I was chatting with a friend the other day about customer experience. He’d read somewhere that all experiences are either positive or negative. This is a fundamentally flawed view of customer experience design - and it is actually pretty dangerous.
I would content that the majority of interactions are actually neutral from a customer experience perspective. What I mean by this is that the customer has an expectation of the level of service; this expectation is generic (supplier independent) and they will not give you any credit for delivering against that expectation. They will, however, react very negatively if you don’t deliver against their expectations.
An example might be the cashpoint machine. There was a time when the provision of cashpoint services was a positive experience. Quickly, though, it became neutral. Dull, boring, utility.
If however, as happened to me a couple of weeks ago, the machine eats your card, or fails to give you money, or can’t give you a balance - now we’re looking at negative experience territory.
The reason this is important is that unless you understand that the customer doesn’t care about most aspects of service, you really can’t define your experiences as clearly as you should. In the cashpoint example you have to be able to distinguish between the neutral and the negative. The customer does not think, “I’ve had 500 positive experiences, let’s balance this negative against them - it’s only reasonable”. You are actually getting no credit for the 500 neutral experiences.
This approach places the negative experience in context - and helps to define the responses necessary from the organisation. In my example I got good service from my bank which balanced this out.
If you understand that the customer doesn’t care about you unless you do something badly, then it makes you work harder to explore the possibility of generating some positive experiences.
That has to be a good thing.
Tags: customer experience design, Customer experience modelling