The sales team hears the same confusion several times. Support often explains a condition. The people delivering the work discover that a detail in the presentation creates the wrong expectations. Meanwhile, marketing prepares the next campaign based on the original brief.
The information exists in the business, but it is spread across conversations, emails and colleagues’ experience. Sometimes it reaches marketing as a very general conclusion: “Customers want it cheaper” or “We need to communicate more simply.”
To use feedback, we have to keep the context, identify the real question and decide who can change what caused it.
An observation needs context
“I don’t understand how it works” can be about the product, the ordering process or the service after purchase. Without context, we may rewrite the wrong page or produce content that does not address the problem.
It helps to know when the question came up, which offer the person was evaluating and what information they had seen. Where possible, we keep the relevant wording, while protecting personal and commercial information.
We separate the observation from the interpretation. “Three people asked whether installation is included” describes a situation. “Nobody understands the offer” stretches the conclusion beyond what we know. The first statement lets us investigate more precisely.
Where useful information may be
Sales conversations reveal questions from the evaluation stage. Support sees difficulties in use. The delivery team sees where the promise meets reality. Reviews and public messages can add other perspectives.
Each source has limits. The people who contact support do not automatically represent all users. People who answer a survey may have different interests from those who do not. People who gave up before contacting the business may be missing entirely.
We are not looking for a perfect source. We put the information side by side and state what each piece describes. When an important decision requires more certainty, we can add dedicated research or a check of the available data.
From the customer’s question to where to intervene
Suppose a fictional furniture supplier gets questions about installation. The team reviews its materials and finds that some presentations say “full service,” while the detailed proposal lists delivery and installation separately.
The solution may include clarifying the page, changing an ad message and updating the proposal template. A commercial decision may also be needed: does installation become included under certain conditions, or does it remain a separate option?
| Illustrative observation | What we investigate | Who can help solve it |
|---|---|---|
| “I thought it was included” | The promise and the visible conditions | Sales, marketing and the owner of the offer |
| “I can’t find where to confirm” | The interface and the process messages | The product team, design and development |
| “I sent it, but I don’t know what happens next” | Confirmation and how the request is handled | Sales, operations and the technical team |
| “I can’t use this option” | The configuration, the explanation and how it works | Support and the product owner |
The example is hypothetical. Not every observation calls for a campaign or an article; some call for a change in the service, the interface or the process.
How we choose what to fix first
Frequency is a clue, but it is not the only criterion. A rare problem can block an important action. A frequent question may be natural for a complex service and may already have a good answer.
We analyze the consequence, the stage affected, the number of known cases and the effort needed to check or intervene. It also matters whether the wrong explanation creates an expectation the business cannot meet.
We can start with a small, precise change when there are enough clues: a condition next to the price, a confirmation message, an example in a proposal. For a major change to the product or positioning, we ask for a broader basis.
Who turns the observation into actual work
A feedback document is useful only if the right people can use it. We decide who collects the observations, who clarifies the missing information, who decides on the intervention and who carries it out.
A short meeting, at a pace that suits the volume of the business, can bring together sales, support, marketing and the product owner. Not every colleague needs to attend every discussion. The problem does need to reach the person who can solve it.
Recording an action has to preserve its link to the observation. “We’ll redo the page” is too general. “We’ll clarify the installation conditions next to the offer being evaluated, then check which questions still come up” makes the intervention and its evaluation easier to follow.
How we check whether the change helped
We go back to the original question. If we clarified a condition, we check whether people can explain it and whether fewer similar misunderstandings appear in comparable situations. If we changed a journey, we test the action and observe what happens in use.
A comparison needs a baseline. Fewer questions in a period with far fewer inquiries does not automatically show an improvement. We can analyze proportions, contexts and other changes that occurred, depending on the information available.
Some effects are qualitative. Colleagues may report that the offer is easier to explain or that they have discovered a new ambiguity. These observations are useful for what comes next, without turning them into invented performance percentages.
Feedback should not change direction after every conversation
An individual request may be relevant for that customer and a poor fit for the standard offer. An opinion about a design may express personal taste without describing a usability problem. We look into what the observation means before generalizing.
We also record decisions not to change something, along with the reason. We may need more information, a different stage or a separate option. That way, the same question is not reopened over and over without context.
When appropriate, we tell the people who contributed what has improved. We do not promise to implement every suggestion. We show that observations are analyzed and that there is a link between the conversation and the action.
How we work at NOT MORE.
We can organize how information is collected and interpreted, set priorities and carry out the agreed changes: messaging, content, design, website, automation or processes. We work with the people who own the offer and with the teams or agencies already involved.
Responsibility for the product, the terms and commercial decisions stays clear. Our contribution can also include implementation and monitoring, depending on the services we take on. The goal is for what you learn from customer relationships to make its way into the actual work.
Methodological reference
GOV.UK: Sharing user research findings covers sharing research findings with the teams that make decisions and improve the service. The commercial organization and the examples in this article are NOT MORE. editorial developments.