Most competitive activities combine attacking and defending. The goalkeeper in soccer isn’t there to score. They’re there to stop others scoring against you. They help you win by not losing.

The same is true in business. We have attacking activities intended to help the organization grow — advertising, sales, product development, etc. — and defending activities that prevent the organization from losing or otherwise coming to harm. Legal compliance is important unless you want to incur fines, or compromise your reputation, for example. We also need insurance if we run a business. But neither are part of a growth strategy.

So far so obvious, except for two things. 

First, it’s not always clear which kind of activity we’re doing. I’d argue that the way most people think of customer experience for example — a focus on loyalty and retention — is almost entirely defensive. Yet at the same time it’s often sold as a path to growth. 

Second, while you can’t promise a ROI for defensive activities, that doesn’t make them unimportant. What’s the ROI of insurance, for example? Ideally you buy it and never use it. Promising a return in such a circumstance doesn’t make sense. 

Which brings me back to CX programs again. If your approach is entirely defensive, promising a return on investment is the easiest way to ensure your program is eventually terminated, because it won’t deliver one.

It would be better to sell it as a form of insurance against customer resentment, brand damage and changing competitive conditions, which in reality is all most loyalty-based programs are capable of accomplishing.

See this post on LinkedIn