<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Digital Influence in the Network Economy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sparxoo.com/2009/11/16/digital-influence-in-the-network-economy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sparxoo.com/2009/11/16/digital-influence-in-the-network-economy/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:32:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: david</title>
		<link>http://sparxoo.com/2009/11/16/digital-influence-in-the-network-economy/comment-page-1/#comment-6276</link>
		<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:04:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sparxoo.com/?p=3928#comment-6276</guid>
		<description>Hope everyone enjoyed the article.  I received some great feedback from our fans, and wanted to point out that the Net Promoter Score is calculated on a scale from Zero to 10.  Thanks to Richard at FloridaCSI.com for sharing the below e-mail:

&quot;I have just received and completed a quick &quot;first-pass&quot; review of your very interesting article, Digital Influence in a Network Economy. It is exceptionally well conceived and assembled. I look forward to listening to the Podcast interview. You seem to have captured the essence of the new fundamental structure of relationships. Well done!

I would call one small matter to your attention: In your article, you reference the Net Promoter Score (Measure Success), and identify the scale &quot;of 1 – 10.&quot; However, in The Ultimate Question, Fred Reichheld explains on page 29, &quot;...we settled on a simple zero-to-ten scale, where ten means &quot;extremely likely&quot; to recommend, five is neutral, and zero means &quot;not at all likely.&quot; Then he maps the scale on page 31.

The point is that the scale, according to Reichheld is ZERO to ten, not ONE to ten. 

As &quot;promoters&quot; for Net Promoter Score, we see this issue regularly. We try to encourage fidelity to the original model out of respect for the author and to keep consistency across users. When everyone uses the same scale, results are more readily compared.

It&#039;s a small matter, we know. Yet as they say, the devil is in the details, and it&#039;s the small things that matter.

Thanks again for all your intellectual and physical effort to put together your insightful model – it is a major contribution to the industry.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hope everyone enjoyed the article.  I received some great feedback from our fans, and wanted to point out that the Net Promoter Score is calculated on a scale from Zero to 10.  Thanks to Richard at FloridaCSI.com for sharing the below e-mail:</p>
<p>&#8220;I have just received and completed a quick &#8220;first-pass&#8221; review of your very interesting article, Digital Influence in a Network Economy. It is exceptionally well conceived and assembled. I look forward to listening to the Podcast interview. You seem to have captured the essence of the new fundamental structure of relationships. Well done!</p>
<p>I would call one small matter to your attention: In your article, you reference the Net Promoter Score (Measure Success), and identify the scale &#8220;of 1 – 10.&#8221; However, in The Ultimate Question, Fred Reichheld explains on page 29, &#8220;&#8230;we settled on a simple zero-to-ten scale, where ten means &#8220;extremely likely&#8221; to recommend, five is neutral, and zero means &#8220;not at all likely.&#8221; Then he maps the scale on page 31.</p>
<p>The point is that the scale, according to Reichheld is ZERO to ten, not ONE to ten. </p>
<p>As &#8220;promoters&#8221; for Net Promoter Score, we see this issue regularly. We try to encourage fidelity to the original model out of respect for the author and to keep consistency across users. When everyone uses the same scale, results are more readily compared.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a small matter, we know. Yet as they say, the devil is in the details, and it&#8217;s the small things that matter.</p>
<p>Thanks again for all your intellectual and physical effort to put together your insightful model – it is a major contribution to the industry.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
