Benchmarks / SurveyBench / Why Quaymark's customer score fell / MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: Why Quaymark's customer score fell
The decision: whether to reverse the per-shipment fee and bring back the subscription, invest in shipment tracking and proactive delay alerts, or add account managers for mid-sized customers. The brief and the data →
- Verdict
- ✗ Not sound
- Research score
- 29 of 100
- Analysis rating
- 484
- Head to head, this task
- won 0 of 4
Why it is not sound
The survey
- A double-barrelled question: Q9
The analysis
- Produced no usable analysis
Scorecard
The analysis
This model produced no usable analysis for this task.
The survey it planned
2 screening questions and 10 questions, as the model wrote them.
-
S1
Are you the main person at your organisation who books shipment collections with Quaymark?
One answer- Yes, I am the main booking contact
- Yes, I share this responsibility with other colleagues
- No, I am not a booking contact
Continues if Yes, I am the main booking contact; Yes, I share this responsibility with other colleagues
-
S2
Have you personally booked or managed at least one Quaymark shipment collection in the last three months?
One answer- Yes
- No
- I am not sure
Continues if Yes
-
Q1
How likely are you to recommend Quaymark to another UK business that needs to book pallet or parcel collections?
ScaleScale 1-11: 0 — Not at all likely to 10 — Extremely likely
-
Q2
In one or two sentences, what is the main reason for the score you have just given?
Open text -
Q3
Which of the following influenced your score? Select up to three. If you select “No particular factor”, do not select any other options.
Any that apply- Ease and speed of booking
- Speed and accuracy of quotes
- Price and value of Quaymark's charges
- Transparency of charges and billing
- Ability to track shipments online
- Information provided when shipments are delayed
- Reliability and on-time delivery
- Quality and responsiveness of customer support
- Access to account-management support
- Range of hauliers and service options
- No particular factor
-
Q4
Thinking only about Quaymark's own charges, not charges paid to hauliers, how does the per-shipment fee that applies to your organisation compare with the monthly subscription that your organisation used before March 2026?
One answer- The per-shipment fee works out much less expensive for us
- The per-shipment fee works out somewhat less expensive for us
- The two arrangements cost about the same
- The per-shipment fee works out somewhat more expensive for us
- The per-shipment fee works out much more expensive for us
- I do not know
- My organisation was not a Quaymark customer before March 2026
-
Q5
Thinking about your organisation's usual shipment volume over the next 12 months, which Quaymark pricing arrangement would you prefer if both were available?
One answer- The current per-shipment booking fee, including any reduced rate that applies to my account
- The previous monthly subscription
- A different pricing arrangement
- Neither arrangement
- No preference
- I do not know enough about the two arrangements to choose
- Not applicable: my organisation joined Quaymark after March 2026
-
Q6
Which one of the following improvements would make the biggest difference to your experience of Quaymark?
One answer- More detailed or accurate online shipment tracking
- Proactive alerts as soon as a delay is likely
- A named account manager who understands my organisation's shipping needs
- Lower or more flexible Quaymark charges
- Faster and more effective customer support
- More choice of hauliers or service options
- A simpler booking process
- None of these would make a difference
-
Q7
Which of the following, if any, would make you more likely to recommend Quaymark? Select all that apply. If you select “None of these”, do not select any other options.
Any that apply- More detailed or accurate online shipment tracking
- Proactive alerts as soon as a delay is likely
- A named account manager who understands my organisation's shipping needs
- Lower or more flexible Quaymark charges
- Faster and more effective customer support
- More choice of hauliers or service options
- A simpler booking process
- None of these would make me more likely to recommend Quaymark
-
Q8
Overall, how satisfied are you with the online tracking information for your Quaymark shipments?
One answer- Very dissatisfied
- Dissatisfied
- Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
- Satisfied
- Very satisfied
- I have not used the tracking function
- I am not sure
-
Q9
Thinking about delayed shipments in the last three months, how well did Quaymark keep you informed about the delay and the likely revised delivery time?
One answer- Very poorly
- Poorly
- Neither well nor poorly
- Well
- Very well
- I did not experience a delayed shipment
- I am not sure
Judges: double-barrelledOne rating covers both being informed about the delay and being given a likely revised delivery time. Quaymark could perform well on one and poorly on the other.
Asks about two different things (being informed about the delay AND the likely revised delivery time) but allows only a single rating.
-
Q10
Thinking about your most recent contact with Quaymark customer support in the last three months, how satisfied were you with how your issue was handled?
One answer- Very dissatisfied
- Dissatisfied
- Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
- Satisfied
- Very satisfied
- I did not contact Quaymark customer support
- I am not sure
Sample plan
Email the main booking contact for each of the 4,720 active UK accounts once, using a unique link and allowing one completed response per account; retain only accounts with at least one shipment booked in the previous three months. Define account size from booking-system data as average monthly shipments over the three complete calendar months before fielding: fewer than 20, 20–99, and 100 or more. All 4,720 accounts should be invited and response volumes monitored by size band. The stated precision requirement is incompatible with a total of about 520 completes: at 95% confidence, a worst-case proportion requires n = 385 completed respondents per band, or 1,155 total, unless a band is fully censused and a finite-population correction applies. Treat 520 as the first-wave operational target and use additional reminders and invitations to under-represented bands until each band reaches at least 385 completes. If 520 is an absolute cap, equal allocation would provide only approximately ±7.5 percentage points at worst case, and the board's ±5-point requirement must be relaxed or explicitly recorded as unmet. Overall results should be weighted to the account population, while within-band results remain unweighted. To avoid sponsor bias, the invitation must not claim that the fee caused dissatisfaction or ask respondents to bring back the subscription; randomise the order of the current-fee and previous-subscription options in Q5 and randomise the substantive option order in Q3, Q6 and Q7.