MOCAP Customer Survey Analysis: US/Canada Market Research (REVISED)

Dataset Overview

CRITICAL LIMITATION: This analysis covers only US and Canada customer responses. Surveys from Italy, Germany, France, Poland, Spain, and England customers are still pending and not included in this report. The findings below represent North American customer perspectives only and may not reflect patterns or priorities in European markets.

26 customer survey responses analyzed across 4 survey waves (1 test response excluded):

MOCAP Customer Survey: 12 responses
MOCAP Client Survey: 4 responses
Cleartec Customer Survey: 9 responses
Cleartec Client Survey: 1 response

Respondents primarily procurement/purchasing managers (7), business owners/decision makers (6), engineers/technical specialists (3), maintenance technicians (3), with smaller representation from marketing/packaging designers, retired individuals using products for hobbies, and specialty roles (toolcrib attendant, sole proprietors).

Executive Summary

Shipping speed and stock availability top purchase decision factors at 69%, followed by lower prices at 58%, then website UX at 46%. Website matters but ranks third among competitive factors. This provides qualified validation for UX investment: nearly half of customers explicitly choose suppliers based on website experience, but traditional factors (logistics, pricing) still dominate.

Desktop preference strong but not overwhelming. 15 of 26 respondents (58%) selected “Nothing - I prefer to use desktop for everything” for mobile usage. Among those wanting mobile functionality, quick product lookup (specs checking) leads at 12 selections, creating clear mobile roadmap. Mobile investment should focus on lightweight product reference tools, not comprehensive ordering flows.

Search and product images emerge as universal priorities. Better search (finds exact part numbers) requested by 19 of 26 respondents (73%). Product images matching selected color/size requested by 15 of 26 (58%). These two features dominate improvement requests. Quick-order tool (bulk part number entry) third at 11 of 26 (42%).

Brand consolidation has customer support despite awareness gap. 21 of 26 respondents (81%) didn’t know MOCAP, Cleartec, and Beckett were related companies. Despite this, 12 respondents (46%) said unified website would be “definitely easier,” 7 (27%) said “maybe depends on organization,” only 2 (8%) prefer separate sites. Customer data shows 73% support or openness for consolidation, but “depends on organization” qualifier (27%) emphasizes execution risk.

Measurement systems and product nomenclature create friction. Open-ended feedback revealed measurement display problems (imperial/metric/fractional switching needed), tube nomenclature confusion (open vs closed ends unclear to new customers), closure compatibility reference gaps. These represent low-hanging UX improvements with direct customer impact.

Purchase Decision Factors: Shipping Leads, Website Third

Survey forced customers to select exactly 3 factors from 8 options when choosing between suppliers. This constraint reveals true priorities by forcing trade-offs.

Top tier factors (appeared in 50%+ of responses):

Faster shipping or better stock availability: 18 responses (69%)
Lower prices: 15 responses (58%)

Mid tier factors (appeared in 30-50% of responses):

Better website / easier to find products: 12 responses (46%)
Better product quality: 9 responses (35%)
Better customer service: 9 responses (35%)

Lower tier factors (appeared in less than 30% of responses):

They have products that others don’t: 7 responses (27%)
My company has an account/relationship with them: 5 responses (19%)
Habit/familiarity with the site: 3 responses (12%)

Shipping speed and stock availability dominate at 69%, appearing in more than two-thirds of responses. This reflects procurement reality: manufacturing components needed quickly for production lines, maintenance operations, or project deadlines. Delayed parts create cascading problems. One maintenance technician’s open-ended feedback: “we have not received the order that was placed for our critical job” captures urgency driving this priority.

Lower prices ranked second at 58%, appearing in slightly over half of responses. Expected in procurement context but not overwhelming. Multiple respondents prioritized other factors over price, particularly product quality (35%) and customer service (35%). This suggests customer base includes quality-conscious buyers willing to pay premiums for reliability, not purely price-driven procurement.

Website UX earned mid-tier placement at 46%, ranking third overall. Nearly half of customers explicitly value website experience in supplier selection. One engineer selected “Better website / easier to find products” alongside “They have products that others don’t” and “Faster shipping” as top 3, valuing UX at equal level with product uniqueness and logistics.

UX investment qualified validation: Website quality matters to substantial minority (46%) but doesn’t dominate traditional procurement factors (shipping 69%, price 58%). Internal stakeholder research showed search fix expects 20-25% sales increase (Ildar Zibarov estimate). Customer data confirms: website quality influences supplier selection for nearly half of buyers, but most prioritize logistics and pricing first. UX improvements should focus on reducing friction for customers already choosing based on website, while recognizing logistics/pricing drive majority of purchase decisions.

Better customer service and better product quality tied at 35%, representing one-third of customers. These customers optimize for relationship quality and product reliability over website convenience or price. This segment likely includes long-term accounts, high-value projects, or specialized applications where product failure costs exceed procurement savings.

Product uniqueness (“They have products that others don’t”) selected by 27%, indicating roughly one-quarter of customers purchase because alternatives unavailable. This validates MOCAP’s specialized product positioning but also reveals 73% of customers have options, making service quality, pricing, and logistics differentiators rather than product monopoly.

Account relationships and site familiarity ranked lowest at 19% and 12% respectively. Customers don’t appear locked-in by switching costs or habits. They evaluate suppliers on ongoing performance (shipping, price, website, quality, service) rather than historical relationships. This creates both opportunity (new customers accessible) and risk (existing customers evaluable competitors).

Mobile Usage Patterns: Desktop Preferred, Lookup When Needed

Mobile task question used “select all that apply” format, allowing multiple selections without forced prioritization. This reveals which mobile functions customers want, and critically, which they don’t.

Desktop preference: 15 of 26 respondents (58%) selected “Nothing - I prefer to use desktop for everything” or wrote custom “I mostly use desktop at work, not my personal cell phone.” This appeared across all role types: procurement managers, business owners, engineers, maintenance technicians. One Cleartec customer explicitly noted desktop-only work pattern.

Among those wanting mobile functionality (or selecting both desktop and mobile):

Quick product lookup (check specs): 12 responses
Browse new products: 8 responses
Track orders: 0 responses
Request samples: 0 responses
Place simple reorders: 0 responses
Check stock availability: 0 responses
Contact sales/support: 0 responses

Mobile pattern clear: customers want reference tools, not transaction tools. Product spec lookup dominates at 12 selections: field checks, jobsite measurements, quick technical verification. Nobody requested mobile ordering, sample requests, or account management. The mobile use case: “I’m standing in front of equipment needing cap size confirmation” not “I’m purchasing 5,000 units from my phone.”

Desktop preference (58%) indicates majority of ordering happens at office computers during work hours. This reflects B2B procurement workflow: research specifications, compare options, coordinate with stakeholders, place orders using desktop tools. Mobile serves supplementary role: verify measurements at job site, check product availability while at supplier, browse new options during downtime.

One procurement manager selected mobile product lookup combined with “Nothing - I prefer desktop,” indicating split intention: lookup on mobile when needed, ordering on desktop when ready. This separated workflow informs mobile roadmap: don’t replicate desktop functionality on smaller screen, provide mobile-specific use cases (quick reference, field support).

Mobile investment implications: Build lightweight spec lookup, size charts, and product browsing optimized for speed not features. Don’t build mobile checkout flows, sample request forms, or bulk ordering tools. Desktop remains transaction environment where users have time, attention, and larger screens for complex product configurations. Mobile supports pre-purchase research and field verification, not final transactions.

The 12 customers wanting mobile lookup represent 46% of respondents, creating substantial minority use case. However, zero selections for transaction-oriented mobile features (ordering, samples, stock checking) indicates customers don’t trust or want mobile commerce for B2B manufacturing components. They want information portability, not transaction portability.

Feature Priorities: Search and Images Dominate

Survey forced selection of exactly 3 improvements from 10 options, creating zero-sum prioritization. Customers couldn’t select everything: they revealed what matters most by what they excluded.

Top tier priorities (selected by 50%+ of respondents):

Better search (finds exact part numbers): 19 responses (73%)
Product images that match selected color/size: 15 responses (58%)

Mid tier priorities (selected by 30-50% of respondents):

Quick-order tool (paste multiple part numbers at once): 11 responses (42%)
Mobile-friendly tables and navigation: 10 responses (38%)

Lower tier priorities (selected by less than 30% of respondents):

Easier sample request process: 6 responses (23%)
Sortable/filterable product tables: 0 responses
Live stock availability and lead times: 0 responses
Clearer shipping costs before checkout: 0 responses
Downloadable engineering drawings (2D specs): 0 responses
Customer portal (order history, tracking, reorder): 0 responses

Search dysfunction affects nearly 3 of 4 customers at 73%. This matches internal stakeholder research where search appeared as top pain point across written feedback (7 of 18 stakeholders, 9.2 combined MoSCoW rating) and live calls (7 of 10 interviews). External validation confirms: customers experience same search failure internal teams report. The consistency across internal and external research elevates search to critical priority: both employees and customers independently identify it as primary website dysfunction.

Product image accuracy affects nearly 3 of 5 customers at 58%. This also matches internal research where Jim Boehm, Shane Flottmann prioritized configuration-specific images showing actual selected colors and sizes. The customer pain: ordering red cap but seeing generic blue cap image creates uncertainty about product match. One engineer noted: “Website was set up very nice. I also like the product book that was sent with a sample that helped as well.” Physical catalog compensates for website image gaps through accurate photography, suggesting customers trust tangible references over digital representations when images don’t match selections.

Portal absence notable: Zero customers selected “Customer portal (order history, tracking, reorder)” despite internal stakeholders rating it 9.5 (highest in MoSCoW exercise), 8 of 10 live call interviews citing it as top need, Shawn Halley calling it “critical to 2030 goals.” This disconnect reveals perception gap between internal operational pain and customer articulated needs.

Internal teams experience portal absence as productivity crisis. Kate Parish: 70 manual order requests daily with 4-person team. Jim Boehm: 17-person escalation chain for stock data failures. Honorata Grzebielucha: 40-50% Poland order cancellation rate. These operational burdens invisible to customers who simply experience symptoms: call for order status, email for tracking numbers, can’t reorder previous parts easily. They selected other features addressing these symptoms without naming overarching portal solution.

Customers don’t conceptualize “portal” as improvement category. They think: “I want easier reordering” (maybe selects quick-order tool), “I want better search” (selects search fix), “I want order tracking” (but no specific feature offered). The portal represents system-level solution to multiple customer pain points, but customers identify individual pain points not systems. This gap matters for roadmap communication: internal stakeholders say “build portal,” customers say “fix specific workflows,” both describing same underlying need from different perspectives.

Quick-order tool (bulk part number paste) selected by 11 customers (42%), placing third in priority ranking. This matches internal procurement workflow observations: repeat customers know exact part numbers, want fast entry method without navigating product pages individually. One maintenance technician selected it as sole improvement priority, indicating order speed critical for certain roles. Business owners selected it frequently, suggesting inventory replenishment use case: paste 20 part numbers, confirm quantities, submit order in single workflow instead of 20 separate product searches.

Mobile-friendly tables and navigation selected by 10 customers (38%), creating near tie with quick-order tool. This correlates with 12 customers wanting mobile product lookup: they need spec charts and product tables readable on phone screens. Current desktop-optimized tables don’t reflow for mobile, forcing pinch-zoom navigation. However, 58% desktop preference limits mobile table urgency: substantial minority wants it, majority doesn’t prioritize it.

Stock availability and shipping cost transparency invisibility surprising: Zero selections for “Live stock availability and lead times” or “Clearer shipping costs before checkout.” Internal stakeholder research emphasized data accuracy problems. Honorata reported 40-50% Poland cancellations from wrong stock display. Linda reported zero China orders. Open-ended customer feedback mentioned shipping cost complaints (discussed later section) but customers didn’t frame these as website features they could request.

Possible explanations: (1) US/Canada customers don’t experience severe data accuracy problems international markets face, stock displays more reliable domestically than Poland/China; (2) customers consider stock data and shipping costs basic expectations not improvement options, like asking “do you want functioning search”; (3) other priorities (search 73%, images 58%, quick-order 42%) override when forced to select only 3; (4) customers experience shipping cost surprises at fulfillment not checkout, so don’t associate with website transparency.

Sample request process improvements selected by only 6 customers (23%), lower than expected given internal stakeholder emphasis. Jim Boehm: 50% of Beckett orders involve samples first, 70% conversion rate. Internal data shows samples critical sales tool. Customer data shows samples lower priority than search, images, quick-order, mobile tables. Possible explanation: customers who need samples request them (workflow exists), frustration comes from administrative burden internal teams experience (separate form per part number, manual processing) not customer-facing difficulty. Another possibility: sample requests already easy enough for customers, improvements would benefit internal efficiency not customer experience.

Sortable/filterable product tables earned zero selections despite appearing as survey option. This represents total priority gap: survey designers thought table functionality might matter, customers unanimously disagreed. Either current table functionality sufficient, or customers solve sorting/filtering needs through other methods (better search, quick-order tool), or table interaction not how customers use site.

Brand Awareness and Consolidation Strategy

Two-part question assessed: (1) customer awareness of multi-brand company structure, (2) customer preference for unified vs separate websites.

Part A: Brand awareness before survey

No, I didn’t know: 18 responses (69%)
Yes, I knew they were related: 5 responses (19%)
I was aware of some, but not all: 3 responses (12%)

81% of customers (combining “didn’t know” and “partial awareness”) unaware of full MOCAP family structure. Only 19% knew all three brands related. This represents massive brand equity fragmentation. Customers buying from Cleartec don’t know Beckett exists. MOCAP customers don’t realize Cleartec is option. Each brand operates independently in customer minds despite shared parent company.

Low awareness validates internal stakeholder feedback. Lety Cantu (preliminary feedback): “If I do not tell them that logos at the end of the page will direct them to BECKET and CLEARTEC…” Marta Wojszczyk (preliminary feedback): “the main one is not being aware about having the Cleartec Packaging webstore.” Customer data confirms stakeholder observations: brand separation creates discovery barrier where customers can’t find products under different brand names.

Part B: Unified website preference

Yes, definitely easier to shop across products: 12 responses (46%)
Maybe - depends on how it’s organised: 7 responses (27%)
No opinion / Not sure: 5 responses (19%)
No - I prefer separate sites for each brand: 2 responses (8%)

73% of customers (combining “definitely” and “maybe”) support or are open to consolidation. Only 8% actively prefer separation. Substantial customer validation for unified platform strategy, though not overwhelming mandate.

However, 27% “depends on organization” qualification critical. Customers recognize implementation complexity. Seven customers said: consolidation could help or hurt depending on execution quality. They’re signaling: bad consolidation worse than good separation. This conditional support creates implementation risk: if unified platform creates navigation confusion, product discovery problems, or brand clarity loss, customers who said “maybe” become detractors rather than supporters.

The 2 customers preferring separate sites (8%) both showed existing familiarity patterns: one selected “Habit/familiarity with the site” as purchase decision factor, another worked at company with account relationship. They’ve learned current system, don’t want relearning cost. This minority preference should inform change management: heavy users need migration support, transition documentation, feature continuity. Don’t force adoption without providing learning path.

Cross-analysis with role types: Procurement managers (7 total) split: 4 “definitely easier,” 2 “maybe depends,” 1 “no opinion.” Business owners (6 total): 2 “definitely,” 3 “maybe,” 1 “no opinion.” Engineers (3 total): 1 “definitely,” 1 “maybe,” 1 “prefer separate.” Pattern: no role uniformly opposed. Procurement showed slight preference for consolidation (4 of 7), matching their multi-product sourcing needs where unified catalog enables cross-brand comparison.

Consolidation implications: Customer data shows 73% support or openness but 27% conditional approval emphasizes execution quality. Implementation must address “depends on organization” concerns through: clear brand differentiation within unified structure (customers need to distinguish MOCAP caps from Cleartec tubes), preserved product categorization schemes (don’t force customers to relearn product hierarchies), migration path for existing customers familiar with current sites (documented changes, feature mapping, training resources).

Customer support substantial but not mandate. 46% definite support means slight majority unsure or conditional. This differs from search (73% universal priority) or product images (58% substantial priority) where customer demand overwhelming. Platform consolidation strategic decision requiring executive judgment on brand architecture, not obvious customer-driven requirement. Customer data provides validation for strategy but doesn’t demand it.

Role Segmentation Patterns

Survey included role selection to enable persona validation and priority segmentation analysis. Distribution:

Procurement / Purchasing Managers (7): Largest segment. Selected “Better website” 5 of 7 times in purchase factors (71% of role). Feature priorities concentrated on quick-order tool (5 selections), better search (7 selections), product images (3 selections). These are repeat buyers needing efficiency: bulk part number entry, accurate search results, visual confirmation. Open-ended feedback: “easier measurements identifiers,” “Measurements given in engineering, fractions, and metric scales. Be able to select which scale I wished to use.” They think in measurement systems, need flexibility between imperial fractional, decimal, and metric displays.

Business Owners / Decision Makers (6): Second largest segment. Selected “Lower prices” 5 of 6 times in purchase factors (83% of role), highest rate among all roles. Feature priorities scattered: quick-order tool (2 selections), product images (3 selections), mobile-friendly tables (2 selections). Price-conscious but still value website UX: 2 of 6 included “Better website” in top 3 purchase factors. Open-ended feedback focused on shipping costs and product selection: “combine multiple products to save on shipping,” “pack tubes inside themselves, save ton of money on shipping and way less packing waste.” They optimize for total delivered cost including freight, not just unit pricing.

Engineers / Technical Specialists (3): Selected “Better website” 1 of 3 times but “They have products that others don’t” 2 of 3 times, indicating product uniqueness drives engineer supplier selection more than website convenience. Feature priorities: better search (3 selections), mobile-friendly tables (1 selection), product images (2 selections). They want spec accuracy and product match confirmation. One noted “Website was set up very nice. I also like the product book” showing appreciation for clear technical documentation both digital and physical.

Maintenance / Field Technicians (3): Selected “Faster shipping or better stock availability” all 3 times (100% of role), highest rate among roles. Feature priorities varied: one selected only quick-order tool, another mobile-friendly tables and better search, third easier samples and better search. They need parts fast for repairs, explaining shipping priority. One noted: “we have not received the order that was placed for our critical job.” Delays impact their work directly: equipment down, production stopped, maintenance team blocked. They optimize for speed over other factors.

Hobby/Retired/Individual Users (5 total across various self-descriptions): Unexpected segment representing 19% of respondents. These are individual consumers using industrial packaging products for craft projects, home workshops, component replacement: “Hobby,” “Retired - use products for hobby,” “Private citizen replacing old components on quality products,” “Sole owner who does everything,” “Retired.” They selected “Better product quality” frequently (4 times from this group), “Lower prices” (4 times), and struggle with industrial nomenclature.

One hobby user detailed: “I found it difficult to understand the description of the tubes when ordering the first time, I call customer service and she helped me. The nomenclature was all new to me and I didn’t realize some tubes were closed and some were open.” This first-time buyer confusion pattern: industrial terminology assumes technical knowledge base hobby users lack. They need: simplified product descriptions for non-technical users, glossary or tooltip explanations for industry terms (open-end vs closed-end tubes, wall thickness specifications), educational content about product selection criteria.

Marketing / Packaging Designer (1): Selected “Better product quality” as primary factor. Wanted “Quick-order tool” as sole improvement. Partial brand awareness: “I was aware of some, but not all.” This professional buyer focuses on quality for client projects, needs order efficiency for repeat purchases.

Toolcrib Attendant (1): Selected account relationship and shipping speed as factors. Wanted samples, mobile tables, better search improvements. This inventory management role focuses on reliable restocking and product identification rather than technical specifications or pricing decisions.

Role pattern insights: Procurement managers and engineers prioritize search and images for specification accuracy. Business owners add price and shipping cost sensitivity. Maintenance technicians optimize for speed above all. Hobby/retired users need simplified terminology and educational resources. No role deprioritized “Better website” universally - it appeared consistently across segments at varying rates.

Feature priority variation by role limited. Better search wanted by nearly all roles (appeared in 7 of 7 procurement managers, 3 of 3 engineers responses). Product images wanted broadly. Quick-order tool wanted more by procurement/business owners (repeat ordering use case) than engineers (specification lookup use case). Mobile-friendly tables distributed somewhat evenly, suggesting responsive design benefits multiple segments though not universally prioritized.

Purchase decision factor variation by role more pronounced. Maintenance 100% prioritized shipping speed. Business owners 83% prioritized lower prices. Engineers 67% prioritized product uniqueness. These role-specific optimization patterns inform marketing and sales approaches: emphasize speed/availability to maintenance departments, cost efficiency to business owners, technical specifications and product range to engineers.

Open-Ended Feedback: Measurement, Nomenclature, and Shipping

Final survey question: “What is the ONE thing we could improve on our website that would make the biggest difference for you?” Open text response, no prompts, no options. 14 customers provided substantive feedback beyond generic form-fill responses. Customers prioritized what frustrated them most.

Measurement systems and scale switching (2 responses): “easier measurements identifiers of the caps”

“Measurements given in engineering, fractions, and metric scales. Be able to select which scale I wished to use. Product is of good quality.”

These procurement managers need measurement flexibility. Products show one scale (decimal inches), customers think in another (fractional inches, metric millimeters). Second customer explicitly requested toggle: select preferred scale, entire site updates all measurements accordingly. This mirrors Linda Yang’s preliminary feedback requesting translation fix for China site metric/imperial toggle. Different markets, different measurement preferences, but same underlying need: let customers view specifications in familiar units rather than forcing mental conversion.

Product nomenclature and tube terminology (1 response, highly detailed): “I found it difficult to understand the description of the tubes when ordering the first time, I call customer service and she helped me. The nomenclature was all new to me and I didn’t realize some tubes were closed and some were open. Customer service cancelled the order and then I initiated a new order where I correctly chose the tubes I wanted. Once I was aware of the nomenclature I found the website to be easy to navigate”

This hobby user placed wrong order due to terminology confusion. Open-end vs closed-end tubes not clearly differentiated in product descriptions. Required customer service intervention to understand basic product characteristic: whether tube sealed on one end or open both ends. Once learned through CS explanation, customer found site easy to navigate.

Problem: unclear product descriptions for first-time buyers, particularly non-industrial users. Product pages assume technical knowledge about tube construction, closure types, dimensional specifications. Solution exists (customer service explains terminology), but shouldn’t require support call for fundamental product characteristic. This represents information architecture gap: critical product attributes not prominently displayed or explained in customer-accessible language.

Closure compatibility reference (1 response, detailed): “Maybe a reference chart showing which caps fit specific nominal size tubes? If I order extra caps without needing tubes, or want to double check a part number, then I go through several pages to search out our thin-walled tubes and pretend to order them until the closure options show up on the order page.”

This procurement manager wants standalone closure compatibility chart. Currently must navigate to tube product page, add tube to cart, advance to closure selection step just to see which caps fit. They “pretend to order” tubes to access information that should be directly available as reference chart. This is product information architecture problem: closure compatibility data embedded in tube ordering flow instead of independently accessible as cross-reference.

The workflow hack reveals information accessibility gap. Procurement managers need to verify part numbers, confirm compatibility, check specifications without initiating purchase. Forcing fake order workflow to access reference information creates friction for research and verification use cases. Solution: publish standalone compatibility matrices showing tube dimensions cross-referenced with compatible closure part numbers.

Shipping costs and packaging efficiency (2 responses, one very detailed): “If there was a way to combine multiple products to save on shipping. The order I placed was very expensive for shipping, two different sizes were shipped in separate boxes where it could’ve easily fit into one and saved a lot for shipping costs.”

“I don’t really care about your website as long as I can find what I need to order. What I DO care about is how you ship your products, especially the heavy wall tubing because that is all that I buy from you. I REALLY WISH you would pack the tubes inside of themselves, rather than shipping a separate box of tubes for each diameter of tubing. If the various diameters of tubes could be nested inside of each other you could get everything I order into one or two boxes and SAVE A TON OF MONEY ON SHIPPING and have way less packing waste which is MUCH better for the environment.”

Both business owners frustrated by shipping costs and packaging inefficiency. First customer: different tube sizes shipped separately though single box consolidation possible. Second customer (Cleartec heavy wall tubing specialist): passionate request for nested packing to reduce box count, shipping cost, and environmental waste. Wrote in all caps emphasizing importance: “REALLY WISH,” “SAVE A TON OF MONEY,” “MUCH better for the environment.”

Second response notable for explicit website dismissal: “I don’t really care about your website as long as I can find what I need.” This customer separates website (information tool) from fulfillment (cost driver). They’ll tolerate mediocre website if products ship efficiently and affordably. They won’t tolerate great website if shipping costs excessive. This is fulfillment/operations issue not website UX issue, but customer used website survey as only available feedback channel, associating entire purchasing experience with “website improvement” question.

Shipping cost complaints appeared in open-ended feedback but earned zero selections in structured feature priority question (“Clearer shipping costs before checkout”). This disconnect suggests: customers experience shipping cost problems at delivery and invoice receipt, not at checkout transparency stage. They know shipping costs upfront, they object to absolute dollar amounts and packaging inefficiency, not unclear communication.

Product selection expansion (1 response): “Add more diameters, wall thicknesses, and pre-cut length options to the clear plastic square tubing. Also, add the rubber-like endcaps that go over the ends of the tubing. I like them better than the hard plastic ones that fit inside the tubing.”

Business owner requesting product line expansion: more dimensional options for square tubing, rubber-like external caps vs hard plastic internal caps. This is product development feedback not website UX feedback, but customer used website survey as available feedback channel. Suggests customer perceives website as company interface generally, not merely ordering tool specifically. They think: “how do I tell MOCAP what I want” = “fill out website survey.”

Satisfaction statements (4 responses): “Website was set up very nice. I also like the product book that was sent with a sample that helped as well.”

“Hard to say, I find your website easy to use and navigate”

“This website and product information appears to work for our needs”

“I can’t really think of anything.”

Four customers provided explicitly positive feedback or couldn’t identify improvements. Engineer praised both website and physical catalog. Another engineer found site “easy to use and navigate.” Procurement manager said site “works for our needs.” Private citizen “can’t think of anything.” This validates baseline experience: significant minority found current site satisfactory for their needs.

Positive feedback matters for implementation risk assessment. When 15% of respondents (4 of 26) volunteer satisfaction without prompting, suggests changes should preserve what works while fixing what doesn’t. Don’t redesign for redesign’s sake. Don’t break navigation patterns that current users understand. Improve search, update images, add quick-order tool, but maintain site structure and interaction patterns that minority actively appreciates.

Timing complaint (1 response): “Why did you send me this survey before I even received the items to evaluate?”

Retired customer received survey before product delivery. Survey focused on website ordering experience not product quality evaluation, but customer expected post-delivery timing. This is survey administration issue: disconnect between website experience survey (can send immediately post-purchase, measures ordering process) and product satisfaction survey (requires delivery and usage, measures product performance). Customer confusion reveals: buyers associate “feedback” with product evaluation more than process evaluation.

Complaint about unfulfilled order (1 response): “we have not received the order that was placed for our critical job.”

Maintenance technician used website survey as customer service escalation channel. Order hasn’t arrived, job critical (equipment down, production blocked), frustration expressed through available feedback mechanism. Not website complaint but order fulfillment complaint. However, customer associates website with entire ordering experience including delivery. This reflects customer mental model: “website” = “MOCAP interface” = “entire purchase process from search to delivery.”

Empty or minimal responses (4 responses): “Nothing” (toolcrib attendant) ”…” (procurement manager)
”?” (business owner) No response provided (maintenance technician)

Four respondents provided no actionable feedback: one explicitly said “Nothing,” two provided punctuation-only responses suggesting confusion or survey fatigue, one left question blank. These might indicate: (1) complete satisfaction with no improvement needs, (2) survey fatigue after multiple choice questions, (3) unclear question interpretation, or (4) “can’t think of example in moment” rather than “no problems exist.”

Surprising Findings and Notable Patterns

Portal absence from customer priorities despite overwhelming internal emphasis: Internal stakeholders rated customer portal 9.5 (highest MoSCoW score), 8 of 10 live call interviews cited it as top need, Shawn Halley called it “critical to 2030 goals,” Kate Parish experiences 70 manual tickets daily solved by portal. Yet zero customers selected portal in feature priorities.

This disconnect reveals perception gap. Internal teams experience operational pain customers don’t directly see: Kate processing manual orders, Jim managing 17-person escalation chains, Honorata handling 40-50% cancellation rate in Poland. Customers experience symptoms: can’t track orders easily, can’t reorder previous parts quickly, can’t see order history. They selected features addressing symptoms (better search for finding past orders, quick-order tool for repeat purchases) without conceptualizing “portal” as overarching solution.

Customers don’t think in system architectures. They think in tasks and frustrations. “Portal” means nothing. “Make reordering faster” means everything. This matters for roadmap communication and priority justification: internal stakeholders say “build portal,” customers say “fix specific workflows,” but both describe same underlying needs from different perspectives. Implementation requires translating customer task-based requests (reorder fast, track orders, see history) into system solution (portal) while recognizing customer language doesn’t validate system approach.

Stock availability and shipping cost transparency ignored despite internal emphasis: Zero customer selections for “Live stock availability and lead times” or “Clearer shipping costs before checkout.” Internal stakeholder research emphasized these heavily. Honorata reported 40-50% Poland order cancellation rate from wrong stock displays. Linda reported zero China orders partially from data accuracy problems. Yet US/Canada customers didn’t prioritize these features.

Possible explanations: (1) US/Canada market experiences better data accuracy than international markets, domestic stock displays more reliable than Poland/China/Mexico where warehouse data shows wrong locations; (2) customers consider stock data and shipping costs basic expectations not improvement options they should request, like functioning search or working checkout; (3) when forced to select only 3 priorities, other dysfunctions (search 73%, images 58%) matter more; (4) open-ended feedback mentioned shipping costs but framed as packaging efficiency not checkout transparency, suggesting fulfillment problem not display problem.

This represents geographic limitation of US/Canada-only dataset. European customer surveys may reveal stock availability and shipping transparency as critical priorities if they experience data accuracy problems international internal stakeholders reported. Don’t deprioritize these features based solely on US/Canada customer feedback when international stakeholder research showed market access failures from these exact issues.

Hobby/retired segment unexpected and substantial: 5 of 26 respondents (19%) identified as retired individuals or hobbyists using industrial packaging products for crafts, home projects, quality product component replacement. They represent nearly one-fifth of survey responses, creating B2C segment within B2B product line.

This segment needs: clearer product descriptions for non-technical users (one couldn’t distinguish open vs closed tubes), simplified ordering processes (industrial nomenclature assumes professional knowledge), educational content about product selection (which cap fits which tube, how to measure dimensions). They appreciate customer service support (one praised CS for explaining terminology) but shouldn’t require phone call for basic product understanding.

Hobby segment priorities differ slightly: emphasize product quality (4 of 5 selected it) and lower prices (4 of 5) more than professional buyers. They don’t prioritize quick-order tools (repeat commercial orders) or mobile tables (field reference for technicians). They want: find right product, understand what it does, confirm it matches need, order small quantity affordably. This suggests product detail pages, measurement guides, and application examples more valuable than bulk ordering tools or advanced search filters for this segment.

Desktop preference remains strong in mobile-first era: 58% selected “Nothing - I prefer desktop for everything,” contradicting general web trend toward mobile-first design. This makes sense in B2B context: procurement professionals at work using company computers, maintenance technicians at desks between field calls, business owners in offices managing multiple tasks. Mobile serves supplementary role: checking specs at equipment location, verifying measurements at job site, browsing new options during breaks. Not primary ordering environment.

Mobile investment should align with actual usage patterns (reference tools: spec lookup, size charts, product browsing) not assumed patterns (mobile commerce: checkout flows, account management, bulk ordering). The 12 customers wanting mobile product lookup (46%) represent substantial minority justifying mobile optimization. But 58% desktop preference establishes desktop as primary platform requiring full feature set and optimization priority.

Measurement system friction across multiple customers despite low mention rate: Only 2 customers explicitly mentioned measurement display problems in open-ended feedback, but both provided detailed requests for imperial/fractional/metric switching. This low absolute count (2 of 14 substantive responses) but high detail level suggests: affects smaller customer segment but matters intensely to affected users. Linda Yang’s preliminary China feedback requested metric/imperial toggle. US/Canada customers want fractional/decimal/metric toggle. Same underlying issue across markets: customers think in different measurement systems, site should adapt rather than forcing conversion.

Low mention rate (2 of 26 total respondents) means this shouldn’t outrank universal priorities (search 73%, images 58%). But straightforward implementation (measurement toggle affecting all dimensions site-wide) and high impact for affected users (procurement managers selecting suppliers based on ease of specification matching) suggests valuable improvement for modest development effort. International expansion makes this more critical: European markets require metric primary display, US markets expect imperial options, technical specifications need both systems.

Search and images as only consensus priorities: Better search selected by 73%, product images by 58%, creating only two features with majority or near-majority support. Quick-order tool at 42% represents substantial minority. All other features below 40%. This creates clear implementation roadmap: search and images have demonstrated customer demand matching internal stakeholder research. Quick-order tool has strong support from specific segment (procurement managers, business owners placing repeat orders). Other features require strategic justification beyond direct customer request.

This consensus validates internal research priorities. Search appeared as top pain point in preliminary feedback (8 of 20 stakeholders), written feedback (7 of 18 stakeholders, 9.2 combined MoSCoW rating), live calls (7 of 10 interviews), and now customer survey (73%). Image accuracy appeared across Jim Boehm, Shane Flottmann internal feedback, Art department noting “project trying to get moved forward for years,” and now 58% of customers. When internal and external research independently converge on same priorities, confidence level for implementation justification increases dramatically.

Positive feedback exists countering negative bias: 4 customers provided explicit satisfaction statements (15% of respondents). This matters because dissatisfied customers more motivated to respond to feedback requests than satisfied customers. That 15% went out of way to volunteer satisfaction suggests baseline experience meets needs for portion of customer base. Implementation priority: preserve what works. Don’t break navigation patterns, don’t remove features minority uses, don’t redesign for aesthetic reasons when functional adequacy exists. Fix search, update images, add quick-order tool, but maintain site structure appreciated by current satisfied users.

Shipping complaints framed as fulfillment not website: Two business owners provided passionate shipping cost feedback, but zero customers selected “Clearer shipping costs before checkout” in structured features. This disconnect shows: customers experience shipping costs at delivery and invoice, not at checkout transparency. They know costs upfront, they object to absolute amounts and packaging inefficiency. Solution lies in operations (nested packing reducing box count) not UX (clearer cost display). Website survey captured non-website complaints because customers lack other feedback channels or associate “website” with “entire MOCAP experience.”

Price sensitivity varies dramatically by role: Business owners selected “Lower prices” 83% of time (5 of 6), maintenance selected 33% (1 of 3), engineers selected 0% (0 of 3). This role-based price optimization pattern informs sales and marketing approach. Business owners (typically small companies, sole proprietors) optimize for delivered cost including freight. Engineers (typically employees at larger companies) optimize for technical specifications and product uniqueness, price secondary factor. Maintenance (typically facilities departments) optimize for speed above cost. Same product, different buyer priorities, requiring different value propositions.

Limitations and European Data Gaps

Critical reminder: This analysis represents only US and Canada customers. Survey responses from Italy, Germany, France, Poland, Spain, and England are still pending and not included.

European markets may show dramatically different patterns based on internal stakeholder research:

Linda Yang (China live call): zero online orders due to checkout mismatch with local payment expectations, 70-80% external feedback criticizes site as outdated, privacy concerns block prospect engagement
Honorata Grzebielucha (Poland live call): 40-50% order cancellation rate from wrong warehouse data display showing Ukrainian stock instead of Polish inventory, pricing displays incorrectly, order quantities wrong
Ricardo Munoz (Mexico live call): all bulk orders ship from Missouri due to no local warehouse, freight charges often don’t match quotes causing payment delays and disputes
Sharon Reed (UK preliminary feedback, appeared twice): customers unable to download delivery notes and tax invoices, tracking number visibility ongoing technical issue

International stakeholder research revealed complete or near-complete market access failures outside US. Poland loses half its orders to data accuracy problems. China generates zero orders from website. Mexico experiences freight estimation failures creating payment conflicts. UK customers can’t access order documentation. These represent revenue blocked, not merely reduced.

Customer survey data validates North American experience where shipping/stock ranked top priority (69%) but stock availability earned zero feature selections, suggesting US/Canada customers trust displayed data. European customer priorities may emphasize data accuracy, warehouse visibility, localized checkout flows, payment method options not captured in US/Canada survey.

Platform consolidation support (73% US/Canada customers support or open) may differ in markets with separate regional sites, different brand awareness patterns, or language localization needs. “Depends on organization” qualification (27% of US/Canada) likely higher in European markets requiring language toggles, currency displays, regional warehouse selection, VAT handling.

Measurement system preferences definitely vary by region. US/Canada customers requested imperial/fractional/metric toggle. European customers likely prioritize metric with imperial as secondary option. Linda Yang’s China feedback requested metric/imperial but also described more fundamental checkout localization problems (phone verification codes vs lengthy forms). Regional customization needs extend beyond measurement units to entire purchasing workflow cultural expectations.

Mobile usage patterns may differ internationally. US/Canada showed 58% desktop preference reflecting office-based B2B procurement. European markets with different work cultures, mobile infrastructure, or procurement workflows might show higher mobile dependency. Field technicians in regions with better mobile connectivity might perform more tasks mobile than US counterparts.

Analysis incomplete without European data: Feature prioritization decisions, brand consolidation strategy execution, mobile roadmap investment, implementation sequencing all depend on complete global customer dataset. Current findings validate some internal stakeholder observations (search dysfunction universally painful, image accuracy broadly needed) but may miss critical regional pain points or reveal US-specific priorities not applicable internationally.

Search likely remains universal priority across markets: broken functionality affects all languages and regions. Product images likely universal: configuration confirmation needed regardless of geography. But portal, stock availability, shipping transparency, mobile functionality, measurement systems, checkout flows, payment options all potentially vary by market. European customer surveys required before finalizing global UX strategy.

Don’t implement US-only solutions based on US-only customer data. Search fix benefits all markets (implement immediately). Image accuracy benefits all markets (implement immediately). Quick-order tool primarily benefits US/Canada repeat buyers (implement but verify European customers want it). Platform consolidation has US/Canada support but execution complexity requires European validation. Data accuracy deprioritized by US/Canada but critical per international stakeholders (implement based on stakeholder research not US customer survey).

Implementation Priorities Based on Customer Data

Customer survey data directly informs UX investment roadmap through demonstrated demand, though US/Canada geographic limitation requires consideration:

Tier 1: Universal consensus improvements (high customer demand + internal validation + all markets):

Better search (finds exact part numbers): 73% customer demand, 7 of 10 internal live calls, 7 of 18 internal written feedback, Ildar estimates 20-25% sales increase, affects all markets equally, implement immediately
Product images matching selected color/size: 58% customer demand, Jim Boehm/Shane Flottmann internal priority, Art notes “trying to get moved forward for years,” visual confirmation needed all markets, implement immediately

Tier 2: Strong US/Canada demand requiring European validation:

Quick-order tool (bulk part number paste): 42% customer demand particularly from procurement managers and business owners (repeat ordering use case), verify European customers have same workflow before major investment
Mobile-friendly tables and navigation: 38% customer demand, but 58% prefer desktop creates scope question, focus on product lookup (reference tool: specs, dimensions, compatibility) not ordering (transaction tool: checkout, account management), verify European mobile usage patterns

Tier 3: Strategic priorities with weak customer demand but strong internal justification:

Customer portal: 0% direct customer selection but 9.5 internal stakeholder rating, 8 of 10 live call mentions, Shawn Halley “critical to 2030 goals,” Kate Parish 70 daily tickets. Customer data suggests reframing from “portal” (system concept customers don’t use) to specific outcomes (easy reordering, order tracking visibility, order history access). Implement but communicate as workflow improvements not portal launch.
Platform consolidation: 73% customer support or openness (“definitely” + “maybe”), but 27% “depends on organization” requires execution quality focus. 81% unaware of multi-brand structure validates need, but 8% preferring separation requires migration support for heavy users. Implement with careful brand differentiation, preserved product navigation patterns, documented change management.

Tier 4: Localization and accessibility improvements (small US/Canada segment but likely higher international importance):

Measurement system toggle (imperial/fractional/metric): 2 US/Canada customers mentioned but Linda Yang China feedback requested similar, procurement manager segment needs specification flexibility, international expansion requires multi-unit support
Product nomenclature clarity: 1 detailed customer complaint about open vs closed tube terminology, affects first-time buyers and hobby segment (19% of responses), educational tooltips or glossary needed
Closure compatibility reference: 1 detailed customer complaint about information buried in ordering flow, procurement managers “pretend to order” tubes to see cap compatibility, publish standalone cross-reference charts

Tier 5: Deprioritized based on US/Canada data but potentially critical internationally:

Live stock availability and lead times: Zero US/Canada selections despite Honorata’s 40-50% Poland cancellations from wrong data, Linda’s zero China orders partially from data problems. Implement based on international stakeholder research not US customer survey. Data accuracy affects market access internationally even if US customers don’t prioritize it.
Clearer shipping costs before checkout: Zero selections though open-ended mentioned shipping frustrations framed as packaging efficiency not transparency. US/Canada customers may trust displayed costs, international markets may experience estimation failures (Ricardo’s Mexico freight problems).

Deprioritized universally (0% selection, minimal strategic justification):

Downloadable engineering drawings: Zero selections suggests not customer priority
Sortable/filterable product tables: Zero selections suggests current table functionality adequate or customers solve through better search
Sample request process improvements: Only 23% selection despite Jim’s 70% conversion rate data. Improvements benefit internal efficiency more than customer experience. Current workflow adequate for customers even if administratively burdensome for staff.

Customer validation summary:

Website as competitive differentiator: 46% included in top-3 purchase factors provides qualified validation. Nearly half explicitly choose suppliers based on website experience, but shipping (69%) and price (58%) dominate. UX investment justified but not primary competitive factor.
Desktop-first implementation: 58% desktop preference supports focusing web experience optimization on desktop platform, mobile as secondary reference tool not transaction environment
Search and images consensus: 73% and 58% respectively create overwhelming mandate matching internal research. These improvements non-negotiable based on converging evidence.
Portal need vs portal want: Internal teams need portal (operational survival), customers want outcomes portal enables (easy reordering, tracking, history). Implement portal but communicate and design around task completion not system architecture.

Data-driven implementation sequence: Phase 1 (immediate, universal benefit): Search replacement with Magento native functionality (Ildar: technically straightforward, 20-25% ROI), product images matching configurations (Art: project pending for years, 58% customer demand)

Phase 2 (strong demand, verify international): Quick-order tool for bulk part number entry (42% US/Canada, concentrated in procurement segment), mobile product lookup optimization (46% want mobile specs, 58% prefer desktop transactions)

Phase 3 (strategic priority, careful execution): Customer portal reframed as workflow improvements (0% customer request but 9.5 internal rating), platform consolidation with brand differentiation preserved (73% customer openness but 27% conditional)

Phase 4 (international critical, US/Canada minor): Data accuracy improvements for stock/warehouse visibility (Honorata’s 40-50% Poland cancellations, Linda’s zero China orders), measurement system toggles (Linda’s China request, 2 US/Canada procurement managers), checkout localization (Linda’s phone verification vs forms)

Customer data provides demand validation for search and images (implement immediately), qualified support for quick-order and mobile (implement with verification), strategic context for portal and consolidation (implement carefully), and geographic limitation warnings for data accuracy and localization (implement based on international stakeholder research despite weak US/Canada customer demand).