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: decision guide

Decision: In four weeks, allocate two squads next half to robotics integrations (A), implementation redesign (B), or conclude that neither retention thesis is sufficiently supported.

Research window: Three weeks; twelve 45-minute interviews. These calls will test explanations and reconstruct decisions—not estimate how common each churn cause is across 340 customers.

1. Learning goals

1. Reconstruct the departure sequence: What happened between signing, implementation, first value, operational problems, searching for alternatives, and deciding to leave?
2. Identify the decisive mechanism: Was robotics incompatibility or implementation friction necessary to the departure, merely contributory, or a justification offered afterward?
3. Find actionable scope: Which integrations or implementation changes could plausibly have prevented the problem? Could two squads address them within a half?
4. Look for competing explanations and counterexamples: Other missing capabilities, service failures, customer-side constraints, or business changes may explain both delays and churn.
5. Separate operational pain from buying decisions: Did daily users and economic buyers experience the same problem and agree on why the relationship failed?

Starting evidence is suggestive, not conclusive. The survey’s broad, first-listed integration option does not establish robotics demand. The 2.4× churn association does not establish that delays caused churn. Competitor destinations do not establish purchase motives; nine lost prospects are acquisition evidence, not retention evidence.

2. Changes to the call plan

Resolve the interview arithmetic. Twelve accounts with two separate interviews each would require 24 calls. Within the limit, recruit six accounts, interviewing both roles separately: twelve calls total.

Use four churned accounts and two at-risk accounts. This prioritizes actual decisions and reduces exposure to active renewal negotiations while retaining prospective evidence.

Select accounts purposively from the eligible pool, not through executive relationships:

• Include late and on-time go-lives, plus a failed/never-live implementation if available.
• Include known robotics signals and accounts without them.
• Include first-year and longer-tenure departures.
• Seek counterexamples: late implementation without abandonment; robotics discussion without an actual deployment or switch.

Do not attempt a fully balanced matrix with six accounts. Document selection, refusals, substitutions, and gaps. Check whether the nine-month churn window excludes relevant cases from the annual churn rise; expand to twelve months if needed.

For at-risk accounts, prioritize the one outside renewal talks. CS must confirm that participation—or refusal—will not affect commercial treatment. If a renewal makes independent research impractical, substitute another eligible account.

Ana should not lead interviews with former customers she knows. Use a neutral researcher or PM who owns neither bet. Ana can help recruit through a standard invitation and review consented recordings afterward. Avoid executive attendance that could suppress criticism.

Before calls, prepare a factual account timeline from CRM, implementation logs, support records, and available usage data. Keep interpretations separate. Examine cohort definitions and potential confounders behind the 2.4× figure.

3. Interview guides

Both guides total 45 minutes. Ask open questions first; introduce the two hypotheses only after the participant’s unaided account.

Guide A: Warehouse operations manager

Guide B: VP Operations or COO

4. Interviewer operating rules

• Be curious, not persuasive. Do not quote Ana, Marcus, survey percentages, or the churn correlation.
• Probe concrete events: “When?” “Who?” “What happened next?” “How do you know?” Distinguish recollection, inference, and observed action.
• Do not discuss pricing, discounts, or roadmap commitments. If raised: “I can’t discuss commercial terms or future plans here; your account team can handle those separately.” Do not promise escalation outcomes.
• Interview roles separately; do not reveal the other person’s answers. Disagreement is evidence to investigate, not average away.
• Use a neutral note-taker. After each call, record chronology, spontaneous versus prompted reasons, supporting evidence, contradictions, and confidence.

5. Evidence required for the decision

Back A if multiple independent accounts—including actual departures—show committed robotics adoption, a specific blocking Crate incompatibility before the departure decision, failed workarounds, and credible evidence that resolving it would have preserved the relationship. Shared, feasible integration needs must emerge. Generic “missing features,” aspirational automation, or competitor capabilities alone do not qualify.

Back B if multiple accounts—including actual departures—show preventable implementation failures preceding loss of confidence, concrete operational consequences, and a credible path from faster successful activation to retention. Identify repeatable Crate-owned bottlenecks. Delays driven mainly by customer readiness, complexity, or already-failing relationships weaken this case.

Back neither if accounts remain contradictory, both theories depend on hypothetical claims, another mechanism dominates, or neither intervention fits the capacity and time available. If both qualify, compare affected retention exposure, intervention feasibility, and remaining uncertainty—not interview vote totals.

Run two pilot calls in week one, finish most interviews in week two, and reserve week three for remaining calls and synthesis. Produce one evidence sheet per account; paired interviews count as one account, not two confirmations. The final readout should combine those cases with cohort data, explicitly separate causality from correlation, and state what remains unproven before recommending either allocation.

Crate churn calls: interview guide

Purpose: Decide between Bet A (robotics integrations) and Bet B (faster implementation) by learning why customers actually leave. Neither theory is proven yet.

Why we're not already sure

• Exit survey: "Missing features or integrations" bundles two things, isn't robotics-specific, was listed first, and has only 41 responses. People also tend to name the most recent or most socially easy reason rather than the first cause.
• Robotics: 3 of roughly 60 churned accounts went to a robotics competitor. The 9 lost deals are real but are new-logo losses, not churn.
• Implementation: The 2.4× churn gap after 90+ days is a correlation. Complex sites may be both slow to launch and likely to leave. We also don't know when customers decided to leave.
• Ana's and Marcus's evidence: Each is anecdotal and selected. Ana hears from customers who will talk to the CEO.
• The two theories may be linked. Robotics-heavy sites may be the slow implementations.

Learning goals

1. When and why each account first considered leaving, relative to go-live.
2. Whether automation was a cause, a rationalization, or irrelevant. The test is whether they took action (bought robots, evaluated replacements), not whether they mention it.
3. Whether slow go-live caused the exit, and whether the delay was Crate's doing or the customer's (their data, staffing, customizations).
4. What else drives exits: price, support, core product gaps, or events outside our control, such as a 3PL losing a shipper contract or being acquired.
5. Whether the two causes overlap.

Changes to the plan

• Call math. Two roles per account means 12 calls covers only 6 accounts. I'd use 8 accounts: 4 churned accounts with both roles (8 calls), and 4 at-risk accounts with the operations manager only (4 calls). At-risk executives are the people in renewal negotiations, which is where contamination risk is highest. Comparing what the signer and the daily user each say is itself valuable.
• Recruit on criteria, not convenience. Among churned accounts, aim for 2 that left within 12 months of signing and 2 that left later. Include go-lives both over and under 90 days, at least 2 sites with robots or carts, and at least 1 that chose "price" in the survey. Pull this from CRM and Customer Success notes this week.
• Ana doesn't run calls. Customers who know the CEO will be polite, and she has a stated hypothesis. Her relationships are valuable for introductions, and at most 1–2 of her contacts should be in the churned set. Someone with no stake in either bet runs the calls, with a second person taking notes. Ana and Marcus get recordings and summaries afterward.
• At-risk accounts need Customer Success coordination. CS confirms no discount conversation is happening that week. The invitation states that this is research, separate from renewal. If a customer tries to negotiate, redirect and tell CS afterward. Weight at-risk answers less, since they describe intentions, not decisions.
• Pre-register. Before call one, Ana and Marcus each read the last section and write what would change their mind.
• Run a parallel data pull. Get tenure at churn, go-live days, and robotics on site for all roughly 60 churned accounts. If the calls and the data disagree, the data wins.

Guidance for whoever runs the calls

• Consent first. The first thing you say after your name is a request to record. If they decline, take notes only and continue.
• Off-limits: pricing, discounts, and roadmap. If they raise price, listen and ask what they compared us with and what they got, but no numbers or offers. If asked "will you build X?", say: "I can't speak to plans. I'm here to understand your experience." If they ask for a commercial conversation, point them to their account manager.
• Do not say "robotics" or "implementation" until the prompted section. Record whether each topic came up unprompted or only when asked. These carry very different weight.
• Alternate the order of the two prompted topics from call to call.
• Ask for stories and dates, not opinions: "Tell me about the last time," "What happened next?" Favor actions ("Who did you call? What did you buy?") over stated reasons.
• Don't defend Crate or fix problems. Answer criticism with "Say more about that."
• Use silence. Wait a few seconds after an answer; the real reason often comes next.
• Debrief within 24 hours on a one-page sheet: decision date, tenure, go-live days, robots on site, trigger event, unprompted causes, prompted causes, strongest quote, and anything that contradicts our hypotheses.

Guide: Operations manager (daily user), 45 min

Guide: VP Operations / COO (signer), 45 min

What we'd need to hear

Eight accounts can't produce percentages. We're looking for a pattern strong enough to act on.

Back Bet A (robotics) if, in at least 3 of the 4 churned accounts: - Automation comes up unprompted, or with only light prompting, as a reason. - They acted on it: robots bought, piloted, or contracted before they decided to leave. - They were live and broadly content with Crate beforehand. - They evaluated or moved to something that connects to their robots, and say they'd likely have stayed if we had. - The same story appears in at least 2 of the 4 at-risk accounts.

Back Bet B (implementation) if, in at least 3 of the 4 churned accounts: - Their first serious doubt came during or shortly after a late go-live, typically within the first year. - They describe never reaching value, or losing their internal champion during the delay. - The delay was mainly Crate's doing (process, handoffs, configuration), not their own data or staffing. - They would say faster go-live would probably have kept them.

Neither bet if: - Exits are mainly driven by events such as a lost shipper contract, site closure, acquisition, or price. - Robotics is mentioned but no one acted on it. - Go-live was slow but they were happy afterward. - Reasons scatter with no pattern. - Core product gaps, such as reporting or inventory accuracy, show up repeatedly. That would point to a third bet we haven't framed.

Both: If the same accounts show robotics-heavy sites with long go-lives because integrations took months, that is a third reading. It favors Bet A if the cause is missing integrations, and Bet B if it's our process. Decide by asking what the customer says was the blocker.

Split results: If churned accounts split evenly, or contradict the data pull, say so. Recommend a targeted follow-up, such as segmenting churn by tenure, rather than forcing a choice.