KogniFeed
Try AI interviews free
← Back to case studies
Ecommerce

Post-purchase Insight interviews that explained a CSAT dip

A DTC brand saw post-purchase CSAT fall after switching warehouses. Star ratings moved; reasons did not. They embedded a pulse Insight agent on the order-success page and invited recent buyers via CRM for a deeper wave. Blueprint fields kept charts while conversation captured why scores slipped — without heatmaps, session replay, or a longer CSAT form.

1 embed

Pulse Insight agent on order-success for always-on post-purchase signal

2 channels

Website embed pulse plus CRM deep-dive wave on the same blueprint

1 month

CSAT recovery window after pick-list QA and delay SMS

2 SKU families

Wrong-item themes concentrated for warehouse QA focus

Challenge

Ops assumed shipping speed was the issue. Marketing blamed packaging. Support tickets mentioned “wrong item” and “late,” but volume was too noisy to prioritize a single fix. Classic CSAT forms asked for a score and an optional comment — most comments were blank, so monthly reviews argued from anecdotes instead of explained drivers.

The story

After the warehouse switch, the brand’s post-purchase CSAT slid for three weeks. Leadership asked for a root cause. Ops pointed at carrier SLAs. Marketing pointed at unboxing. Support pointed at a spike in “wrong item” and “where is my order” tickets. The CSAT widget still collected stars; almost nobody wrote a useful comment. Heatmaps on the thank-you page showed clicks, not explanations.

They embedded a pulse Insight agent on order success and invited a CRM cohort from the new fulfillment region for a deeper follow-up. Blueprint fields captured scores and structured reasons during chat; the agent asked for examples when answers were vague. Within one wave, item accuracy and delay communication dominated explained drivers. Packaging barely appeared. CS edited a metric label so “late” stopped mixing carrier reality with warehouse promise gaps.

Ops shipped pick-list QA for the noisy SKUs and proactive delay SMS. The next monthly compare window showed CSAT recovering. The embed stayed as an always-on pulse; CRM waves became the tool for regional or seasonal deep dives. Same Insight pipeline, same editable analysis hub — owned buyers explaining fulfillment, not a panel or a longer form.

Timeline

  1. 1

    Discover

    Aligned ops, marketing, and support on the CSAT dip; chose post-transaction CSAT template and blueprint fields for timing, accuracy, and reorder intent.

  2. 2

    Launch

    Published the thank-you page embed with pulse session shape; sent CRM invites to buyers in the new warehouse region for a deeper wave.

  3. 3

    Learn

    Compared old vs new fulfillment cohorts in the analysis hub; edited auto-metrics; confirmed accuracy and delay communication over packaging.

  4. 4

    Act

    Shipped pick-list QA and proactive delay SMS; watched CSAT recover in the next monthly compare; kept embed as ongoing pulse.

Approach

  1. Step 1

    Published the post-transaction CSAT template with pulse session shape on the thank-you page embed so buyers could talk while the order was still top of mind.

  2. Step 2

    Configured blueprint fields for overall satisfaction, delivery timing, item accuracy, communication of delays, and likelihood to reorder.

  3. Step 3

    Kept the embed short; reserved a slightly deeper session shape for a second CRM wave to buyers in the new warehouse region only.

  4. Step 4

    Compared analysis hub cohorts: old vs new fulfillment region, mobile vs desktop checkout, and first-time vs repeat buyers.

  5. Step 5

    Edited auto-metric labels when “late” needed splitting into carrier delay versus warehouse miss-promise.

  6. Step 6

    Shared quotable lines with warehouse partners in weekly ops reviews instead of forwarding raw ticket dumps.

  7. Step 7

    Re-ran a monthly compare window after pick-list QA and proactive delay SMS shipped, using the same blueprint and hub filters.

Results

  • Explained drivers showed item accuracy and communication of delays — not packaging aesthetics — as the CSAT drop cause.
  • Ops fixed pick-list QA and proactive delay SMS; CSAT recovered within one monthly compare window after the fixes landed.
  • Embed completion stayed high because sessions stayed short; the deeper CRM wave validated the same themes with richer quotes.
  • Wrong-item mentions concentrated in two SKU families, giving warehouse partners a concrete QA checklist instead of a vague “quality” complaint.
  • Marketing stopped a packaging redesign that would not have moved CSAT; budget shifted to delay-communication copy.
  • Support ticket noise remained, but the hub gave ops a prioritized theme list they could act on within a sprint.

FAQ

Was this a heatmap or session-replay project?

No. They already had analytics. KogniFeed added owned-audience interviews — not click maps — so buyers could explain fulfillment issues in their own words.

How did they handle consent?

The participant experience linked to their privacy policy; CRM invites went only to buyers who opted into research communications where required.

Why not lengthen the CSAT form with more checkboxes?

Longer forms would have hurt completion and still would not probe vague answers. The Insight agent kept pulse length on embed while asking follow-ups when a score needed an example.

Did embed and CRM produce different themes?

No — the deeper CRM wave validated the same drivers with richer quotes. Both channels fed one analysis hub with the same blueprint fields and editable metrics.