Category Archives: marketing

Giving Customers and Employees the Best Day Ever Experience

Giving Customers and Employees the Best Day Ever Experience

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

Steve Spangler is a teacher, businessman and Emmy award-winning TV personality who has amassed more than 4.5 billion views across YouTube and TikTok. The secret to his success can be summed up in one word: engagement. And recently, he decided to write about it, authoring a book titled The Engagement Effect: Cultivating Experiences that Ignite Connection, Build Trust, and Inspire Action.

In our interview, Spangler shared ideas that will make you a better leader. His insights in the book offer practical strategies for transforming abstract engagement concepts into actionable approaches that work across industries. While he shared many ideas, the concept of The Best Day Ever Experience stands out. Almost everything in the books points to creating an engaging experience that gets employees to love where they work and engage more with customers, and customers to want to return and tell others about their experience.

Engagement Is About Creating Experiences, Not Just Transactions

As Spangler emphasizes, engagement isn’t a gimmick or technique. It’s a mindset. It starts with the belief that people want to connect, and it’s our job as leaders to create the kind of experiences that invite a connection. True engagement happens when you go beyond just selling a product or service to creating an experience that connects emotionally and intellectually with people. Whether in business, school or any setting, making your audience feel involved and valued turns a simple exchange into something memorable. When people feel engaged, they are more likely to become loyal and talk about their experiences with others.

The Best Day Ever Experience

Spangler discussed his early days as a teacher, when he decided to make Halloween special for his students. In his science class, he exploded a pumpkin, lit a gummy bear on fire and sent electricity through the students (safely, of course!).

The following day, the father of one of these students approached Spangler. The conversation started out sounding like an angry, concerned parent who asked, “Am I to understand that you detonated an explosion in front of a group of children?” He shared more details about what happened in that class, and the father wasn’t actually angry at all. He was elated!

It turns out his daughter, who never talked about school, had come home so excited that she talked about everything she experienced that day. On that Halloween night, instead of wanting to rush out and go trick-or-treating like most kids, his daughter made everyone stay at the dinner table until she shared every detail about the day. She summarized by saying, “Daddy, today was the best day ever.”

The Best Day Ever Experience is about emotional connection. It’s transformational, not just transactional. The principal at Spangler’s school complimented him by saying, “If it gets to the dinner table, you win.” That wasn’t just praise. It was a benchmark. In other words, if what you create for your customers or employees is so impactful that they metaphorically “bring it home,” talking about it excitedly to others, then you’ve created a transformational experience, one they will remember, want to experience again and share with others.

Chewy.com Creates Best Day Ever Experiences

Spangler shared a business example using Chewy.com as the case study. Chewy sells pet supplies online, and there are plenty of similar stories about how Chewy creates intense loyalty with its customers.

In the early years of Chewy.com, a customer called to cancel his monthly dog food delivery subscription. Unfortunately, his dog passed away. That month’s delivery showed up, reminding him that he had to make the call. He was very emotional as he shared his story. The Chewy.com employee expressed empathy and sympathy. She informed him that the subscription was canceled, and he would receive a refund for the most recent delivery. She asked that he give the dog food to a neighbor or donate it to an animal shelter. That would have been a friendly end to the story, but there’s more.

Two days later, there was a knock at the customer’s door. A local florist delivered a plant with a note from Chewy.com about how they wanted him to know that his friends at the company were thinking about him and how hard it is to lose a “best friend.” Spangler summarizes by saying, “A sad and touching moment, yes, but also a Best Day Ever moment.”

Final Words

All leaders are experience designers, whether they realize it or not. Every meeting, message and moment is an opportunity to create an experience that is memorable (or forgettable). Spangler’s book serves as a roadmap for leaders who are ready to transform their approach from transactional to transformational. The way you treat employees and customers shapes their memories and creates loyalty. Focus on how you present ideas and products, not just what you offer. The question every leader should ask is, “Are we creating experiences so memorable that our employees and customers rush to tell others about them?”

This article was originally published on Forbes.com.

Image Credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Markets Don’t Build Themselves, You Must Engineer Them

Markets Don't Build Themselves, You Must Engineer Them

Exclusive Interview with Bruce Cleveland

In a business landscape increasingly cluttered by “feature wars” and fleeting viral trends, true market leadership isn’t just about who builds the best product — it’s about who defines the problem. In his groundbreaking work, Market Engineering, Bruce Cleveland argues that successful companies don’t just enter markets; they architect them. By blending rigorous systems thinking with the art of category design, Cleveland provides a blueprint for moving beyond commodity status to become a dominant force that sets the rules of the game.

In this insightful Q&A, Cleveland breaks down why “Market Engineering” must be foundational from day one rather than a secondary thought for the marketing department. From the evolution of Chief Storytellers to the strategic distinction between a market and a category, he explores how leaders can steer through the noise — especially in the age of AI — to create a resonant narrative that sticks.

Today we dive deep into the characteristics and necessities of market engineering with our special guest.

Markets Don’t Build Themselves

Bruce ClevelandBruce Cleveland is a former venture capitalist and engineering and product executive at Apple, C3 AI, Oracle, and Siebel Systems. As founder of Traction Gap Partners, he has helped hundreds of startups, scale-ups, and enterprises to transform innovation into impact. His previous book, Traversing the Traction Gap, is taught in universities and used by investors and founders worldwide. Cleveland’s frameworks blend analytical discipline with creative storytelling — empowering leaders in companies of all sizes and industries to transform technology into traction and markets into movements. He lives in Bend, Oregon.

Below is the text of my interview with Bruce and a preview of the kinds of insights you’ll find in Market Engineering presented in a Q&A format:

1. When does it make sense for a company to engage in Market Engineering?

Market Engineering isn’t something you save for later: it’s foundational from the moment you decide to bring a new product or company to life. The earlier you start intentionally defining or redefining your category, shaping positioning, and setting the narrative, the more leverage you have. If you wait until after a product launch or when you’re trying to scale, you’re forced to play by definitions set by incumbents or competitors, which makes differentiation and leadership much harder.

2. Why is it so important for a company to shape the market reality?

If you don’t shape your market’s reality, someone else will, often in a way that disadvantages you. Shaping market reality means you control how problems are defined, which features or metrics matter, and what the buying criteria look like. Market leadership is rarely awarded to the objectively “best” product; it’s achieved by those who frame the market in terms they can win.

3. Why must all leaders intimately understand the difference between a category and a market?

A market is the overarching territory: the set of buyers, sellers, and needs. A category is a specific frame or context you create and own within that market. If you only compete in the market, you become a commodity; if you define and then dominate a category, you set the standards and leave competitors playing catch-up. Leaders must understand this distinction so they can move from playing the existing game to rewriting the rules.

4. What do you think about the Chief Storyteller roles we see appearing in companies?

It’s a positive development; as long as the role goes beyond polished campaign stories and becomes architect and keeper of the full-market narrative. The best Chief Storytellers aren’t just marketers; they’re narrative engineers who unite product, category vision, customer proof, and internal culture into a coherent, resonant story that attracts and aligns stakeholders. Think Steve Jobs: one of the best storytellers ever.

5. Many see Thought Leadership as a combination of messaging and storytelling, what makes it a standalone tenet?

Thought Leadership stands alone because it’s about setting the agenda (leading the conversation) rather than just communicating your point of view. It requires original insight, provocation, and the courage to propose new models, not just synthesize existing ones. When done well, it changes the direction of the market; others start to echo your terminology and frameworks.

6. Why is it so hard for most new products to get traction?

Most new products fail to get traction not because of weak tech, but because of unclear value, undifferentiated positioning, or market confusion. Teams overfocus on features and under-invest in the story, category, and proof. Without clear market engineering, no one knows why the product matters or how they should think about it compared to everything else.

7. Where do companies go wrong with category design?

The most common mistake is either not designing a category at all (just trying to out-feature incumbents) or making it a “naming exercise” disconnected from authentic customer need and business reality. Category design isn’t branding; it’s systems thinking. it should be rooted in a real problem, codified with relentless clarity, and validated with influential customers and analysts.

8. How does the leadership team recognize they got the positioning wrong and how do they fix it?

Market Engineering Book CoverYou’ll know you have a positioning problem if deals stall in the pipeline, you get slotted into the wrong RFP bucket, or media/analysts lump you with solutions you don’t respect. Fixing it starts with honest investigation: talking directly to customers/prospects, auditing every touchpoint, and rigorously re-testing your Messaging Matrix. It’s usually about clarity, not cleverness.

9. What are the biggest pitfalls of message ownership and management and how can leaders avoid them?

The biggest pitfalls are lack of internal discipline and message drift: where every functional group tells the story a bit differently, or the narrative morphs with each campaign. Leaders must treat the messaging as a living, central artifact (like the Messaging Matrix), ensure frequent training, and make every update explicitly cross-functional. Messaging must be owned at the top.

10. What are some of the keys to great storytelling that every leader should master?

Great storytelling starts with empathy: a deep understanding of customer pain and aspiration. Then, it follows with clarity (no jargon), specificity (real data, real outcomes), and tension (what’s at stake in the market). Too often, stories become “laundry lists”. The key is to focus on a single arc: What’s broken in the world, what new future you’re inviting them into, and social proof that it’s real.

11. What are the keys to creating effective thought leadership?

You must have a strong point of view and the willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. Effective thought leadership is not just more content; it’s original, actionable ideas presented consistently across channels and validated with real-world outcomes, not just theory. Authenticity and a learning mindset are critical: the market rewards those who teach, not just those who promote.

12. Does AI make Market Engineering easier or more difficult and why?

AI makes Market Engineering both easier and much harder. Easier, because it democratizes access to research, market signals, and rapid content generation. Harder, because it amplifies noise and makes it much more difficult to stand out unless your positioning, messaging, and insight are precise and differentiated. The bar for clarity and originality rises: those who do Market Engineering well will thrive; those who don’t will be commoditized instantly.

13. Is there anything you wish I had asked so that you could speak to it?

I wish more people asked, “How do you maintain momentum and discipline in Market Engineering after the initial category launch?” Winning the first lap is one thing; evolving category leadership into true market leadership and dominance over the years is another. It’s not a one-time event: it’s ongoing narrative, data, partner ecosystem, and customer proof work. The companies that endure are those that outlearn, outevolve, and outlast, not just outlaunch their competition.

Conclusion

Thank you for the great conversation Bruce!

I hope everyone has enjoyed this peek into the mind of the man behind the insightful new title Market Engineering!

Image credits: Bruce Cleveland, Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Customer Experience Benchmarking

How Do You Actually Compare?

Customer Experience Benchmarking

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Most organizations benchmark their customer experience against themselves. They track NPS month over month, monitor CSAT scores quarter over quarter, and celebrate when the numbers move up. What they rarely do is answer the question that actually matters for competitive survival: how does our experience compare to what our customers can get elsewhere?

Customer experience benchmarking — the systematic comparison of your experience performance against competitors, industry standards, and best-in-class exemplars — is one of the most underused tools in the CX practitioner’s toolkit. It is also one of the most important. CX leaders generate 6x the revenue growth of bottom-quartile peers, per the Forrester CX Index 2026. The gap between leaders and laggards is widening, not narrowing. Organizations that don’t know where they stand relative to that gap are making investment decisions in the dark.

What is Customer Experience Benchmarking?

Customer experience benchmarking is the process of systematically measuring your organization’s experience performance against external reference points — competitors, industry standards, and best-in-class organizations — to understand where you lead, where you lag, and where investment will generate the greatest competitive return.

It is distinct from customer experience measurement, which tracks your own performance over time. Benchmarking adds the external context that transforms a metric from a number into a signal. A Net Promoter Score of 35 means nothing in isolation. A Net Promoter Score of 35 in an industry where the average is 22 means you are performing above average. A score of 35 in an industry where leaders are at 60 means you have a significant competitive gap to close.

Without benchmarking, organizations routinely invest in improving metrics that are already competitive while ignoring gaps that are costing them customers and revenue.

Why Most CX Benchmarking Falls Short

The most common form of CX benchmarking — comparing NPS, CSAT, and CES scores against published industry averages — is useful but severely limited. CSAT is typically based on how consumers feel about a service or product on a sliding scale, and CES measures how effortless it is for customers to interact with an organization. These are legitimate signals, but they have three critical limitations as benchmarking tools:

They measure what customers say, not what they experience. Survey-based metrics capture customer perceptions at a moment in time, filtered through whatever prompted them to respond. They systematically miss the silent majority — customers who had mediocre experiences but didn’t feel strongly enough to complete a survey — and they overrepresent the emotional extremes.

They measure aggregate outcomes, not specific experience drivers. Knowing your NPS is below industry average tells you that you have a problem. It doesn’t tell you where in the journey the problem lives, what is causing it, or what to fix. Benchmarking aggregate scores without diagnosing the specific experience gaps producing them leads to unfocused investment that improves the score without improving the underlying experience.

They don’t capture the full competitive experience landscape. Published industry benchmarks aggregate across organizations with very different models, customer bases, and experience investments. Your real competitive benchmark is not the industry average — it is the specific alternatives your customers are comparing you to, evaluated on the specific dimensions they care about most.

The Four Levels of Customer Experience Benchmarking

Effective customer experience benchmarking operates at four levels, each providing different and complementary insight:

Level 1: Internal Benchmarking

Comparing your own experience performance across time periods, customer segments, channels, geographies, or business units. Internal benchmarking establishes your baseline, identifies where performance is improving or declining, and surfaces the internal variations that indicate what better is possible — if your highest-performing region or channel is significantly outperforming others, the gap represents an internal benchmark that can be studied and replicated.

Best tools: NPS, CSAT, CES trend analysis; journey analytics; complaint and escalation rate tracking; customer effort mapping across channels.

Level 2: Competitive Benchmarking

Comparing your experience performance directly against the specific competitors your customers are most likely to consider as alternatives. This is the most commercially important form of benchmarking and the most underinvested. Analyzing competitor reviews on platforms like Google and Trustpilot and looking for patterns in customer feedback — recurring praise or common complaints — is a starting point. But the most valuable competitive benchmarking requires actually walking the competitor’s experience firsthand — going through their onboarding, calling their support line, submitting a service request — to understand the experience your customers are comparing you to.

Best tools: Mystery shopping of competitors; competitor review analysis; win/loss interview research; shared customer feedback analysis; direct experience walking.

Level 3: Industry Benchmarking

Comparing your performance against published industry standards and research benchmarks. Tools like Contentsquare’s 2026 Digital Experience Benchmark, built from 99 billion web sessions across 6,500+ websites in 9 industries, provide cross-device behavior data spanning traffic, engagement, frustration, conversion, and retention. Forrester’s CX Index, the ACSI (American Customer Satisfaction Index), and industry-specific research provide standardized benchmarks across NPS, CSAT, and CES by sector.

Best tools: Forrester CX Index; ACSI scores by industry; Contentsquare Digital Experience Benchmark; J.D. Power studies; industry association research.

Level 4: Best-in-Class Benchmarking

Comparing your experience against the best experiences your customers encounter anywhere — not just in your industry, but across the categories they interact with most frequently. This is the most ambitious and most valuable form of benchmarking, because customers don’t evaluate your experience against your direct competitors alone. They evaluate it against every excellent experience they have — Amazon’s delivery reliability, Apple’s onboarding simplicity, Ritz-Carlton’s service recovery. When an experience falls below the best available standard in any category, it registers as inadequate regardless of industry norms.

Best tools: Cross-industry experience research; direct walking of best-in-class exemplars; customer interviews that explicitly ask “what’s the best experience you’ve had with any company in any category, and what made it great?”

Four Levels of Customer Experience Benchmarking Infographic

Key Customer Experience Benchmarks by Metric

Net Promoter Score (NPS) Benchmarks

NPS ranges from -100 to +100. General interpretation: above 0 is good, above 20 is favorable, above 50 is excellent, above 70 is world-class. Industry averages vary significantly:

  • Technology/SaaS: 35–45 average; leaders 60+
  • Financial Services: 30–40 average; leaders 55+
  • Retail: 40–50 average; leaders 65+
  • Healthcare: 25–35 average; leaders 50+
  • Telecommunications: 15–25 average; leaders 40+
  • Hospitality: 50–60 average; leaders 75+

Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT) Benchmarks

CSAT is typically measured on a 1–5 or 1–10 scale and converted to a percentage of satisfied respondents. Industry averages cluster around 75–85% across most sectors, with leaders consistently achieving 90%+. ACSI data for 2025–2026 shows overall US customer satisfaction at approximately 77.4 out of 100 across industries.

Customer Effort Score (CES) Benchmarks

CES measures how easy it is for customers to interact with your organization, typically on a 1–7 scale. Lower effort scores are better. Research by CEB (now Gartner) found that reducing customer effort is more predictive of loyalty than delighting customers — 96% of customers with high-effort experiences become more disloyal, versus only 9% of those with low-effort experiences.

First Contact Resolution (FCR) Benchmarks

FCR measures the percentage of customer issues resolved on first contact. Industry average FCR rates cluster around 70–75%, with best-in-class operations achieving 85–90%. Every percentage point improvement in FCR drives measurable improvements in both CSAT and cost-to-serve.

How to Conduct a Customer Experience Benchmark

Step 1: Define what you are benchmarking and why
Benchmarking everything produces noise. Start with the specific experience dimensions most likely to be affecting your competitive position — the areas where you suspect you may be lagging, or where you are investing most heavily and want to validate that your performance justifies the investment.

Step 2: Select your benchmark references
For each dimension, identify the most relevant reference points: your direct competitors for competitive benchmarking, published industry research for industry benchmarking, and best-in-class exemplars for aspirational benchmarking. The most valuable benchmarks are often the ones that are hardest to obtain — direct competitor experience walking and cross-industry best-in-class research — precisely because they reveal gaps that published survey data doesn’t surface.

Step 3: Gather data across multiple methods
No single data source provides complete benchmark insight. Effective benchmarking combines quantitative measures (NPS, CSAT, CES, FCR) with qualitative research (customer interviews, journey walking, competitor experience analysis) and observational data (direct observation of experience delivery, mystery shopping). Each source surfaces different dimensions of the experience gap.

Step 4: Map gaps to their revenue implications
A benchmark gap is only useful if it is connected to a business outcome. For each significant gap identified, estimate the revenue implication: how much churn is this gap contributing to? How much expansion revenue is it suppressing? How much competitive displacement is it enabling? This translation from experience gap to revenue impact is what makes benchmarking findings actionable at the executive level.

Step 5: Prioritize investments by competitive return
Not all gaps are worth closing. Prioritize experience investments that address gaps in dimensions your customers care most about, where closing the gap would produce the largest competitive differentiation, and where the investment required is proportionate to the revenue at stake.

How to Conduct a Customer Experience Benchmark Infographic

The Role of an Experience Audit in Benchmarking

A customer experience audit is the most comprehensive benchmarking instrument available — one that combines internal experience measurement, competitive experience walking, and best-in-class gap analysis into a single, systematic assessment.

Unlike survey-based benchmarking that measures what customers say about their experience, an experience audit walks the actual experience — physically and digitally traversing every significant touchpoint across your customer journey and your competitors’ — to produce a firsthand, evidence-based comparison (customer journey mapping helps here). It identifies:

  • The specific touchpoints where your experience is measurably inferior to the best available alternatives
  • The friction gaps — moments where your experience requires more effort than competitors’ equivalents
  • The consistency gaps — channels or segments where your experience significantly underperforms your own average
  • The service recovery gaps — how your response to failures compares to competitive and best-in-class standards
  • The personalization gaps — where competitors are demonstrating deeper customer understanding than you are

The output is not a score comparison — it is a prioritized, actionable roadmap of experience improvements ranked by their estimated competitive and financial impact. This is benchmarking that produces decisions, not just data.

Frequently Asked Questions About Customer Experience Benchmarking

What is customer experience benchmarking?

Customer experience benchmarking is the process of systematically measuring your organization’s experience performance against external reference points — competitors, industry standards, and best-in-class organizations — to understand where you lead, where you lag, and where investment will generate the greatest competitive return. It differs from customer experience measurement, which tracks your own performance over time, by adding the external context needed to interpret whether your metrics represent a competitive advantage, a competitive parity position, or a competitive gap that requires urgent attention.

What metrics are used for customer experience benchmarking?

The primary metrics used for customer experience benchmarking are Net Promoter Score (NPS), Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT), Customer Effort Score (CES), and First Contact Resolution (FCR). Published industry benchmarks for these metrics are available from Forrester, the ACSI, J.D. Power, and industry-specific research sources. However, survey-based metric benchmarking has significant limitations — it measures what customers say, not what they experience, and it measures aggregate outcomes rather than the specific experience drivers producing those outcomes. The most valuable benchmarking combines metric comparison with direct competitive experience walking and qualitative customer research.

How do you benchmark against competitors on customer experience?

Competitive customer experience benchmarking requires multiple approaches used in combination. Quantitative approaches include comparing published NPS, CSAT, and review scores across competitors; analyzing competitor reviews on platforms like Google, Trustpilot, and G2 for recurring patterns; and using win/loss interview research to understand the experience factors most frequently cited in competitive displacement. Qualitative approaches include directly walking the competitor’s experience — going through their onboarding, calling their support line, submitting a service request — to build firsthand understanding of the experience your customers are comparing you against. A customer experience audit typically includes direct competitive benchmarking as a core component.

What is a good NPS score by industry?

NPS benchmarks vary significantly by industry. In technology and SaaS, average NPS is typically 35–45 with leaders above 60. In financial services, averages run 30–40 with leaders above 55. Retail averages 40–50 with leaders above 65. Healthcare averages 25–35 with leaders above 50. Telecommunications typically averages 15–25 with leaders above 40. Hospitality averages 50–60 with leaders above 75. The most meaningful benchmark is not the industry average but the performance of the specific competitors your customers are most likely to compare you against — and the gap between your current performance and best-in-class in your sector.

What is the difference between customer experience measurement and benchmarking?

Customer experience measurement tracks your own performance over time — monitoring NPS, CSAT, CES, and other metrics to identify trends and evaluate the impact of specific investments. Customer experience benchmarking adds external context by comparing your performance against competitors, industry standards, and best-in-class organizations. Measurement tells you whether you are getting better or worse. Benchmarking tells you whether you are competitive — whether your current performance represents an advantage, parity, or a gap that is costing you customers and revenue. Both are necessary, but benchmarking is what connects experience performance to competitive and financial outcomes.

Ready to understand how your experience compares to competitors and best-in-class standards? Learn more about the Experience Audit →

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude and Google Gemini to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

Image credits: Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Customer Loyalty

Why Satisfaction Isn’t Enough and What Actually Builds It

Customer Loyalty

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Customer loyalty is the most misunderstood concept in business. Organizations spend billions annually on loyalty programs — points, rewards, tiers, and perks — while the research consistently shows that programs are not what makes customers loyal. Customers are loyal because of how an organization makes them feel, how reliably it delivers on its promises, and how effectively it helps them succeed. The program is the mechanism. The experience is the cause.

This distinction matters enormously in practice. Organizations that invest in loyalty programs without fixing the underlying experience are building an expensive structure on a cracked foundation. Organizations that invest in experience first — and use programs to reinforce the relationship — build the kind of loyalty that is genuinely difficult for competitors to disrupt.

What is Customer Loyalty?

Customer loyalty is the sustained preference a customer shows for an organization — expressed through repeat purchases, resistance to competitive alternatives, willingness to pay a premium, and active advocacy on the organization’s behalf. It is not the same as customer retention (which can be driven by switching costs and inertia), and it is not the same as customer satisfaction (which measures a moment in time, not a sustained behavioral pattern).

True loyalty has three dimensions:

  • Behavioral loyalty — customers consistently choose you over alternatives and purchase repeatedly, even when alternatives are available
  • Attitudinal loyalty — customers have a genuinely positive disposition toward your organization, feel emotionally connected to it, and trust it
  • Advocacy loyalty — customers actively recommend you to others, defend you when criticized, and invest their social capital in your brand

Most loyalty metrics measure only the behavioral dimension — repeat purchase rates, retention rates, and NPS scores as a proxy for advocacy. The attitudinal dimension is harder to measure and receives far less management attention, which is why so many organizations are surprised when behaviorally “loyal” customers defect at the first attractive alternative: they were retained, not loyal.

The Business Case for Customer Loyalty

The financial argument for investing in customer loyalty is among the strongest in business strategy:

  • 80% of future profits will come from just 20% of existing customers — making the retention and deepening of existing relationships the highest-ROI investment available to most organizations.
  • Customers with an emotional bond to a brand have a 306% higher lifetime value than those who are merely satisfied — the gap between satisfied and loyal is not incremental, it is transformational.
  • Acquiring a new customer costs 5x more than retaining an existing one — and loyal customers require less acquisition investment, less service investment, and generate more referral value simultaneously.
  • Brands that align customer experience and brand experience unlock up to 3.5x revenue growth compared to those that manage them separately, according to Forrester’s Total Experience Score research.
  • Customers who trust a brand are 88% more likely to be repeat buyers — trust is the foundation of loyalty, and trust is built through experience, not programs.

Why Loyalty Programs Alone Don’t Build Loyalty

Loyalty programs are ubiquitous — and their limitations are increasingly well documented. In 2026, roughly 59% of consumers are more likely to join a loyalty program than 12 months ago, and loyalty programs now account for 31.4% of total marketing budgets. Yet the research on whether programs actually build loyalty is sobering.

The fundamental problem with loyalty programs is that they address behavior without addressing attitude. A points program can change what a customer does — encouraging them to concentrate purchases with your organization to maximize rewards — without changing how they feel about you. Behavioral loyalty driven by a program is fragile: it persists only as long as the program’s economics are attractive. The moment a competitor offers a better program, the “loyal” customer transfers their purchases immediately.

This is the difference between loyalty that is earned and loyalty that is purchased. Earned loyalty — built through consistently excellent experience, genuine trust, and emotional connection — is durable. Purchased loyalty — maintained through rewards and discounts — is ephemeral.

Forrester’s 2025 CX Index reached a new low after four consecutive years of decline, with 25% of US brands seeing CX scores decline for a second straight year. This is happening at the same time that loyalty program investment is rising — a clear signal that programs are not compensating for experience failures.

The Real Drivers of Customer Loyalty

The research on what actually drives sustained customer loyalty consistently points to the same factors — and none of them are primarily program-driven:

1. Consistent, reliable experience delivery
80% of customers state that the experience a company provides is just as important as its products and services. Consistency matters as much as peak quality — customers who know what to expect from you, and reliably get it, develop a form of trust that is the foundation of genuine loyalty. Inconsistency, even when punctuated by excellent experiences, creates uncertainty that erodes trust over time.

2. Trust
Trust is both the prerequisite for loyalty and its most fragile component. In PwC’s 2025 CX research, 93% of consumers say a brand will lose their trust if it mishandles personal data. Trust is built slowly through consistent behavior and destroyed quickly through specific failures — particularly failures of honesty, competence, or care at critical moments. Organizations that treat trust as an implicit asset rather than an explicit management priority consistently underinvest in the behaviors that build it.

3. Emotional connection
Customers with an emotional bond to a brand have a 306% higher lifetime value than those who are merely satisfied. Emotional connection is built when customers feel genuinely understood, when the organization demonstrates that it knows and values them as individuals, and when interactions feel human rather than transactional. It is the hardest loyalty driver to manufacture deliberately — and the most durable when it exists.

4. Value realization
Customers are loyal to organizations that reliably help them succeed — that deliver the outcomes they purchased for, consistently and predictably. Value realization is distinct from product quality: a high-quality product that customers can’t fully use, don’t know how to use, or aren’t supported in using does not build loyalty. Organizations that invest in customer success — in helping customers actually achieve the outcomes they bought — build the kind of loyalty that survives competitive disruption.

5. Personalization
91% of consumers now prefer brands that offer personalized content and offers. Personalization signals that you know the customer as an individual — that they are not interchangeable with every other customer you serve. At its best, personalization is not about data and algorithms; it is about demonstrating through every interaction that you understand who this specific customer is, what they value, and what they need.

6. Shared values
89% of consumers prefer brands that share their social or ethical values. Values alignment has become an increasingly important loyalty driver, particularly among younger customers. Organizations whose behavior visibly aligns with values their customers hold — environmental responsibility, social equity, community investment, employee treatment — build a form of loyalty that transcends the transactional relationship entirely.

7. Exceptional service recovery
The service recovery paradox — the well-documented phenomenon where customers who experience a problem that is handled exceptionally well become more loyal than customers who never experienced a problem at all — is one of the most actionable loyalty drivers available. Every service failure is a loyalty opportunity if handled correctly. Organizations that invest in exceptional service recovery — not just adequate resolution but genuinely impressive response — consistently outperform on loyalty metrics.

The Satisfaction-Loyalty Gap: Why Satisfied Customers Aren’t Always Loyal

One of the most important findings in customer loyalty research is the non-linear relationship between satisfaction and loyalty. Satisfaction and loyalty are not the same thing, and the gap between them is where most loyalty investment goes to waste.

Research by Xerox consistently found that customers rating an experience 5 out of 5 were six times more likely to repurchase than customers rating it 4 out of 5. The difference between “satisfied” and “completely satisfied” — between adequate and excellent — is enormous in its loyalty implications. This is why organizations that manage to average satisfaction scores miss the point: the goal is not average satisfaction, it is the consistent delivery of genuinely excellent experience at the moments that matter most.

The practical implication is that loyalty investment should focus on the moments of truth — the high-stakes interactions that define whether customers feel excellent or merely adequate — rather than on incremental improvements to already-acceptable baseline experiences.

How Customer Experience Drives Customer Loyalty

Every loyalty driver identified above is fundamentally an experience outcome. Trust is built through experience. Emotional connection is built through experience. Value realization is built through experience. Personalization is delivered through experience. Service recovery is an experience intervention.

This means that the most direct path to building customer loyalty is investing in customer experience — specifically, in understanding where the current experience is falling short of the standard required to build the trust, emotional connection, and consistent value realization that sustain loyalty over time.

A customer experience audit is the most systematic way to identify the specific experience gaps that are preventing loyalty from forming — or actively eroding loyalty that has been built. An experience audit walks the actual customer journey across all touchpoints to identify:

  • The moments of truth being handled adequately when they should be handled exceptionally
  • The consistency failures creating uncertainty and undermining trust
  • The personalization gaps signaling to customers that they are not truly known
  • The service recovery processes that are resolving problems without rebuilding loyalty
  • The value realization gaps preventing customers from achieving the outcomes that sustain engagement

The result is not a loyalty strategy — it is a prioritized experience improvement roadmap that addresses the specific gaps preventing loyalty from forming in your specific customer base, which competitive experience benchmarking can help identify.

Building a Loyalty Strategy That Actually Works

A loyalty strategy that produces genuine, durable loyalty — not just behavioral compliance maintained by program economics — is built in this sequence:

Step 1: Understand what loyalty actually looks like in your customer base
Before investing in loyalty, define what loyalty means in your specific context. What does a genuinely loyal customer do that a merely retained customer doesn’t? How do your most loyal customers behave differently from your average customers? This profile becomes the target state for your loyalty investment.

Step 2: Audit the experience that loyalty is built on
Identify the specific experience gaps — the moments of truth handled adequately rather than exceptionally, the consistency failures, the personalization gaps — that are preventing your average customers from becoming your most loyal customers. This is the foundation that programs and campaigns are built on, and it must be solid before those investments will pay off.

Step 3: Fix the experience failures before layering on programs
The most common loyalty investment mistake is launching a program to compensate for experience failures. Programs attract customers who are loyal to the program, not to you — and they attract your competitors’ customers on the same basis. Fix the experience that builds genuine loyalty first, then use programs to reinforce and reward it.

Step 4: Design moments of truth for excellence, not adequacy
Identify the five to ten moments in your customer journey (customer journey mapping helps here) where the quality of the experience has a disproportionate impact on loyalty — typically onboarding, first value realization, first service incident, renewal, and expansion. Invest in making these moments genuinely excellent rather than merely adequate. The gap between adequate and excellent at these specific moments is where most of the loyalty value lives.

Step 5: Build loyalty measurement that captures what matters
NPS is a useful signal but an incomplete loyalty measure. Build a measurement approach that captures all three dimensions of loyalty — behavioral, attitudinal, and advocacy — and tracks them over time. Understand not just whether customers are renewing but whether they feel genuinely connected, whether they trust you, and whether they would actively recommend you unprompted.

Frequently Asked Questions About Customer Loyalty

What is customer loyalty?

Customer loyalty is the sustained preference a customer shows for an organization — expressed through repeat purchases, resistance to competitive alternatives, willingness to pay a premium, and active advocacy. It has three dimensions: behavioral loyalty (consistently choosing you over alternatives), attitudinal loyalty (genuinely positive feelings and trust toward your organization), and advocacy loyalty (actively recommending you to others). Most loyalty metrics measure only behavioral loyalty, missing the attitudinal and advocacy dimensions that determine whether loyalty is genuine and durable or merely habitual and fragile.

What is the difference between customer loyalty and customer retention?

Customer retention measures whether customers continue purchasing — it can be driven by genuine loyalty, switching costs, inertia, or lack of alternatives. Customer loyalty is a more specific condition: customers are retained because they genuinely prefer your organization, trust it, and feel positively connected to it. A retained customer who is not loyal will defect at the first attractive competitive offer; a genuinely loyal customer will resist competitive alternatives even when they are objectively similar or cheaper. The distinction matters because retention-focused strategies and loyalty-focused strategies require different investments — retention can be managed operationally, but loyalty requires experience investment.

Do loyalty programs actually build customer loyalty?

Loyalty programs can reinforce loyalty in customers who are already loyal, but they rarely create loyalty in customers who are not. The fundamental limitation of loyalty programs is that they change behavior without changing attitude — they can encourage customers to concentrate purchases with your organization, but they cannot make customers trust you, feel emotionally connected to you, or advocate for you. Behavioral loyalty driven by program economics is fragile: it persists only as long as the program’s rewards are attractive relative to alternatives. Organizations that invest in loyalty programs without fixing the underlying experience failures limiting genuine loyalty are building on a cracked foundation.

What is the most important driver of customer loyalty?

Research consistently identifies consistent, reliable experience delivery as the foundation of customer loyalty — before emotional connection, personalization, or program incentives. Customers who know what to expect from an organization and reliably get it develop a form of trust that is the prerequisite for all other loyalty dimensions. Trust, once established, is the single most powerful loyalty driver: customers who trust a brand are 88% more likely to be repeat buyers, and customers with emotional bonds to a brand have a 306% higher lifetime value than those who are merely satisfied. Both trust and emotional connection are built through experience — not through programs.

How does customer experience affect customer loyalty?

Customer experience is the primary mechanism through which loyalty is built or destroyed. Every loyalty driver — trust, emotional connection, value realization, personalization, and service recovery — is delivered through experience. Organizations that invest in understanding and improving their customer experience build the genuine loyalty that resists competitive disruption and generates advocacy. Organizations that manage experience to adequacy while investing in loyalty programs are managing the symptom while neglecting the cause. The most direct path to improving customer loyalty is identifying and fixing the specific experience failures that are preventing trust and emotional connection from forming — which is what a customer experience audit is designed to do.

What is the service recovery paradox?

The service recovery paradox is the well-documented phenomenon where customers who experience a service failure that is handled exceptionally well become more loyal than customers who never experienced a problem at all. It occurs because exceptional service recovery demonstrates, in a high-stakes moment, that the organization genuinely cares about the customer — producing a stronger emotional signal than routine good service. The paradox is real but conditional: it requires genuinely exceptional recovery, not just adequate resolution. Organizations that treat service failures as loyalty opportunities and invest in recovery processes that produce genuine customer delight consistently outperform on loyalty metrics.

Ready to identify the experience gaps limiting loyalty in your organization? Learn more about the Experience Audit →

Image credits: Google Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Google Gemini to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Revenue Leakage

The Customer Experience Failures Silently Draining Your P&L

Revenue Leakage

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Revenue leakage is one of the most widely discussed topics in finance and operations — and one of the most narrowly defined. Ask most CFOs what revenue leakage means and they will describe billing errors, missed invoices, and contract compliance gaps. These are real problems worth solving. But they represent only the visible surface of a much larger issue.

The revenue leakage that does the most damage to most organizations is not found in the billing system. It is found in the customer experience — in the friction, failed moments, and unmet expectations that cause customers to buy less, expand less, renew less, and advocate less than they would if their experience were better. This form of revenue leakage is invisible in most financial reports. It shows up in churn rates, in Net Promoter Scores, in declining share of wallet, and in the slow erosion of customer lifetime value that compounds quietly over years.

This article addresses both: the operational revenue leakage that finance teams understand, and the experience revenue leakage that most organizations are leaving on the table without realizing it.

What is Revenue Leakage?

Revenue leakage is the gap between the revenue an organization should be capturing and the revenue it actually captures. The standard formula is:

Revenue Leakage % = (Total Potential Revenue − Actual Collected Revenue) ÷ Total Potential Revenue × 100

Industry benchmarks suggest that leakage under 3% is excellent, 3–5% is acceptable, and above 5% requires immediate attention. For a $100M revenue business, 5% leakage represents $5M walking out the door annually — before any consideration of the experience-driven leakage that rarely appears in these calculations at all.

Two Types of Revenue Leakage — and Why Most Organizations Only See One

Type 1: Operational Revenue Leakage

Operational revenue leakage is the form most commonly discussed in finance and RevOps contexts. It includes:

  • Billing errors — incorrect charges, missed charges, duplicate invoices, and pricing discrepancies between what was contracted and what was billed
  • Unbilled services — work performed or value delivered that was never invoiced, often due to disconnected systems between service delivery and billing
  • Contract compliance gaps — discounts that were meant to be temporary becoming permanent, usage overages that were never billed, and renewal terms that weren’t enforced
  • Failed collections — invoices issued but not collected due to expired payment methods, billing contact churn, or inadequate dunning processes
  • Handoff failures — context and commitments lost between sales, implementation, and customer success teams that result in under-delivering against what was sold

This form of leakage is well understood and increasingly addressable through better billing infrastructure, contract management systems, and revenue operations discipline. It is important and worth fixing. It is also, in most organizations, the smaller of the two leakage problems.

Type 2: Experience Revenue Leakage

Experience revenue leakage is the revenue an organization fails to capture — or actively destroys — because of failures in the customer experience. It is the harder-to-see, harder-to-measure, and almost always larger form of revenue leakage. It includes:

  • Churn driven by experience failure — customers who cancel, don’t renew, or stop purchasing because their experience fell below expectations, not because they found a cheaper alternative
  • Expansion revenue never realized — customers who could have bought more, upgraded, or expanded their relationship but didn’t because their experience gave them no reason to
  • Referrals never given — customers who would have recommended you to peers but didn’t because their experience was merely adequate rather than genuinely excellent
  • Repurchase cycles shortened or broken — customers who bought less frequently or in smaller amounts because friction in the experience made doing more business with you feel like more effort than it was worth
  • Price sensitivity artificially elevated — customers who demanded discounts or pushed back on pricing not because your prices were genuinely too high, but because the experience didn’t justify the value you were charging for
  • Recovery costs from poor experiences — the service calls, refunds, make-goods, and relationship repair investments required to address experience failures that should never have occurred

None of these show up cleanly in a billing audit. They are diffuse, difficult to attribute, and invisible in most financial reporting. But their combined scale is enormous. Bain & Company research found that companies that excel at customer experience grow revenues 4–8% above their market — meaning the gap between average and excellent experience represents revenue leakage of that magnitude for every organization that isn’t at the top.

The Six Experience Failures That Drive the Most Revenue Leakage

1. The onboarding gap
The period immediately after purchase is the highest-risk window for experience revenue leakage. Customers arrive with expectations shaped by the sales process and are immediately confronted with the reality of onboarding — which is almost always harder, slower, and more confusing than what they were led to expect. Customers who never fully succeed with onboarding rarely expand, rarely renew enthusiastically, and frequently churn at the first renewal. The revenue lost to poor onboarding is rarely attributed to onboarding — it shows up months later as churn or non-renewal.

2. The service experience valley
Every customer relationship encounters service moments — billing questions, support issues, complaints, and problems that need resolving. These moments are disproportionately important to the overall experience because they are emotionally charged. A service experience handled badly damages trust in a way that no amount of good routine experience can quickly repair. The “service recovery paradox” — where a problem handled exceptionally well can produce higher loyalty than if no problem had occurred — is real, but it requires genuinely excellent recovery, not just adequate resolution. Most organizations deliver adequate. The gap between adequate and excellent is where experience revenue leakage lives.

3. The value realization gap
Customers who don’t fully realize the value they purchased don’t expand their relationship and are easy to lose. Value realization gaps are pervasive — they exist in virtually every B2B and B2C relationship where the product or service requires any customer effort to deliver its benefits. Organizations that actively help customers realize value retain more, expand more, and generate more referrals. Organizations that deliver the product and move on leave the value realization gap unfilled and lose the revenue that would have followed from success.

4. The friction tax
Friction accumulates across the customer journey in ways that are individually minor but collectively significant. Difficult processes, confusing interfaces, slow response times, unnecessary steps, and inconsistent experiences across channels all add to the friction tax customers pay to do business with you. As friction accumulates, customers do less: they buy less often, buy less per transaction, engage less with expansion opportunities, and recommend less enthusiastically. The revenue impact of accumulated friction is diffuse and hard to measure — which is exactly why it persists.

5. The consistency failure
Customers who have excellent experiences in some channels and poor experiences in others trust you less than customers who have consistently good experiences everywhere. Inconsistency is particularly damaging because it creates uncertainty — customers don’t know which version of your organization they are going to encounter. Uncertainty suppresses engagement. Customers who are uncertain about their experience buy less, recommend less, and churn more readily when alternatives present themselves.

6. The relationship void
Organizations that treat customers as transactions rather than relationships systematically leave expansion revenue on the table. Customers who feel known, understood, and valued by their providers spend more, stay longer, and are far more resistant to competitive alternatives. Most organizations are not building relationships — they are processing transactions and calling the result a customer relationship. The revenue gap between transactional and relational customer management is measurable and substantial.

Six Experience Failures That Drive Revenue Leakage

How to Identify Experience Revenue Leakage in Your Organization

Operational revenue leakage can be found through billing audits and contract reviews. Experience revenue leakage requires a different diagnostic approach — one that starts with the customer experience rather than the financial systems.

The most direct method is a customer experience audit — a systematic, human-centered evaluation of how customers actually experience your organization across every channel and touchpoint. An experience audit identifies the specific friction points, service experience failures, value realization gaps, and consistency failures that are driving the revenue leakage your P&L can’t fully explain.

Unlike financial audits that work backwards from revenue data, an experience audit works forward from the customer journey — finding the failures before they fully show up in the numbers. This is critical because experience revenue leakage compounds: a poor onboarding experience in month one doesn’t show up in revenue until month twelve when the renewal doesn’t happen. By the time the financial signal is visible, the customer relationship damage has been accumulating for a year.

Specific diagnostic questions an experience audit answers:

  • Where in the customer journey are the highest-friction moments — the ones customers endure without complaint but that silently reduce their willingness to expand or renew?
  • Which service experience failures are occurring most frequently, and how well are they being recovered from?
  • Are customers actually achieving the outcomes they purchased for, or is there a systematic value realization gap in specific segments or use cases?
  • How consistent is the experience across channels — and where are the inconsistency gaps largest?
  • How does the experience compare to key competitors — and where are you losing on experience quality rather than price?

Quantifying Experience Revenue Leakage

One of the reasons experience revenue leakage persists is that it is difficult to attach a specific number to it. Unlike billing errors, which have a clear dollar value, experience revenue leakage shows up indirectly — in churn rates, expansion rates, NPS scores, and competitive win/loss ratios. But it can be quantified with the right framework.

The Customer Experience Revenue Leakage diagnostic — part of the Experience Audit methodology — maps specific experience failures to their estimated revenue impact across five dimensions: churn contribution, expansion revenue foregone, referral revenue foregone, service recovery cost, and price sensitivity premium. This produces a prioritized estimate of where experience investment will generate the highest financial return — giving CFOs and CX leaders a common language for making the case for experience improvement investment.

A Framework for Addressing Experience Revenue Leakage

Step 1: Audit the experience, not just the data
Before investing in retention programs, expansion campaigns, or NPS improvement initiatives, understand what the actual customer experience is. Walk your own journey. Call your own support line. Go through your own onboarding as a new customer. The gap between what you think the experience is and what it actually is almost always contains the most important revenue leakage.

Step 2: Map revenue leakage to experience failures, not to revenue metrics
For each significant revenue leakage source — high churn in a specific segment, low expansion in a specific cohort, low NPS in a specific channel — trace it back to the specific experience failures most likely driving it. This requires qualitative research, not just quantitative analysis.

Step 3: Prioritize experience improvements by revenue impact
Not all experience failures drive equal revenue leakage. Prioritize fixes that address high-volume friction (affecting many customers), high-stakes moments (emotionally significant interactions), and competitive gaps (experiences where alternatives are measurably better).

Step 4: Fix the experience before investing in acquisition
The most common and expensive mistake in revenue management is investing heavily in customer acquisition while experience failures are driving significant leakage. Fixing the leaky bucket before pouring more water in consistently delivers better ROI than acquisition investment against a poor retention foundation.

Step 5: Build ongoing experience intelligence
Experience revenue leakage is not a one-time problem to be solved — it is an ongoing management challenge. Organizations that achieve consistently low leakage have built systematic ways to monitor customer experience quality continuously, identify emerging failures early, and act on them before they compound into significant revenue impact.

Framework for Addressing Experience Revenue Leakage

Frequently Asked Questions About Revenue Leakage

What is revenue leakage?

Revenue leakage is the gap between the revenue an organization should be capturing and the revenue it actually captures. It includes both operational leakage — billing errors, unbilled services, contract compliance gaps, and failed collections — and experience leakage — the revenue lost because customer experience failures drive churn, suppress expansion, prevent referrals, and erode price realization. Most definitions of revenue leakage focus exclusively on operational causes, significantly underestimating the total revenue impact. The formula is: Revenue Leakage % = (Total Potential Revenue − Actual Collected Revenue) ÷ Total Potential Revenue × 100.

What causes revenue leakage?

Revenue leakage has two primary categories of causes. Operational causes include billing errors, missed charges, contract compliance failures, failed payment collections, and handoff failures between sales and service teams. Experience causes — which are typically larger in total impact but less visible — include poor onboarding that prevents value realization, service experience failures that damage trust and accelerate churn, friction accumulation across the customer journey that suppresses expansion and repurchase, inconsistent cross-channel experiences that undermine confidence, and transactional rather than relational customer management that leaves expansion revenue uncaptured.

How do you identify revenue leakage?

Operational revenue leakage is identified through billing audits, contract reviews, and revenue operations analysis. Experience revenue leakage requires a different diagnostic approach — specifically, a customer experience audit that walks the actual customer journey to identify the friction points, service failures, value realization gaps, and consistency failures driving churn, suppressing expansion, and eroding customer lifetime value. Financial data can signal that experience revenue leakage exists; only customer experience research can identify where it lives and what is causing it.

What is the difference between revenue leakage and customer churn?

Customer churn is one specific form of revenue leakage — the revenue lost when customers stop doing business with you entirely. Revenue leakage is a broader concept that includes churn but also encompasses revenue lost from customers who stay but buy less, expand less, refer less, and pay less than they would if their experience were better. A customer who renews but never expands their relationship, who would have recommended you but doesn’t, or who accepts your full price reluctantly rather than willingly — all of these represent revenue leakage that doesn’t show up in churn metrics but is nonetheless real and quantifiable.

How does a customer experience audit identify revenue leakage?

A customer experience audit identifies experience revenue leakage by walking the actual customer journey across all channels and touchpoints — finding the specific friction points, service failures, value realization gaps, and consistency failures that are driving revenue loss your financial reports can’t fully explain. Unlike data analysis that works backwards from revenue metrics, an experience audit works forwards from the customer journey (going beyond customer journey mapping), finding failures before they fully compound into financial impact. The result is a prioritized map of experience improvements ranked by their estimated revenue impact — giving leaders a clear, actionable roadmap for fixing the experience failures that are silently draining the P&L.

Ready to find the experience failures driving revenue leakage in your organization? Learn more about the Experience Audit →

Image credits: Google Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Google Gemini to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Direction of Fit

A litmus test for news reporting, directed research, and conspiracy theories

Direction of Fit - A litmus test for news reporting, directed research, and conspiracy theories

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore


The philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe is credited with a wonderful thought experiment that illustrates the concept of direction of fit. Imagine a shopper is doing her errands, working off a list of things to buy. She is being followed by a detective who is making a list of everything she does buy. If both are successful, at the end of the day their two lists should be identical. But each list represents a different direction of fit. The shopper’s list works from mind to world: it seeks to fit the world to what the mind intends. The detective’s list works from world to mind: it seeks to fit the list to what the world in fact manifested. Mind-to-world and world-to-mind are thus two distinct directions of fit. Hold that thought as we apply it to three different kinds of discourse.

  1. News reporting is committed to maintaining a world-to-mind direction of fit. The integrity of the news is based on reporters doing their very best to discover and communicate what actually happened in the world. As part of their communication, they are responsible for providing evidence for their claims, citing whatever documents, sources, or other materials that warrant believing these claims to be true. The goal is to inform the reader as objectively as possible, a key plank in any platform that supports liberal democracy.
  2. Directed research is more complicated. It follows a bi-directional approach to fitting. It begins with a hypothesis which it seeks to either verify or disprove through some form of research or experiment. This represents a mind-to-world direction of fit. Einstein’s theory of relativity is an example. That research or experimentation, however, is conducted with scrupulous objectivity in order to create a body of world-to-mind evidence that is independent of the hypothesis. The Eddington Dyson expeditions to use a solar eclipse to test Einstein’s theory is an example. The final results represent a meeting of the two, often resulting in a version of the hypothesis that has been modified to incorporate learnings from the research findings. In Einstein’s case, this was not necessary. In this manner, science proceeds dialectically between the two directions, building an increasingly reliable model of the world.
  3. Conspiracy theories represent a mind-to-world direction of fit. They consist of hypotheses that cannot be verified due to the nefarious actions of the actors involved. They are presented as truths despite their lack of evidence, and these presentations are protected by the right of free speech. Because there is no mechanism for governing or qualifying conspiracy theories, there is no limit to the outrageousness of their claims. When such claims are converted to headlines, they garner attention, which in turn attracts advertisers, which funds the media that publishes them. This has materially adverse effects on any liberal democracy that relies on news media to inform public decision-making.

As one can see, the ethics of news reporting and conspiracy theories are diametrically opposed. This presents a challenge to news organizations that wish to maintain the integrity of their mission. The fact that people are promoting conspiracy theories is something that is happening in the world. As such, it warrants reporting. When these theories are labeled as such, however, conspiracy theorists claim that is all part of the conspiracy. They also claim that the news outlets in question are biased against them, that they aren’t getting their fair share of the coverage. We have left logic behind and are now firmly in the domain of rhetoric. In the absence not just of evidence, but of any obligation to provide evidence, the most brazen voices win.

This is not OK. It is why our educational system needs to prioritize the teaching of critical thinking. Here both the right and the left need to be taken to task. The right continues to use conspiracy theories to restrict such efforts. The left uses political correctness to the same ends. Neither trusts that students will develop responsible habits through open dialog. The best way to meet this challenge, in my view, is to engage students in directed research projects that use the two-way direction of fit to investigate issues of interest and concern.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Image Credit: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

How to Design a Horrible, Terrible, No Good, Very Bad User Experience

How to Design a Horrible, Terrible, No Good, Very Bad User Experience

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore


Some of you may know that early in my career I taught English at the college level. The freshman writing requirement was always a challenge as textbook publishers struggled valiantly to find some reading material that would actually help students write better. One of their best efforts was an essay titled “How to Write an F Paper.” It turns out we learn better from failure than from success—who knew?

With that thought in mind, and taking liberties with the title of one of my favorite children’s books, I want to review an actual user experience delivered to me by the manufacturer of a luxury automobile. The vehicle itself performs admirably, so kudos to the product engineers. It is the customer experience team that needs to be taken to the woodshed.

Here’s how the experience starts. I get in my car, start it, and back out of my garage, benefiting as always from the rear camera system. The system stays on when I shift into drive until I get onto the road and have gone perhaps fifty yards. At that point, the multimedia display presents the following:

An update is ready for installation on your multimedia system. The following conditions must be agreed to before installation.
(READ NOW) (LATER)

Well, I am driving the car, so I don’t think READ NOW is a very good option. I hit LATER, the screen returns to normal, and I get on with my day. To tell the truth, I forget about the whole experience until the next day when, after backing out of my garage and getting onto the road, I get a replay of the same message. Astoundingly, I am driving my car again, so again I push LATER.

Now, as my spouse will testify, sometimes I am a slow learner, so it is not until the better part of a week has passed that I realize the only time I am going to get this message is the first time I start the car in the morning and have driven around fifty yards. At this point, I decide to pull over and push READ. Here is what I got in reply:

Software update for your infotainment system — In order to read the terms and conditions, please park the vehicle safely, switch off the ignition and apply the parking brake.

Well, as it turns out, the reason I got in my car and drove that first fifty yards is that I actually have someplace I need to get to on time, so the idea of switching off the ignition does not appeal. I go back, push the LATER button (feeling a bit like Neo in the Matrix at this point), sub-vocalize a few choice words for the vendor, and carry on with my day.

I won’t testify as to how many days after I had the same introductory message appear and pushed LATER because you guessed it, I actually had somewhere to go and wanted to arrive there on time. But, one day I had the opportunity to be parking somewhere for a good while, so that day I did not push either button until I got to the lot. (“You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”) Once parked, I did switch off my ignition and applied the parking brake, and was rewarded with the following messages.

Software update for your installation system

Notes
The installation process requires several minutes and cannot be canceled or closed. Individual functions and buttons in the vehicle are not available for use during the installation or their use is limited. The multimedia display does not support display messages.

In the unlikely event of a technical error during installation, functional restrictions of the multimedia system and the above-mentioned functions may persist and make it necessary to consult a workshop.

This is what happens when you let the legal team review the customer communications text. Fresh from their latest efforts with the Safe Harbor statement from the prior quarter’s earnings call, they are fiercely protecting their enterprise from any and every liability risk. Heartwarming as these words were, they actually felt they were not protection enough because they were followed by:

Warnings

During installation of this update, the multimedia system is not available. In particular, this includes systems such as the navigation system, phone, reversing camera, 360 camera, Active Parking Assist, Remote Parking Assist, PARKTRONIC, and the switch for DYNAMIC SELECT.

There is an increased risk of accident.

Installing the update while operating the vehicle may distract you from the traffic situation.

There is an increased risk of accident.

Carry out the installation

And yes, that last line is a call to action, clearly meant to benefit from the wave of inspiration created by the earlier sentences. My only surprise was that it did not append the phrase “at your own risk.”

Now, to be fair, I did carry out the installation, and it took about seven minutes or so, and it was fine. So again, the product engineers know what they are doing. But where in the name of all that is holy is the customer experience engineering? Who in their right mind would ever want their customers—and remember this is a luxury vehicle with some pretty high-end customers—to go through such an experience? And most importantly, what are the takeaways that will keep us from going down the same path?

Here are three that come to mind:

  1. Design the experience. Work backward from the end in mind, making sure each element is contributing to the desired outcome.
  2. Test the experience. Make this a real-world test, not a lab test. Recruit vehicle owners to participate. Capture their feedback.
  3. Eliminate friction. All hygiene processes entail some amount of friction. In such situations, your job is not to delight your customers here but rather to avoid annoying them. Do so by respecting their time.

In this case, what if the car company had sent me an email first? That could have included all their liability stuff. It also could coach me on when and how to best install the update. Once I replied I had read the stuff, then they could have sent a much simpler message over the multimedia system, or maybe just triggered the download on my behalf when my car was safely in my garage. The point is, there was clearly a better way, and just as clearly, nobody at the car company cared enough to advocate for it.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Image Credit: Pexels, Geoffrey Moore

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

The Trapped Value Playbook

Creating and Closing Multi-million Dollar Deals

Trapped Value PLaybook

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore


Dear Readers,

I want to forewarn you that this article is quite long. For those of you who prefer delving into it at your leisure, I’ve arranged for a downloadable version. Happy reading, and I look forward to your insights and discussions in the comments section.

The Concept

Most ROI comes from productivity improvements, and most productivity improvements come from releasing trapped value. The reason is simple. All systems trap value all the time, the only question is, where is it getting trapped today? That is, systems are implemented to help make people more productive than they were, and they do so with varying degrees of success. But to whatever degree that success has been achieved, that simply resets the bar. The old bottlenecks have been addressed, but that just surfaces the new bottlenecks. There is no such thing as a system with no bottlenecks (see Second Law of Thermodynamics 😉), so there is always the opportunity to release trapped value.

Let me give some examples:

  • On a macro scale, much of the trapped value that IT released in the 1980s and 1990s was in the supply chain. The technology that broke through the bottlenecks of communication and coordination included ERP systems for global commerce, the internet for global communications, and client-server infrastructure for standardized universal enablement.
  • In the 2000s attention shifted from the supply chain to the delivery chain with a focus on consumer markets, and especially those that dealt in services and digital goods. Here traditional media, broadcast advertising, and retail distribution, as powerful as they all were, represented massive waste as well as lost opportunity because they could not close the loop with the prospect nor serve them in the moment they were ready to transact. Smart mobile devices, cloud computing, machine learning, predictive analytics, real-time transaction processing, and home delivery were able to close this loop and thereby transform whole swaths of the consumer economy.
  • In the current era, at the macro level, the trapped value of highest priority has shifted back to enterprise markets, in particular those that require professional engagement to deliver products, sales, services, and customer success. Here generative AI and data amalgamation look to be game-changing resources, the former enabling untrained users to interact directly with the most sophisticated IT systems available, the latter feeding those systems with an ever-broadening stream of real-time data and transaction history. The trapped value to be released is tied to the current lack of user empowerment in the moment of engagement. That is, while predictive AI has for some time been able to come up with the right answers, most professionals are unable to access that help in real-time; and while ML and AI could be fed some of the data it craves, much more was trapped in data silos and thus not available in any timely manner. As a consequence, although we have had business intelligence for some time, we have largely been unable to translate it into operational intelligence in a scaled way.

There is one final point to make at the macro level before we transition to major account selling. How does releasing trapped value translate into customer return on investment, and how does that in turn help vendors set a good price? Here’s the deal. If you help your customer release a dollar of trapped value, they are happy to give you a dime. If you ask for fifteen cents, they hesitate, if you ask for twenty cents, they begin to think you’re gouging. So, let’s use ten percent to set our sights if for no other reason than it makes the math easier. The equation is simple. You want a million-dollar deal? Find a way to release ten million dollars of trapped value. You want a ten-million-dollar deal? Find a way to release a hundred million dollars worth. You want a hundred-million-dollar deal? Find a way to release one billion dollars in trapped value. Yes, these are very large numbers, but the larger the target enterprise, the more plausible they become, so this playbook is directed toward the Global 2000 and the public sector, two places where billions of dollars of trapped value are commonplace.

Creating the multi-million-dollar deal

So much for the macro level. Multi-million-dollar don’t happen there. They happen at the level of specific accounts, in specific industries, in specific geographies, at specific points in time. The question we need to answer is, how does trapped value show up locally?

It turns out this is a tough question to answer. After all, it is not as if your prospects haven’t been trying to improve their productivity already. Nonetheless, simply by asking the question from an outsider’s perspective, and by being intellectually curious as to where the real answers might lie, account teams can bring unique value-add to their target customers. Specifically, they can help construct a trapped value map.

A trapped value map is analogous to what oil companies create when their exploration & production divisions are prospecting for petroleum reservoirs. It’s very expensive to come up empty in that business, and so they invest considerably in seismic studies before they commit. By contrast, how many sales interactions have you witnessed where the team, to stick with the oil industry analogy, begins by presenting their drilling history, then demos their oil rigs, and then, because they always want to be closing, asks the prospect when they can get started drilling? They call it “solution selling,” but they don’t even know what the problem is.

Co-creating a trapped-value map

The goal is to co-create this map with your target customer. They are stuck, so they need you to help them get unstuck. But you need them too, not only because they have the domain knowledge as to where the bodies are buried, but also because it is their buy-in that will drive the deal. Both of you need to bring imagination, intellectual curiosity, and attention to detail to this effort because it won’t be easy. Wherever the trapped value is, it is not obvious, or it would have already been detected and dealt with.

One way to start the journey is to begin by just asking people. You want to engage with a cross-section of managers, work teams, and executives. In each case, the dialog is informal, the questions you pose are open-ended. Start with “What is working well?” Be sure to capture their answers because this is the stuff you will likely want to protect. Then move on to, “What is holding you back?” Sometimes they know and can tell you, sometimes they know but are reluctant to tell you, and sometimes you just have to hold up a mirror so they can see it for themselves. Regardless, you need to spend time walking in their shoes, observing what they do, inspecting the way they are using their systems, and just as importantly, how their systems are using them. You need to bring a beginner’s mind and design thinking to develop a fresh perspective that could support taking novel actions. Specifically, you are looking for the intersection of their trapped value with your disruptive innovation, the one that will release the trapped value, the place where you will drill for oil.

To give you a closer look at the work involved, here is an outline for a typical trapped value discovery workshop:

Kickoff

  • Explain the concept of releasing trapped value as the foundation for ROI.
  • Use the example of Amazon Prime as compared with brick-and-mortar retail, or the example of Amazon Web Services as compared with enterprise data centers.
  • Share personal experiences of trapped value—e.g. stuff that gets in the way of you doing your best work or getting things done expeditiously.

Brainstorm trapped-value bottlenecks in your enterprise’s operating model from multiple points of view, including those of:

  • A customer
  • A customer-facing employee
  • An internal-facing employee
  • A partner
  • An investor

Identify bottlenecks in your overall industry’s operating model, examining things like:

  • Resource-consuming regulatory regimes
  • Fragmented installed bases
  • Locked-in customers
  • Process steps that add more cost than value
  • Dropped connections due to latency delay
  • “Brittle” communication mechanisms that cause outages
  • Absence of telemetry and lack of available data
  • Prioritization disconnects leading to poor implementations

Prioritize bottlenecks in terms of potential ROI from removing them:

  • Target the “big rocks”
  • Don’t “major in minors”
  • Don’t try to solve these problems yet
  • Do try to quantify them and put them in rank order

Double-click on the top priority items:

  • Employ a “Five Whys?” approach to begin to get at root causes.
  • Identify “interventions” that could materially improve things.
  • Discuss past attempts that may not have succeeded.
  • Discuss the potential impact a disruptive technology could have
  • Discuss customer examples or war stories that reflect successes.

Summarize and outline next steps.

Sometimes you may find that the trapped value is glaringly obvious, but that might just mean you don’t really understand the trap. In other words, if the right answer is staring everyone in the face, but no one is doing anything about it, then it is likely for some reason there is no permission to pursue it. It may be political, it may be cultural, but intransigent resistance to change is at least part of the problem. Now, do you still want your multi-million-dollar deal? Well then, you not only will have to break the bottleneck at the operational level, you’ll have to solve for the change management problem as well.

That said, keep in mind that your goal at this point is not to solve the problem. Rather, it is to understand it deeply. You are doing diagnosis, not prescription. Eventually, you will convert to prescription, but know that when you do, you will also be capping the size of the deal. That is, one of the barriers to closing a multi-million-dollar deal is to close a million dollar deal instead. Everything has to close eventually, and sometimes the right thing to do is to take the million dollar deal (or the one hundred thousand dollar deal, or even the ten thousand dollar deal) today, and kick the multi-million can down the road. But don’t kid yourself. You don’t get a lot of bites at the apple, and the probability is, once you have set your price envelope, it will not get expanded any time soon.

The trapped value map, by contrast, represents an open-ended narrative, one that can be taken on in chapters, with more to come. At present, we don’t know what the answers will be. Nobody does. We are just assessing whether the problem is material enough to spend the time, talent, and management attention necessary to come up with a feasible solution. Facilitating this assessment is a gift that the account team can bring to the prospect. When conducted with integrity and skill, it positions your company as a trusted advisor, regardless of whether this particular effort bears fruit or not. That’s because you and the customer have been sitting on the same side of the table, working together to co-create something that uniquely describes their challenges in a way that makes them more actionable to address.

Transitioning to the Proposal: Co-creating a V2MOM

A great way to transition from the trapped value map to a full-on proposal is to use the V2MOM framework as a template for getting everyone on the same page. Working one-on-one with your customer sponsor, or in an ideation workshop with a small customer team, address the following:

  • Vision. What is the outcome we are seeking to bring about? Where is the trapped value today? What will things look like once the trapped value has been released? Why is this a big deal?
  • Values. What values get realized if we accomplish our vision? One of these should highlight the financial ROI, but the others can be more qualitative. Will this effort improve our ability to deliver on our mission? Will it help us fulfill one of our brand promises? Will it free our workforce to be more effective? Will it help us recruit and retain the talent we need?
  • Methods. What are all the things we have to get done in order to secure the outcome promised by our vision? The goal here is to describe the whole product, which includes not only whatever products and services are funded by the proposal but also any other deliverables from partners or from the customer team itself that will be required to achieve the desired outcome.
  • Obstacles. For each method in the whole product, what are the challenges we anticipate having to overcome? What is our current thinking about how we will do so?
  • Measures. What are the measures that will confirm we are realizing the outcome promised in our vision? What are the intermediate milestones that will ensure we are progressing toward that goal in a timely fashion?

It is hard to overestimate the positive impact of doing this work with the customer prior to developing a proposal. Not only does it get everyone on the same side of the table, all pulling together, but the level of confidence that the vision can be achieved goes way up, as does the sense of inclusion resulting from simply being heard.

Converting the V2MOM into a formal proposal

Creating major proposals is something account teams do for a living, so we don’t need to address all that here. What is needed, however, is a playbook that constructs that proposal from the outside in rather than from the inside out.

Bad proposals are all about you. They are inside-out presentations and documents that explain what a great company you are, how wonderful your products are, how many references and endorsements you have, why you are so superior to the competition, and why all those bad things they say about you aren’t true. Just remember one thing — nobody cares!

Great proposals, on the other hand, are all about the customer:

  • They start with grounding everyone in the problem to be solved or the opportunity to be captured. They do so in an authentic way that is neither slanted nor self-serving but genuinely positions the customer to make good, if challenging, choices.
  • They “size the prize.” The co-creation team gives its best assessment of the trapped-value costs it seeks to eliminate as well as the unrealized gains it seeks to achieve. Taken together these constitute the targeted ROI and set the 10X mark for positioning a fair price for the solution.
  • They map the solution to the problem, not the other way around. Each plank in the proposal has a clear reason to be, all based on releasing trapped value.
  • They address the whole product, focusing on the sold products and services, but also including both the roles of partners and allies and their responsibilities to the customers themselves, thereby giving the customer a complete picture of what it will take to succeed.
  • They position the proposed solution relative to reference competitors who represent the best alternatives to what is being proposed. These alternatives are honored for what they are. At the same time, the proposal makes clear why they fall short and why what is being proposed is preferable instead.

Building a Stairway to Heaven

Multi-million-dollar deals have grandiose objectives that capture the minds and hearts of visionaries, raise skeptical hackles with pragmatists, and scare the pants off of conservatives. Getting them funded normally requires building a coalition of the willing across all three constituencies. The framework for so doing is called a stairway to heaven.

Here’s the framework:

Capitalizing on Disruption

The point of the framework is that all four steps will play a part in capturing the total ROI from the proposal. Conservative personas will be most interested in the bottom stair, pragmatists under duress, the second one up, pragmatists with options, the third, and visionaries, the topmost. To build the kind of coalition of the willingness necessary to fund a multi-million dollar deal, you meet with as many key stakeholders one-on-one as you can, directing their attention to the stair that is of most interest to them, and showing how the plan will meet their needs, when and where that stair is expected to be addressed, and what measures will verify and validate that this has been achieved.

Conclusion

Freud is famous for saying, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” The same is true of frameworks. By themselves they achieve nothing. People do all the work. But people can often work at cross purposes not only for each other but for their intended objectives as well. Good frameworks can help them align to be more effective, and with that thought in mind, let me wish you and your team great success.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Image Credit: Pexels, Geoffrey Moore

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Entrepreneurial Efforts Must Fit with the Brand

Entrepreneurial Efforts Must Fit with the Brand

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

To meet ever-increasing growth objectives, established companies want to be more entrepreneurial. And the thinking goes like this – launch new products and services to create new markets, do it quickly and do it on a shoestring. Do that Lean Startup thing. Build minimum viable prototypes (MVPs), show them to customers, incorporate their feedback, make new MVPs, show them again, and then thoselaunch.

For software products, that may work well, largely because it takes little time to create MVPs, customers can try the products without meeting face-to-face and updating the code doesn’t take all that long. But for products and services that require new hardware, actual hardware, it’s a different story. New hardware takes a long time to invent, a long time to convert into an MVP, a long time to show customers and a long time to incorporate feedback. Creating new hardware and launching quickly in an entrepreneurial way don’t belong in the same sentence, unless there’s no new hardware.

For hardware, don’t think smartphones, think autonomous cars. And how’s that going for Google and the other software companies? As it turns out, it seems that designing hardware and software are different. Yes, there’s a whole lot of software in there, but there’s also a whole lot of new sensor systems (hardware). And, what complicates things further is that it’s all packed into an integrated system of subsystems where the hardware and software must cooperate to make the good things happen. And, when the consequences of a failure are severe, it’s more important to work out the bugs.

And that’s the rub with entrepreneurship and an established brand. For quick adoption, there’s strong desire to leverage the established brand – GM, Ford, BMW – but the output of the entrepreneurial work (new product or service) has to fit with the brand. GM can’t launch something that’s half-baked with the promise to fix it later. Ford can come out with a new app that is clunky and communicates intermittently with their hardware (cars) because it will reflect poorly on all their products. In short, they’ll sell fewer cars. And BMW can’t come out with an entrepreneurial all-electric car that handles poorly and is slow off the start. If they do, they’ll sell fewer cars. If you’re an established company with an established brand, the output of your entrepreneurial work must fit with the established brand.

If you’re a software startup, launch it when it’s half-baked and fix it later, as long as no one will die when it flakes out. And because it’s software, iterate early and often. And, there’s no need to worry about what it will do to the brand, because you haven’t created it yet. But if you’re a hardware startup, be careful not to launch before it’s ready because you won’t be able to move quickly and you’ll be stuck with your entrepreneurial work for longer than you want. Maybe, even long enough to sink the brand before it ever learned to swim. Developing hardware is slow. And developing robust hardware-software systems is far slower.

If you’re an established company with an established brand, tread lightly with that Lean Startup thing, even when it’s just software. An entrepreneurial software product that works poorly can take down the brand, if, of course, your brand stands for robust, predictable, value and safety. And if the entrepreneurial product relies on new hardware, be doubly careful. If it goes belly-up, it will be slow to go away and will put a lot of pressure on that wonderful brand you took so long to build.

If you’re an established brand, it may be best to buy your entrepreneurial products and services from the startups that took the risk and made it happen. That way you can buy their successful track record and stand it on the shoulders of your hard-won brand.

Image credit: Slashgear.com

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Unlocking Trapped Value from the Technology Adoption Lifecycle

Unlocking Trapped Value from the Technology Adoption Lifecycle

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

For some time now I have been making the case that investment decisions, be they made by customers engaging with a new product and vendor or private equity firms backing a new technology and entrepreneur, should begin with finding the intersection between the innovation at hand and a pool of trapped value it can release, thereby creating the return on investment. That said, one of the core principles of investing is called risk-adjusted returns, meaning that the greater the risk you take, the higher the return needs to be. My expertise is in the risks related to technology adoption, where the risk factors change over the course of a new technology’s deployment. With that thought in mind, here is how the trapped value thesis needs to risk-adjust to adapt:

  • Early Market: very high technology adoption risk. The prize here has to be quite large indeed. Typically it will come in one of two forms. For B2B investments, it will be like an oil reservoir that, if tapped correctly, will produce a gusher. Regulated industries have pockets of trapped value all over the place that fit the bill. Also, industries like automotive and real estate, which are restructuring their relationships with dealers and agents, would qualify. By contrast, B2C investments tap into trapped value that looks more like shale oil—no deep pockets, but incredibly broad presence. Media, transportation, and hospitality have funded extraordinary returns for Netflix, Uber, and Airbnb, not because the trapped value was severe but because it was so pervasive. The point is, early-stage venture investing needs to target home-run bets to warrant the risks it takes. Same goes for visionary customers in B2B markets who are the early adopters of these technologies. They are taking on significant risk so they need to be targeting outstanding rewards.
  • Crossing the Chasm: high technology adoption risk, but readily mitigated. The challenge here is that the technology has great potential for any number of use cases but needs some additional support in every case to achieve the desired end result. The chasm-crossing playbook focuses on a single use case in a single industry and geography in order to create a killer “whole product” that nails the use case and to build a coalition of customer references and partner successes that will keep the market growing even as the technology vendor expands into other segments. Here the trapped value should be intense but narrowly confined, designed to meet three critical success factors:
    1. Big enough to matter (it should be able to generate 10X your current year’s billings target)
    2. Small enough to lead (if you crush your plans, you should get 50% segment share)
    3. Good fit with your crown jewels (if you win, nobody is going to displace you).

    As you can see, there is risk here, but it is manageable through market focus and disciplined execution, the key risk reduction factor being how compelling is the customer’s reason to buy.

  • Bowling Alley: modest adoption risk. The challenge here is to expand beyond your first “beachhead” vertical into adjacent use cases with the same segment as well as adjacent segments with the same use case. Part of the source of reduced risk is that you have a working playbook from the first vertical. Much of the source, however, comes from the emergence of local ecosystems of partners who complete the whole product solutions for each use case. These partners make their living supplementing the technology vendor’s product or platform, and their extra talent, domain expertise, and segment focus represent a major risk reduction. As a result, the trapped value rewards have a lower hurdle to clear to garner investor interest and customer buy-in.
  • Tornado: low adoption risk. The risk here is the opposite—getting left behind as the world embraces the shift to a new normal. The trapped value that drives a tornado is released by “killer apps.” These apps may not release the most trapped value, but they represent a sure winner to start with, making the buying decision a no-brainer. The point is, if you want to get any traction in the tornado, you have to lead with a killer app, a no-regrets offering that delivers simple-to-consume rewards and gets everyone onto the new platform. That means the trapped value must be easy to target and the value of releasing it must be obvious to all, especially to the end users who will be the prime beneficiaries.
  • Main Street: very low adoption risk. The primary adoption challenge here is converting conservative end users who simply do not want to switch to yet another new technology. The trapped value now exists in nuisances, little bits of inefficiency that have workarounds but are annoying. From the point of view of productivity, the cost savings from eliminating them are minimal. But in terms of the user experience, as well as customer satisfaction, the impact can be substantial. B2C enterprises spend most of their R&D here focused either on eliminating “hygiene” issues or innovating with new “delighters,” both of which can increase demand, the cornerstone for volume operations success. B2B enterprises use six-sigma analytics to scout their value chains for bottlenecks that increase latency, something that adds risk without adding value, and frustrates even their most loyal customers.

The key takeaway is that there are different kinds of trapped value, each occupying a different sweet spot in the Technology Adoption Life Cycle. As a vendor and potential leader of a go-to-market ecosystem, you must be crystal clear about the kind of trapped value you are targeting, the kind of risk-taking it warrants, and the kinds of solutions that will get the most traction.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Image Credit: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.