Case Study: Customer Experience
The Challenge
A healthcare provider with exceptionally high customer satisfaction was losing more than fair share of clients after they attended appointments. They wanted to understand what was causing this given the high NPS suggesting appointments were excellent
Our Approach
-
Synthesized existing Voice of Customer data with operational data to be able to look at differences in the journey for customers who were retained vs lapsed
-
Complimented internal Voice of Customer research with an unbranded total market study to remove bias from the brands responses and compare the experience to competition
-
In addition to satisfaction, we asked clients about their likelihood of using provider again and audited the specific steps in the journey to understand what activities drove satisfaction and willingness to return
Insights Received
-
Amongst new entrants to the category there was an almost inverse correlation between high satisfaction and retained clients for both the brand and their competition. The most satisfied clients were also the most likely to switch to a different provider the following year when they did their next check-up. The clients most likely to return were “neutral” on the NPS scale (scoring 7 or 8 out of 10)
-
Whilst the brand had highest number of advocates, competition had more “neutral customers”, and higher retention.
-
Clients perceived the experience between the brand their competition as clearly very different. But whilst internally there was a strong belief that this difference = better, the total market study revealed that it was just different, and over time customers settled with the provider who best fitted with the experience they wanted and rated competitions CX just as highly.
-
A key episode in the first appointment was identified as delivering a clear medical diagnosis; when the clinician failed to deliver a “negative” result with confidence, customer left very happy but ultimately lapsed.
Clarity Delivered
-
Clinicians prided themselves in delivering diagnosis’ gently and believed that was a superior CX. But the study revealed gentle delivery was often not landing, and whilst clients were initially pleased to “hear” they did not have a medical issue, over time as they continued to experience issues, they came to doubt the diagnosis and sought a secondary opinion from a different brand who delivered a clear diagnosis and ultimately were able to resolve the issue.
-
As the clientele transitioned from being mainly “Silent Generation” to predominately “Baby Boomers”, clients were becoming much more likely to challenge their diagnosis and get a second opinion early. As a result, where “older” clients had returned year after year for gentle diagnosis and acted 3-5 years after the first appointment, these “younger” clients were moving to a second opinion within months. Even though nothing had changed in how the brand’s clinician's had delivered diagnosis, the shifting generations meant it was now having a very significant impact on client retention
-
The definition of great CX needed to be, and be seen internally as, different to great medical care. And that metric needed to be more than just NPS, we needed to include whether the client had received a clear diagnosis so they could act on their health opportunity
Business Outcomes
-
A customer-centric cultural program was developed internally to start to educate about the difference between great CX and great medical practice, with new standards of care being developed to meet both needs
-
Internal Voice of Customer research was expanded to include the client's recollection of diagnosis, as a metric for great CX
-
A close the loop step was introduced off the back of “misunderstood diagnosis” with follow up care calls and a clearer diagnosis delivered by a specialized team
