Search

Despite scholarly critiques, use of the Net Promoter Score (NPS®) continues to grow in popularity among firms. Even researchers who criticize NPS recognize its potential for predicting desirable customer behaviors and revenue growth. However, a firm's goal in measuring NPS is not to simply assess it, but to be empowered to improve that score. This goal begs an important question: Does a "net promoter" study provide the insights that a firm needs to improve their NPS? The critical, but untested, assumption in NPS use is that the insights gained from open-ended customer comments in a net promoter study can be used to set improvement priorities that will increase future NPS likely-to-recommend ratings. Through two distinct studies, one in a business-to-business context with auto dealership decision-makers and one in a business-to-consumer context with vehicle repair customers, we investigate this assumption. Our results reveal that the critical untested assumption of a net promoter study is questionable. The convergence is low to moderate between open-ended priorities from a net promoter study and predictors of the standard 'likely-to-recommend' NPS question. We also find that the convergence between customers' open-ended priorities and their stated and derived priorities from closed-ended responses is higher for NPS detractors and passives than promoters, but it is still only moderate. The strength of this convergence of priorities is also impacted by the wording of the questions used to elicit customers' open-ended priorities. Firms using open-ended comments to set priorities should ask customers, especially detractors, to identify areas for improvement. In addition, they should supplement open-ended customer feedback with closed-ended questions to get customers' performance ratings in relation to their specific needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Every new product introduction entails a branding decision: whether to name the product using a direct extension, a sub-brand, or a new brand. While previous research has focused on how consumers evaluate alternatives in lab settings, or, in studies based on secondary data, on the effectiveness of brand extensions in general, a comprehensive framework of the antecedents and consequences of new product branding decisions is lacking from the literature. The authors propose a theoretical framework that organizes product-, category-, and firm-level determinants of firms' new product branding decisions, and empirically test the framework's predictions using a large sample of new product introductions, documenting with real world data how managers choose among three branding alternatives. In addition, using both product-specific and firm-specific valuation metrics, the authors quantify the negative impact on firm value of misaligning the new product branding decisions with the conditions facing new products. Conceptually, the authors bridge the branding and new product performance literatures, and present findings that extend knowledge from behavioral research on brand extensions. Empirically, the authors provide evidence to managers on how to choose brand names for new products in a way that enhances the stock market value of firms., Author(s): Larisa Kovalenko [sup.1] , Alina Sorescu [sup.2] , Mark B. Houston [sup.3] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.208226.c, 0000 0004 0444 7053, Boston College, , 140 Commonwealth Avenue, 02467, Chestnut Hill, [...]