Talk:Net promoter score/Archives/2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup of promotional material

I gave it another go, removing a great deal material sourced by self-published references, as well as revisiting some previous problems that I don't think were addressed well. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Good work, Ronz. Streamlined the article significantly. But I still see two major problems:
  1. At this point, this entry seems more about the criticism than the subject itself. Seems unbalanced now. Some of the cited criticism seems oddly off topic (ratings scales, for example)
  2. While the web site of Reichheld/Bain was deemed "promotional," the website of Satmetrix was not? Now not sure what the standard is. Or was it just the way each was labeled. One claims to be "official," but it is not clear if it is anything more than a site promoting Satmetrix software and services. The other one seems more cleanly devoted to the topic of this entry. But both seem good. Certainly didn't intend "promotion" here. Still learning.

-- Elvira100 (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.
Yes, the criticism section is overly long, providing far too much information on the researchers.
I don't understand what you're referring to regarding Satmetrix. I removed the link. It wasn't being used as a reference but was just a link to their site. The relevant guideline is WP:EL. Are you referring to that or something else? --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The criticism section is not long enough. When a metric like NPS has so much peer-reviewed and citiqued papers weighted against it then that should take precedence. I might add 2 things: (a) NPS isn't even analogous to itself. The assumption that just because people tick a 9 or 10 they are going to recommend or 0-6 and they are not, is in consistent with its own scale. And there is no proof that this behaviour happens. Satmetrix promotes NPS: they sell software systems to measure it, so removing references is fine. I would keep references to peer-reviewed documents not spin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.73.23 (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is indeed unbalanced, and a lot of the cited criticism does not stand up to close examination. I have been leading this area for years for the software division of HP and we have been able to prove (1) that it is a great predictor of revenue compared to competitors (2) that it works better than other common metrics for most, but not all purproses and (3) that it is far easier to communicate that any other method. While it does have defects, notably its sensitivity to response rates, these are outweighed by lots of other factors. I will see if I can find a way of editing the article to provide some new insights and more balance. (Maurice FitzGerald, VP Customer Experience, Hewlett Packard Enteprise - Software) Mtfitzgerald8 (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I just read one referenced article in detail and it needs to be removed. It is reference 26, by Morgan and Wigo. They are very careful to avoid using the term NPS or Net Promoter Score in their article because they did not do a comparison with NPS, but with two other questions. They then called the result the Net Promoter result, but it is a different metric. On page 429 of their article, they state "We utilize ACSI data concerning consumer responses to the questions “Have you discussed your experiences with [brand or company x] with anyone?” and “Have you formally or informally complained about your experiences with [brand or company x]?” This is not the NPS question. The citation here should be removed --> "Our results indicate that average satisfaction scores have the greatest value in predicting future business performance and that Top 2 Box satisfaction scores also have good predictive value." [26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtfitzgerald8 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

On reading this article in detail by Morgan and Rego, I agree that it is not relevant to this page and have removed the reference to it. Thank you for pointing this out. In future, you may make these types of revisions yourself, unless doing so would violate WP:COI.
Elvira100 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

NPS: metric or software?

It seems like Net Promoter Score can either refer to a metric (i.e. a concept) or a software product with that name that does stuff related to the concept. It seems like these should be broken up into two separate articles and have a disambiguation page. Alternatively, it could be kept in a single article, but if so it makes more sense to have the metric/concept be the focus or first-mentioned thing (especially since it came first chronologically) and mention the software second. Showeropera (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Request change to misrepresented quote

I'm requesting the removal of the following sentence that appears near the beginning of the "criticism" section on the Net Promoter page:

"Even Fred Reicheld, the inventor of NPS, admits that the initial research for NPS was flawed: "A number of perspicacious readers have noted that the statistical evidence provided in my book The Ultimate Question is imperfect. It does not provide proof of a causal connection between NPS and growth. Nor are some of the timeframes ideal."[20]"

The statement is a misrepresentation of Reichheld's views on the NPS research. It cites a Reichheld blog post from 2006 (http://netpromoter.typepad.com/fred_reichheld/2006/07/questions_about.html), taking the quote out of context to draw a false conclusion that Reichheld thinks the NPS research was flawed. The following excerpt appears in the same blog post immediately after the quote above and demonstrates that Reichheld quite strongly believes in the validity of the research:

"When the manuscript was completed in mid-2005, that data, imperfect as it was, represented the best available information: 8 quarters of NPS and annual organic revenue growth rates for competitors in a dozen or so industries. Today, this database has grown enormously. Bain has conducted additional research in scores of industries around the world, gathering NPS data and apples-to-apples revenue-growth statistics for individual competitors. Bain teams consistently find that NPS explains the majority of variation in organic growth rates across an industry over many time periods. More importantly, we have found that individual customer responses to the ultimate question predict those customers’ subsequent behaviors across the multiple drivers of profitable growth: repurchase rates, margins, cross-sell, retention, referrals, etc. Many companies, including GE, Intuit, eBay, American Express, and others have seen similar results."

I believe this section, along with some of the other criticism included on the page (most notably the unsupported assertion that NPS is "Culturally insensitive"), was added to promote an agenda, rather than provide neutral, balanced and well-supported information about the topic consistent with Wikipedia's mission. Thanks for your consideration.

Thank you for your thoughtful request. On review of the source blog post, it does seem clear that the quote in this section was not representative of the spirit its author intended. Therefore, it does seem to violate NPOV criteria and will be removed.
(Note: next time, please sign your request.)
Elvira100 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your note and for following up on this Elvira100.
I'd also like to request the removal of the following criticism. The claim that NPS is "culturally insensitive" is an inflammatory claim and based purely on conjecture and opinion, since no relevant source is cited. Could you also remove that statement on the basis of its lack of evidence and support?
"Culturally insensitive. The validity of NPS scale cut-off points across industries and cultures has also been questioned.[citation needed]"
Thanks again for your consideration.
(Robbrosell (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC))
Robbrosell I think this one requires a little more time. It appears that the citation needed tag was only added about 7 months ago. Now that you have flagged this, it seems prudent to wait just a little while and allow others to provide support, if they have it. If not, then it can be deleted. As an alternative, it may be deleted by consensus, if others agree. Elvira100 (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The criticism in question is no longer present in the article (having been removed by another editor a while ago). Request closed. Regards, VB00 (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Bad Bloomberg reference?

I'm not really sure if this is a problem or not, but it looks like reference #2 (link) is behind a paywall or something, I'm having trouble accessing it without subscribing to something, and want to use it to cite the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.197.114.172 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Happens often; there is no requirement for a reference to be free or even online. I don't have access to that service, but others may be able to help you. There are options covered at WP:PAYWALL. Kuru (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Net Promoter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Net Promoter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Net_promoter_score/Archives/2017&oldid=1164974586"