If the last year has taught me anything, it’s that my philosophy around customer experience is often at odds with other people's. I’ll explain the differences, starting with the big one:

I believe CX is mostly about not losing, rather than winning. In fact, “winning” on customer experience is almost impossible. Here’s an analogy from cycle racing:

“Races are rarely won on descents but can be lost.” You can’t typically gain enough time going down mountains to win, but you can easily lose enough time / crash. CX is the same. Why can’t you win?

What matters is total value, which emerges from four inseparable sources: the product or service, brand appeal, awareness, and the broader continuum of interactions we call customer experience.

If someone has a better product, CX tweaks won’t help much. Yellow Pages can’t beat Google by improving their CX.
If another brand has much higher awareness, people will buy it and never have your customer experience.
If someone has already decided “I want X brand” because it appeals to them more, again you’re out of the running.

That's why you can name plenty of famous brands that have a poor CX, but can’t name a single non-famous brand that offers a non-competitive product and a great CX — they don’t exist. See what I mean?

See this post on LinkedIn