Customer experience (CX) has become a critical and competitive arena for financial services companies. According to Gartner, 89% of companies across all sectors now compete primarily on customer experience, compared with just 36% in 2010. This shift is driven by significant changes in consumer behavior and expectations, which have fueled the mass migration of services into digital and mobile channels. As consumers adopt digital channels, established financial services players have accelerated cost reductions to compete with digital-only fintech entrants.
The emergence of customer experience as a critical issue for financial services companies is a direct result of the success seen by digital companies outside the financial sector, which have raised the bar on customer experience. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos observed: “If there’s one reason we have done better than our peers… it is because we have focused like a laser on customer experience.”
The impact of companies such as Amazon is significant, with their influence extending well beyond their own markets. The experiences customers have with these “experience leaders” shape their expectations of brands in every other sector. This broadens the competitive set for financial services companies, as consumers now judge them against a much wider group than just their direct commercial rivals.
It is therefore hardly surprising that 75% of companies responding to a Forbes survey said their top objective was to improve the customer experience. But how should they approach this challenge in practical terms? And where should they direct investment in their customer experience to unlock growth?
Investment in improving CX is a major priority for many financial services companies. According to a 2021 survey by Microsoft, 86% of insurers, banks, and other financial services firms assign at least a quarter of their overall budget to CX, with almost half (45%) devoting half their budget or more to CX investment.
The most common metric among financial services companies to assess performance in CX terms is the Net Promoter Score (NPS). While many companies value NPS for its simplicity and comparability, it presents challenges, particularly in identifying which investments will lead to an improvement in their score.
The financial industry needs a new standard for measuring and improving CX. This is echoed by leaders in charge of CX within UK retail banks:
—Both CX leaders within leading UK financial services brands
The Customer Experience Growth Index (CXGX), developed by Publicis Sapient, helps companies measure customer experience rigorously and identify which CX investments are most likely to lead to improvements in business performance and growth rate. The CXGX—which is currently in beta—surveys customers using a framework based on the “Three E’s”: experience, expectation, and emotion. In the following examples, the focus is on UK retail banks and their customers.
For each interaction between the customer and their bank, the CXGX methodology examines the customer’s response through the lens of the Three E’s:
Customer responses are linked to one or more of 11 possible touchpoints between the customer and a financial services brand: call center, desktop website, email, expert reviews, user reviews, live chat, mobile app, mobile web, social media, text, and branch visit. This provides a granular, channel-specific view of each customer interaction and allows comparisons between the customer experiences that different channels deliver.
It’s important to reiterate that CXGX is still in beta. We currently have a single set of survey data and will continue to collect and analyze pertinent data over time. As this dataset grows, we will be able to draw stronger conclusions about what drives great CX.
In interpreting the responses gathered from customers, the CXGX framework draws on the insights of Daniel Kahneman, the psychologist and Nobel laureate, into what he called “the remembered self.” Kahneman observed: “We do not choose between experiences; we choose between memories of experiences.” This distinction is critical in understanding the role that CX plays in consumers’ judgments about brands.
The vast majority of customer experiences are forgotten. These interactions fall into the grey area between especially good and especially bad—they broadly meet our expectations and deliver the outcome we were seeking. We call this the “Valley of Meh.” The experiences that matter most lie at either end of the spectrum—the ones the customer remembers because they were especially good or bad. These are the experiences that determine their view of a brand, whether or not they took place in an earlier encounter with that same brand or with an “experience leader” that influences their view of multiple other brands. These experiences form the consumer’s “remembered self,” which sets their expectations for future engagement with the brand.
Not all customer experiences are created equal. The CXGX framework highlights those that lie at either end of the spectrum—and that therefore contain the most actionable insights for brands. The data collected from CXGX surveys are converted into a CX score linked to the touchpoint involved, with scores ranging from +100 for strongly positive experiences down to -100 for negative ones. Satisfactory, non-memorable interactions fall in the middle ground, around zero.
This scoring system allows us to understand which of each brand’s consumer touchpoints tend to produce more positive or negative experiences among their customers, and which emotions customers associate most strongly with each touchpoint.
REALLY BAD <--- “MEH” ---> REALLY GOOD
We can combine the CX scores for each channel to give a single, overall customer experience score, as we have done in this example using the major UK retail banks.
The data shows a clear correlation between a bank’s CXGX score and its customers’ intention to use the bank more in the future. The higher the CXGX score, the higher the future usage intention score. This suggests that improving customer experience, as measured by the CXGX, is likely to drive growth for banks.
r² = 0.4148
Net change in customer numbers for each bank shows neobanks seeing the largest gains. For example, Neobank D has gained over 22,000 customers, while Tier 2 Bank E has lost nearly 8,000 customers. This further supports the link between customer experience and business growth.
A scatter plot of Net Change in User Growth (vertical axis) against CXGX Score (horizontal axis) shows a positive correlation (R² = 0.648), with neobanks (red dots) and established banks (yellow dots) plotted. The trend line runs upward from left to right, indicating that higher CXGX scores are associated with greater net customer growth.
Note: Net growth is determined by how many customers joined and how many customers were lost.
For each brand (in this case, retail banks), we can create a value chain for its 11 touchpoints by combining the CX scores awarded to each touchpoint with data showing how many of the bank’s customers use each touchpoint. This lets us see the relationship between the most heavily used channels and those that achieve the highest CX scores.
CXGX scores can be improved through higher adoption of high-scoring touchpoints or by improving the score of highly used touchpoints.
Returning to the example of Top-Tier Bank A’s CX value chain, we see how the CX value chain can be used to suggest where investments in customer experience have the best chance of generating better outcomes. Top-Tier Bank A’s mobile app is performing well with the public—it’s the bank’s highest-performing touchpoint. However, there is a significant gap between the score for its desktop website service and its mobile app, highlighting the potential to direct investment toward touchpoints that perform better in CX terms. If this bank were to migrate 5% of its desktop website users to the app, its overall CXGX score would increase from 8.6 to 8.9.
Live chat provides a good example of how CX scores can be used to highlight potential areas as priorities for investment. Across the main retail banks, live chat achieves the second-highest CX score on average among the 11 touchpoints and performs significantly better than the channel it is most likely to replace: call centers. This suggests that live chat represents a key element of a bank’s overall customer experience—and an attractive area in which to invest, as it combines lower operating costs than call centers with higher CX performance.
However, there are challenges in ensuring a good customer experience via live chat, as illustrated by the main banks’ widely divergent CX scores for this channel.
For example, Tier 2 Bank E’s live chat function scores among the best of the main banks, with 18.3, but only 12% of its customers use this channel, compared with 18% that use its call centers. If Tier 2 Bank E were able to encourage more customers to use its high-performing live chat service, its overall CX score would improve. Conversely, Tier 2 Bank D’s live chat has a CX score of -13.3, yet 7% of its customers use this channel. Improving the customer experience of its live chat users would have a material effect on the bank’s overall CX score.
For Top-Tier Bank A, the bank performs well above average for live chat compared with competitors. Its CX score for live chat is much higher than for call centers, yet these two touchpoints are used by similar percentages of its customer base (15.2% for call center versus 13.1% for live chat). If it were to migrate 5% of its call center users to live chat, its overall CXGX score would increase from 8.6 to 8.8. Banks that successfully invest in delivering a strong customer experience via live chat will be well-positioned to improve their overall CX score and benefit from the lower operating costs of live chat versus call centers.
Plotting CX scores against the usage rate for each touchpoint makes clear where the biggest opportunities lie for companies that want to invest in improving their customer experience. This demonstrates how the framework starts to turn CX data into a tool that can guide brands’ investment decisions.
Touchpoints can produce very different CX scores, and one of the key attributes of the CXGX is that it allows brands to identify which of their touchpoints create the most positive (or negative) experiences for their customers. For example, research with customers of Top-Tier Bank A analyzed two of its most important customer touchpoints in terms of experience (“Did you get what you wanted?”) and expectation (“Was the experience better or worse than you expected?”).
The bank’s desktop website channel achieved a score close to zero—right in the middle of the two extremes—because 79% of respondents reported that they got what they wanted, and the experience was in line with their expectations. This indicated that customers were satisfied with the experience but neither so impressed that it made them want to engage more intensively with the brand, nor so poor that it might encourage them to leave.
EXPERIENCE / EXPECTATION
EXPERIENCE / EXPECTATION
The bank’s mobile app achieved a positive score comfortably above zero, because 19% of people found it easy or enjoyable to achieve their goal and 37% said the experience was better than they expected. This helped to create a more memorable experience for these consumers, leaving them with a positive view of this interaction.
In terms of emotion (“how did the experience make you feel?”), the data again shows that different touchpoints tend to produce different emotional responses in customers. Analysis of consumer responses for all UK banks across all 11 touchpoints, using 18 emotional responses, allows comparison between channels; for example, call centers and live chat.
| Emotion | Call Center | Desktop Website | Expert Review | Live Chat | Mobile App | Mobile Website | Social Media | Text | User Review | Branch Visit | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alienated | 0.92 | 0.53 | 0.47 | 2.14 | 1.46 | 0.51 | 0.72 | 1.31 | 1.08 | 0.98 | 0.70 |
| Angry | 1.39 | 0.51 | 0.67 | 1.06 | 1.17 | 0.31 | 0.76 | 1.20 | 1.01 | 1.22 | 0.77 |
| Appreciated | 1.08 | 0.68 | 0.98 | 1.15 | 1.21 | 1.02 | 0.96 | 0.29 | 0.81 | 0.96 | 1.13 |
| Bored | 1.07 | 0.85 | 0.78 | 1.63 | 1.11 | 0.62 | 0.95 | 1.21 | 1.02 | 1.18 | 0.80 |
| Cared for | 1.03 | 0.92 | 1.01 | 1.21 | 1.22 | 1.01 | 1.01 | 1.02 | 1.01 | 1.05 | 1.14 |
| Confused | 1.53 | 0.76 | 0.66 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.49 | 0.91 | 1.14 | 1.03 | 1.37 | 0.66 |
| Disappointed | 1.53 | 0.72 | 0.61 | 1.21 | 1.12 | 0.67 | 0.84 | 1.24 | 1.02 | 1.16 | 0.64 |
| Entertained | 0.63 | 0.48 | 0.61 | 1.79 | 1.12 | 0.53 | 0.74 | 0.71 | 1.00 | 1.56 | 0.51 |
| Excited | 0.77 | 0.62 | 0.81 | 1.45 | 1.08 | 0.87 | 0.92 | 1.37 | 1.12 | 1.21 | 1.01 |
| Frustrated | 1.18 | 0.72 | 0.77 | 0.84 | 1.08 | 0.67 | 0.87 | 1.21 | 0.97 | 1.22 | 1.06 |
| Fulfilled | 1.05 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 1.47 | 1.06 | 1.06 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 1.20 | 1.02 |
| Impressed | 1.06 | 0.85 | 0.93 | 1.00 | 1.01 | 1.06 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 1.01 | 1.05 | 1.01 |
| Looked after | 1.25 | 0.91 | 0.79 | 1.47 | 1.01 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 1.02 | 1.33 |
| Motivated | 1.09 | 0.85 | 0.93 | 1.27 | 1.08 | 0.92 | 0.84 | 1.31 | 1.01 | 1.21 | 0.86 |
| Proud | 1.04 | 0.76 | 0.79 | 1.35 | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.94 | 1.39 | 1.01 | 1.21 | 0.66 |
| Relieved | 1.08 | 0.76 | 0.93 | 1.01 | 1.21 | 1.07 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.95 | 1.01 | 1.01 |
| Satisfied | 1.09 | 0.91 | 1.07 | 1.10 | 1.07 | 1.10 | 0.99 | 1.08 | 0.76 | 0.96 | 1.01 |
| Uplifted | 0.78 | 0.64 | 0.73 | 1.44 | 1.02 | 0.77 | 0.95 | 1.46 | 0.99 | 1.37 | 0.74 |
The data for call centers and live chat show some important differences. Call centers produce a wider range of emotional scores than live chat, ranging from 0.6 (entertained) to 1.53 (disappointed). By contrast, the scores for live chat are more closely bunched around the average of 1, indicating fewer strong emotional responses, either positive or negative. There are also some sharp divergences between these channels: for example, “entertained” scored 0.6 for call centers and 1.12 for live chat.
Users are more likely to feel alienated (+46%) and frustrated (+43%) by live chat, suggesting that elements of the experience are falling short, while call center users are more likely to report feeling angry (+39%) and disappointed (+53%) after engaging with a bank’s call center.
However, the scores both channels receive for making consumers feel “cared for” are not only well above average but almost identical, indicating no risk of decreasing customers’ positive impressions if they move from telephone-based contacts to live chat.
Our research so far has identified a highly suggestive and potentially valuable link between CX scores and subsequent user intentions and business performance. Companies have understood the importance of CX for many years, but until now have lacked a robust methodology for determining which investments in CX are likely to be most effective in shifting higher-level business metrics and financial performance. Similarly, they have had no way of measuring the return on those investments.
The CXGX methodology delivers a set of metrics that can unlock the predictive power of CX data, highlighting its potential to provide a compelling complement to existing metrics such as NPS.
The results generated so far are preliminary, based on a single set of survey data. The CXGX is in beta and will now be piloted with selected financial services brands to generate a much larger, longitudinal dataset. This will allow us to demonstrate the relationship between CXGX and business growth over time, and to show how the methodology can be used to prioritize investments in CX and measure the returns on them.
Ultimately, we see CXGX operating at three levels within financial services companies:
There is space and appetite for a methodology that can turn CX data into a tool to guide investment decisions in a critical area for financial services businesses. Until now, companies have been flying largely blind in CX terms, with no way to link the data they collect on CX to changes in business performance. They have had no reliable way to benchmark their own CX performance internally over time, nor to compare themselves to competitors or to “experience leaders.” This has led to findings such as Bain’s—that 80% of companies believe they deliver “superior experiences” but just 8% of customers agree.
We believe that CXGX offers a major opportunity to close that perception gap and give financial services businesses a toolkit to improve business performance using CX data.
SIMON JAMES
Head of Data and AI
simon.james@publicissapient.com
MAGNUS FITCHETT
Head of Experience
magnus.fitchett@publicissapient.com
EMMA KENWORTHY
Consultant, Customer Experience & Innovation
emma.kenworthy@publicissapient.com
publicissapient.com/fs
Publicis Sapient is a digital transformation company. We partner with global organizations to help them create and sustain competitive advantage in a world that is increasingly digital. We operate through our expert SPEED capabilities: Strategy and Consulting, Product, Experience, Engineering, and Data. Combined with our culture of curiosity and deep industry knowledge, this enables us to deliver meaningful impact to our clients’ businesses by reimagining the products and experiences their customers truly value. Our agile, data-driven approaches equip our clients’ businesses for change, making digital the core of how they think and what they do. Publicis Sapient is the digital business transformation hub of Publicis Groupe, with 20,000 people and over 50 offices worldwide. For more information, visit publicissapient.com.
© 2022 Publicis Sapient Corporation.