Consumer Satisfaction and Business Performance

When it comes time to make a big purchase, it can be hard for consumers to know if they’re making the right choices, if the price is worth it, and perhaps most importantly, which brands they can trust. 

ConsumerAffairs researchers spend a lot of time and effort collecting the experiences of other consumers and have arranged them into a series of "buyers guides," such as the one for homeowners.

J.D. Power conducts regular surveys to measure customer satisfaction with certain industries, specifically the brands within those industries. It recently reported that Capital One leads in the banking category.

In its yearly America’s Most Trusted Survey, Lifestory Research asked thousands of consumers across the country to rank their most trusted brands related to products or services for the home over the course of the entire year. The survey included over 500 brands among more than 50 different product categories. 

“The results provide insight into how America’s best brands are seen by consumers in an economic cycle filled with uncertainty,” said Eric Snider, Lifestory Research president. 

Which brands reigned supreme? 

The survey was broken down into several different categories: home builders, household products, household appliances, HVAC, solar, and power, household design, home services, and outdoor products. 

TempurPedic, Sealy, and Serta topped the list of the best mattresses, while Dyson, Shark, and Bissell were the top three rated vacuums of the year. 

In terms of tech, Apple, HP, and Microsoft were the top three computer brands, Roku topped the list of best streaming devices, while Samsung was crowned the most trusted TV brand. 

When looking at household appliances, Whirlpool came out on top for laundry and Bosch took the top spot for kitchen appliances. 

The survey also asked Americans to rank companies and products related to the homebuying process. In this area, Zillow was the number one site for home searching and HomeSmart was most trusted for real estate agents. 

The complete Lifestyle Research survey covers more products and brands, including: furniture stores, specialty home stores, cooking grills, outdoor decking, cabinets, countertops, flooring, and more. 

Click here to see the full survey results. 

You’re going up and down the grocery aisle and pick up an item that has a shelf label showing it’s one price, but when you check out you discover the price is actually higher. It appears to be happening more and more.

A Twitter user named Brandon posted his experience at Whole Foods, suggesting the Amazon-owned chain is ripe for a lawsuit.

“An advertised $1.69 became $1.99 at the register and $3.99 became $4.39 at the register,” he wrote.

Another Twitter user, going by the handle LingCod, complained of “price deception” while shopping at Kroger.

“Not placing items in the correct shelf space, so that you think you are getting one price, only to find out at the register that it is actually much higher,” LingCod wrote. “Time to boycott #Kroger including #FredMeyer stores.”

Home Depot too

The complaint is not limited to supermarket chains. A Home Depot shopper recently complained on Reddit that he found a lawnmower he wanted with a price tag of $999. But that’s not what the mower actually cost.

“Go to self-checkout, scan it, and boom, $1099,” the shopper wrote. “Cancel and go to the register for further assistance and it rings up as $1099. They ask me to take a picture of the display showing $999, so I do. They try to manually mark it down and can’t.”

At first glance, it appears to be a rampant epidemic of deceptive pricing sweeping through American retail. But could there be another explanation? Francois Chaubard, the CEO of Focal Systems, providing retail AI solutions, says inflation and the labor shortage are creating nightmares for retailers.

Inflation’s role

"In higher inflation environments, retailers need to change price tags a lot more often than normal,” Chaubard told ConsumerAffairs. “For example, if the price of a can of Coke needs to change once a year, now it is increasing in price by 1%-2% every month it so needs to be updated 12 times more. 

“However, retailers don’t have enough labor as it is, so tags do not get updated fast enough. Retailers will change the price file, but won’t update the tags, leading to a discrepancy between what is on the shelf and what the customer gets charged.”

Consumer laws may vary by state but there is no federal law that requires a business to honor a price that's wrong on the shelf. If a company can show the pricing error was a mistake, many legal experts say it won’t be considered false advertising.

Consumer review sites are getting flooded with complaints about Noom, a popular app-based weight loss service. 

Most of the complaints stem from consumers feeling that the company offers misleading free trials, only to be hit with $100+ subscription charges that show up as soon as the free trials end. Even worse, the app users allege that those subscriptions are a bear to cancel.

Noom has recently received a large number of 1-star reviews from ConsumerAffairs reviewers. The Better Business Bureau says it’s also getting deluged with complaints, prompting it to downgrade Noom to a D-plus rating.

What consumers are upset about

One of the biggest complaints is the “pay what you think is fair” offer that Noom promotes for its introductory trial.

“Company presents with an introductory trial of 2 weeks - at first stating ‘pay what you think is fair,’ said Jane of Ashland, Mass. in their review at ConsumerAffairs. “When you don’t respond they say it’s free for 2 weeks but they need a credit card to ‘verify’ your account,” 

“No notice or further contact though you can use their site for those 2 weeks BUT due to a variety of circumstances I did not use it - instead I attempted to contact and cancel - only to find out that (2 days past the 14 day trial) my credit card was charged for an 18 MONTH MEMBERSHIP NON REFUNDABLE - huh? It’s in their “fine print”. 

The devil is in the details

Jane is correct about Noom’s “fine print.” When ConsumerAffairs looked at the company’s terms and conditions, the point that seemed to be the sticking point was Noom’s “auto-renewal” clause. In essence, it gives the company the right to automatically extend a subscription “for successive renewal periods.” Also concerning is the language that reads, “Until you cancel, we will charge or debit your payment method at the beginning of your subscription.” Another red flag is Noom’s “no refund” policy.

Many of the complaints made to BBB also swirl around being surprised with the charges relating to the supposed free trial. 

“A number of these consumers said they believed that after the free trial the cost of monthly membership was between $20 and $40,” the BBB said. “Instead, they discovered that they were charged for several months upfront upon the free trial’s end, resulting in alleged charges varying from $120 to $180 or more. Consumers consistently alleged difficulty trying to get in contact with Noom’s customer service to request a refund of charges.”

Gary of Keller, Texas said he also had difficulty opting out of the service in his review on ConsumerAffairs. 

“There is no way to opt out of the first subscription even though you haven’t even opened an email from them or attempted to use their ‘product,’” he stated. “The telephone number sends you to a machine where there is no way to connect with a live person.”

Look for reviews before signing up for any subscription

Developers make signing up for a trial subscription so easy that consumers may assume that a promotional pitch is honest and there’s very little that can go against their favor. However, that’s not always the case.

“Smartphone applications and online programs may seem convenient – especially when coupled with attractive free trial offers – but consumers must always be cautious,” said Claire Rosenzweig, President and CEO of BBB Serving Metropolitan New York.

When given the choice, consumers in a survey by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) say they'll take fast food over a full service restaurant.

It might not be a case of fast food restaurants doing a superior job these days. Rather, the index shows customer satisfaction with full-service restaurant has dropped 3.7%, achieving the lowest score in more than 10 years. It's also the first time fast food has beaten full-service in customer satisfaction.

Claes Fornell, ACSI Chairman and founder, says the results are bad news for full-service restaurants, because they can't compete with fast food on price.

"If a lower-price competitor has higher customer satisfaction than a rival that competes on quality, the latter is obviously in serious trouble," Fornell said.

Role of Millennials

How did this turnabout occur? A few years ago, in its assessment of fast food quality, Consumer Reports noted that Millennials are having a greater impact. Eating out has become part of this generation's social structure, so spending less on a meal allows them to dine out more frequently. Fast food chains have also begun targeting this group more aggressively.

The Chick-Fil-A chain may also be exerting some increased influence. A year ago, Chick-Fil-A tied with Subway for the most popular fast food restaurant in the Temkin Experience Ratings, an annual ranking of companies based on a survey of 10,000 U.S. consumers.

While consumers seem to like Chick-Fil-A's food, QSR Magazine reported last year that its surveys show consumers rate the chain's employees the best among fast food restaurants.

The bottom line

Fornell says money may explain consumers' changing preferences. Menu prices are on the rise, but he says consumers don't think full-service restaurants are delivering the quality to justify it.

As we reported in May, when consumers do go to a full-service restaurant, they are now more likely to choose an independent eatery, rather than one of the big full-service chains. Again, Millennials may be a factor here, as they are more likely to seek an "authentic" dining experience if they are going to pay extra for a full-service restaurant.

For months, consumers have been complaining that WEN by Chaz Dean has been making their hair fall out and causing itching and rashes. Now the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is beginning to comb through those complaints.

The agency says the manufacturer of the conditioner has received more than 21,000 complaints while the FDA itself has received another 127. ConsumerAffairs has received nearly 1,000 reviews, most of them negative.

"I used WEN and noticed my hair was not as thick as before and then I heard about the lawsuits," said Victoria of Rosamond, Calif. "I stopped using it and started noticing my hair was thicker again and was confirmed by hairdresser who has been doing my hair for years."

The class action lawsuits Victoria mentions were filed in December 2015 on behalf of lead plaintiff Amy Friedman, who claims that after just two weeks of using WEN's Sweet Almond Mint conditioner, she began losing "substantial and abnormal" amounts of hair.

Hair continues falling out

The lawsuit alleges that more than 200 people in 40 states have made similar accusations and thousands more have posted complaints online. Many say their hair continues falling out even after they stop using the products named after Los Angeles hairdresser Chaz Dean. 

The FDA says it became aware of the problems during inspections of the facilities where WEN is made and distributed, Rx411 reported. It has asked the Chaz Dean company to “provide any data that might help us to better understand the reports of hair loss….”

For its part, the company says it has "no evidence that WEN, or any of the individual ingredients in WEN, causes hair loss."

In a statement to ConsumerAffairs, the company said, "WEN is used by hundreds of thousands of satisfied customers, and all formulations of the product comply with applicable regulations wherever it is sold. We have consistently cooperated with the FDA with respect to any inquiries regarding WEN and we intend to continue to do so.​”

The FDA is also reaching out to physicians and other health care providers, asking them to tell their patients about the complaints of hair loss and other problems, and to report any problems to the agency. The FDA recommends that anyone who experiences a reaction after using WEN should stop using it and speak with a dermatologist or another health care provider.

Hairdressers have been offering similar advice. Marion of Boynton Beach, Fla., said she started using WEN after getting several bottles as gifts. 

"Recently I have changed hairdressers, and I mentioned that my hair has been thinning, my natural curls are gone and my scalp has been itchy. She asked me what shampoo I was using, and I told her WEN. She told me to stop using it and return the products, and that many people have had issues with this shampoo," Marion said.

What hairdressers often don't think to recommend is that consumers who experience the kind of problems Marion has should see a dermatologist. There may be treatments that can stop or reverse the hair loss and other reactions in some cases.

When Starbucks announced this week it is changing its rewards program to hand out stars based on spending instead of visits, it set off a firestorm of protest from customers.

Protests from some customers.

Starbucks pointed out it was making the change in response to requests from customers – the customers who spend a lot of money each day at Starbucks. Customers who patronize Starbucks daily, but might not spend more than $2 per visit, were the ones complaining. And it's understandable – they might not benefit under the new program.

Marketing expert Jay Baer, author of the new book “Hug Your Haters,” says Starbucks is simply following a corporate trend, shifting rewards to spending-based. The airlines did it recently with their miles programs and met with the same level of complaints.

Customer service sea change

But Baer says Starbucks is handling the customer backlash in a different way, marking something of a sea change in customer service. For starters, Starbucks used its Facebook page to announce the change, which was a public venue where customers could easily respond. And they did.

After the initial post went up February 22, Baer counted nearly 5,000 comments in two days. But it's what Starbucks did next that Baer says is truly impressive.

“Starbucks has answered well over 1,000 individual comments, and they have done so remarkably well,” he told ConsumerAffairs. “Not only do they do it quickly, but what I find really commendable is they are answering all of those people, even when the complaint is largely the same as everyone else's, with custom replies. They're not copying and pasting the same response.”

Empathy and humanity

Baer calls it a show of “empathy and humanity,” noting it doesn't come cheap. A team at Starbucks had to sit down and read every one of the complaints before offering a thoughtful reply. Baer agrees that most companies don't do this, but those that do stand to benefit in the long run.

“Customer service is the new marketing,” Baer said. “It is a way to differentiate your brand from other brands, especially since now so much of customer service plays out in public.”

In the early days of ConsumerAffairs, companies often reacted angrily when consumers posted their grievances on the site. Since then, many companies dealing with the public have had to change their approach, as well as their thinking. Many now respond individually to consumers and try to fix whatever it was that annoyed the consumer.

“We're so quick to blame the customer, to say that customer is wrong or just doesn't understand,” Baer said. “I think it's really the business's responsibility to make sure customers understand. I'm really glad to see how Starbucks went out of its way to communicate this. If there's a misunderstanding, it's not the customer's fault, it's your fault.”

And while lot of people will disagree about the specific program and the changes that have been made, Baer doesn't think anyone is going to say Starbucks doesn't care about its customers.

“They do, and I think they've proved it again here,” he said.