Customer research call guide

Customer Interview Guide: Why Are Customers Leaving?

Owner: Staff PM | Calls: 12 × 45 min, over three weeks | Readout: before the exec decision in four weeks

1. Learning goals

1. Timing: When did the customer first consider leaving, and what was happening then (signing, go-live, first 90 days, renewal)? This tells us whether churn is decided early or late.
2. Reasons, in their order: What were the reasons for leaving or staying, ranked in the customer's own words, before we prompt anything?
3. Automation: Are they automating their floor, which systems do they need Crate to connect to, and was that gap a blocker or a workaround?
4. Implementation: Where did time go between signing and daily use, and who was waiting on whom?
5. Alternatives: What did they evaluate instead, and what did that option do better?

2. Changes to the plan (please read before the calls start)

1. Ana should not run calls with accounts she knows. Personal relationships make candid criticism less likely, and Ana is the sponsor of Bet A. She can provide introductions and read the notes afterward. Neutral interviewers run those four calls on accounts she doesn't manage.
2. The plan implies 24 conversations, not 12. Each account has two contacts. I propose 12 × 45-minute calls with the operations manager on every account, plus a 20-minute executive call (VP/COO) on as many accounts as we can reach, aiming for six.
3. Rebalance the sample. Churned accounts are 9 of the 12 calls, and the at-risk sample is weighted toward accounts in renewal talks (see point 4). Within the churned group, make sure we have at least three go-lives over 90 days and three under 90, and at least three accounts running automation and three that aren't. Without this spread, we can't tell robotics from implementation.
4. Renewal talks distort at-risk answers. Five of six at-risk accounts are negotiating renewals with discounts on the table. Customers will say what helps their negotiation, and we can't fully control for that. Treat at-risk answers as evidence of current pain, not reasons for churn. If possible, swap two at-risk accounts for churned accounts from months 9–12 of the exit survey window.
5. Pull data this week, not after the calls. Get churn-notice dates, go-live dates, and integration usage for all 41 churned accounts. This lets us test the timing question quantitatively.
6. Don't treat the exit survey as proof. Missing features was the first option, the "Other" box was almost empty, and the question forced one answer. The 46% doesn't tell us it's robotics. Use these calls to check it.
7. Agree the decision thresholds now (section 5), before we hear anything.

3. Questions and timings

Opening (3 min), verbatim: > "Before we start, may I record this? It's for internal research only, and I'll share unattributed summaries. You can stop at any point. We're not selling anything today, and I can't discuss pricing, offers, or product plans. I want to understand what happened for you."

A. Context (5 min) - Walk me through your warehouse operation and your role in it. - What does Crate do for you day to day, or what did it do before you stopped using it?

B. The timeline (12 min) Most important block. Get dates. - Walk me through the last time you were seriously considering leaving [or: seriously worried about the relationship]. When did that start? - What was happening at that point? Who was involved? - When did it become a real decision? What triggered it? - Probe for dates: "Roughly which month was that? What was going on at go-live?"

C. Reasons, unprompted (8 min) Don't mention robotics yet. - Looking back, what were all the reasons, in order of importance? - What made the difference between staying and leaving? - If we'd fixed one thing, would you have stayed? - What did you look at instead? What did it do that we didn't?

D. Automation (7 min) Only after block C. - What has changed on your floor over the past two years? Any carts, pick-assist robots, or other automation? - Which systems does Crate need to connect with? How did your team work around the gap? - Was that a blocker, or a nice-to-have? - Did anyone raise it in a renewal or evaluation discussion?

E. Implementation (8 min) - How long did it take from signing to your team using Crate daily? - Where did the time go? Who was waiting on whom? - When did your team first feel it was working?

F. Close (5 min) - If you were us, what would you fix first? - Is there anything I should have asked?

Executive variant (20 min): Spend the time on blocks A, B, and C, plus: how the decision was made and who approved it; what they evaluated; how automation fits into their operating plan for the next 12 months; and what they told their team about Crate.

At-risk variant: Replace "what made the difference between staying and leaving?" with "what's working well today and what's getting in the way?" Do not ask about renewal, pricing, or whether they plan to stay.

4. Guidance for interviewers

• Two people per call: one leads, one takes notes. No one from Sales or Customer Success on the call.
• Don't name robotics, the 46% figure, or our hypotheses. Don't ask leading questions ("Isn't it frustrating that…?").
• Ask about specific past events, not hypotheticals ("Would you use…?"). Ask "What else?" until they run out.
• Let silence work. Don't fill it.
• Don't promise anything. If asked about features or fixes: "I'll pass that on, but I can't say what we'll build."
• Pricing or discounts: Don't engage. Say "I can't discuss that today. I'll make sure your account team knows you raised it." Record their words verbatim and tell Customer Success after the call. CS owns the follow-up.
• Debrief within two hours. Fill in one template: go-live and churn dates, reasons in the customer's order, whether robotics came up unprompted or after a prompt, implementation duration, and up to three verbatim quotes.

5. What we'd need to hear

Thresholds are directional. Twelve calls can't prove anything, but they can show whether a theory holds up.

Back Bet A (robotics integrations) if: - At least 5 of 12 name a specific automation system that Crate can't connect to as a primary reason for leaving or evaluating alternatives. This should come up in block C or D, not only after prompting. - At least 3 say the integration would have changed the outcome. - The decision to leave happened late in the contract, not during implementation. - Churned accounts that ran automation churned for reasons that match the exit survey.

Back Bet B (faster implementation) if: - At least 5 of 12 say the decision started during go-live or in the first 90 days. - They name specific bottlenecks: data migration, configuration, waiting on our team, or connecting to their existing systems. - At least 3 say faster go-live would have kept them. - In the pulled data, go-live time separates churned accounts from retained ones more sharply than automation does.

Back neither if: - Reasons are spread across price, service, reporting, or other issues, with no dominant theme. - Robotics comes up, but few customers have automation projects planned in the next 12 months. - Implementation was slow, but the decision to leave was made at renewal for unrelated reasons. - The real driver is weak executive sponsorship or a lack of internal champions, which neither bet addresses.

If neither bet is backed, the readout should say so directly and name the pattern that did emerge. Don't force a choice between A and B if the evidence points elsewhere. If the evidence supports both, the readout should say which has stronger support and what would change that conclusion.

Crate churn research: executive pre-read and interview guide

Decision: Allocate two squads next half to robotics integrations (A), implementation rebuild (B), or neither if the evidence does not justify either.

Research stance: Test both explanations, not confirm either executive’s account. These interviews can reveal mechanisms and decision timelines; they cannot estimate their prevalence across 340 customers or prove causality.

1. Learning goals

1. Reconstruct the departure process: When did concerns emerge, when did leaving become likely, and when was the decision effectively made?
2. Identify consequential problems: Separate reasons volunteered after leaving from problems that materially changed warehouse outcomes and the buying decision.
3. Test Bet A: Was a specific robotics incompatibility a binding obstacle? Would addressing it have plausibly retained the account?
4. Test Bet B: Did implementation delay prevent value, damage trust, or trigger departure? What caused the delay, and could Crate control it?
5. Find alternatives and interactions: Price, service, reliability, business changes, or other missing capabilities may dominate. Robotics work may itself complicate implementation.
6. Connect learning to an investable scope: What could two squads deliver next half that would address the demonstrated retention mechanism?

What the existing evidence does—and does not—say

• The exit survey’s broad integration category, single-choice format, first-position placement, and sparse free text do not establish robotics as the cause.
• The 2.4× churn association makes implementation worth investigating, but complexity, customer readiness, or other factors could drive both delay and churn.
• Three competitor moves and nine lost deals indicate a robotics opportunity; acquisition losses are not evidence of a retention mechanism.
• Unknown decision dates make chronology essential.

2. Changes to the call plan

Resolve the arithmetic: Twelve separate interviews cannot cover twelve accounts with two roles each. Use six accounts × two separate role interviews = twelve 45-minute calls.

Recommended mix: Four churned accounts and two at-risk accounts. This reduces reliance on renewal negotiations while retaining a prospective view. Findings will be depth-oriented, not representative.

Select accounts from the full CRM population, not executive contacts or survey answers alone:

• Across churned accounts, include slow and faster implementations, first-year and later departures, and robotics-exposed and non-exposed customers.
• Include at least one confirmed move to a robotics-enabled competitor and one slow implementation without an apparent robotics need.
• For at-risk accounts, prefer one with active automation plans and one with implementation/value-realization problems. Include the non-renewal account if suitable.
• Seek contrasting retained accounts through existing operational data, even though the call budget does not cover them.

Recruit both the daily warehouse operations manager and the contract-signing VP Operations/COO. If the original signer has left, recruit someone directly involved in the departure or renewal decision and document that substitution.

Ana should not lead calls with her personal contacts. Use a neutral interviewer without renewal responsibility. Ana can help recruit; observing requires explicit customer consent. Her existing conversations are useful leads, not independently verified findings.

CS should introduce research as separate from renewal discussions, then step out. Participation must not affect commercial treatment.

3. Interview guides: 45 minutes each

Use the relevant role column. In every section, distinguish direct experience from hearsay. Ask broad questions before naming either bet.

Status-specific wording

• Churned: Ask what the replacement actually delivered, whether it went live, and whether the cited problem improved—not merely what the competitor promised.
• At-risk: Ask what has already happened, current unresolved consequences, and what would cause escalation or departure. Do not imply a departure decision exists. Distinguish funded plans from aspirations.

4. Guidance for interviewers

• Begin with recording permission; record only after consent. Explain that this is research, not a support, roadmap, or renewal discussion.
• Do not discuss prices, discounts, or roadmap commitments. If raised, acknowledge without probing commercial terms: “I can’t discuss that here; your account team handles commercial conversations.” Record volunteered price concerns as an alternative explanation.
• Avoid “Did missing robotics make you leave?” and “Would faster onboarding have saved you?” Start with events; use counterfactuals only afterward.
• Ask for concrete examples, dates, artifacts, and consequences. “It was painful” is not yet a mechanism.
• Do not defend Crate, disclose executive hypotheses, or offer fixes.
• Interview roles separately before reconciling accounts. Treat disagreement as evidence, not an error to erase.
• Use a note-taker and common template: timeline, problem, consequence, decision link, alternative explanation, evidence source, and confidence. Count accounts, not two interviewees as independent votes.

5. Evidence required for the decision

Back A: robotics integrations

Look for a repeated chain across independent accounts:

Committed robotics deployment → specific missing connection → material operational/business constraint → documented role in departure or credible near-term risk.

Stronger evidence includes decision-maker confirmation, pre-decision correspondence, and a replacement that solved the problem. Match the implicated vendors/workflows to current customer exposure. Before funding, establish that a feasible integration scope could address meaningful retention risk next half.

Mentions of “automation,” hypothetical plans, or competitor marketing are insufficient.

Back B: implementation rebuild

Look for:

Crate-controllable implementation bottleneck → delayed usable value or broken operational commitments → loss of confidence/avoidable cost → departure decision before value realization.

Seek repeated bottlenecks, role-level corroboration, and contrasts with faster implementations. Validate the mechanism against the full cohort, accounting where possible for complexity and customer readiness. Identify changes two squads could deliver; do not assume a wholesale rebuild is necessary.

Back neither—or declare the result inconclusive

Neither is justified if dominant causes lie elsewhere, robotics demand is narrow or speculative, delays are largely outside Crate’s control, or either intervention arrives too late to affect retention. If interviews remain contradictory or unsupported, report insufficient evidence, not “neither causes churn.”

Compare both bets on reachable ARR at risk, evidence strength, controllability, delivery feasibility, and time to impact—not mention counts.

6. Three-week execution

• Week 1: Audit cohorts and timelines, recruit, pilot one role pair.
• Week 2: Complete remaining interviews; synthesize after each pair without changing standards to favor an emerging winner.
• Week 3: Verify discrepancies, triangulate with records, assess engineering scope, and prepare the decision memo with supporting evidence, counterexamples, uncertainties, and a recommendation.

Do not commit two squads merely because one story sounds more persuasive.

Crate customer research guide: why are warehouses leaving?

Purpose: In three weeks, learn whether churn is more plausibly driven by missing robotics integrations (Bet A), slow implementation (Bet B), or something else. These calls are for understanding customers’ experiences—not selling, negotiating renewals, or validating either executive’s theory.

Learning goals

For each account, establish:

• What happened, and when? Separate implementation, go-live, first value, automation needs, and the point when leaving became likely or decided.
• What mattered most? Distinguish a decisive problem from a feature request, contributing frustration, or reason offered after the fact.
• What evidence supports the explanation? Look for actual workflow impact, workarounds, alternatives evaluated, and actions taken—not just opinions or hypotheticals.
• What might change the outcome? Explore credible counterfactuals without promising anything.
• What else explains churn? Surface causes beyond A and B.

Recommended plan changes

The proposed 12 calls cannot cover both the daily user and contract signer on all 12 accounts: that would require 24 interviews. Keep the 12-call cap, but interview two roles separately at each of six accounts: three churned accounts and three red-health accounts, with one warehouse operations manager and one VP of Operations/COO per account. This gives paired perspectives and preserves both customer situations, but is a small, directional sample—not a prevalence estimate. Select accounts for varied implementation times and automation situations where possible; don’t choose only accounts with known robotics issues.

Do not have Ana conduct four calls with former customers she knows personally. Her involvement risks courtesy bias and leading the conversation. Use an independent interviewer; ideally don’t include personal contacts in this small core sample. If one is included, disclose the relationship, and have Ana neither attend nor receive attributable notes.

Because five at-risk accounts are in renewal talks and receiving discount offers, use an interviewer outside the account/renewal team. Tell participants their answers won’t affect service or renewal discussions. Don’t share interview content with the account team in a way that could be used in negotiation. Follow Legal’s recording requirement below.

45-minute guide: churned customers

45-minute guide: red-health customers

Use the same opening and close. Do not imply that Crate can fix an issue or influence renewal terms.

Guidance for interviewers

• Ask the questions as written, but follow the participant’s timeline. Use neutral probes: “What happened next?” “Can you give me an example?” “How do you know?”
• Don’t offer Ana’s or Marcus’s theories, mention the exit-survey results, or ask leading questions such as “Would robots have saved you?” Ask about events before asking for interpretations.
• Separate when an issue occurred from when the participant says it mattered. Probe for specific actions and evidence: evaluations, workarounds, escalations, or a switch decision.
• Don’t discuss pricing, discounts, renewal negotiations, or roadmap. If asked about roadmap, say you can’t speak to future plans. Don’t make promises or relay an interview answer as a renewal signal.
• Interview roles separately. Record role and account context in notes, but distinguish direct experience from second-hand views. Afterward, write a short timeline, leading cause(s), evidence, and uncertainties for each account.
• Treat recordings and notes as confidential; use only with consent and Legal-approved handling. Don’t present anecdotes as representative of all customers.

What would support each bet?

Support Bet A (robotics integrations): In multiple independent accounts, a specific robotics workflow or integration gap caused meaningful operational friction, and that issue arose before the decision to leave or seriously consider leaving. Stronger evidence: an actual robot deployment or concrete plan, a costly workaround, and a competitor selected or evaluated for this capability. A feature mention alone—or robotics cited in a new-logo deal—doesn’t establish that it drove existing-customer churn.

Support Bet B (faster implementation): In multiple accounts, implementation delays or effort materially postponed go-live or first value, caused operational consequences, and preceded the decision to leave or consider leaving. Stronger evidence: specific preventable blockers, an unmet expectation, and a credible account that earlier go-live would have changed the outcome. The 94-day median, 45-day promise, and 2.4× association make this worth testing, but do not prove causation.

Support neither / remain uncertain: The call evidence points more strongly to another cause; A or B appears only after the decision; accounts describe issues without meaningful consequences; or evidence is mixed and no cause consistently precedes churn. Don’t force a winner from 12 interviews. Compare patterns across accounts, not individual interview counts, and triangulate with CRM timelines and other churn evidence. The exit survey’s single-choice format, first-listed feature option, and sparse free text limit what it can establish.