Member Since: 9th May 2016
Senior CX Consultant Entain
26th Mar 2022
Thanks. I think another aspect is that firms are focusing so much on the immediacy of the here and now they have forgotten the impact of long-term loyalty. The approach is often build a data lake, mine the data lake, get immediate ROI by sending out offers. Loyalty as offer as immediate return. For me that's not loyalty. That's sales only. And it's set to get worse, a 'loyalty club' strategy will become de rigeur as cookie data is blocked i.e., as a customer sign-in to 'the club' so we can protect your privacy (not) - in reality so we can get around the blockage in cookies and fire offers to you.
This will undermine loyalty clubs.
The problem for me is cultural. Companies want your cash now and don't understand leading indicators. Over-engineered approaches are killing loyalty.
10th Feb 2022
Buyers need to think more about methodology.
In many instances, the experience the customer (think-feel, do) is not equivalent to an aggregated dataset. Why? because aggregation assumes a mechanical engineering view of the customer that is at odds with reality (see Cynefin for the umpteenth time).
Think about it, scraping any old data on my experience of shopping is a partial truth; ask me, discuss with me and you'll get a lot better information - trial and test your thoughts, and you'll get my honest reply. Sure, view what I do, no problem there, but its not the final truth.
Far better then for CX heads to act transversally and focus on qualitative data not just quantitative. In other words, be design led - which might also help you gain traction with other departments by actually doing something rather than reporting on data?
Identify the pain... Resolve it, Measure the result (not vice versa)... in many cases but not all of course.
Trust a box seller? When did they ever put methodology above a fast buck?
But the problem is far deeper, as Ed identifies. When customer experience is understood as anything that touches the customer, anything goes! So the term becomes meaningless - Proof: you can have a 'bad' customer experience that generates cross-sale revenue, yet it's still a customer experience.
Personally I prefer the term Customer Centric Transformation.
Ed - I blame Gartner, stop calling it CX technology. Where is the magic quadrant for best customer experience measurement 'methodology'? I can send you one if you like.
19th Aug 2021
Interesting article. I would also extend to better consideration of how we embed cognitive science in understanding customers.
6th Aug 2021
So generic all the time.
Sometime effortlessness adds value. sometimes it doesn't
Why doesn't the profession learn to stop following hype or broad generalities designed to sell vendors wares.
19th Jun 2021
I suggest a review of More Stories Like this. Fewer Stories Like that (SenseMaker) and the Cynefin view.
Not everything is about root cause and attitudinal data is not the same as mechanical
10th Nov 2020
10th Nov 2020
The biggest problem with Journey Maps is the Map itself.
You start by asking, what is this for? A nice picture that sits on the wall perhaps? If so, forget it.
For me a Journey Map is a design tool and should be seen as such. Hence, one of the biggest problems is the concept of 'a map' itself. Far better to use the approach of a guide.
For instance, in digital transformation, I combine each component of a process map with a screenshot of the experience received (i.e., the visual look and feel). So your process maps says 'click password' above which you can see the view of what that means in terms of experience quality. Overlay that with comments from UX research (UX and CX are the same), and you have a Journey Management Guide. This can then be used for ideation and training. As you can see this visual extension can be applied to earlier and later parts of the journey.
The utility is ideation and redesign, its useful when build teams are considering process maps and training teams need to see where they are in the journey,
No need for over-abstracted nonsense, just use what already is there.
Oh I forgot. No need for quant nonsense that sells software. Sure define key moments through hard data and soft data, but a map should be releasing our own innovation and understanding of 'where we are'.
11th Jun 2020
From my side there are a few challenges:
1. CX is not the same as CSAT, NPS, CES. The return on the experience the customer has is akin to asking the question what is the return on innovation. It depends on what you do and how you do it. So generalised measures are wrong.
2. Linear relationships are incorrect (ref CAS). Sure they may work ok at lower ends not well beyond that: (see my book)
(1) the line itself can move, generating different values - 'what any number means in terms of quality' is not a stable function - an 8 out of 10 can in Aldi can mean something different to an 8 out 10 in waitrose - same number different relationship to value.
(2) emotion theory shows us that emotions are for learning, once learnt things tend to fall to a norm for the good or service in question (ref: Baumeister, Lazarus).
3. Scale psychology. For instance, gifting and gaming comes in to play with scaled data
1st May 2020
Its what you do on the ground with your team that counts. And frequently happiness is not required. But sensitivity to the context is.
1st May 2020
On governance: CX should be part of CI process, not a US based cult designed to sell software and make the C-suite feel good. The desire to get the business to think customer would then be closer to the ground and more engaged with the politics of any business.
Unfortunately, the current, focus on metrics before action is understandable. It means you can game data rather than do something. But I would argue this is highly damaging.
It is politicising CX to the point of worthlessness.
For me, then, the problem is:
CX itself needs to be de-siloed. It should be one strong voice (not one true voice) in your continuous improvement process.
It needs to be better defined: after all to assume the customer is always right is a falsehood. and in of itself CX just means the 'experience the customer has'.
It must stop gaming data by focusing on attitudinal metrics first (as if subjective experience is the same as objective physics) - to do so puts the cart before the horse, a focus on corporate tricks before 'doing something'
So I would argue quite the opposite of you.
CX does need executive support, but it needs to clearly clarify itself to gain that support in the first place, not wrap itself around snakeoil metrics.
1. Clearly define what the function does in a company, its parameters
2. Focus on where it fits in the business language of continuous improvement
3. Deliver budget
4. Engage subject matter expertise - not snakeoil process
6. focus on do as much as predictive analytics
7. Understand what CX is and isn't