The Need for Granularity

I find it puzzling that certain brands seem to end up on both extremes of survey results regarding customer experience. That is, the same brands will appear on "the best" list for one survey and "the worst" for another survey that seem to be investigating how the brand is perceived by customers in terms of quality, satisfaction, reputation, and customer experience.

There are likely a number of factors that might cause this to happen: the design of the survey instrument, recent events to when the survey was conducted. And the like. But for the moment, I'm taken with the notion that broad-based surveys that ask customers about their experience with or opinion of a brand in general lack specificity, and as such gain a general impression of a brand that is exceptionally good in some regards and exceptionally bad in others.

It's particularly noxious in that fuzzy and contradictory information leads to fuzzy and contradictory decision-making. The perception is that because a given brand is highly rated, every single thing that it does is spot-on perfect ... when in truth, some of the things it does are really great, and some are really awful, and there needs to be greater granularity in order to understand the customer experience holistically.

Maybe that's thinking as an insider, a UX professional who's been rubbed a bit raw by constant suggestions that one company should imitate the practices of another that is more successful in certain aspects (because they have more customers, or more revenue, let's imitate them without hesitation or consideration). But I also have the sense that it's important as a customer to have a clearer understanding of what to expect from a given firm.

That is to say that "Brand X is great" is a dangerous statement to make, dangerous to accept, and especially dangerous to imitate without understanding what it is that leads to this general impression. I've considered whether it might be melodramatic to use the word "dangerous" in this context - but I think it's fair: if you make such a statement, your reputation may suffer when experience suggests otherwise; if you accept such advice, you may be misled; and if you imitate the practices, you may be doing more harm than good.

While general assessments have some value in spite of their vagueness, it seems to me that a more granular consideration is necessary to yield accurate and useful information: what is it that makes them great? And in the interest of balance, is there anything they do that isn't so great? My sense is that this is more telling, and identifies areas in which firms excel or need improvement, but may explain the seeming paradox that arises when a given brand ends up on the "best" of one survey and the "worst" list of another.

It's likely also fair to say that there is not a company out there that is absolutely excellent in every regard. Each firm generally focuses on doing a small number of things extremely well, and by intent or neglect ends up doing other things poorly, and that to have a better sense of what is to be valued/emulated, a more granular analysis is necessary:

• A retailer may offer the lowest prices, but a poor merchandise selection
• An electronics manufacturer may provide excellent products, but have deplorable tech support
• An online video rental service may have a remarkable shipping service, but a clumsy and awkward Web site
• A restaurant may have excellent cuisine, but a rude and surly wait staff

This may be crossing over into an entirely different consideration of what factors are important to a given customer - the natural conclusion being that a firm should focus on the factors that matter most to its particular market segment - but to stay on the present topic, the difference in this consideration could cause two people to have entirely different overall impressions, or even one person to give seemingly contradictory survey responses depending on the precise nature of the questions asked.

All in all, I think the conflict could be resolved if more information were available: that is, there might be greater agreement among survey results if surveys were more granular. While a brand might find itself on the best/worst lists when it comes to overall impressions, my sense is results would be more consistent if the question of whether brand X provides a serviceable product, whether the buying process is convenient, whether they provide good after-sale support, etc.

Even within those more specific categories, there is room for more specific investigation. The "buying process" might involve the ease of finding items, getting questions answered, the checkout process, etc. And "the checkout process" itself can be broken down into smaller actions and various facets. The more granular the assessment, the more accurate the assessment, and the more realistic the expectations a customer has when dealing with a firm.

I don't expect this information to be disclosed in public surveys: most people who are involved with a brand (customers and insiders alike) merely want to check the list to see how their brand stacks up, and it's hardly worth the effort for a publisher to disclose the full story. It might be available from research firms, for a fee. But most likely, individual firms will wish to keep this information under wraps, disclosing only what is favorable and hiding what is not in order to preserve their esteem.

So ultimately, the lesson to take from this is to seek more granular information where it is available, with the understanding that it likely will be inaccessible, and recognize that a blanket statement or general survey is likely too vague and idiosyncratic to be taken at face value.