Customer research call guide

TO: Crate Executive Team FROM: Staff PM DATE: October 24, 2023 SUBJECT: Research Guide: H1 Bet Allocation & Churn Investigation

---

1. Learning Goals

Our existing data is noisy. The exit survey suffers from primacy bias (“Missing features/integrations” is the first option and bundles robotics with basic APIs/ERPs). Meanwhile, our CRM shows a strong correlation between >90-day implementations and churn, and robotics appears more often in lost new-logo deals (9) than confirmed churn (3).

Over the next three weeks, these calls must uncover: 1. The "Point of No Return": When in the lifecycle did the customer mentally commit to leaving, and what specific operational event triggered it? 2. Implementation Reality: What caused the gap between the 45-day promise and the 94-day reality? Is slow implementation a root cause of churn, or a symptom of a deeper product mismatch? 3. The "Missing Integration" Truth: For those who cited integrations, what specific systems failed to connect? How many actually bought or deployed warehouse robotics? 4. Post-Churn Ground Truth: What did churned customers switch to, how long did the replacement take to go live, and are they using robotics today?

---

2. Recommended Changes to the Call Plan

To get unbiased data within 12 calls, we must adjust the proposed plan:

• Split the persona tracks across 8–10 accounts (Don't double up on 12): If we interview both the VP and the Ops Manager separately on each account, 12 calls only covers 6 accounts (3 churned, 3 at-risk)—too small a sample. Instead, target 8 churned accounts and 4 at-risk accounts, interviewing the VP on 6 and the Ops Manager on 6 (overlapping on 2–3 accounts to cross-verify stories).
• Drop the 5 at-risk accounts in active renewal negotiations: Interviewing customers while CS is actively negotiating discounts with them is high-risk. Economic buyers will use the call as leverage to complain about price or demand roadmap commitments, skewing the data. Replace them with 1st-year customers who took >90 days to go live (regardless of health score) or churned customers from months 9–12.
• Ana should not lead calls with personal contacts: Ana, your relationships are invaluable for securing these interviews, so we’d love your warm intros. However, former customers who like you personally will try to spare your feelings (blaming an external trend like "we needed robotics" rather than saying "your onboarding team failed us"). A neutral PM should lead all calls; execs can join as silent observers or listen to the recordings.
• Sample across implementation times: Ensure the 8 churned accounts include both <60-day and >90-day implementations so we don't pre-validate Bet B.

---

3. Interview Guides (45 Minutes)

#### Track A: Economic Buyer (VP of Ops / COO) — 6 Calls Focus: ROI expectations, contract promises, strategic tech stack, and the switching decision.

• 0–3m | Intro & Legal: Thank them for their time. Emphasize that this is a product research call, not a sales/renewal call. Ask permission to record.
• 3–10m | The Buying Thesis:
• "Take me back to when you signed with Crate. What was broken in your warehouse that you needed us to fix?"
• "What were your expectations for how quickly Crate would be up and running?"
• 10–22m | The Implementation Experience:
• "Our contract promises a 45-day go-live. Walk me through what actually happened during your rollout."
• If delayed: "What was the single biggest bottleneck? How did that delay impact your business and your team’s trust in Crate?"
• 22–35m | The Turning Point & Tech Stack:
• For Churned: "When did you first realize Crate wasn't going to work out long-term? What happened that week?"
• For At-Risk: "As you look at your operations today, where is Crate falling short of what you signed up for?"
• "What other software or hardware did you need Crate to talk to?" (Do not mention robotics first; see if they bring it up).
• 35–42m | The Aftermath & Automation (Probing Bet A):
• For Churned: "What system did you move to, and how was their implementation by comparison?"
• "Where does warehouse automation or robotics—like autonomous carts or pick-assist—fit into your current operations or 12-month plan?" (If they have them: "Did Crate's lack of integration factor into your decision to leave?")
• 42–45m | Wrap-up: "If you were in our shoes and could fix only one thing for mid-size 3PLs over the next six months, what would it be?"

#### Track B: Daily User (Warehouse Operations Manager) — 6 Calls Focus: Day-to-day friction, rollout reality on the floor, and manual workarounds.

• 0–3m | Intro & Legal: Set a candid, blame-free tone. Ask permission to record.
• 3–12m | Go-Live on the Floor:
• "Were you involved in setting up Crate? Walk me through what it took to get your first warehouse workflow live."
• "At what point did you feel your floor staff actually trusted the system?"
• 12–27m | Daily Friction & Workarounds:
• "Walk me through a typical peak day using Crate. Where did the software slow your team down?"
• "What tasks were you forced to do outside of Crate—in spreadsheets or on paper—because the software couldn't handle it?"
• 27–38m | Equipment & Integrations:
• "What other tools, scanners, ERPs, or floor equipment did you use alongside Crate?"
• "Did you have to manually move data between Crate and other systems? Which ones?"
• "Are you using any autonomous carts or robotics on the floor today, or testing them?"
• 38–45m | The Verdict:
• For Churned: "When leadership decided to replace Crate, was your team relieved or frustrated? Why?"
• For At-Risk: "If you could wave a magic wand and fix one bottleneck in how Crate runs your floor tomorrow, what would it be?"

---

4. Guidance for Interviewers

1. Legal & CS Guardrails (Strict): * Always get explicit verbal consent to record at the start. * Never discuss pricing, discounts, or commercial terms. If an at-risk customer brings up their renewal, say: "I’m completely firewalled from commercial discussions so I can focus purely on product feedback. I’ll make sure your CS manager follows up on the renewal side." * Never mention our roadmap or hint that we are debating Robotics vs. Implementation. 2. Don't Lead the Witness: Do not use the words "robotics" or "94-day implementation" until the final 10 minutes of the call. Let them name the pain first. If they say "integrations," ask "Which specific tools?" before assuming they mean hardware. 3. Hunt for Past Behavior, Not Future Wishes: Discount hypothetical statements like "We’d love to look at robotics next year." Focus on concrete actions: "Did you sign a vendor contract for robots?" or "How many hours a week did your team spend fixing data imports during onboarding?" 4. Two People Per Call: One interviewer drives; one silent note-taker logs verbatim quotes and timestamps in our research repository immediately after the call.

---

5. Decision Framework: How We Will Score the Evidence

After the 12 calls, we will map the findings against this rubric to allocate the two squads:

#### What we need to hear to back Bet A (Robotics Integrations): * Active Deployment: At least 4 of the 12 accounts either actively use warehouse robotics today, are in a paid pilot, or migrated to a competitor specifically and demonstrably to connect to robotics hardware. * Retention Blocker: At-risk customers state that robotics integration is a hard requirement for their upcoming 12-month operations, not just a "nice to have" for 3 years from now. * Implementation Was Survivable: Customers who took >90 days to go live tell us that while onboarding was painful, they eventually stabilized and only left because they outgrew our automation capabilities.

#### What we need to hear to back Bet B (Rebuild Implementation): * Early "Point of No Return": Churned customers report that executive trust was broken during a drawn-out onboarding (months 2–4), and they began shopping for replacements before month 6—meaning they never reached full adoption. * Software-Fixable Bottlenecks: The reasons for the 94-day median go-live are things engineering squads can actually solve (e.g., broken data migration tools, rigid warehouse configuration, self-serve setup gaps) rather than pure services/staffing issues. * Misattributed Survey Data: When we unpack "Missing features/integrations" from the exit survey, we find customers were actually frustrated that initial setup of standard integrations took months during onboarding.

#### What we need to hear to back NEITHER (Pivot the Roadmap): * Software vs. Services on Bet B: Implementation takes 94 days because customers have messy data or our Implementation Managers are understaffed—problems solved by hiring or process changes, not two engineering squads. * A Hidden Third Driver: "Missing features/integrations" turns out to be a core software gap unrelated to robotics (e.g., 3PL billing, client portals, or basic ERP/WMS syncs like NetSuite or Shopify), while robotics is exposed as a shiny object mainly affecting a small subset of new-logo sales.

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.