SU SPAR Shop University Park Mystery Shopper Report

Transcription

1 SU SPAR Shop University Park Mystery Shopper Report Survey Period 30 th Apr 2018 to 22 nd Jun 2018 Summer Term 2018 Report Researched, Compiled and Written by Tim Cosham, July

2 Contents University Park Campus... 3 Demographics... 3 Which of the following options best describes you?... 3 Day & Time of Visit... 5 Staff... 6 With regards to the staff members that you interacted with:... 6 How upbeat and helpful were the staff who served you?... 7 Did the staff member whom served you make eye contact and greet you in a friendly manner? 7 How were the staff that you saw presented?... 8 How efficient and organised did you feel that the staff were?... 8 Service Time... 9 Comments... 9 Product Quality Please tell us exactly what products you purchased How satisfied were you with the quality of the products that you purchased? How would you rate the range of the following product categories in the SU shop? How would you rate the value of the following product categories in the SU shop? Were there any products or product ranges that you would like to have purchased, but which you were unable to? If you have visited the SU SPAR Shop in previous years, have you noticed a change in the store since the beginning of this academic year? Comments Environment Overall tidiness and cleanliness of the SU SPAR Shop How would you rate the branding and advertisement of the SU SPAR Shop? Comments Satisfaction Would you return to the SU shop based on today's experience? Net Promoter Score (NPS) If you could change one thing about the SU shop, what would it be? Narrative of Experience / Visit Overview SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

3 University Park Campus Demographics 11 people visited the University Park Campus SU SPAR Shop to take part in the Mystery Shopper programme, over a period of time from the 30 th April 2018 to the 22 nd June These numbers are far lower than what was recruited and desired for this activity, and in spite of over subscribing more students than expected failed to complete the Mystery Surveys. This dropout is a major driver behind developing the Customer Feedback Survey which is expected to launch in time for the new academic year and cover many of the significant elements from the Mystery Survey. The charts below detail some of the demographics of the customers who did take part in the programme. Q2 Which of the following options best describes you? Of the customers whom took part in the programme at the University Park campus, 45% (5 persons) were aged 18 25, 36% (4) aged and 1 each from the and years age groups. All participants lived off campus. 3

4 The spread of students from different years of study spanned 1 st years to 4 th years whom visited the University Park SU SPAR Shop with 45% (5) in their second year of study, being the best represented group, with 27% (3) in their 3 rd, 18% (2) in their 4 th years and only 1 student (9%) in their 1 st year of study at UoN, being the worst represented group. 70% (7) of Mystery Survey customers were in Undergraduate courses. 4

5 Q5 Day & Time of Visit The above graph shows the distribution of the shoppers and what days they visited, with Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays the most frequently shopped days, but with low numbers there was little in it. At least each day of the week is represented. The most frequented times for mystery shopper activity across all days was the 14:30 to 16:00 (mid-afternoon) period. Day of Visit Q5 Time of Visit Q6 08:30 11:00 11:30 14:00 14:30 16:00 16:00 18:30 Monday 1 1 Tuesday 1 1 Wednesday Thursday 1 1 Friday Saturday Sunday

6 Staff Q8 With regards to the staff members that you interacted with: When asked about staffing levels customers noted on average 1.73 (2) staff members on Tills (maximum 4) and 2.80 (3) on the Floor (maximum 6). Floor and Till staff were seen to be wearing uniform 91% of the time. 6

7 How upbeat and helpful were the staff who served you? (1 = Not at all; 5 = Very much so) Q9 When asked to rate how upbeat and helpful the staff were whom served the customers, staff achieved a rating of 3.36 out of 5 with a standard deviation of 0.88, so it can be taken that staff were mostly upbeat and helpful towards the customers with almost 2 in 3 customers rating 4 out of 5 (helpful). This was a drop against all previous reports. Feb 2017 Apr Oct 2017 Nov Jan 2018 Mar Apr 2018 Jun Did the staff member whom served you make eye contact and greet you in a friendly manner? Q10 90% of customers (9 of 10) attending the University Park SU SPAR Shop said that the staff member whom served them made eye contact and greet them in a friendly manner. 7

8 How were the staff that you saw presented? (1 = Not well at all; 5 = Very well presented) Q11 When asked to rate the presentation of the staff that the customers saw, staff achieved a score of 3.8 out of 5, meaning that the staff that interacted with customers were the least well-presented since this measure was first taken. Feb 2017 Apr Oct 2017 Nov Jan 2018 Mar Apr 2018 Jun How efficient and organised did you feel that the staff were? (1 = Very inefficient and disorganised; 5 = Very efficient and organised) Q12 Customers were asked to rate how efficient and organised they felt that the staff were, with staff achieving a score of 3.55 out of 5, it can be seen that the staff were mostly organised and efficient. The standard deviation for this score is a low 1.08 making this a relatively representative result but is also the lowest rating for this measure since it was first taken. 8 Feb 2017 Apr Oct 2017 Nov Jan 2018 Feb Apr 2018 Jun

9 Q14 Service Time Customers were asked about their waiting times, which ranged from 5 to 6 minutes to less than a minute. The average waiting time was 1 to 2 minutes, plus or minus 2 minutes. 82% of customers were served within 4 minutes (down from 86%) with 73% of customers served in under 2 minutes (up from 59%) and 27% of customers served in under 1 minute (up from 23%). Served in 1 Min Served under 2 Mins Served under 4 Mins Oct 2017 Nov % 73% 97% Jan 2018 Feb % 59% 86% Apr 2018 Jun % 73% 82% Comments Q13 The shoppers were asked to comment on why they gave the staff the rating that they did, the comments have been split into positive and negative below. Positive Comments 3 customers noted till staff were very friendly 3 customers noted till staff were dressed appropriately in uniform 2 customers noted till staff served customers quickly 2 customers noted that long queues were served quickly owing to 4 staff serving and processing transactions efficiently. 1 customer noted till staff enquired if the customer found everything they wanted 1 customer noted that till staff were polite, offering a bag and wishing customers a good day. 1 customer noted that till staff greeted customers as they approached the counter Negative Comments 2 customer noted some staff were too engaged in restocking that they neglected customers even when their activity hampered customers from selecting items or distracted from serving queuing customers 1 customer noted some staff seemed stressed about restocking 1 customer noted some staff lacked name badges 1 customer noted some staff were not in uniform 9

10 1 customer noted some till staff seemed disengaged with customers when serving 1 customer noted that a staff member walked away while a customer made a query 1 customer noted that during busy periods till staff were not assertive or loud enough to call the next customer to the counter Product Quality Please tell us exactly what products you purchased Q16 91% of mystery shoppers (10) purchased Food & Drink items, 36% (4) bought Stationery and 18% (2) purchased household items. How satisfied were you with the quality of the products that you purchased? (1 = Very dissatisfied; 5 = Very satisfied) Q15 People who completed the Mystery Shop rated satisfaction with the quality of the products that they bought on average as 4.27, with a standard deviation of only 0.86, meaning that they were very satisfied with their purchases. This is a very slight decline on previous surveys, but still a positive score. The table below shows the weighted average rating to this question over time. Oct 2016 Dec Feb 2017 Apr Oct 2017 Nov Jan 2018 Feb Apr 2018 Jun

11 How would you rate the range of the following product categories in the SU shop? (1 = Very poor; 5 = Very good) Q17 Customers were asked how they would rate the range within specified categories (1 = Very poor; 5 = Very good). There was very little change compared to the previous report across all categories. Food & Drink Non-food products (health, beauty, and Stationery household products etc.) Feb 2017 Apr Oct 2017 Nov Jan 2018 Mar Jan 2018 Mar How would you rate the value of the following product categories in the SU shop? (1 = Very poor; 5 = Very good) Q18 Customers were asked to rate the value of specified categories (1 = Very poor; 5 = Very good). There was some negative movement for the Stationery product range, Food & Drink was unchanged and Non-food line marginally improved. However, all these scores indicate a relatively neutral feeling around value, albeit with a slightly positive slant. Food & Drink Non-food products (health, beauty, and Stationery household products etc.) Feb 2017 Apr Oct 2017 Nov Jan 2018 Mar Jan 2018 Mar

12 Were there any products or product ranges that you would like to have purchased, but which you were unable to? (This might be because the product was unavailable, out of stock, or you could not locate it) Q19 5 of 11 (45%) Mystery Shopper participants stated that there were items that they wanted to purchase but were unable to. The following items were listed as desirable / out of stock: Biscoff spread Sunscreen Ice creams Healthier food options, including snacks Whiteboard markers Small note books If you have visited the SU SPAR Shop in previous years, have you noticed a change in the store since the beginning of this academic year? Q21 9% of participant customers (1) had not previously visited the SU SPAR Shop on University Park Campus, with 45% (5) not noticing change from previous visits, 9% of customers (1) stated that they had noticed positive change. 3 students noted the additional stationery and international foods since the removal of the clothing range, one was positive about this. One student noted more variation in food and drink. 12 Comments Q20 Comments around this section of the survey for 9 customers cited the following: Positive Comments Good selection of house hold objects The price of most food products seems fair Good range of basic, essential stationary Negative Comments Stationery seemed a little too pricey Non-food products were noted several times to be overpriced

13 Comparatively expensive noted multiple times, citing Tesco and Boots Empty shelves were noted several times and a lack of available stock Stationery pricing on shelves is not clear One customer noted negatively that all they could see was advertising for cookies and doughnuts It was also noted that it was hard to see any healthy foods/snacks Mixed Comments A lot of choice (although not very well stocked) Environment Overall tidiness and cleanliness of the SU SPAR Shop (1 = Very untidy/ unclean; 5 = Very tidy/ clean) Q22 The shoppers were asked to rate the tidiness and cleanliness of the shop, which they rated on average as 3.8 out of 5, being a largely good rating with a standard deviation of only 0.39, meaning this is very representative, although this is the lowest rating since this measure was first taken. The table below shows the weighted average rating to this question over time. Oct 2016 Dec Feb 2017 Apr Oct 2017 Nov Jan 2018 Mar Apr 2018 Jun

14 How would you rate the branding and advertisement of the SU SPAR Shop? (1 = Very poor; 5 = Very good) Q23 When questioned around branding and advertisement, the weighted average answer of 3.5 indicated a mostly average rating with answers spread from poor to good. This represents the third successive decline in this measure since it was first taken. The table below shows the weighted average rating to this question over time. Oct 2016 Dec Feb 2017 Apr Oct 2017 Nov Jan 2018 Mar Apr 2018 Jun Comments Q24 Customers were then asked to explain why they had rated the shop with these scores, comments were limited, with 16 customers responding: Positive Comments 3 students noted that the shop was very clean & tidy 1 student thought the shop seemed well organised 1 student believed the shelves were well stocked 1 students was positive around witnessing staff restocking and rearranging the products Negative Comments 2 students noted as new students that SPAR was not easy to find, with no advertising or signposting 1 student noted that a trolley had been left unattended in the middle of one of the aisles 1 student noted A LOT of empty shelves and could not rely on the shop to supply what was needed 1 student noted there was occasional rubbish on the floor due to items being restocked 1 student didn't notice much branding of the shop Mixed Comments Lots of branding/advertising although a few were wonky

15 Satisfaction Would you return to the SU shop based on today's experience? (1 = Never, 10 = Definitely) Q25 The weighted average response to the question would you return to the SU shop based on today's experience? was 7.1, a considerable decline on the previous report, and the lowest rating since measures have been taken. However, there was quite a spread of responses and a standard deviation of The table below shows the weighted average rating to this question over time. Oct 2016 Dec Feb 2017 Apr Oct 2017 Nov Jan 2018 Mar Apr 2018 Jun

16 Q26 Net Promoter Score (NPS) Introduced in late 2016, the Net Promoter Score (NPS) supports the satisfaction rating, where customers are asked How likely or unlikely are you to recommend X to another student? on a scale of 0 (would not recommend) to 10 (would definitely recommend). The score is calculated by subtracting the percent of promoters from detractors with a range from -100% to 100%. This term a very poor rating of -27% was recorded as a Net Promoter Score, a decline of 45% on the previous report. Oct 2017 Nov % Jan 2018 Mar % Apr 2018 Jun % In addition to the Net Promoter question in the Mystery Surveys we have also asked the same question of a broader group of customers (67) via the Website Pulse Surveys, not specific to a campus, but rather SU SPAR Shops from both Jubilee and University Park combined. For the same period as this survey NPS via the Pulse survey has delivered Net Promoter Score of -24%, a negative change in NPS of 3% from the last report. This would be considered a very poor score. Oct 2016 Dec % Feb 2017 Apr % Oct 2017 Nov % Jan 2018 Mar % Apr 2018 Jun % 16

17 If you could change one thing about the SU shop, what would it be? Q27 Customers were asked if there was one thing about the SU SPAR Shop that they could change, what would it be, the answers are listed below: Increase the range of vegan options Reduce the amount of junk food Increase the range of fresh fruit and veg Ensure the shop is kept tidy and aisles free from clutter caused restocking activity Widen aisles / increase shop size Review queuing around till area with a view to improve customer experience Reduce prices, especially the non-food (beauty) items Improve pricing displays Narrative of Experience / Visit Overview Q28 Customers were asked to provide a narrative or overview of their experience including timing, atmosphere, ordering, quality of products, service etc., as well as overall 'conclusion' and likeliness to return (or not). The feedback is as follows: Positive Category # % Served quickly and efficiently 5 45% Clean and tidy 3 27% Polite and courteous staff 2 18% Easy to navigate 1 9% Fast moving queues 1 9% Friendly staff 1 9% Good atmosphere 1 9% Good quality products 1 9% Good range of products 1 9% Good variety of products 1 9% Likely to return 1 9% Playing URN radio creates a nice atmosphere 1 9% Stationery was well organised 1 9% Wide range of food 1 9% 17

18 Negative Category # % Expensive (especially for students or comparatively) 5 45% Insufficient healthy options 3 27% Items noticeably out of stock 3 27% Unclear pricing displays 3 27% Unlikely to return 3 27% Slow moving queues 2 18% Aisles blocked by restocking activities 1 9% Aisles blocked due to long queues 1 9% Average product quality 1 9% Better quality available elsewhere 1 9% Better value for money available elsewhere 1 9% Floor staff did not smile or acknowledge customers as they shopped 1 9% Need more vegan options 1 9% Poor value for money 1 9% Queues need better organisation 1 9% Restocking caused a commotion 1 9% Staff involved in conversation 1 9% Staff were rude 1 9% Till staff not overtly friendly 1 9% 18

19 SWOT Analysis SU SPAR Shop University Park Mystery Shopper - Summer Term 2018 Report Comments and statistics around clothing have been removed from the SWOT as this activity took place during a transition period leading to the opening of the new Portland Clothing Co. Strengths 27% of customers are served within 1 minute of queuing; an increase on the previous report. Average service time of 1 to 2 minutes. This was supported with positive comments around speed of service. Till staff were seen to be in uniform by 91% of customers and a number of customers commented that staff were well presented. This number is down 4% on the previous report. Floor staff were seen to be wearing uniform by 91% of customers, up 6% on the previous report. 90% of customers at the University Park SU SPAR Shop said that the staff member whom served them made eye contact and greet them in a friendly manner. This number is down 5% on the previous report. Customer statements were positive around fast moving queues and support the short service time ratings with additional staff opening ne tills as required. Customers had positive feedback on changes they had seen, including added space and an improved range of products. As value for money is highly subjective it follows that though there were customers whom expressed SPAR to be expensive, others thought items were well priced. While ratings were average further feedback on the range and variety of items available came in for praise on a number of occasions. The range of stationery and frozen items was noted positively. But as with price, this is highly subjective. Good selection of foreign foods. Customers rated satisfaction with the quality of the products they purchased as 4.3 out of 5. Customers regularly cited the store to be frequently busy, which is good for business. Busy but good atmosphere. Weaknesses The rating on staff presentation achieved 3.8 out of 5 and is almost a good rating, This is a noticeable decline since the last report Efficiency and organisation were considered average with a rating of 3.5/5, well down on previous reports. The majority of customers rate the shop as tidy and clean with an average rating of 3.8 out of 5, a decline on the last report below the average rating. When asked if they would return to the SU shop based on their experience, customers replied with a 7.1 rating out of 10, a considerable decline on the previous report and the lowest since this measure has been taken. Some customers experience left them stating that they would be unlikely to return to the business. Total SU SPAR Shop Net Promoter Score dropped a hefty 27% to -24% for this period, coming from a wider survey response of 67 students. This represents a 5% increase on the previous report. The NPS resulting from Mystery Survey activity also plummeted 45% to -24% Staff are rated as 3.4 out of 5 for being upbeat and helpful, down on all previous surveys. This decline is reinforced with comments that staff seemed disengaged and other a few other negative comments around staff. Staff were also noted to ignore customers and/or be in conversation with colleagues. 45% of Mystery Shoppers stated that there were items that they wanted to purchase but were unable to. 19

20 Ratings for the range of products available were between 3 and 4 out of 5, averaging at 3.9 for Stationery, as per the previous report, and slightly down at 3.8 for Food & Drink meaning there is room for improvement. There was no change in the ratings given around value for money for Food & Drink averaging a low 3.4 out of 5. This is further supported by several statements citing products being overpriced or expensive. Of course this is highly subjective. Stationery and Non-food products were singled out as too pricey, both with scores below 3.5. Customers want a wider variety of fresh food, particularly fruit and vegetables available. Several comments were made around empty shelves or low stock levels. Customers facing reduced options may not only shop elsewhere but may develop a negative view of the business. Customer ratings associated with branding and advertisement of the SU SPAR Shop dropped for the third sucessive period to 3.3 out of 5. Students noted that SPAR was not easy to find, with no advertising or signposting and one commented that they didn't notice much branding of the shop Customers regularly cited the store to be frequently busy, however this could as a deterrent to enter, especially where queuing can make store navigation and item selection difficult. Opportunities Achieve and maintain a rating of 4/5 around how upbeat and helpful staff are for 2 consecutive surveys. Achieve and maintain a rating of 4/5 around how efficient and organised staff are for 2 consecutive surveys. Maintain an average service time of under 2 minutes. Use a customer survey to gather customer feedback on the range of products that should be on offer. Routinely review competitor prices and advertise were prices are lower to combat poor sentiment around value for money and competitor pricing. Achieve and maintain Value for money ratings of 4/5 for 2 consecutive surveys. Achieve and maintain Overall tidiness and cleanliness ratings of 4/5 for 2 consecutive surveys. Achieve and maintain Presentation ratings of 4/5 for 2 consecutive surveys. Achieve and maintain a rating of 8/10 for customers planning to return to the SU Shop for 2 consecutive surveys. Investigate the options to add more checkouts (this could be self-service or staffed) or increase the number of staff available to serve during peak times. Achieve and maintain a NPS of more than 10% for 2 consecutive surveys. Review the value for money proposition, including how messages around value are conveyed Investigate the options to improve the range of fresh fruit and vegetables. Investigate ways to improve store layout, including making better use of the rear of the store, to allow better traffic flow and reduce the impact of queuing on store navigation and customer experience. Make better use of space at the far end of the shop. Investigate how to improve restocking activities to ensure more stock is on display and shelves aren t empty. This could include reviewing/renegotiating supplier delivery times. Work with suppliers to ensure deliveries are made prior to opening so that shelves are fully stocked and customers are offered the widest choice possible. Choice is a factor that influences loyalty. Widen aisles / increase shop size (new location or change of layout). Reduce prices or Freeze prices (were tenable) and make a visible statement of doing so. Improve pricing displays so as to avoid confusion as to the price of items. Increase the number of affordable healthy snacks. 20

21 Threats SU SPAR Shop University Park Mystery Shopper - Summer Term 2018 Report The negative sentiment around price and value for money, particularly in comparison with competitors could turn customers away if not addressed in some way. Not addressing the issue of queuing and blocking narrow aisle is likely to already be turning away customers. 21