Do your insights lack context?

"We're too focused on specific client responses."

"We can't extrapolate the results".

"Fee-earners push back saying 'that doesn't apply to my client'".

"How does our NPS score compare?"

The search for context

Do any of these sound familiar? I hear these types of comments all too often, from firms searching for context. They've finished a piece of seasonal research, like key client interviews or an annual survey. But something is missing. They can't connect the reports to what others are seeing and hearing across the firm. So the insights get pigeon-holed or worse, ignored all together.

The challenge with traditional approaches to client listening is that the results lack context. Context is vital for agile and informed decision-making. But traditional client listening insights are often created in isolation. That's because many firms are still listening in silos.

Let's look at a typical client survey that goes out once a year. It's a point in time snapshot of client needs and experiences. But not all clients will get it. Regardless of which month the bulk mailer is sent, it will be the "wrong time" for many clients.

So the results are already skewed to reflect the clients that fee-earners want to hear from. Also, surveys aren't the only way that clients share feedback (see 'how big are your client listening ears'). Clients are also sharing feedback in meetings, complaints, directories, interviews etc. Analysing the survey results in isolation is further restricting the available insights.

So what?

This is how client listening has always worked. You could argue that Boards have been happy with the insights they've been getting. Before the pandemic I would have largely agreed with you.

Client engagement in 2023 is different. Clients are dealing with hybrid working, digitised services and new competitive alternatives. In response, your clients needs and expectations continue to evolve.

Once upon a time, a survey every couple of years was enough to show where things had changed. If you waited that long now, you'd have already lost the client - emotionally if not yet contractually.

These days your clients expect to be heard. Each client is also a consumer of 1,000s of products. Consumers expect brands to be listening to their individual and collective voices. These expectations don't disappear when they go to work.

Supporting agile and evidence-based decision-making

On the other side of the table, your Board wants to be listening. During lockdown, many firms had BD teams phoning clients and sharing weekly updates. Updates the Board used to inform their next moves.

The updates may have stopped, but the insight need hasn't gone away. Boards want to make agile and evidence-based decisions. That evidence comes from giving feedback results context. The agility comes from being able to report this context quickly.

The case against NPS benchmarking

NPS benchmarking does not provide context. At best it's like a game of Top Trumps.

It seems like the easy answer. NPS is widely measured so comparing results must provide context. There are several problems with this approach:

• If your firm still operates an 'opt-in' approach to client listening, then your NPS is skewed. You will only be asking the NPS question to clients likely to give higher scores.
• Most other firms in the comparison set are operating an 'opt-in' approach to feedback as well. So their scores are also inflated.
• Comparing numbers is interesting but not insightful. Unless you know why your NPS is lower or higher than the other nameless firms, you still don't have context for a decision.

Giving your insights real context

Fortunately the alternative is right in front of you. Your firm is striving to differentiate from the competition, not sit alongside it. You want your brand to standout in the market, to be the first one that people refer. Playing top trumps with NPS scores won't help you.

I'm not bashing NPS. It's still a great measure when used properly. When the right question is asked of all clients at the right time. But context comes from understanding why a number is what it is. Why it's gone up and down. Why it's higher or lower than a meaningful alternative. These insights can all be generated through internal benchmarking.

To generate this real context:

(1) Define what your firm stands for.

How do you want to be talked about by your clients? What experiences will they share? How will you have made them feel? What do you want clients to experience, regardless of the team they engage with?

(2) Establish simple measures of your brand experience.

What ratings questions could you ask all your clients, from all service lines, at any stage of the client journey? These need to be simple 5-pt scale questions that ask about current experiences.

(3) Ask for context with open questions.

Measures alone tell you nothing. So ask why they feel that way, to learn what's behind the experiences. 'What are we doing well' and 'what can we do better' are my two favourite questions. Don't lead the jury. Ask a simple open question and then stand back.

(4) Use these questions regularly.

Ask all clients, at all stages of the client journey. Include them in annual surveys, end of project surveys, mid-matter surveys, post-onboarding surveys.

(5) Compare results across sectors, practice areas and stages of the client journey.

This is where the rubber hits the road. Where you create context and drive action. Perhaps you're measuring expertise, responsiveness or innovation. Which parts of the firm score most highly? Dig into the text responses to find out why. Go talk to those teams. Find out if they are doing something differently to the rest of the firm and how that winning approach could be replicated.

External benchmarking is a vanity metric because it lacks context. if your firm wants to strengthen your relationships, reputations or revenues then internal benchmarking is the way to go. Internal benchmarking gives you the context to drive agile and evidence-based decisions.

That's important, because the firms that can discover and respond to client needs faster, have a competitive advantage.

---

The feedback flywheel

Giving results context is the 4th step on the feedback flywheel. If you'd like to read my newsletter articles about the early steps, the previous posts are here:

• Always be listening
• Centralise the data
• Automate the analysis

#ClientListening #b2bmarketing #clientexperience

MyCustomerLens | always-on listening