Customer experience management: asking the right questions

Abstract

Purpose Customer experience is more critical than ever to firms’ successes and future growth opportunities. Typically measured through aggregate satisfaction scores, businesses have been criticized for oversimplifying what experience means. The purpose of this study is to provide a new perspective on experience management and offers a novel way forward for customer-centric strategizing. Design/methodology/approach Mapping the current digital technologies being used across businesses in all sectors to engage and connect with customers more effectively, this paper outlines some of the fundamental challenges of experience management and future opportunities to enhance business practice. Findings Businesses are capturing what they know about customers, rather than what a customer thinks and feels about the firm. Many experience management initiatives create customer pains (not gains), while for businesses, decision-making can be jeopardized by fake customer data. A framework based upon the five experience dimensions is presented for optimal customer-driven decision-making. Practical implications Going beyond aggregate satisfaction scores that serve as an output rather than an input into businesses strategizing, the paper presents an actionable framework for targeted investments and enhanced experience management practices. Originality/value Businesses are seeking to grow intelligent customer experience analysis capabilities to disrupt traditional business models toward greater customer-centricity and to track the digital spread of positive and negative experiences. Examining how this is being done and where the weaknesses lie by bridging management practice and the scientific literature, this paper provides new knowledge to advance customer-centric strategies for growth and profitability.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.