This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
About the Net Promoter Score R


esearch has shown that NPS is linked to sustainable growth. Companies that


achieve long-term profitable growth have Net Promoter Scores twice that of the average company, while NPS leaders outgrow their competitors in most industries by an average of 250 per cent. In addition, a 12-point increase in NPS has been shown to lead to a doubling in company growth rate. One of the key messages from NPS is that


a satisfi ed customer doesn’t necessarily mean a loyal customer. When Bain and Satmetrix were carrying out the research that led to the development of NPS, they tracked customers who stated they were ‘satisfi ed’ with their product/service to see how many of them left


that service within a 12-month period. They discovered that on average 80 per cent of defectors claim to be satisfi ed. So how do we move the score? The only


way this happens is by putting in place a systematic and manageable procedure to create a service culture that hits the heart and mind. A typical customer service approach in the fi tness industry aims at deliverables such as value for money, best features and best price. These will deliver customer satisfaction, but won’t create promoters. To do this, you need to create an experience that delivers on ‘heart’ questions, such as, ‘do they value me?’ and ‘do they treat me as an individual?’ Research shows that this creates long-term promoters.


Gyms need a radical rethink on how they deliver customer experience, says Rollins Private single sites scored highest with


an average of 55 per cent (the inaugural survey scores ranged from 32–50 per cent). These were followed by the local authorities scoring 28 per cent (up from 27 per cent), the trusts at 23 per cent (up from 12 per cent) and the private multi-sites at minus 4 per cent (up from minus 16 per cent). It’s important to note that sector scores can improve without the overall industry NPS going up, as the latter is derived from all individual member scores – it is not an average of the sector scores. “The low score of the private multi-


do things, whether this be cultural changes or operational improvements to service delivery. At the moment, improvements in service delivery have stagnated, and without a radical rethink on how we train and deliver customer service, the customer experience will remain mediocre at best,” says Alister Rollins, founder of TRP. However, the breakdown leading


to the industry average 21 per cent net promoter score has shown small changes: November’s survey uncovered 42 per cent Promoters (up from 38 per cent in March 2011), but also a 4 per cent rise in Detractors to counterbalance this (up from 17 per cent in March to 21 per cent in November). Perhaps more concerning still is the


staggering gap between the best and worst performers, with the best club scoring 76 per cent and the worst scoring well below zero. This is very similar to the March 2011 results, where the worse sites scored well below zero, but there’s been a fall at the top end of the scale – in the inaugural survey, the best performing site scored in the 80s.


april 2012 © cybertrek 2012


sites could partly be put down to senior management not being involved in the day-to-day running of a centre as they are managing more than one site, and therefore decisions are being made centrally. This could mean that site managers have less autonomy to manage their own members. However, there is no real reason why any sector should outperform another, as it’s all down to the service culture they develop and the training they give their staff,” says Hill. Rollins adds: ”Implementing processes


to drive the culture of creating Promoters and to empower staff has seen signifi cant benefi ts in lots of organisations outside of our industry – including large, multi- branch private companies. These processes include root cause analysis to identify trends in Detractor feedback, rapid follow-up on Detractors and systems to monitor this contact, and a resulting follow-up contact with an update of how their issue has been dealt with. “Systems to monitor and reward


management on converting Detractors into Promoters helps to create an environment in which all employees are focused on this single customer-centric


aim, and have had great success in improving NPS. “TRP has already worked with several


operators to implement these proven processes in the health club business model. I believe that the private multi- sites in our industry can do the same, and therefore equal and exceed the scores of other sectors.”


million dollar question So how do the leisure scores compare to those in other UK industries? Hill explains: “Our best performers


are up there with the NPS high-fl yers like Amazon and Apple, but our worst performers are getting scores much lower than other sectors. Perhaps this is because of the high level of interaction in our service, giving the opportunity to really get things wrong, but also due to the ‘community’ basis of our centres and clubs, where recommendation and referrals are an essential part of our marketing and communications mix.” DC Leisure has been using NPS for


a couple of years and has recently had some interesting results. Steve Philpott, DC Leisure’s CEO, explains: “We did a recent analysis comparing NPS scores of our larger sites to their Quest scores, and it suggested that there was a good correlation between a higher than average NPS score and a higher than average Quest score. Further research needs to be done about which causes the other, but it seems common sense that a site with good systems and procedures, combined with excellent management and staff delivery, will lead to an improved NPS score.”


healthclub@leisuremedia.com donna gregory


Read Health Club Management online at healthclubmanagement.co.uk/digital 59


PIC: ANDRESR/WWW.SHUTTERSTOCK.COM


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84