Benchmarks / SurveyBench / Why Quaymark's customer score fell / Kimi K3.1 Pro
Kimi K3.1 Pro: 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
- 608
- Head to head, this task
- won 0 of 5
Why it is not sound
The survey
- A double-barrelled question: Q3
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 9 questions, as the model wrote them.
-
S1
Are you the main person, or one of the main people, responsible for booking shipments through Quaymark for your business?
One answer- Yes, I am the main booking contact
- Yes, I share main booking responsibility with someone else
- No
Continues if Yes, I am the main booking contact; Yes, I share main booking responsibility with someone else
-
S2
Has your business booked at least one shipment through Quaymark in the last three months?
One answer- Yes
- No
- I don't know
Routing Shown only if S1 is: Yes, I am the main booking contact; Yes, I share main booking responsibility with someone else
Continues if Yes
-
Q1
On a scale of 0 to 10, how likely are you to recommend Quaymark to another business?
ScaleScale 1-11: 0 – Not at all likely to 10 – Extremely likely
-
Q2
What is the main reason for the score you just gave? Please include specific examples of what Quaymark does well or what it could do better, where relevant.
Open text -
Q3
Which, if any, of the following has your business experienced with Quaymark in the last three months? Select all that apply.
Any that apply- Getting a price and completing a booking quickly
- Collections or deliveries running on time
- Accurate, up-to-date shipment tracking
- Clear, helpful support when we needed it
- Charges that were clear and easy to understand
- A delayed shipment
- Tracking information that was missing, inaccurate or out of date
- Not being told promptly about a delay
- Difficulty getting a problem resolved by Quaymark support
- Charges that were unclear or higher than we expected
- None of these
Judges: double-barrelledThe option 'Getting a price and completing a booking quickly' combines the speed of obtaining a price with the speed of completing a booking. These can differ, but the single checkbox cannot distinguish them.
Several options ask about multiple things at once (e.g., 'Getting a price and completing a booking quickly', 'Clear, helpful support', 'missing, inaccurate or out of date').
-
Q4
If Quaymark had to prioritise the following changes, how would you rank them for your business? Use 1 for the biggest benefit and 4 for the smallest benefit, and rank all four. If one would not benefit your business, place it below any that would.
Ranking- More reliable and detailed shipment tracking
- Proactive alerts when a shipment is likely to be delayed, with an updated delivery estimate
- Access to a named account manager who can help with bookings and resolve problems
- Replace the per-shipment booking fee with a monthly subscription
-
Q5
Thinking about the booking fee only, not the haulage price, how would you rate the value for money of Quaymark's current £3.50 per-shipment booking fee for your business? If your account pays a reduced fee, answer for the fee you actually pay.
One answer- Very good value for money
- Fairly good value for money
- Neither good nor poor value for money
- Fairly poor value for money
- Very poor value for money
- I don't know enough about the booking fee to say
-
Q6
Quaymark currently charges a £3.50 booking fee per shipment, with a reduced fee for accounts booking 100 or more shipments a month. Before March 2026, Quaymark instead charged a monthly subscription, from £25 a month for the smallest accounts. Based on what you know, which pricing approach would your business prefer?
One answer- The current per-shipment booking fee
- The previous monthly subscription
- No preference between these two approaches
- Neither of these approaches
- I don't know enough to say
-
Q7
Thinking only about the current per-shipment booking fee, what effect, if any, does it have on how likely your business is to keep using Quaymark?
One answer- Much more likely to keep using Quaymark
- Slightly more likely to keep using Quaymark
- No effect on how likely we are to keep using Quaymark
- Slightly less likely to keep using Quaymark
- Much less likely to keep using Quaymark
- I don't know
-
Q8
Optional: What is the main reason for your answers about Quaymark's pricing? Please be as specific as you can.
Open text -
Q9
Thinking about the last three months, which band best describes the average number of shipments your business booked through Quaymark each month? Please answer for the whole business, not just your own bookings.
One answer- Fewer than 20 shipments a month
- 20 to 99 shipments a month
- 100 or more shipments a month
- I don't know
Sample plan
Use the customer database to create a census frame of the 4,720 UK accounts with at least one Quaymark shipment in the previous three months. Calculate average monthly Quaymark shipments over that period and assign each account to the <20, 20–99 or 100+ stratum; also append pre-March-2026 tenure and actual booking/fee data where available. Email one unique account-level link to the main booking contact at every account, using a neutral service-experience invitation that does not mention the fee hypothesis. Make responses confidential, keep account managers out of administration, allow one response per account, and send reminders preferentially to nonrespondents in under-filled strata. Monitor minimum stratum quotas rather than relying on a proportional overall quota. The approximately 520-complete target, about an 11% response, does not by itself guarantee ±5 percentage points at 95% confidence for every stratum. Conservatively, each promoter-share estimate needs 385 effective completes at p=0.5 under simple random sampling, or 1,155 across three strata. With known stratum population N_h, the finite-population target is n_h=384.16N_h/(N_h+383.16), before increasing it for weighting or other design effects. Even an equal 173/173/174 split of 520 gives only about ±7.4 points per stratum under the conservative calculation. If ±5 points is non-negotiable, set minimum effective-sample quotas from the actual N_h and continue fieldwork until every stratum meets its target. If total completes must remain around 520, obtain explicit agreement to relax the requirement, report the achieved stratum-specific margins and treat small-base comparisons as indicative; do not label the results as meeting ±5-point precision. Compare respondents with the frame on size, tenure and booking volume, use account-level nonresponse weights where helpful, and note that confidence intervals do not remove nonresponse bias.