Skip to main content

Hi!

We have identified a potential issue where our CSMs are able to submit NPS responses on behalf of their customers by following the survey link.

 

This is great and exactly what we need in certain situations, however we can’t see that they is any confirmation of who actually submitted the survey. This means that our NPS responses are open to manipulation, as our team are targeted on both response rate and satisfaction.

 

I was wondering if anyone else has encountered this issue and if there are any solutions currently in play?

I can’t see how we’d be able to identify who submitted a response as the survey can be opened by anyone who has the link, with no way of collating their credentials - resulting in the contact who was sent the link being listed as the responder every time.

Hi @DStock 

Moving this question to the associated discussion space on community.💡

Good question, @DStock.

Given that surveys don’t require authentication if they are accessed via link, whoever has the link can indeed submit the survey. In other contexts, this issue also exists for most Unsubscribe links and Google Suite sharing in some situations.

A couple thoughts:

You could add a follow-up email to the designated recipient after the survey is returned. If the designated recipient gets an email saying, “Thanks for your response”, you reduce the chances someone inside the company would try to gin up the response rate by completing it on behalf of customers without their prior knowledge.

A more heavyweight solution is to reduce use of email / link / web-based NPS surveys and use more in-app surveys. Of course, that requires significant investment in software and administration, so many be out of reach. However, if this issue is significant, in-app would both reduce the manipulation and also very likely increase your response rate, one of your original goals.

Stepping back, I’m curious about using NPS response rate and score as a lever the teams are measured on. That could lead to manipulation of a CSM “leaning on” a customer to give a better score, etc. Link issue aside, measuring like this could lead to gaming of the system. Granted, I don’t know all of your specifics and the context in which this measuring happened.

I would have thought this is quite unusual because it’s not easy for a CSM to get the survey link

If they have received an email via the “email a copy” feature in JO, then the survey and opt-out links are disabled (maybe that’s the issue and the survey link isn’t disabled like the opt-out ones are)

I would do whatever possible to avoid the CSMs getting the survey links and then any internal submissions (where appropriate) can be submitted via the Survey page inside GS

The other thing that might have happened is that you’ve set your email template to be operational rather than non-operational which makes the CC feature in JO active. This doesn’t disable survey and opt-out links for those receiving via CC and is the difference between using “CC” or “email copy” functions.

 

Thanks @matthew_lind 

I think that is a good suggestion re the follow up thanking the recipient for their response.

I do think there is merit in your point around ‘leaning' on customers. These measures have only recently been introduced and it’s definitely something that will need to be managed closely. We have always encouraged our customers to be 100% honest so will need to maintain this.

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings