There seem to be four broad schools of thought when it comes to customer experience:

1. CX as everything
Since anything can affect your perception of an experience, CX is all-encompassing — including pricing, brand, product, advertising, service, etc. While arguably correct in an abstract sort of a way, this philosophy ignores existing specialisms and can lead to futile over-reaching.

2. CX as connective tissue
Everyone works in a silo, so CX teams should act longitudinally to join things up and plug gaps. This is more pragmatic, but requires cooperation and cat-herding. Proving value as a link is often harder than as a node.

3. CX as a cultural disposition
Good CX is an attitude. You don’t need a CX team because everyone is your CX team. You get it or you don’t — it’s in the DNA or isn’t. This might be true, but it doesn't help those who want to improve.

4. CX as a means to an end
We identify a business goal — improve conversion, reduce returns, etc. — and ask ourselves “How might we use our skillset (customer research, journey mapping, interaction design, etc.) to help achieve it?” The most commercially astute approach, but runs contrary to common practices.

They aren't mutually exclusive of course, and each has pros and cons...what do you lot have to say?

See this post on LinkedIn