Talk:Net promoter score/Archives/2018

Criticism - reading source documents
Ronz, you added back a sub-section in the Criticism section, presumably because it was deleted by an anonymous user. I had allowed its deletion previously, because I went and read the source document cited as support for the statement, and believe it does not actually support the contention of the article text. Here's the relevant section of the cited article:
 * "By the same token, cut-off points can be challenged by cross-cultural differences in both the likelihood of people to engage in WOM and their ‘response styles’ to scales or particular question wordings. The latter drawback can be overcome by comparing cross-national scores ranked or standardised within sectors for each region. Companies interested in the NPS accurately categorising customers as detractors, passives and promoters may have to re-validate the methodology. Where reliability is more important than validity, such as for comparing a company’s score over time or across companies within a particular sector, this may be less relevant."

If you like, you can read the full article here: The NPS Theory in Practice - Admap, February 2008

My suggestion is that we delete that subsection again, since it is not supported.

Elvira100 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it. I'd found the article, which is what I used to add the authors. I only skimmed it otherwise. Delete away. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This article gives a summary of good arguments against the NPS system: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.22.114 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)