Customer Centricity Starts at the Top, Not the Bottom

As a #CustomerExperience researcher and advisor, one recurrent conversation I have with clients is that customer-centric behaviors are not (just) for frontline employees. Although bottom-up #CX programs that focus on training frontline workers can help improve a few customer touchpoints, it is the decisions made by senior leaders that have the greatest impact on customers.

I was reminded of this as I read three recent articles of high-level brand decisions that feel customer-hostile rather than customer-centric:

• Sky, a British broadcaster and telecommunications company, has announced it will charge customers who fast-forward past commercial breaks . That is, of course, unless customers upgrade to a more expensive cable package. (Based on this new policy, which does Sky view as its customer--consumers or advertisers?)
• Frontier Airlines has decided it no longer wishes to service customers via phone lines and has shut down its telephone customer service . Frontier’s senior vice president of customers suggest its chatbot can provide answers more quickly. (I'm sure the chatbot responds more quickly, but what is your experience with getting helpful answers via chatbots at this stage in chatbot maturity?)
• Finally, Mercedes will sell you a $76,000 Mercedes-EQ EQE with breathtaking acceleration; you just can't experience it unless you pay $1,200 a year for the “Acceleration Increase” add-on . Customers who've already purchased the equipment can't use it unless they pay a subscription fee--pure profit at no additional cost to the automaker. (If this catches on, what's next? “Oh, you wanted a steering wheel--that's available with our 'don't crash your vehicle' add-on.”)

Of course, these sorts of high-level brand decisions are not new. Nowadays, you can purchase plane tickets, but if you want to reserve seats, that costs extra. (What have we purchased if not a chair in the air?) Leaders limit call-center staffing, leading to the perpetual warning that call volumes are “higher than expected.” (Every time I hear the word “expected” while waiting on hold, I think of the famous line from Princess Bride, “You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.”) And, it can feel virtually every purchase we make includes some sort of inconvenient “convenience” fee (offered for the convenience of shareholders and not customers.)

How is it conceivable that “customer experience” could be a decade-long trend in corporate focus at the same time customer satisfaction has declined to a 17-year low ? That is not the fault of frontline workers. That can only occur as a result of consistent leadership decisions that ignore the needs, expectations, and perceptions of customers.

Why do leaders make such decisions? The easy answer is profit and greed, but I think we should reject the easy answer.

Yes, those three examples are all decisions made to lift revenue or lower margin, with little evident regard for the impact on customers. But whether customers perceive these brand strategies as greedy or the decisions drive profit has yet to be determined because that's not a call you and I can make. Instead, it is up to the brands' customers. If customers accept these decisions without altering their perception, loyalty, or advocacy for the brands, then these will be smart business decisions. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Instead, I think it's better to say that what drives these decisions is short-term thinking. I trust Sky's, Frontier's and Mercedes' leaders have done their homework and are taking calculated risks. But, as a CX professional, I wonder if they have considered the long-term implications to brand perception, preference, and loyalty:

• Sky is risking annoying customers and raising costs at a time when cable companies are losing customers to streaming alternatives. (For example, for the first time ever, Americans are watching more streaming TV than cable. ) Adding a cable fee feels like a great way to encourage even more customers to consider alternatives; ad-free Disney or Netflix look a lot more affordable if cable companies charge consumers for using DVRs as they wish.
• Frontier is taking a risk that ignoring some customers' preference for the phone channel won't impact travel decisions. And, it may be right--after all, Frontier is a low-cost carrier. But the first time a customer experiences a flight disruption, has a problem with Frontier's website or app, or gets frustrated with a chatbot's ineffective responses, the company's decision could alter subsequent purchase decisions.
• How will Mercedes customers perceive a fee to fully use the car they own? You can see the two possible outcomes in competing headlines: “Mercedes locks faster acceleration behind a $1,200 annual paywall ” versus “Mercedes to Offer Horsepower Boost for $1,200 Per Year .” One positions this as a customer-hostile fee, the other as a great new perk. If every automaker goes down this road (pun intended), these decisions will have minimal impact on brand preference--at least in the short-run. But the more automakers nickel and dime customers, the more desirable alternatives look. Bike commuting, while still small, has almost doubled in the past two decades. Public transit use was rising globally (but will take time to recover from the pandemic .) And car-sharing volumes are also rising . As the world increasingly questions the global impact of car culture , does now feel like a great time to risk irritating customers with petty fees to use the equipment they purchase? (My expectation is that a few smart carmakers will reject this trend and position themselves to earn customers away from brands perceived as less authentic, honest, and customer-centric.)

All of which brings me back to the issue of what makes a brand customer-centric. Is it the experiences offered by frontline employees? Or is it your business model? Your policies and practices? Your priorities and investments? The goals, values, and KPIs defined by leaders? While many CX professionals direct attention to customer-facing employees, it should be evident that a hundred service professionals cannot impact a brand's customer satisfaction, loyalty, and advocacy as profoundly as a single decision by a senior leader.

Brand-building CX starts at the top, not the bottom. If your CX program only focuses on changing the behaviors of frontline employees but fails to inform and influence the decisions of leaders, you may improve customer perception of a few touchpoints but have negligible impact on your brand. If CX professionals do not engage leaders as much as customer-facing employees, it should come as no surprise when their customer satisfaction scores decline, loyalty sags, churn increases, and brand reputation suffers.