| Course | MT102 Principles of Retailing |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Customer experience audit |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT102 Unit 8
Seven Touchpoints and a Fish That Died on Day Four: A Unit 8 Customer Experience Audit
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT102: Principles of Retailing
Unit 8 Customer Experience Audit
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Glassmere Aquatics, the visits, the ratings and the return are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Scope
The audit covers Glassmere's Beavercreek store, visited three times in November: a Saturday afternoon, a Wednesday evening and a Monday morning. It covers the store only, though the return test included the guarantee terms printed on the website. Each touchpoint was rated on a three-point scale: 3 means the experience met the chain's stated promise without effort from the shopper, 2 means it met the promise with some delay or confusion, and 1 means it failed the promise.
Criteria and Ratings
Arrival and greeting, rated 2. An associate greeted me on two of three visits. On the Saturday visit, both livestock staff were busy and nobody at the front noticed new arrivals for several minutes.
Finding the product, rated 2. Department signs over the livestock wall are clear. Aisle signs appear only at the front of each aisle, and planted-tank supplies are hard to find, as my Unit 3 report noted.
Getting help, rated 3. Livestock staff were knowledgeable on every visit and offered advice without pressure. On Wednesday an associate spent ten minutes explaining why a fish I asked about would outgrow my tank.
Water testing, rated 3. The free water test, the service the chain advertises most, took about five minutes, and the associate wrote results on a card.
Livestock purchase and bagging, rated 2. Fish were bagged carefully, but on Saturday the wait at the livestock counter was 18 minutes, with no queue system.
Checkout, rated 3. Checkout was quick on every visit, and the cashier asked whether I needed water conditioner for the new fish.
Returns and the livestock guarantee, rated 1. This touchpoint is discussed separately below.
The Return Test
On the Saturday visit I bought three small tetras at $4.99 each. One died on day four. Glassmere's website promises store credit for livestock that dies within seven days, "with a water sample." I brought the dead fish and a water sample on Monday morning.
The associate at the register did not know the policy and called the livestock lead, who was on break. After 12 minutes the lead tested the water, found it acceptable, and issued a store credit of $4.99. The lead then said the credit could not be used on livestock that day because the guarantee only applies once per order. That restriction does not appear on the website. The whole process took 22 minutes for a $5 credit.
Petersen and Kumar (2009) found that customers who return products are not necessarily less valuable: moderate returns were associated with higher future purchasing, partly because a smooth return reduces the risk customers feel in buying again. For a store that sells living animals, the guarantee is the main way a beginner can manage that risk. A guarantee that takes 22 minutes and arrives with an unwritten condition turns reassurance into doubt.
Findings
Three ratings below 3 share one cause: thin staffing at busy times. The Saturday greeting, the Saturday livestock wait and the Monday return delay all occurred when one or two associates were covering for others. A second finding stands alone: the guarantee policy is not known at the register and is applied with a condition the chain does not publish.
Parasuraman et al. (1988) describe reliability, performing the promised service dependably and accurately, as one of the core dimensions customers use to judge service quality. The water test and the advice meet that standard. The guarantee does not.
Priority Recommendations
First, fix the guarantee. Publish every condition on the website and at the livestock counter, train register staff to handle claims with a short checklist, and drop the once-per-order condition, which saves little and costs trust. This failure affects beginners most, and beginners are the shoppers most likely to leave the hobby after one bad experience.
Second, add a queue system at the livestock counter on weekends. A numbered ticket and an estimated wait would let shoppers browse dry goods instead of standing in line, which could also lift dry-goods sales.
Bitner (1992) argues that the physical setting of a service shapes how customers behave and feel while they wait, and a crowded counter with no visible order frustrates them before they are served.
Third, add an associate at the front on Saturday afternoons, who could greet arrivals and handle simple returns.
Link to Positioning
My Unit 2 profile identified expert service as Glassmere's reason to exist against the pet superstores and online sellers. This audit confirms that the advice and the water test deliver it. The guarantee, which the chain advertises to the beginners it needs, contradicts that positioning at the moment a new hobbyist decides whether to come back.
The store's best service is free advice; its worst is a five-dollar credit that took twenty-two minutes and came with a rule nobody had written down.
References
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299205600205
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Petersen, J. A., & Kumar, V. (2009). Are product returns a necessary evil? Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 35-51. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.35
The Purdue Global MT102 Unit 8 instructions
Unit 8 asks you to audit the customer experience at your retailer, usually in one store, against criteria you define or your instructor supplies. Set the scope first: location, visit dates and channels covered. Define each criterion and each point on your rating scale so the ratings mean something. Rate each touchpoint, from arrival to returns, with a line of evidence from your visits and, where possible, what the retailer's own policy promises at that point. Many prompts include a return test, which tends to reveal policy and training at once. Group failures that share a cause into a single finding rather than repeating them. Rank your recommendations by their effect on whether the shopper comes back, not by cost. Close by comparing the experience with the positioning identified earlier in the term. Several visits at different times give a fairer picture than one.
How this MT102 Unit 8 example is built
The sample covers three visits at different times and defines each point on its three-point scale. Each touchpoint gets a rating and evidence, from a missed greeting on a busy Saturday to a ten-minute conversation in which an associate talked the writer out of an unsuitable fish. The return test is treated separately: a dead tetra, a water sample, a 12-minute wait for the livestock lead, a $4.99 credit and an unpublished once-per-order rule. Petersen and Kumar's finding that smooth returns can increase future buying explains why the guarantee matters to beginners. The findings group three failures under staffing and use Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry's reliability dimension to judge the guarantee. Bitner's work on service settings supports a queue system at the livestock counter. Three ranked fixes and a comparison with the chain's positioning complete the audit.
Where the points sit in the MT102 Unit 8 rubric
Points in this audit go to clear criteria, ratings backed by evidence and findings that interpret the grid rather than repeat it. A defined scale earns more than unexplained scores, and evidence recorded at each touchpoint lets the grader trust the ratings. Where the prompt includes a return test, analyze it rather than narrating it, because graders tend to weigh it heavily. Grouping failures by cause shows analytical skill. Recommendations ranked by their effect on repeat visits, with reasons, show the writer understands what the audit is for. Linking the experience back to the retailer's claimed positioning is often the most persuasive part. Bitner, Parasuraman and colleagues, and Petersen and Kumar give the audit three sources, each tied to a finding and listed in APA 7. Several visits, dated and timed, make the audit fair.
MT102 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points
Weak audits rate touchpoints without defining the scale, so a 2 and a 3 mean nothing to the reader. Others visit once, at a quiet hour, and generalize. A frequent problem is a findings section that repeats the grid row by row instead of grouping failures by cause. Some writers skip the return test or describe the written policy without trying it. Recommendations are often ranked by cost or ease rather than by their effect on whether the shopper returns. If a real return is impractical, ask whether your section accepts an analysis of the written policy, and buy something small if you can. Audit each channel with the same criteria if you cover more than one. Describe the retailer and touchpoints you plan to audit, and a writer can help you define the criteria and the scale.
Get an MT102 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Forward the Unit 8 audit instructions, the criteria list if your section provides one, and the rubric, plus the retailer and any visit notes. Within 24-48h a custom example audit is written to them. It is free the first time, and the grid follows your section's rating scale. Attempted a return already? Include what happened at the counter. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT102 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT102 Unit 1: Retail Formats Post
- MT102 Unit 2: Retailer Profile
- MT102 Unit 3: Store Observation Report
- MT102 Unit 4: Assortment Plan
- MT102 Unit 5: Pricing Exercise
- MT102 Unit 6: Merchandising Analysis
- MT102 Unit 7: Channel Comparison
- MT102 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- MT102 Unit 10: Retail Strategy Plan
- LI410 Unit 8: Ethical Leadership Scenario
MT102 Unit 8 questions, answered
Do I have to actually return something?
If the prompt includes returns, a real return attempt gives the strongest evidence, and a small inexpensive purchase makes it practical. Where that is not possible, some sections accept an analysis of the written return policy compared against what associates tell you when asked. State which method you used, because the credibility of that section depends on it.
What rating scale should the audit use?
Use whatever your instructor supplies. If none is given, a simple three- or five-point scale with each level defined works well. The definitions matter more than the scale itself: a reader should know what separates a four from a five at checkout. Keep one scale across every touchpoint so the grid can be compared at a glance.
Can the audit cover the website as well as the store?
Yes, if the prompt allows it, and it often adds depth, especially where online orders come back through the store. Audit each channel with the same criteria so the comparison holds. Keep this unit's focus on service and return moments rather than repeating the channel comparison from the previous unit, which dealt with availability and price.
Where can I find a free MT102 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page has the complete MT102 Unit 8 customer experience audit of a composite aquarium store, with criteria, ratings, a livestock guarantee test, findings, ranked fixes, references and margin notes.
Why is the livestock guarantee rated lowest?
The claim took 22 minutes for a $4.99 credit, the register associate did not know the policy, and the credit came with a once-per-order condition that the chain does not publish.