I got a big surprise from the CEO of a supermarket brand when the low service scores in our Mystery Shopper research turned out to map to the stores with the best financial results.
And I’m delighted that Bruce Temkin has weighed in on this post — you’ll see his comments as you carry on reading.
This article is part of our Mystery Shopper Research Series and our Customer Experience Hub.
A Supermarket Brand in Malaysia
Decades ago, we were hired to conduct Mystery Shopper research for 11 stores of a popular supermarket brand in Malaysia.
Our job was straightforward: send Shoppers into the stores, observe and measure service across about 20 attributes, and then compile the results.
The Client had already selected their attributes in advance, while we added value by clarifying attribute definitions and scoring logic.
Three Stores Scored Lower
When we finished, a clear finding had emerged.
Three of the stores — in the bigger towns and cities — had performed significantly worse than the rest.
Our Client contact was pleased with our report package and invited us to present the findings to the CEO — the founder of this discount-style supermarket brand.
After we presented our results — in a makeshift conference room above a warehouse — the CEO looked at us and said something I’ll never forget:
“Did you know that the three stores you scored the lowest are actually the ones that perform best for us financially?”
What I Learned That Day
I admit I didn’t have a good response to the CEO’s comment. And it was clear that he had already dismissed the research program as irrelevant.
- Our findings told a service experience story.
- The CEO’s data told a business performance story.
Every reader can guess which story mattered more to the CEO. And in our work, I had failed to connect the two.
The Tension That Remains
Here’s a question that this experience raised:
Should the CEO have made at least some of the improvements we had identified in those lower-performing stores? Or was financial performance the only answer he needed?
This is where Bruce Temkin’s perspective helps sharpen the lesson:
“I really like this article, as it sheds light on the misconception of the absolute belief that any and all improvements in customer experience are worthy of investment.” — Bruce Temkin
There’s a misconception that every CX improvement is automatically worth the investment.
In reality, leaders must choose the few improvements that matter most in their specific context.
How I See It Now — 20 Years Later
If I could go back in time, I’d start by clarifying the true objectives with senior leadership — not just follow a preselected list of attributes.
Up to that point in our Mystery Shopper programs, we had mostly worked with Clients who undertook the research because they cared deeply about service — and for them, that was reason enough.
That lulled us into thinking every Client valued the same things.
This Client Was Different
Because financial performance is always a driver for senior leaders, we could have reviewed each of the 20 attributes up front to connect a business case.
For example:
In the event of long queue times at the fish & meat counter, could placing another staff member there at peak times reduce wait times and allow the counter to turn over more sales more quickly?
It was never about CX versus financial performance.
The work needed to show how experience improvements could drive the results leaders care about — that’s the lesson I learned sitting at a makeshift conference table in the Kuala Lumpur suburbs.
Benchmarks: Compare Like with Like
Bruce Temkin also points out that this wasn’t only about linking CX to financial performance — it was also about how we compare performance in the first place.
“What jumped out to me is the fact that benchmarks are inherently flawed. When you compare results across organizations (internal stores or external companies), the assumption is that customers (and their needs), employees (and their skills and needs), and capital (availability) are equivalent. And therefore they should all be striving for the same results. But those assumptions are flawed. No two organizations are identical.” — Bruce Temkin
In practice, that means favoring internal comparisons (or peer clusters like the three big-city stores) over broad benchmarks across unlike environments.
Closing Thoughts
That meeting was humbling, and it set the course for how I’ve approached CX ever since: by ensuring the experience story and the business story are told together.
And thanks to that Malaysian CEO, a lesson that is as relevant today as it was 20 years ago.
Thank you for reading!
I regularly share stories, strategies, and insights from our work across Contact Centers, Customer Service, and Customer Experience. If this resonates, I’d love to stay connected.
You can drop me a line anytime, or subscribe via our website.
Daniel Ord
[email protected]
www.omnitouchinternational.com
Photo credit: Buddy An via Unsplash