Halliburton Strengthens Position in North America Land

Halliburton demonstrates market leadership in North America land. Halliburton’s leadership is observed by their increased customer loyalty ratings as measured by the Net Promoter Score, improved supplier performance versus that of their key competitors and Halliburton’s increase in North America land market share. Halliburton’s ability to improve performance and increase prices results in higher profits as observed in their Q4 2017 earnings report.

By contrast, however, Schlumberger’s declining performance in North America land is observed by their declining customer loyalty ratings as measured by the Net Promoter Score, declining supplier performance versus that of their key competitors and declining market share. Schlumberger is struggling to differentiate their technology and performance and to defend the pricing premium they seek in the North America land market.

These and other observations are based on interviews with 2,188 respondents and over 65,000 customer ratings and provide objective and accurate assessments of how the big 4 oilfield service suppliers performance in North America land compare for 2016 versus 2017.

Baker Hughes GE performance in North America land is drifting lower as observed by their declining customer loyalty ratings as measured by the Net Promoter Score, declining supplier performance as compared to their key competitors and declining market share. This results in Baker Hughes GE having to use lower pricing versus that of Halliburton and Schlumberger to help offset their performance shortcomings and negatively impacts profitability.

Weatherford, on the other hand, exhibits improved customer loyalty ratings as measured by the Net Promoter Score and improved supplier performance as compared to the big 3 suppliers. However, Weatherford continues to undervalue their offerings in the market hindering their transformation efforts and ability to improve their financials.

The comprehensive Kimberlite database allows for supplier performance trends 2016 versus 2017 for key performance measures s