PreprintPDF Available

Customer experience quality surpasses NPS in correlation to financial performance, customer loyalty and customer satisfaction

Authors:
  • Independent Researcher
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract

Customer loyalty and satisfaction drives business. For over a decade, NPS has been touted as the most important measure of loyalty and predictor of business growth, even as researchers have struggled to consistently prove the claim. Other measures of customer experience, loyalty and satisfaction have arisen that challenge the supremacy of NPS, even as hundreds of companies rely on NPS for its simplicity and promise of business growth. Measuring 1605 US-based customers of US publicly traded companies, this study has found that while NPS was positively and significantly correlated with customer loyalty, satisfaction, and financial performance, customer experience quality (CEQ) surpassed NPS in all three measures. The research also showed that CEQ was strongly correlated with NPS, suggesting that the two metrics are synergistic. The findings demonstrate that there is provable value in exploring metrics beyond NPS that companies may be missing and thereby limiting their growth and competitiveness.
Customer experience quality surpasses NPS in correlation to financial performance, customer loyalty
and customer satisfaction
Michele Bennett, PhD
Anthony Molisani, PhD, MPH
Last Updated April 15, 2020
Supported by Avanade
Abstract
Customer loyalty and satisfaction drives business. For over a decade, NPS has been touted as the most
important measure of loyalty and predictor of business growth, even as researchers have struggled to
consistently prove the claim. Other measures of customer experience, loyalty and satisfaction have
arisen that challenge the supremacy of NPS, even as hundreds of companies rely on NPS for its simplicity
and promise of business growth. Measuring 1605 US-based customers of US publicly traded companies,
this study has found that while NPS was positively and significantly correlated with customer loyalty,
satisfaction, and financial performance, customer experience quality (CEQ) surpassed NPS in all three
measures. The research also showed that CEQ was strongly correlated with NPS, suggesting that the two
metrics are synergistic. The findings demonstrate that there is provable value in exploring metrics
beyond NPS that companies may be missing and thereby limiting their growth and competitiveness.
1.0 Introduction
In 2001, Fredrick Reichheld (2003) found that Enterprise Rent-A-Car measured the customer experiences
of their offices on two aspects, quality of experience and willingness to rent again, and only counted the
highest ratings. Enterprise also found that the highest ratings correlated to profitability. From these
learnings, the Net Promoter Score was created as a hallmark of customer loyalty (Reichheld, 2003), and
has maintained its relevance to this day as hundreds of companies anxiously await and track their scores
and those of their competitors (Gill, McCarthy, & Grimmett, 2019).
However, over the years, researchers have struggled to reproduce the foundational results (Reichheld,
2003) showing NPS has a strong and positive impact on profitability and customer satisfaction (Eklof,
Podkorytova, & Malova, 2018; Kristensen, & Esklldsen, 2014). Other metrics also have outperformed
NPS in measuring loyalty and financial performance (Keiningham, Cooil, Wallin Andreassen, & Aksoy,
2007). In addition, NPS ignores one of original premises of Enterprise’s measures quality of experience
(Reichheld, 2003), and that quality of customer experience can be more consequential to a company’s
bottom line than NPS (Maklan & Klaus, 2011; Mbama, 2018).
This research posits that NPS falls short of Reichheld’s (2003) claim that it is the ultimate measure of
customer loyalty and corporate growth, and that quality of experience is more impactful to customer
satisfaction, loyalty, and financial performance. Companies relying on NPS as their primary customer
metric are missing shortfalls in customer experiences that could be costing customers and profitability.
2.0 Literature Review
2.1. Net Promoter Score (NPS)
Net Promoter Score (NPS) has long been held as one of the most important measurement of customer
experience since its inception (Gill et al., 2019; Reichheld, 2003). Reichheld (2003) reported that the
answer to the simple NPS question, “How likely is it that you would recommend [company X] to a friend
or colleague?” (p.49), was aligned with revenue growth, and is the most important metric that a
business needs to track for success.
Over the years, other studies have sought to replicate the results of Reichheld (2003) with varying
outcomes. For example, Keiningham et al. (2007) found that while NPS was correlated with revenue
growth, however demonstrated that American Customer Satisfaction Index (ASCI) had a stronger
correlation to revenue than NPS, putting the first crack into the superiority of NPS. ASCI is a
multidimensional customer metric that includes customer satisfaction, customer expectations,
perceived quality, perceived value, customer complaints, customer loyalty (ASCI, 2019) and is a similar
definition to the one used in this research, which is also part of a larger study (Bennett & Molisani,
2020).
In more recent studies, NPS has been shown to be a poor predictor of customer loyalty and satisfaction
(Kristensen, & Esklldsen, 2014), with the ASCI and European Performance Satisfaction Index (EPSI) have
been found to be more reliable, trustworthy, and consistent measures of customer satisfaction and
financial performance (Eklof et al., 2018; Kristensen, & Esklldsen, 2014). Study authors caution against
using NPS as a sole, or even the most critical tool for customer experience decisions.
2.2 Customer Experience Quality (CEQ)
Metrics such as ASCI and EPSI have become more prominent in the last few years, and define a
multidimensional perspective of customer experience that includes constructs such as corporate image,
customer expectations, perceived value, product quality, customer loyalty, and service quality (Eklof,
Podkorytova, & Malova, 2018; Kristensen, & Esklldsen, 2014). The concept of Customer Experience
Quality (CEQ) was developed to identify the most important attributes that align with customer loyalty,
satisfaction and recommendations for relationship marketing and customer experience programs
(Maklan & Klaus, 2011). CEQ was defined by Maklan and Klaus (2011) as constructs around peace of
mind (including expertise, process ease, convenience, relationships); outcome focus (including results-
focused, innovation, past experience); moments of truth (flexibility, perceived risk, interpersonal skills,
service quality); and product experience (freedom of choice, comparisons, and employee experience).
The definition suited the banking industry as it evolved from products and services to experiences as the
new competitive differentiator (Lemke, Clarke, and Wilson, 2011; Maklan & Klaus, 2011).
Mbama (2018) used Maklan and Klaus (2011) and additional existing research (Gronholdt, 2019; Lemke
et al., 2011) to define a definition of CEQ that could span industries and could measure financial
performance. This research used the base assumptions and constructs of Mbama (2018) and defined
CEQ as perceived value, convenience, functional quality, service quality, brand trust, employee-customer
engagement, perceived usability, perceived risk, and technical innovation. The financial performance
metric used in this study is market capitalization. Market capitalization (MC) has a strong and growing
impact on the economy and is a recognized global metric of the value of a company (Pavone, 2019).
3.0 Research Methodology
3.1 Conceptual Model for Research
Given the differences in findings across studies concerning NPS and its relationship with loyalty and
satisfaction, differing definitions of customer experience, and inconsistent findings, this study extends
the work of others (Gronholdt, 2019; Lemke et al. 2011; Maklan & Klaus, 2011; Mbama, 2018), and
examined the relationships between CEQ, NPS, CLY, CSAT, and financial performance.
An online questionnaire was used to collect data from 1605 US-based customers of US publicly traded
companies in February 2019. The questionnaire asked participants about their perceptions and beliefs
about the companies with which they do business or from which they purchase. The 54 questions were
aligned with the factors positioned in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model for Research
3.2 Hypothesis Development
Multi-dimensional customer experience metrics similar to CEQ have been shown to the correlated with
financial performance (Gronholdt, 2019) as well as to customer satisfaction and loyalty (Mbama (2018)
but not all studies have found connections between customer experience, loyalty, satisfaction, and
financial performance (James, James, Babin, & Parker, 2019).
Studies have also struggled to repeat Reichheld (2003) and NPS correlations with financial performance
(Kristensen & Eskildsen, 2014), and have shown disparity of findings with customer loyalty and
satisfaction (Keiningham et al., 2007; Kristensen & Eskilden, 2014) However, Mbama (2018) found NPS
highly correlated with loyalty but not with satisfaction, differing from Reichheld (2003), and not with
CEQ, aligning with Keingham et al. (2007).
Therefore, this study seeks to provide more information to the body of knowledge surrounding
customer experience concepts and financial performance.
3.2.1 CEQ Hypotheses
Perceived Value
Convenience
Functional Quality
Service Quality
Brand Trust
Customer-Employee
Engagement
Perceived Usability
Perceived Risk
Technical Innovation
Financial Performance
D
Customer Experience
Quality
Net Promoter Score
(NPS) Customer Loyalty
Customer Satisfaction
H10
H1
H10
H4
H10
H6
H10
H10 H2
H3
H5
H5
H10
H7
H1: There is a significant correlation between CEQ and MC
H2: There is a significant correlation between CEQ and CLY
H3: There is a significant correlation between CEQ and CSAT
3.2.2 NPS Hypotheses
H4: There is a significant correlation between NPS and MC
H5: There is a significant correlation between NPS and CLY
H6: There is a significant correlation between NPS and CSAT
3.2.3 CEQ and NPS
H7: There is a significant correlation between CEQ and NPS
4.0 Research Findings
The multi-dimensional CEQ was positively and significantly correlated with MC and stronger than the
correlation between NPS and MC as shown in Table 1. The study accepted H1 and H4 contrary to
Mbama (2018) but in support of Gronholdt (2019).
CEQ was strongly and significantly correlated with CLY and CSAT, supporting Klaus and Maklan (2013),
Maklan and Klaus (2011) and Mbama (2018), and the study accepted H2 and H3. NPS was also strongly
and positively correlated with CLY and CSAT, and the study accepted H5 and H6. Mbama (2018) did not
find a positive relationship between NPS and CSAT. but did between NPS and CLY. Kristensen and
Eskildsen (2014) found NPS to have a weak and unreliable relationship between CSAT and CLY, and the
relationship between CLY and CSAT was stronger with CEQ than with NPS. The results of this study align
with Kristensen and Esklidsen (2014).
NPS and CEQ were strongly and positively correlated, which is counter to the findings of Keingham et al.
(2007) and Mbama (2018). The study accepted H7, which is a novel finding.
Table 1: Correlation Results
Hypothesis
Pearson Correlation
Outcome
H1: There is a significant correlation
between CEQ and MC
r = .118, p = .000**
Accept
H2: There is a significant correlation
between CEQ and CLY
r = .841, p = .000**
Accept
H3: There is a significant correlation
between CEQ and CSAT
r =. 781, p = .000**
Accept
H4: There is a significant correlation
between NPS and MC
r = .086, p = .000**
Accept
H5: There is a significant correlation
between NPS and CLY
r = .799, p = .000**
Accept
H6: There is a significant correlation
between NPS and CSAT
r =. 697, p = .000**
Accept
Hypothesis
Pearson Correlation
Outcome
H7: There is a significant correlation
between CEQ and NPS
r =. 761, p = .000**
Accept
*significant at p <= .05; ** significant at p <=.01
5.0 Discussion and Implications
5.1 Customer Loyalty and Satisfaction
In this study, CEQ and NPS were both positively and significantly correlated with CLY and CSAT. The
difference between the correlation between CEQ and CLY (r = .841, p = .000) was 5.12% stronger than
the correlation between NPS and CLY (r = .799, p = .000). Mbama (2018) also found a stronger
correlation between CEQ and CLY than between NPS and CLY, with a difference of 22.9%. The
difference between the correlation between CEQ and CSAT (r = .781, p = .000) and NPS and CSAT (r =
.697, p = .000) was 100.37%. Mbama (2018) found a much stronger correlation between CEQ and CSAT
than between NPS and CSAT as well, with a difference of 105.15%.
The results of this study provide additional evidence that NPS is not the only “one number you need to
grow” (Reichheld, 2003, p46) when measuring customer loyalty and satisfaction, and a multi-
dimensional metric that includes emotional, attitudinal, and quality-based factors is needed (Gao,
Merelo-Polo, & Sese, 2019; Gronholdt, 2019; Keiningham et al., 2019; Mbama, 2018) to capture the sum
of a customer’s experience with a company’s products and services.
5.2 Financial Performance
The correlation between CEQ and MC (r = .118, p = .000) is 31.37% stronger than the correlation
between NPS and MC (r = .086, p = .000). Gronholdt (2019) found a similar outcome of multi-
dimensional CX and financial performance. This study confirmed the original premise of Reichheld
(2003) and the positive impact of NPS on company growth but revealed a more impactful metric in CEQ
than NPS that companies need to consider.
6.0 Conclusion
This research confirmed that NPS remains an important metric of customer loyalty, satisfaction, and
company financial performance. However, NPS is not the most important metric a company needs to
rely on as proclaimed by Reichheld (2003) and that measuring the quality of customer experiences can
mean stronger loyalty, satisfaction, business performance, and competitiveness. In addition, NPS does
not provide insight into the areas of customer experience to improve to increase scores (Fisher &
Kordupleski, 2018), so organizations are left with costly trial and error that may not just cost customers
but unknowingly make experiences worse. CEQ provides multiple avenues for improving experiences,
which can each be measured separately so companies can knowingly focus on the most impactful areas.
This study and others have proven that CEQ provides be an enormous advantage over NPS, especially in
customer satisfaction and financial performance. Companies must look beyond NPS to ensure that their
experiences are not just keeping customers but realizing their expectations in business value.
References
American Customer Satisfaction Index (ASCI). (2019). ASCI benchmark. Retrieved from
https://www.theacsi.org/products-and-services/industrywide/acsi-benchmark
Bennett M., & Molisani, A. (2020). Defining customer experience and measuring its impact on financial
performance of US publicly traded companies. SocArXIV, 1-26. doi: 10.31235/osf.io/mzepq
Dootson, P., Beatson, A., & Drennan, J. (2016). Financial institutions using social media: Do customers
perceive value? International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(1). 9-36. doi: /10.1108/IJBM-06-
2014-0079
Eklof, J., Podkorytova, O., & Malova, A., (2018). Linking customer satisfaction with financial
performance: an empirical study of Scandinavian banks. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2018.1504621
Fisher, N. I., & Kordupleski, R. E. (2018). Good and bad market research: A critical review of Net
Promoter Score. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and industry, 35(1), 138-151. doi:
10.1002/asmb.2417
Gao, X., Merelo-Polo, I., & Sese, J. (2019). Customer equity drivers, customer experience quality, and
customer profitability in banking services: The moderating role of social influence. Journal of
Service Research. doi: 10.1177/1094670519856119
Gill, L., McCarthy, V., & Grimmett, D. (2019). Voice of the customer: Creating client centered cultures in
accounting firms for retaining clients and increasing profitability. Journal of Accounting, Business
and Management, 26(2), 46-58. doi: 10.31966/jabminternational.v26i2.412
Gronholdt, L. (2019). Digital customer experience: An emerging theme in customer service excellence.
Newsletter on Consumer Behavior 31, 2-10.
James, K.W., James, H., Babin, B. J., & Parker, J. M. (2019). Is customer satisfaction really a catch-all? The
discrepancy between financial performance and survey results. Journal of Managerial Issues,
31(2), 137-150.
Keiningham, T., Askoy, L., Bruce, H. L., Cadet, F., Clennell, N., Hodgkinson, I. R., & Kearney, T. (2019).
Customer experience driven business model innovation. Journal of Business Research. Advance
online publication. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.003
Keiningham, T. L., Cooil, B., Wallin Andreassen, T., & Aksoy, L. (2007). A longitudinal examination of net
promoter and firm revenue growth. Journal of Marketing, 71, 39-51. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dfe0/4f3d83fee37a617d9cacfebc331605dc4bfc.pdf
Kristensen, K., & Eskildsen, J. (2014). Is the NPS a trustworthy performance measure? The TQM Journal,
26(2), 202-214. doi: 10.1108/TQM-03-2011-0021.
Lemke, F., Clark, M., & Wilson, H. (2011). Customer experience quality: An exploration in business and
consumer contexts using repertory grid technique. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
39(6):846-869. doi: 10.1007/s11747-010-0219-0
Maklan, S. & Klaus, P. (2011) Customer Experience: Are we measuring the right things. International
Journal of Market Research, 53(6), 771-792.
Pavone, P. (2019). Market capitalization and financial variables: Evidence from Italian listed companies.
International Journal of Academic Research Business and Social Sciences, 9(3), 13561371
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81, 4654.
... It follows that a bank's ability to retain customers will improve its financial success. According to scientifics, devoted clients stay for a long time, boosting revenue and earnings [10]. ...
Article
The study explores the relationship between customer satisfaction and the financial performance of banks, focusing on mediating factors. This study aims to investigate in detail the impact of responsibility, tangibility, and reliability on banks’ financial performance, with a particular emphasis on the mediating function of customer satisfaction. The primary objectives are to analyze how these service quality dimensions influence customer satisfaction and, subsequently, financial outcomes. The research is grounded in the theory that higher levels of customer satisfaction lead to improved financial performance through increased loyalty. Using Employing Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), the study analyzes data collected from commercial bank clients in Kazakhstan over a four-month period, from November 2023 to February 2024. The dataset includes responses from approximately 200 participants, ensuring demographic representation through a stratified random sampling method. Hypotheses regarding customer satisfaction, reliability, responsibility, and tangibility were tested. Findings reveal a significant positive relationship between customer satisfaction and financial performance, indicating that higher satisfaction levels contribute to improved financial outcomes for banks. These findings highlight the multidimensional nature of customer satisfaction and underscore the importance of addressing various factors to enhance financial performance in the banking sector. This study contributes theoretical insights and practical implications for banks aiming to optimize their financial performance through customer-centric strategies.
Preprint
Full-text available
Customer experience (CX) is an important contributor to business performance. Yet, studies vary in defining CX, variables and constructs, and measurement to performance. This study defined CX and the direct impact to market capitalization (MC) of US public companies. The CX definition combined Customer Experience Quality (CEQ) with Customer Satisfaction (CSAT), Customer Loyalty (CLY), and Net Promoter Score (NPS). Each dimension was measured to the extent to which they impact MC. The sample consisted of 1605 US customers of US publicly traded companies. Using correlation analysis, multiple linear regression, and confirmatory factor analysis, the individual variables of CEQ were positively and significantly correlated with MC and with each other. CEQ, CSAT, CLY, and NPS were also positively and significantly correlated with MC, and the holistic CX was predictive of MC. Companies can apply the insights of the study to improve their customer experience to deliver measurable business and shareholder value.
Article
Full-text available
Client satisfaction and retention books line the shelves of library business sections and are frequently the subjects at conferences and online blogs. The relationship between client satisfaction and profitability is often assumed, yet not prioritized or measured. Instead, industries and companies are continuously developing new clients by selling their goods and services. The ability to compete simply on product or service no longer exists, and with the evolution of technology, customers are continuously inundated with noise. However, one could argue the greatest voice to take cues from is that of the client – meeting their needs and solving their problems. Using a case comparison method, we found that a combination of voice of the client (VoC) and “Kaizen” leads to higher levels of client satisfaction and retention levels in accounting firms.
Article
Full-text available
Net Promoter Score, touted as the “single customer metric you need” and calculated from customers' answer to one simple question about their loyalty, has been in use since 2003 and adopted in a wide variety of settings. However, it has not lived up to its claimed benefits. This article evaluates the NPS approach in terms of its positive and negative results. This article is for people interested in NPS, still considering implementing NPS in their company, or interested in its technical underpinnings. It points out the benefits and shortcomings and explains why, and it describes what can be done to achieve the outcomes NPS theory claimed it would produce, but has not. The article is written in two parts for quite distinct audiences: firstly, for executives and managers who need customer data and information to make marketing decisions; and secondly, for market researchers, statisticians, and business analysts who are responsible for capturing and providing reliable, understandable, and meaningful customer data to the executives and managers who need the information. Consequently, the two sections are written in two different styles. The first section takes the form of a summary for managers and executives of our findings and recommendations in language aimed at business leaders; the second section provides a detailed analysis and critical review of NPS for market researchers, statisticians, and business analysts. Both sections present a better solution than NPS for understanding what customers value, delivering the best value to customers, winning market share, and creating truly loyal customers.
Article
Full-text available
It is generally assumed that increased satisfaction levels lead to improved financial performance. However, this assumed relationship is, by and large, still to be proven in a more general setting, especially with respect to European sectors and industries. This research aims to identify empirically relationships between customer loyalty and satisfaction and profitability measured as ROA, ROE, profit margin and operating income, as well as market indicators (market capitalisation and Tobin’s q). The research sample is made up of nine Scandinavian banks observed on an annual basis between 2004 and 2014. We can confirm that customer satisfaction and loyalty have a significant positive influence on banks’ profitability and can be considered as a predictor for future profitability as the satisfaction index of the preceding year influences the next year’s financial performance. We are also able to confirm that there is a positive link between the customer satisfaction of the preceding year and market indicators of the current year. These results are important for both decision makers in banks and investors. They mean that decision makers and investors can take the bank’s level and trend in customer satisfaction to make assumptions on its future profitability and market performance.
Article
Full-text available
Marketing theory and practice evolved dramatically through a series of transformations from products to services and, recently, customer experiences. Each stage has its own perspective on marketing's purpose, the nature of customer value, and measurements that calibrate performance and guide managerial decisions. The latter is of particular interest to market researchers. Measurement (research) typically lags behind changes in marketing theory due to institutional factors and the time it takes for new practices to diffuse. The authors posit that firms still measure customer experience against criteria more suited to evaluating product and service marketing. Research practice seems rooted in 1990s notions of service quality, itself an outgrowth of total quality management (TQM) originating in manufacturing during the 1980s. The authors argue that market researchers will serve their organizations and customers better if they take an active role in updating the customer experience measurement commensurate with advances in the conceptualization of that which firms offer customers.
Article
Full-text available
Managers have widely embraced and adopted the Net Promoter metric, which noted loyalty consultant Frederick Reichheld advocates as the single most reliable indicator of firm growth compared with other loyalty metrics, such as customer satisfaction and retention. Recently, however, there has been considerable debate about whether this metric is truly superior. This article (1) employs longitudinal data from 21 firms and 15,500-plus interviews from the Norwegian Customer Satisfaction Barometer to replicate the analyses used in Net Promoter research and (2) compares Reichheld and colleagues' findings with the American Customer Satisfaction Index. Using industries Reichheld cites as exemplars of Net Promoter, the research fails to replicate his assertions regarding the "clear superiority" of Net Promoter compared with other measures in those industries.
Article
Business model innovation (BMI) is critical to a firm's ability to achieve growth and long-term viability. It helps improve the value of products or services and/or delivery of these offerings to customers. Much of the academic literature to date however lacks customer-driven business model innovation frameworks. As such, the aim of this investigation is to propose a customer experience driven (CX) business model innovation framework that aligns customer values and the firm's strategic needs. This paper contributes to the literature by (a) conceptualizing the way in which business model innovation and customer experience are related (b) providing managers with a concrete framework to guide business model innovation that supports customer experience-driven new services and (c) highlighting opportunities for future research to advance business model innovation research and practice.
Article
Financial service organizations are increasingly interested in ways to improve the service experience quality for customers, while customers progressively perceive the commoditization of banking services. This is no easy task, as factors outside the control of the service firm can influence customers’ perceptions of their experience. This study builds on the customer equity framework to understand the linkages between what the firm does (customer equity drivers: value equity, brand equity, and relationship equity), the social environment (social influence), the customer experience quality, and its ultimate impact on profitability. Using perceptual and transactional data for a sample of customers of financial services, we demonstrate the central role played by factors under the control of the firm (value, brand, and relationship equity) and those outside its control (social influence) in shaping customers’ perceptions of the quality of their experience. We offer new insights into the moderating role of social influence in the linkages between the customer equity drivers and the customer experience quality. The managerial takeaway is that the impact of customer equity drivers on the customer experience quality is contingent on the influence exerted by other people and that enhancing customer experience quality can be a way to increase monetary returns.
Article
Purpose – In 2003 Reichheld published an article in HBR, in which he claims that the net promoter score (NPS), is the only number you need to grow, and the only number you need to manage customer loyalty. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the NPS is inferior to the standard measures of loyalty used by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and EPSI rating. Design/methodology/approach – In 2006 a customer satisfaction survey of the entire insurance sector in Denmark was conducted. The survey design was based on the questionnaires from EPSI rating and ACSI supplemented with insurance-specific questions, consumer sentiment questions and the basic Net Promoter Question. The sample consists of approximately 2,000 observations. Findings – The analyses presented in this paper show that the NPS it not what it claims to be: the one number you need to grow. The NPS is found to be a very poor predictor of both customer loyalty and customer satisfaction. The measure is very sensitive to changes in the underlying distribution, and finally the precision of the NPS was found to be low compared to other measures of loyalty, and it is not possible to predict the NPS categorization and hence it is hard to say precisely, how organizations can influence corporate growth based on the NPS. Research limitations/implications – The analysis is only conducted on data collected in a Danish business-to-consumer setting. More research is needed to shed light on the performance of the NPS across cultures as well as in a business-to-business setting. Practical implications – The paper demonstrates the dangers of using the NPS as an input to managerial decision making. Organizations are far better off using a standard customer loyalty measure such as those employed by the ACSI or EPSI instead of the NPS. Originality/value – Previous studies of the NPS have not replicated the methodology directly. Either there have been differences in scale length or in wording. The authors have constructed an experiment in the Danish insurance industry that answers some of the questions concerning the NPS without the shortcomings that most of the previous studies have suffered from.