Bookmark and Share Add RSS Feed   

The Empty Promises of Customer Satisfaction

May 26, 2010 – 4:28 am

In February 2006, ASQ’s Quality Progress published an article titled, “Link Satisfaction to Market Share and Profitability”.  Because this subject is of great interest too me, I grabbed a hold of it and began reading with great anticipation.  With sweaty palms I turned the pages, my breathing rapidly escalating, my eyes dilating as I poured over the contents.  At last I thought, someone is going to actually show me how satisfaction can be linked to market share growth and profitability.

The article promises the following:

  • Increased customer satisfaction can lead to increased market share and profitability.
  • There are several ways for organizations to link satisfaction data to financial performance data.
  • Organizations can choose their methods depending on the amount and type of data available.

Alas, there is nothing new here.  The article lays out a conceptual argument linking satisfaction with market share growth and profitability.   Unfortunately, neither in the article nor in the real world, is there any empirical evidence that shows a satisfied customer is a profitable customer.  This is what I call the “contented customer theory” which may make some intuitive sense but folds like a house of cards in the light of reality.

The article quickly devolves into a discussion of research design with measurement implications leaving the reader asking a ton of questions.  The basis of the article is summed up in a single sentence:

“The focus of this article includes variables presumed (emphasis added) to be the result of internal and external satisfaction, such as profitability, revenues, market share and share of wallet.”

Well there you have it.  Satisfaction is presumed to be a leading indicator or correlated with factors such as market share, revenues, etc. when it is not.  The author ignores a lot of research showing that satisfaction is not linked to market performance.  At best, satisfaction is a good transactional measure.  By that I mean it provides an assessment of how well the organization has performed on any number of customer interactions such as a sales experience, parts purchase, service work, billing inquiry, etc.

What the Six Sigma and quality community as well as the marketing profession should be focusing on is value – customer value.  This has been shown to be the best leading indicator of market share and top line revenue gains.  Check out Brad Gale’s book, Managing Customer Value or some of the articles written by Frederick Reichhold that provide a solid empirical foundation for eschewing the satisfaction – market share linkage.  In Best in Market: The New Imperative for U.S. Manufacturing (see end of blog for a complimentary copy) I detail the empirical research of Magnus Soderlund and Mats Vilgon who show that satisfaction has no linkage to market performance.  It’s well worth looking at.

As I indicated earlier, customer value is the best leading indicator of market share and top line revenue gains.  Enterprises that seek a systematic approach to market growth need to switch from customer satisfaction as their strategic metric to customer value.  But since measurement alone does not guarantee share growth, the enterprise will have to learn how to manage value to grow share.

The DNA of Six Sigma Marketing (SSM) is value.  SSM uses a fact based disciplined approach for growing share in targeted product/markets by providing superior value.  It is a systematic approach that replaces the hit-and-miss guessing, agenda driven approaches that are in place in many organizations by providing a strong accountability to the real role of marketing which is to drive business growth.

If your organization is still coupled to satisfaction and believes that the way to build market share is to grow satisfaction, start asking some hard questions about the satisfaction – share linkage.  Start by asking “What proof do you have that investing in satisfaction actually grows market share or revenues?”  If there is one single thing you can do to jump start your growth in market share that is learn to measure and manage the value you are providing to your targeted markets.

For a complimentary copy of my new book: Best in Market: The New Imperative for U.S. Manufacturing go to the contact page of www.6sigmarketing.com and download the pdf version.

  1. 4 Responses to “The Empty Promises of Customer Satisfaction”

  2. I find it interesting that when we try to correlate cause and effect relationships we take a closed minded approach to the analysis. Customer satisfaction appears to have been defined here as happy customers and therefore we look to transactional history and experiences to verify. What about product fit to market? Is this not part of customer satisfaction? If customers are not happy with product fit in terms of features, cost, performance etc. they will be dissatisfied and not purchase. Marketshare will suffer. I know of no company that pursues understanding of product fit as part of customer satisfaction

    By Les McPhee on Jun 1, 2010

  3. I also find it interesting to see satisfied customers leave for other alternatives because they get better value elsewhere. This is the problem with satisfaction as a “strategic metric” – a metric that assess our strategic health. Satisfied customers leave as do dissatisfied customers. Companies that enjoy high satisfaction scores can also be losing share. AT&T and Cadillac (1980s) are good examples. As market share dropped, those that remained loyal were satisfied until they found better value elsewhere. It may be in the way they measure satisfaction. If I understand your comment this is a problem. My overall point is that satisfaction scores do not predict market share changes.

    By Eric Reidenbach on Jun 1, 2010

  4. It appears that the deeper problem with trying to gage customer satisfaction is that customer’s are constantly bombarded with competing brands, and competing values amidst an economy that fluctuates. How does one measure customer satisfaction with this kind of dynamic? I think that linking the two as portrayed in the QP Magazine Article was shortsighted and somewhat misleading to today’s economy. If I have a winning team then my customer’s will be happier and supportive. If I have a dud team, very few people will spend money to support it. This happens all the time. Brand loyalty has lost its flavor because people have such an abundance of information in order to make decisions. They look out for themselves and don’t place much effort into being concerned to the producer.

    By Fred Newcomer on Jun 1, 2010

  5. Well…maybe. Here’s another look at developing and applying quantitative models of customer satisfaction and financial performance, but *it* includes management actions and employee satisfaction, too:

    “The Employee-Customer-Profit Chain at Sears,” _Harvard Business Review_,Jan-Feb 1998, pp 82-97.

    By Wayne G. Fischer, PhD on Jun 1, 2010

Post a Comment

Home  |  Q&A |  Ask a Question |  Articles  |  Videos |  Podcasts |  Interviews |  Columns |  Blogs |  Books |  White Papers
Webinars |  Conferences |  Networking |  Resources |  Advisory Board |  Join  |  Careers With IQPC  |  About |  Contact Us

Six Sigma IQ, a division of IQPC. 2009 All rights reserved.
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Privacy Policy.

e-BIM

e-BIM.com 2009 All rights reserved.
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.