Quarterly Customer Satisfaction & NPS
Plain-English summary
Bottom line: the satisfaction scale shows acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.78, KMO = 0.83). Customers rate the product positively on ease of use and core value, but support quality is the lowest-rated item and the strongest driver of low NPS scores.
What stands out:
- NPS sits at +32 (60% promoters, 12% passives, 28% detractors). That is healthy for SaaS but down from +38 last quarter.
- Support quality (Q4) has the lowest mean (3.41) and the highest variance (SD = 1.18). Drilldown by segment shows support scores 0.7 points lower for self-serve customers than for managed customers.
- The strongest correlate of "would recommend" is "the product solves a real problem for me" (r = 0.71). Ease of use comes second (r = 0.58).
- Q5 (pricing fairness) shows mild ceiling effects (43% select 5), so its variance contribution to alpha is limited. Consider a more granular response scale next quarter.
- Open-text themes mirror the quantitative pattern: support response time is the most-mentioned issue (47 of 178 open responses).
Reliability summary
Net Promoter Score
NPS = % Promoters − % Detractors = +32. Last quarter: +38. The 6-point drop is driven by an increase in detractors (was 22% last quarter), not by promoter erosion.
Item-total statistics
| # | Item | Mean | SD | Corrected rit | α if deleted | KMO (item) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | The product is easy to use day to day. | 4.12 | 0.91 | 0.624 | 0.732 | 0.851 |
| Q2 | The product solves a real problem for me. | 4.28 | 0.84 | 0.681 | 0.717 | 0.879 |
| Q3 | The product delivers good value for the price. | 3.85 | 1.02 | 0.612 | 0.736 | 0.821 |
| Q4 | When I needed support, I got a useful response quickly. | 3.41 | 1.18 | 0.498 | 0.768 | 0.795 |
| Q5 | Pricing feels fair for what I get. | 4.05 | 0.93 | 0.516 | 0.762 | 0.823 |
| Q6 | I plan to keep using the product over the next 6 months. | 4.34 | 0.88 | 0.587 | 0.745 | 0.844 |
All items contribute positively to the scale; none would meaningfully improve α if removed. Q4 (support) has the lowest item-total correlation, consistent with its standing as a partial outlier in customer experience: respondents who never needed support tend to skip the question or rate neutrally.
Segment comparison
| Segment | N | Composite mean | Q4 (Support) | NPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-serve (no CSM) | 178 | 3.92 | 3.21 | +24 |
| Managed (assigned CSM) | 70 | 4.28 | 3.94 | +52 |
| Overall | 248 | 4.01 | 3.41 | +32 |
The 0.73-point gap on support quality between self-serve and managed customers is the largest segment difference in the report. Worth a separate look at self-serve support touchpoints.
Inter-item correlation matrix
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 1.00 | 0.58 | 0.48 | 0.39 | 0.46 | 0.55 |
| Q2 | 0.58 | 1.00 | 0.55 | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.62 |
| Q3 | 0.48 | 0.55 | 1.00 | 0.39 | 0.58 | 0.46 |
| Q4 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.39 | 1.00 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
| Q5 | 0.46 | 0.48 | 0.58 | 0.39 | 1.00 | 0.42 |
| Q6 | 0.55 | 0.62 | 0.46 | 0.39 | 0.42 | 1.00 |
Per-item descriptives
Methodology notes
Cronbach's α reported is the standardized form. Split-half reliability uses the Spearman-Brown corrected first-half / second-half split. KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) is computed from the anti-image correlation matrix. NPS is computed from the standard 0-10 likelihood-to-recommend item using promoter (9-10), passive (7-8), and detractor (0-6) bands. Eleven responses were dropped from reliability calculations due to missing Likert items; per-item descriptives report on each item's available n.
Segment comparison cuts respondents by self-reported account type as captured in the survey response. Differences in NPS and composite mean are descriptive only; no significance test is reported.