook, Ill.: A.C. Nielsen Company, 1981). © 1997 TARP, All Rights Reserved 4 Moreover, in a survey of 1,000 businesses conducted by TARP,5 results indicated that 42 percent of the companies that encountered problems with a car rental company did not complain to anyone, even to the counter clerk. Finally, Shycon Associates6 found that almost 70 percent of corporate purchasing agents would take immediate punitive action against a company without complaining to either the sales person or the sales manager. Companies indicated it was easier to switch vendors than to complain. Complaints often do not directly identify the source or cause of the problem. The causes of customer dissatisfaction and questions can be grouped into three major categories. Exhibit 1: Causes of Dissatisfaction INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE CAUSED â Failure to follow policy/procedure â Defect in manufacturing/preparation COMPANY/RETAILER CAUSED â Product design, including normal operating characteristics â Marketing overpromises â Warranty terms â Inability to repair â Retailer sales policies â Product failure/reliability not due to defective manufacture â Service department policies CUSTOMER CAUSED 5 TARP, proprietary research for a major car rental company, 1979. 6 Shycon Associates, Inc., “Customer Service Study,” Traffic Management, September 1982, pp. 54-58. © 1997 TARP, All Rights Reserved 5 â Customer error/lack of education â Unreasonable customer expectations â Customer dishonesty TARP’s experience is that the distribution of problems across these three major cause categories is 20 percent, 40 percent, and 40 percent, respectively. By reviewing case closing information, the analytical staff can differentiate between and identify key company- and customer-based causes. Also, there may be several possible solutions to a particular problem. For example, an automobile company could either modify the “normal behavior” of a vehicle or make customers aware at the outset that particular behavior is to be expected. A major problem in the collection of customer problem data is a lack of differentiation between the reason for the complaint and the cause of the complaint. Customers usually discuss symptoms that are evident to them, not the underlying, or root, cause. TARP suggests that a company must classify customer contacts using either three or four categorization schemes. These are: ¨ Reason for contact; ¨ General cause; ¨ Root cause; and ¨ Reason for escalation (if applicable, to manager or headquarters unit). An example will illustrate the use of the four schemes. A consumer complains about a cancellation notice on his auto insurance policy. Rep: “You failed to pay your premium.” Customer: “I never got the premium notice.” Rep: “We sent it to 123 Main Street.” Customer: “But I live at 127 Main Street.” The reason for contact is that the customer’s policy was erroneously cancelled. The general cause is that the company has an incorrect address. The root cause would be the source of the incorrect address, which might be © 1997 TARP, All Rights Reserved 6 due either to a keying error or illegible information on the application sent in by the agent. If the company representative told the customer that s/he would have to reapply for insurance because the representative lacked authority to override the cancellation, the consumer might go to an executive or a regulator. The reason for escalation would be lack of front line authority. Front line representatives will almost always be able to identify reason for call and general cause. Root cause usually requires investigation, except in cases where consumers indicate that their mistakes or abuse caused the problem (as is sometimes the case, for, as mentioned, the consumer causes 30–40 percent of problems). Unless these several types of data are collected in significant detail, the data cannot be analyzed to produce actionable results. TARP usually finds that reps need to have an available list of at least 100–200 reasons for call to choose from in order to provide sufficient detail. With only minimal detail, the information is unlikely to be actionable. For example, airlines formerly used the category smoking complaint to characterize all smoking related complaints. This included “wanted to smoke but couldn’t” as well as “being seated in a smoking rather than a non-smoking section.” The generalized complaint format prevented airlines from identifying the general or root cause of the customer’s problem. Neither is the recording of customers’ verbatim responses sufficient. The text cannot easily be cross-tabulated and analyzed by the computer and manual case analysis after the fact is not practical for large volumes of customer contacts. Retail and field service systems filter and discourage complaints. The Nielsen survey7 discerned that, for package goods, only 1 person in 50 who encounters a problem will write a letter to the manufacturer. Therefore, in a letter-based environment, a package goods manufacturer, at best, only hears about 1 out of 50 problem experiences at the headquarters level unless the 7 Nielsen, Consumers' View. © 1997 TARP, All Rights Reserved 7 difficulty is severe (i.e., loss of substantial amount of money, threatening the consumer’s good name, or life threatening, etc.). TARP’s study8 found that less than half of those who complained to the retail level were satisfied. However, less than half of those who were dissatisfied bothered to escalate to the retailer’s headquarters or to the manufacturer. The retailer or field service outlet may handle or mishandle the complaint but, in any case, stops it from going further. Thus, complaint data must be extrapolated to the customer base to determine the potential severity of the problem; the absolute number of articulated complaints in a particular area cannot be considered in isolation. A key factor that must be taken into account is the potential extent to which the field or retail service systems have attenuated the signal received by headquarters. For example: ¨ After inadvertent production of a $20 defective ladies’ undergarment that tore during its first use, the customer or retailer returned only 1 in 2,000 of the defective garments. ¨ Fewer than half of the residential customers who experienced a billing problem with a telecommunications supplier articulated it to the company. Additionally, corporate clients have been found to complain to service technicians rather than account executives because of perceptions that marketing staff is powerless to solve technical problems. ¨ A business customer of a major computer company was told that his staff was the cause of system failures. Company headquarters did not realize there was a problem until the dissatisfied consumer placed an ad in the Wall Street Journal and was joined by 300 other companies in the action. Company regional sales representatives and management had decided the problem was customer incompetence and not product related, because each had heard only one or two complaints. ¨ The average customer who complained to the headquarters of a major credit card company had previously tried to use routine channels an average of six times. 8 TARP, Consumer Complaint Handling. © 1997 TARP, All Rights Reserved 8 ¨ Both medical products and insurance companies have found that sales representatives tend to pass on complaints only when it will ingratiate them with an important customer, or when the product is of such low margin that the sales staff would rather see it discontinued. Complaints provide a good rationale for discontinuing a product. The ratio of complaints heard at headquarters to the instances of occurrence in the marketplace (whether articulated or not) is called the multiplier. It ranges from 1:6 for serious problems, when there is no field or retail contact organization within, to1:2000 for less serious problems, when there is an extensive field service organization which can receive and absorb problems. This factor will be used later to extrapolate to the marketplace. By merely getting customers to articulate their problems, brand loyalty can be retained. The primary interest of any organization is to maximize sales/market share in the most profitable way. Customer satisfaction, therefore, is a means to an end—it is the way to retain customers. Getting customers to articulate their problems provides an effective mechanism to increase satisfaction/brand loyalty. Research by TARP in a study projectable to the United States population9 showed that: ¨ For consumers who experienced a problem with a potential financial loss of under $5.00: · 37 percent of those who did not articulate the problem stated that they would continue to buy the product; · 46 percent of those who did complain but were not satisfied by the company remained brand loyal;10 · 70 percent of those who articulated the problem and were satisfied remained brand loyal, and · more than 95 percent of complainants who were satisfied quickly remained brand loyal.11 9 Ibid. 10 TARP has identified several cases where getting complaints articulated does not lead to increased loyalty. If the complaint handling system is very bad it will further alienate the customer, resulting in lower repurchase. 11 TARP, Consumer Behavior and Corporate Response Mechanisms (Atlanta, GA: Coca- Cola U.S.A., 1985). © 1997 TARP, All Rights Reserved 9 ¨ For consumers who experienced a problem with a potential financial loss of over $100.00:12 · 9 percent of those who did not articulate the problem remained brand loyal; · 19 percent of those who articulated the problem but were not satisfied remained brand loyal, and · 54 percent of those who articulated the problem and were satisfied remained brand loyal. Thus, brand loyalty can be retained by encouraging consumers to complain. Even if the complaint handling mechanism is not able to satisfy the consumer, incremental brand loyalty can be achieved. Of course, if the complainant is satisfied, substantial amounts of brand loyalty can be obtained. Furthermore, in some sectors, TARP has found that a satisfied complainant is more loyal than a customer who did not experience a problem is. Increasing ease of access to the company/provider can reduce the complaint ratio, or multiplier. Research by TARP across both manufacturing and service industries has shown that the three most prevalent reasons that consumers don’t complain are the following: (1) it isn’t worth the time and trouble, (2) they don’t know how or where to complain, and (3) they don’t believe the company will do anything. By breaking down these perceived barriers to complaining, the company can successfully increase the percentage of customers who articulate their problems. The market implications of this type of aggressive complaint solicitation have already been discussed. ¨ Research conducted by TARP in the telecommunications industry showed that 7 out of 10 respondents who encountered a problem and did not articulate it would have complained if the company had maintained a toll- free telephone number. Overall, this aggressive solicitation strategy would reduce unarticulated dissatisfaction by more than half. 12 TARP, Consumer Complaint Handling. © 1997 TARP, All Rights Reserved 10 ¨ Research conducted by TARP for a manufacturer of household products found that the establishment of a toll-free telephone system for consumer contact led to a doubling of complaints to the manufacturer. Additionally, the mix of complaints was different. Many complaints were received which would have otherwise been handled and filtered by the retailer. Giving customers the opportunity to complain may seem costly, but the investment is well worth it. TARP research has found that those customers who complain are 2½ times more likely to repurchase and remain loyal than those who do not, simply by virtue of their opportunity to complain, whether or not they are satisfied. The propensity to complain is directly proportional to the perceived severity of the problem and the damage to the respondent. Consumers tend not to complain about those things that they consider to be minor inconveniences. Think about your own experience as a consumer —how many times have you complained about a mediocre meal in a restaurant or slow service in a department store? However, if the problem will cause a major financial loss or damage to a consumer’s reputation, the tendency to complain is much greater. ¨ Research conducted by TARP for a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment showed that significantly more purchasers of the high priced equipment articulated their problems than did purchasers of low or moderately priced equipment. Still, 30 percent of those with inoperable equipment never complained but simply discarded the $100 item. ¨ Research conducted by TARP for a provider of residential telecommunications service indicated that 6 out of 10 respondents who encountered a billing problem never complained. It was easier to pay the small amount in dispute than to voice the problem. That was due, at least in part, to the difficulty customers encountered in dealing with the company. ¨ TARP’s White House study found that, for major problems with an average loss of $142, 69 percent of the households complained, and half of those not satisfied complained a second time; while for package goods, only one third returned the item and only 1 in 50 wrote to headquarters. © 1997 TARP, All Rights Reserved 11 Complainers tend to be the heaviest users of the product/service. Consumers who are heavy users of a product or service are those who have made a commitment to the product/service. Thus, in a sense, they have a vested interest in having the company improve its product. These are the consumers who represent the potential for the most market damage if their loyalty is compromised. ¨ Research conducted by TARP for a provider of credit c