All or nothing? Why EY may stand out from the crowd in the Nordics

By Fiona Czerniawska

I’ve just been analysing the results of our new survey of client perceptions in the Nordic region.  As always, people find it hard to tell firms apart, at least within segments (they’re quite clear about the differences between segments).  Our job, if you like, is to pour over the data to find the areas where real differences shine through.

Let’s start with quality.  Nordic executives like consultants: they’re roughly twice as likely as their counterparts in other major consulting markets to describe the quality of consulting services they receive as ‘very high’, and only a quarter have middling to negative views compared to half in other geographies.  As we’ve found in other countries there’s a bit of a drop-off between expectations and reality: 64% of prospects (people who may have seen a given firm in action elsewhere in their organisation or used it in the past but are not active clients at the moment) would describe quality in positive terms, but only 52% of current clients would.  Equally, 14% of current clients say that quality is ‘poor’ or even ‘very poor’, more than twice the proportion of prospects.  That’s disappointing, but by no means out of kilter with the rest of the consulting world.

The picture is reasonably positive where value is concerned (in contrast to, say, the US market, where quality is perceived to be high but there are some big question marks around the value consultants add).  Only 9% of Nordic executives think that consultants cost more in fees than they add in value (a lot fewer than say the same thing elsewhere) and just over a third think that the value consultants add is at least twice the fees they charge.

The variance between individual firms (we focused on the largest ten or so) is slight when we look at perceptions of quality among current clients, with the firm with the highest rating scoring 4.18 out of a maximum of five and the worst performing firm earning 3.16.  But the picture changes radically if we throw into the mix perceptions of the value a firm creates.

Technology firms do well: around 40% of IBM and Accenture’s current clients say the firms add more in value than they take in fees.  And perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by that: this is a famously high-tech part of the world and the clients we speak to are certainly setting great store around the ability of technology to help them grow internationally without eroding their profitability.  Bain does well, too – its stress on delivering results perhaps paying off.  But the other firm to stand out is EY:

Nordic clients are generally quite sceptical of the ability of the Big Four firms to add value over and above the fees they charge. It's not an especially bad situation – 76% say that value is in line with fees - but it’s not great either.  Except for EY: 30% of EY’s clients say that the firm adds more value than it charges.  The big question is why.  We think it may have something to do with the firm’s structure – treating the Nordics as a single region rather than separate countries will have helped the firm move experts from one market to another, offer clients greater flexibility and pool its ideas investment.  What our research suggests is that strategy isn’t just a marketing advantage: it’s also adding value to clients.