Net Promoter Score – a flawed science?

Yesterday, I attended a WOM UK espresso breakfast briefing with Professor of Consumer Behaviour Dr Robert East from our very own Kingston University.

Dr East and his MBA students have been researching consumer behaviour and word for mouth for 10 years.

Without serious funding they don’t have the data to prove the validity of their model conclusively, but their research indicates that the well accepted Net Promoter Score word of mouth measure for predicting growth is flawed.

NPS asks the question ‘would you recommend this brand’. Respondents are then rated 0 – 10, with 0-6 ranking as detractors, 7 and 8 passives and 9 and 10 as promoters. The NPS score is then calculated by subtracting the average of the detractors from the average of the promoters.

Dr East contends that in only measuring the volume of given word of mouth, positive versus negative without measuring received word of mouth or the impact of WOM in general, NPS misses a trick. Not to mention the fact that the people most likely to offer negative word of mouth are ex-customers who are not surveyed.

The resources of Kingston University don’t lend themselves to the level of data crunching research required to prove the validity of Dr East’s methodology. This is a shame as I think the results could be rather interesting. I’ll certainly be keeping my eyes open for a potential research partner for his department.

I’m also keen to see more thinking done around the customer experience in relation to professional services. With such a complicated purchasing relationship, can a measure as simple as NPS be effective in measuring a client/agency relationship? Can we ever hope to achieve the kind of high NPS scores enjoyed by companies such as online retailers or supermarkets that have traditionally invested heavily in how they shape their customers’ experience?

Dr East argues that there is far more positive word of mouth than negative and that negative word of mouth doesn’t necessarily have the most impact. But if I’ve taken one thing away from the talk it is that we need to be addressing past clients in addition to existing when it comes to assessing our own performance.

At the end of the day NPS may be an imperfect tool for measurement. And it may be better suited to consumer retail. But we have to start somewhere because if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Latest Posts

B2B marketing feels slower because you’re selling to a buying group, not a decision maker. Forrester says the average buying decision involves 13 people and 89% of purchases involve two or more departments. Add three generations with different trust cues and you get rework, internal debate, and “one more version” forever. Buyers are also doing more research without sales, which makes guessing expensive. This LinkedIn Live with Tejal Patel is about buyer behaviour, trust cues, and what social is doing in research and validation, so you can build one narrative that travels across the group and saves your team time.
Read More
We’re only a couple of weeks into 2026, and social already feels…different, in the best way possible. This year isn’t just about flashy new features or the next viral sound; it’s about making the internet feel more human, more useful, and a lot less exhausting.
Read More
Buyers are hunting answers, and social is deciding who they trust The short answer Mahoosive behaviour change for customers is already here. Search is being replaced by an answer layer, and social is feeding it. When Google’s AI Overviews show up, people click less, sessions end sooner, and your carefully-crafted…
Read More