According to Forrester’s latest tracking report, the quality of customer experience with brands is at an all-time low.
By contrast, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, satisfaction hit an all-time high in the first quarter of this year, and was only a smidgen lower in the second quarter.
Are brands doing the best or the worst job ever of delivering a satisfying experience? It seems to depend on who you ask.
This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.
Of course, the devil is in the details. Differences in questions, sampling and analysis account for much of the discrepancy. (Although, in my personal view, the bigger issue is drawing too many conclusions from small differences that happen to look big when plotted in a limited range, although they may be statistically significant because very large samples fabricate inordinate statistical power.)
But the question of high or low satisfaction begs a more important question. Is high satisfaction a sign of a better or a worse economy?
Perhaps the best of all worlds is one in which satisfaction is low — or on the flip side, where expectations are much lower.
Finding value in low satisfaction is not how marketers think. But it is how economists think, or one economist at least — Michael Makowsky at Clemson University, whose recent article advanced this argument about satisfaction.
His reasoning goes like this: the level and quality of customer service we are used to is the legacy of a long-time economic system that was built on dependency relationships. People in service positions were dependent on the good feeling and good favor of those they served. Hence, they had to bend over backwards.
Restricted opportunities for non-service jobs meant a surfeit of service workers and of their time, which translated into lower value for both. Out of economic necessity, those in dependent positions had to over-deliver, which kept satisfaction high and created a set of service expectations that carry over to this day.
The post-pandemic economy is different. People came out of that experience with a greater appreciation for time and for control over time, in particular.
Combined with the long-term macro trends of greater education, digital innovation, automation and slowing population growth along with pandemic relief dollars from Uncle Sam, the Great Resignation ensued.
Service businesses, no matter what they did, could not find enough people. Many service establishments continue to be stretched thin, which means longer waits, less attentiveness, rushed consideration and more do-it-yourself and do-without-it fixes.
None of this is good for customer satisfaction. But it might just be the very best thing for our lives and for the economy at large. For Makowsky, it means that dependency no longer degrades the value of people’s time.
Time is better compensated, better enjoyed, or both. People are happier in their work, freer in their choices, and no longer beholden to the Karens of the world.
This doesn’t mean letting satisfaction languish. Instead, Makowsky argues, it means that brands will have to double down on product quality and innovation, instead of dragooning service staff to prop up satisfaction.
Perhaps that is too strong a way of describing things. But the idea is that high or low, satisfaction is beside the point.
The marketplace is shifting rapidly from one in which satisfaction is tied to service to one in which satisfaction is tied to true value, like quality and innovation. And like time, which is the currency of worth in the marketplace ahead.
Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider By Walker Smith, Chief Knowledge Officer, Brand & Marketing at Kantar
Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education
FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers
Post Views: 0
