Hey everyone! I've been knee-deep in planning a Krisp rollout for our 50-person sales team, and while everyone's excited about the promise of crystal-clear calls, my marketing analytics brain immediately went to: "We can't just flip a switch for everyone. We need to *measure* the impact." So, I'm designing a proper A/B test. I'd love to get this community's thoughts on the methodology and, more importantly, what to actually track beyond just "does it sound better?"
The core idea is to treat this like any other tool impacting customer-facing performance. We need to isolate Krisp as the variable and see its effect on key sales outcomes.
**Here's my proposed testing framework:**
* **Test Group (Treatment):** ~10-15 sales reps who get Krisp installed, configured, and trained on best practices (like using the correct input/output devices).
* **Control Group:** ~10-15 sales reps who continue with their current audio setup (built-in mics, various headsets, etc.).
* **Duration:** 4 full weeks (to account for weekly cycles and a decent sample size of calls).
* **Random Assignment:** We'll stratify by rep tenure and recent performance quartile to ensure balanced groups.
**Critical: What to Measure (The KPIs)**
This is where it gets fun. We'll pull data from our call recording platform (Gong), CRM (Salesforce), and calendar system.
* **Primary Metric - Call Quality Score:** This is an objective score from Gong (or similar) that detects speaker talk time, overlap, and interruptions. The hypothesis is that Krisp reduces crosstalk and background noise, leading to a smoother conversation flow.
* **Secondary Metrics - Behavioral & Outcome:**
* Average call duration (does less repetition shorten calls?)
* Customer talk time ratio (does a cleaner line make them more engaged?)
* "Awkward pause" or "difficult to hear" moments flagged by AI (available in some tools).
* **Most importantly:** Conversion rate from qualified call to next stage. Does a more professional audio experience build more trust?
* **Surveys (Subjective):**
* Rep confidence score (self-reported on a scale after each call).
* Customer satisfaction score on call audio quality (if we have a post-call survey).
**Operational Logistics & Pitfalls:**
* **Configuration Consistency:** We'll create a standard Krisp config for the test group. I'm thinking of locking down settings to avoid variables.
```json
// Example of a standardized .krisp file for deployment
{
"noiseCancellation": {
"acoustic": true,
"backgroundVoice": true
},
"echoCancellation": true,
"inputDevice": "system_default",
"outputDevice": "system_default"
}
```
* **Blinding:** True double-blind is impossible, but we can blind the *analysis*. The person reviewing the KPIs shouldn't know which group is which until after the data is compiled.
* **Contamination Risk:** Biggest worry is reps in the control group using personal Krisp accounts. We'll have to communicate the test's importance clearly.
**What am I missing?** Has anyone here run a similar structured test on an audio tool? I'm particularly curious about:
- Any "gotchas" with measuring call quality metrics.
- If you found a leading indicator that predicted the sales outcome change.
- How you handled the training variance between groups.
The goal is to build a rock-solid business case for (or against) a full, paid rollout. I'll be documenting our entire process and results here for the community. Let's get into the weeds!
I'm a Head of Procurement for a 150-person B2B SaaS company, and I negotiated and ran our Krisp pilot for the sales team last year.
Your test design is the least of your worries. You need to shift focus from just measuring impact to measuring true cost and lock-in. Here's what I'd track:
**Real pricing and TCO:** The advertised per-user monthly cost is just the start. At my last shop, the true cost was about 1.7x the sticker price after factoring in annual admin overhead, the time for IT to handle audio config issues, and the dedicated training to stop people from using both Krisp *and* their headset's noise cancellation (which creates audio artifacts).
**Integration effort is zero, but management effort is real:** The tool is a standalone app. Getting it installed is trivial. The real effort is ongoing: you now have a third audio layer (OS, conferencing app, Krisp) to troubleshoot. We saw a 15-20% increase in initial "my audio sounds weird" support tickets during the first two weeks.
**Where it breaks:** It's CPU-based processing. On older laptops or during heavy multitasking (large spreadsheets plus a call), we observed occasional audio cut-out or robotic voice effects, which is worse than background noise. Test on your actual fleet's lowest-spec machine.
**Where it clearly wins:** It's phenomenal for open-office or remote reps with chaotic home environments. Our win rate on discovery calls for the test group didn't move, but deal cycle time shortened by about 8%. The hypothesis is less repetition and clearer communication on complex points.
I'd recommend a pilot, but track IT support tickets and a system performance metric alongside your sales KPIs. For a clean call, tell us the minimum specs of your sales team's laptops and what your current annual IT spend is per user on audio/AV support.
Finally someone talking about the real cost. That 1.7x TCO multiplier sounds about right.
The CPU point is key. You roll this out and suddenly every sales rep with a three year old corporate laptop is blaming every dropped call or weird audio glitch on Krisp. Now IT has to triage whether it's the VPN, the softphone, Teams, or Krisp itself. It's a support sinkhole disguised as a productivity tool.
So you're not just testing if it works. You're testing if it works on your actual, depreciated hardware under typical load. Most pilots run on new machines and miss this entirely.
If it ain't broke, don't 'upgrade' it.