- Research platform
Sources of information
Data analysis
Actions
- Solutions
For whom
Problems / Issues
- Materials
Materials
- About us
About us
A complaint or return is one of the most critical moments in a customer relationship. How a company handles this moment determines whether the customer stays or leaves for good. Below are the key points of this article:
A product complaint, a report of non-conformity with the contract, or a return in e-commerce is not just an operational formality. It is a highly emotional stage of the customer journey, where disappointment with a product or service is met with the expectation that the company will take responsibility and resolve the issue quickly, fairly, and without unnecessary barriers.
A customer who files a complaint or initiates a return often enters this process feeling frustrated—due to defective merchandise, delayed delivery, or a lack of response to previous inquiries. How a company handles complaints and returns at this point directly impacts customer loyalty, repeat purchases, and the likelihood of recommendations. A complaint can be filed in any form—verbally, in writing, or via an online form—yet many companies still make this first step unnecessarily difficult.
In this article, we’ll show you exactly what to measure, when to send a survey after a complaint, what questions to ask, and how to interpret the results in the context of the post-complaint customer experience and the voice of the customer. We’re writing from the perspective of YourCX, a research and analytics platform that helps companies turn post-complaint feedback into concrete improvements to their service processes.
The concept of the “moment of truth” in customer experience refers to the moment when a customer forms a lasting opinion about a brand. When a customer files a complaint or returns a product, they evaluate not only the outcome of the issue but also the entire way they were treated: whether the complaint process was clear, whether the company communicated the next steps, whether the customer had to follow up, whether the tone of communication was empathetic, whether the resolution was understandable, and whether the response time was acceptable.
The seller’s liability under the warranty lasts for 2 years from the date of delivery, and the warranty is a statutory right, whereas a guarantee remains a voluntary commitment by the guarantor. A complaint concerns the non-conformity of the goods with the contract. Even if, formally speaking, the fault lies outside the company—for example, with the manufacturer or the courier—the customer evaluates the entire brand ecosystem. The attitude of “take responsibility for the customer’s problem” is the foundation of good after-sales service.
A well-handled complaint reduces negative emotions, builds trust, and generates positive reviews. Research shows that customers who had a positive return experience purchased more frequently in the year following the return than before it. On the other hand, a poorly handled complaint process leads to escalation, formal complaints (to the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection [UOKiK] or the Consumer Ombudsman), public negative reviews, and lasting customer churn.
Imagine a customer who orders a gift before the holidays. The item turns out to be defective. Company A sends a response within two days, apologizes, and offers a free replacement with express delivery. Company B repeatedly asks for photos, responds after a week, and the courier is late. The same product, the same defect—but Company A retains the customer, while Company B loses them for good. It is precisely the resolution and the way complaints are handled that determine the future of the relationship.
A simple question like “Are you satisfied?” isn’t enough, because it doesn’t indicate what specifically is working or not working in the process. A survey of customer service quality after a complaint should cover several dimensions of the experience.
First, satisfaction with the interaction (CSAT after contact with customer service) and the ease of navigating the process (CES after a complaint). The Customer Effort Score measures the effort the customer expends during returns and complaints, which is particularly important when the consumer expects a simple and predictable process. Second—waiting time: the seller has 14 days to respond to a complaint, and the consumer has 2 years to file a complaint. A consumer may file a complaint about a product within 12 months of discovering a defect. These are important timeframes, but the customer evaluates their subjective perception of time. Third—the clarity and completeness of communications at every stage, as well as the sense of fairness in the complaint resolution decision.
It’s worth measuring the effectiveness of the resolution: after a few days, does the customer actually feel that the problem has been resolved—for example, the replaced product works, or the refund appears in their account? The consumer does not bear any costs associated with the complaint—the seller covers the costs of repair or replacement, the seller bears the shipping costs in the event of a complaint, and the consumer is entitled to reimbursement for the costs of expert assessments related to the complaint. The customer should experience this in practice, not just read about it in the terms and conditions.
The number of contacts needed to resolve the issue (First Contact Resolution measures the resolution of issues on the first attempt) is another critical metric. It is also necessary to measure the impact of the experience on the ongoing relationship: trust in the brand, likelihood of repeat purchases, and willingness to recommend (NPS after a complaint).
It is very important to clearly distinguish between the evaluation of the product and the evaluation of the complaint or return process. A customer may be dissatisfied with a product’s non-conformity with the contract but at the same time highly rate how the issue was handled. A warranty is not a seller’s statutory liability—it’s important to understand this distinction because it affects how the customer perceives the fairness of the process. The statute of limitations for claims is 6 years, which provides a broad timeframe for pursuing claims.
The timing of the survey following a complaint is critical to the quality of the data. Too early—risk of irritation and ratings based on an incomplete experience. Too late—memories lose their freshness. The CAWI survey is sent after the complaint is closed, but the key is to link the survey’s delivery to a specific status in the system, not simply to the receipt of the complaint. The evaluation should be conducted immediately after the process is completed—or at a precisely chosen moment depending on the type of case.
A survey sent automatically right after the case status changes to “closed” effectively measures the customer’s fresh impression of the service—particularly the quality of interaction with the representative and the clarity of explanations. Prerequisite: The “case closure” event must signify the actual completion of all steps. Do not send the survey at the time the decision is sent if the refund will not be issued for several days. After such a survey, it’s worth asking 3–4 questions: CSAT, CES, clarity of communication, and an open-ended question about the most challenging part of the process.
This option is particularly useful for gauging the perceived fairness of the decision—especially when a product complaint is rejected or partially accepted. It’s worth separating the survey for accepted and rejected complaints: the same question framework, but with a slightly different narrative. The seller has 14 days to process the complaint — in the questions, it’s worth emphasizing whether the customer understands the legal basis for the decision (warranty under the warranty law, warranty on the warranty card, non-conformity with the contract, deadlines).
In e-commerce and retail, the full experience includes logistics: the customer must return the goods, the warehouse receives the shipment, and then the item is either reshipped or the refund is processed. The buyer has 14 days to withdraw from the contract, and the seller must refund the money within 14 days. Return shipping is at the buyer’s expense, and the item must not have been used when returned—though the customer has the right to inspect the item before returning it. Only after seeing the refund in their payment card account or receiving a new product can the customer fairly evaluate the entire return process.
A delayed survey (3–7 days after the case is closed) allows you to check the sustainability of the outcome: whether the new product is working properly, whether any delays have occurred, and whether the customer actually considers the problem resolved. It’s worth including questions about long-term trust and potential churn. A survey sent too late (e.g., after 30 days) lowers the response rate and the quality of detailed recall—which is why it’s recommended to conduct the survey within a maximum of 7–10 days after the case is closed.
In a customer experience survey following a complaint, it’s worth combining subjective metrics with operational data. Customer service quality surveys use CES, CSAT, and FCR metrics—each of which serves a different purpose. CSAT measures “how it went,” CES measures “how much effort it cost the customer,” and NPS measures “whether the customer would recommend the brand despite the problem.”
The Customer Satisfaction Score measures satisfaction with the complaint resolution process for a single incident. Sample question: “How would you rate the overall quality of service for your complaint or return?” on a scale of 1–5, with the option to add a comment. CSAT is useful for monitoring the performance of contact center and store teams, but always with consideration for the type of case and its outcome.
CES is a key metric in the area of complaints and returns. Customers are particularly sensitive to the number of steps, forms, and the need to “chase” the company. Sample question: “How easy was it to resolve this issue?” on a 7-point scale ranging from “very difficult” to “very easy”. According to Gartner research, as many as 96% of customers who experience an interaction requiring a lot of effort become less loyal —even when the complaint itself was resolved.
The NPS survey assesses customer loyalty after a complaint. Sample question: “How likely are you to recommend our store to friends after your experience with a complaint or return?” on a scale of 0–10. Interpretation requires caution—a low score may reflect disappointment with the product itself, not with the service. That’s why it’s important to have separate questions about the product and the service.
FCR, combined with the number of contacts, indicates whether the issue was resolved “immediately” or required multiple interactions. It’s worth adding the question: “How many times did you have to contact our company to resolve this issue?” and linking the responses to CRM data. A high number of contacts is a signal to simplify procedures and review case status communication.
Resolution time analysis measures the number of days from the initial report to resolution. The time from filing a complaint to a decision, and from the decision to a refund or product replacement, is one of the most important factors influencing service ratings. Speed alone is not enough—the quality of the decision also matters. A customer may prefer a clear explanation—even if it takes a day longer—over a quick, terse response. It’s worth combining SLA data (e.g., 14 days to respond to a complaint regarding non-conformity of goods with the contract) with CSAT/CES results on dashboards.
A survey following a complaint or return should be very short—3–6 questions—responsive (mobile-first), and tailored to the nature of the issue. The best results come from combining 2–3 scaled questions with 1–2 open-ended questions. A satisfaction survey regarding the resolution asks about satisfaction with the proposed solution—but that’s just one element.
Examples of closed-ended questions: assessment of the overall quality of complaint or return handling, ease of navigating the process, clarity of communication at each stage, timely resolution of the issue, clarity of the decision, and willingness to continue using the service or shopping at the store.
Examples of open-ended questions: “What made it most difficult for you to go through the process?”, “What could the company do better?”, “What positively surprised you about the service?”, “Why did you give this rating?”
Open-ended questions are crucial. The numbers will reveal the scale of the problem, and the comments will indicate which elements of the complaint process need to be changed—for example, unclear instructions for filling out the form, a lack of status updates on the website, or the need to resubmit the complaint multiple times.
Many companies make the mistake of lumping a low complaint rating into a single “customer service quality basket,” when the source of the problem actually lies with the product, logistics, or return policy. A customer may give a low rating due to a serious product defect (e.g., faulty electronics in the model itself), but at the same time rate the customer service highly—for a quick replacement, an apology, or compensation.
The survey’s design should clearly separate the questions: a separate evaluation of the product (non-conformity, failure to meet expectations, quality), a separate evaluation of the complaint/return process, a separate evaluation of communication, a separate evaluation of the final resolution, and a separate assessment of the overall impact on trust. This breakdown facilitates accurate reporting: product issues go to the quality department, service issues to customer care, and matters related to consumer rights and policy to management.
Practical tip: It’s a good idea to tag survey results in your research system with information about the product category, defect type, and sales channel to distinguish between structural problems (e.g., a batch of defective goods from a single manufacturer) and incidental service errors.
The average CSAT score across all complaints and returns at a company doesn’t tell the whole story, as it masks significant differences. Analyzing the causes of complaints allows you to identify the sources of problems only when the results are properly segmented.
The most important segmentation dimensions are: case type (complaint, return, exchange, warranty repair, claims due to product non-conformity), case outcome (accepted, rejected, partially accepted), contact channel (phone, email, chat, brick-and-mortar store, customer portal), product category (electronics, fashion, home appliances), and handling time (up to 3 days, 4–7 days, over 14 days). Also consider segmentation by number of contacts (1, 2–3, 4), customer type (new, returning, VIP), and region or specific brick-and-mortar store.
Only through segmentation can you see, for example, that the lowest ratings pertain to returns handled by one of the logistics partners or complaints about a specific manufacturer. Research platforms enable this type of “one-click” segmentation thanks to integration with CRM, e-commerce systems, and data on products and contact channels.
Customers’ written comments following a complaint are often more emotional than standard post-purchase feedback—they highlight specific “pain points”: unclear instructions, lack of status updates, the need to repeatedly fill out forms, and a sense of injustice. Complaint content analysis examines the reasons for and the level of customer frustration in a way that no numerical scale can capture.
Key practices include tagging topics (e.g., “time,” “communication,” “form,” “courier,” “unfair decision”), sentiment analysis, and identifying the most frequently recurring barriers. It’s important to link comments to operational data—for example, most comments about a “lack of information” may come from the email channel or a specific brick-and-mortar store. In-depth interviews with customers gather additional information about low ratings and help you understand the context that a short survey might miss.
The best positive comments—such as those about exceptional assistance from a customer service representative—should be used for team recognition programs and to establish best-practice standards for handling complaints.
Sending the survey too early—for example, at the time the decision is sent, when the customer has not yet received a refund or replacement. This leads to ratings based on incomplete experiences.
Asking only about overall satisfaction without probing for reasons—this makes it impossible to identify which elements of the process require improvement.
Failing to distinguish between accepted and rejected complaints—their feelings and expectations differ fundamentally and require a different survey narrative.
A survey that is too long and complicated—this lowers the response rate, especially when the customer is already frustrated with the service.
Lack of open-ended questions—this results in the loss of rich context, emotions, and details that explain the “why” behind the numbers.
Analyzing only the average rating without segmentation—this hides significant differences between channels, categories, and types of issues.
Failure to link results to operational data—sometimes a bad experience stems from a logistical delay or a manufacturer’s defect, rather than the agent’s performance.
Treating a poor result as solely a customer service issue—the root cause may lie in the return policy, product quality, or misleading product advertising.
Conducting a “pro forma” survey without a concrete action plan based on the results—this quickly demotivates both customers and employees. Mystery shoppers verify that employees follow procedures, but without systematic feedback from real customers, the picture remains incomplete.
The goal of a survey on the quality of complaint and return handling is not a PDF report, but concrete changes to processes. Implementing the Kaizen philosophy treats complaints as learning opportunities, while implementing the 8D system analyzes the causes of complaints and introduces preventive measures for the future.
Typical actions resulting from these insights include: simplifying the complaint form (fewer fields, clearer instructions for submission), adding status updates at every stage (via SMS or email), and shortening response times for the most critical categories of cases. Making the content of complaint decisions more understandable—using plain language, explaining the consumer’s right to a free repair, a price reduction, or cancellation of the contract. Training on handling difficult customers increases team effectiveness, especially when it comes to empathetic communication regarding rejected claims, particularly when a replacement would cause significant inconvenience to the buyer or result in excessive costs.
Data from the survey helps identify the categories with the highest number of non-conformities, review partnerships with shipping companies, and adjust the returns policy. It’s worth implementing alerts in the analytics system—immediate notifications when a customer leaves a very low rating or describes a serious problem. The results should be shared not only with customer service but also with e-commerce, product, logistics, legal, and management teams—with a focus on prioritizing corrective initiatives.
Sellers should also use data on the value of goods that comply with the contract and compare it with the costs of handling complaints to justify investments in process improvements. The seller’s liability lasts for two years from the date of delivery—a long period during which every interaction regarding a complaint can either build or destroy the relationship. The obligation to repair the goods or replace them with new ones is clearly defined by law, but it is the quality of the process that determines the customer experience.
Automated survey platforms facilitate the collection of information after a case status changes—such as when a case is closed, a decision is sent following complaint review, a refund is issued, or a replacement product is delivered. RMA systems simplify the return process through online forms and allow the survey content to be automatically tailored to the type of case.
Integration with CRM, ticketing systems, and e-commerce platforms enriches the results with operational data: response time, number of contacts, product category, and complaint status. Dashboards for CX and contact center managers display CSAT, CES, and NPS metrics following a complaint, as well as real-time changes in these metrics. Analysis of open-ended responses—tagging, sentiment analysis, topic clustering—and automatic alerts triggered by keywords (e.g., “Consumer Ombudsman,” “UOKiK”) enable timely responses.
Research platforms help consolidate all data in one place, prioritize corrective actions, and measure the impact of implemented changes on the customer experience following a complaint or return. This means that the seller gains a complete picture of the process—from the conclusion of the contract through reporting a defective product all the way to closing the case.
A complaint or return doesn’t have to mean the end of the relationship with the customer. It can become an opportunity to rebuild trust if the company shows that it takes the customer seriously, accepts responsibility, and genuinely learns from the feedback. The product or service itself may fall short, but the right approach to customer service can convince the customer to give the brand a second chance.
Key principles: conduct surveys after the process is truly complete; measure satisfaction, effort, communication, and trust; separate product ratings from service ratings, analyze results by segment, combine survey data with operational data, use customer comments, and translate results into concrete actions. By doing this the right way, you’ll build a system at your own expense that will pay for itself many times over in customer retention.
Operational Checklist:
We encourage an iterative approach: regularly reviewing survey questions, alert thresholds, and reports for management, as well as collaborating with a research partner to design and refine the entire post-complaint VoC program. There is no single ideal moment or single ideal survey—it is a process of continuous improvement that will yield results in the future that would be impossible to achieve any other way.
In operational analysis, it’s worth monitoring results on an ongoing basis even with just a dozen or so responses per week—that’s enough to detect glaring problems and alarming trends. However, to draw reliable comparative conclusions across channels, stores, or product categories, it’s best to have at least several dozen to several hundred responses per segment per quarter. More important than an “ideal” sample size are the continuity of the survey, a consistent methodology (the same questions, the same scale), and the ability to link the results to operational data.
It’s better to keep these two processes separate, as they measure different parts of the customer journey: purchase vs. after-sales service and complaint handling. Technically, you can combine the results at the analytical level—for example, by comparing the post-purchase NPS with the post-complaint NPS for the same person in the system—but the surveys themselves should be short and closely tailored to the context of the event.
Key metric questions (CSAT, CES, NPS) should remain stable for at least a year to allow for trend analysis. It’s a good idea to review additional and open-ended questions every 6–12 months, adjusting them to current priorities—such as a new returns policy, a change in logistics partner, or the launch of new contact channels.
Best practice is to set up an automatic alert for ratings at the lower end of the scale (e.g., 1–3/10) and quickly contact the customer to ask for more details about the issue. It’s a good idea to reserve such individual follow-ups for specific segments—VIP customers, high-value complaints, and cases involving legal or reputational risks—and to document them in your complaint handling policy.
Yes—demonstrating a “feedback loop” strengthens customers’ sense of agency and encourages them to continue sharing their opinions. A brief note on the website, in a newsletter, or in the customer portal—for example: “Thanks to feedback from complaints, we’ve reduced the decision time from 14 to 7 days and simplified the complaint form”—builds the image of a company that listens and genuinely responds to its customers’ voices.
Copyright © 2023. YourCX. All rights reserved — Design by Proformat
