Universe of Experience

Much of what I've read lately about customer experience seems to focus almost exclusively on two phases - the acquisition process and the period of ownership.   I can't disagree that these are likely the two most important parts of  the entire universe of experience that exists between brand and consumer, but it also seems to me that a great deal is left out.

The brand contact during the period of acquisition seems to be of greatest interest to firms, as it leads to their most treasured moment: the moment at which the consumer gives them money.  There are those who distance themselves from the mercenary aspect of business, and feel the desire to get money debases what they do - but there's really no getting around it: revenue is the critical factor for companies.  Even those who want to sweep it aside and talk about the benefit customers get from their product put a great deal of effort into getting the customer to buy it in the first place.   Revenue is even a critical factor for nonprofits, some of which seem far more concerned with appealing to donors than to achieving the social good ... but that's chasing a diversion a little further.

Switch back: there is disparity between the interest of buyer and seller in even the two most obvious periods of experience: the seller is more attentive to the a pre-sale experience (from getting known through the purchasing flow) whereas the buyer is more focused on the post-sale experience (owning and using the product).   There is some overlap - sellers recognize the post-sale experience is significant to getting repeat business and buyers find some value in a pleasant pre-sale experience.

But even at that, these two perspectives seem focused on a very narrow part of the broader brand experience.   When a customer notices a story in the media about the firm that provides a brand, that is part of their experience.   When a customer sees or interacts with another person who is a consumer of the same brand, that is part of their experience.   When a customer sees a discarded packaging in which a product once was contained, that is a part of their experience.   When a customer discards a worn-out product, that too is part of their experience.

Some these experiences/touchpoints derive from the acquisition and ownership periods, but others do not, and as such, they receive little attention - but each of them contributes in some way to the customer's overall conception of the brand, and I think they have the potential to do so in such a significant way that they merit greater consideration.

I feel I'm unraveling at this point - though  likely I never got raveled in the first place - thoughts popping up about the various incidents in this broader concept of experience.  Likely pouring them out in a stream-of-consciousness fashion is unlikely to be useful or remotely interesting, so I'll end this and begin compiling a list, perhaps to post it here when it's more developed and organized.

Product Value Versus Acquisition Experience

I had a frustrating conversation with a half-witted colleague about the difference between the value delivered by a product and the value of a pleasant acquisition process.   Perhaps "half-witted" is harsh - he was a young guy with a few years of experience, at the level of proficiency where he knows enough to think he knows everything, and it may be a while before humility sets in and he sorts things out.  I hope it will happen before he does much serious damage or annoys too many people.

The point of contention was this: he considered the acquisition process to be part of the product, rather than a part of the acquisition cost.  In effect, if you can make the acquisition process pleasant or entertaining, the product itself doesn't need to deliver value to the buyer.   This is not a unique perspective, as I've heard it from more seasoned individuals who ought to know better, as well as executives who recognize that it's cheaper and easier to improve the acquisition process than to improve the product's actual value.  And it's poison.

Taken to its logical extremes, this means that such a person would feel justified in delivering a product that offers no benefit whatsoever to the buyer, but who nonetheless purchases it because the shopping and buying experience is so engaging that they pay no attention to the fact that what they are buying is essentially worthless.   This is exactly what swindlers and con-artists do, and I don't think it's an exaggeration to suggest that it is thoroughly unethical.

As such,  there is considerable danger in attempting to combine two things that ought to be kept separate, such that we pursue success in both regards rather than considering one to be a substitute for the other.   We want the customer to find the acquisition process to be pleasant, or at least as non-unpleasant as we can offer; but ultimately the function a company serves is to provide them a product or service that delivers an actual benefit.

Even as a customer experience practitioner, I must admit that the value the customer derives from the product is far more important than the pleasure they take from the acquisition process - and if any compromise is to be made, a more difficult acquisition for a more valuable product is to be preferred over a more pleasant acquisition process for a less valuable product - at least if we're to have any claim that our ultimate interest is serving the best interests of the customer rather than conning them out of their money for a product that delivers no value.

This is often seen in frivolous commercial products that attempt, through advertising, to generate a level of enthusiasm that leads them to purchase a product that they will later realize is junk.   They may waste a little cash, or in some instances quite a lot of it, and hopefully learn to distrust advertising. In other instances, the consequences are not so trivial - to be encouraged to make a disastrous investment with your retirement fund, to be encouraged to take medication that is a placebo with serious side effects, and the like.  When we create the thrill of anticipation, along with a quick-and-easy process for acquisition, we are doing harm.   And when we equivocate or suggest that the acquisition process is a substitute for product value, we intend to continue doing so.

Perhaps there's the counter argument of "a fool and his money," and I don't think I can deny that - but when we advocate making fools of people for the sake of parting them from their money, we can no longer claim innocence from the consequences.

Prospect-to-Customer Transition

I'm mulling over two contradictory arguments about how to manage the experience when a prospect becomes a customer - there seems to be some merit to each approach.

One argument favors a consistency of experience, on the reasonable assertion that when a prospect makes a purchase and becomes a customer, the experience he had during the buying process sets expectations that must be met in the period of ownership.   Any difference between the two results in cognitive dissonance, though if the customer experience is better than the prospect experience, it is a pleasant surprise rather than a disappointment.

Another argument suggests an evolution of experience, on the likewise reasonable assertion that a person who is considering purchase is experiencing different emotions (anticipation) and considering different factors (cost) than a person who has already purchased the product.  As such, there must be an evolution of the experience to be appropriate to the situation in which the prospect-then-customer finds himself.

I have generally leaned toward the argument in favor of consistency.  It seems sensible and far more practical to have a unified sense of a brand that appeals both before and after the purchase event - and especially considering that a customer who has purchased is a prospect for another sale (a cross-sell or a restock), it seems sensible to court that state of mind consistently.  But I can't deny the sensibility of the second argument, especially since the period of ownership is longer (depending on the good in question) than the period of anticipation prior to ownership, and is likewise different in its nature.

It is also more likely that a prospect-specific appeal, as opposed to the consistent appeal, is more adaptable.   That is, if you have a consistent experience, you likely make the assumption (and possibly the mistake) that the same things that cause a person who has experience with your brand or product will be appealing to a person who has no experience with it - the reason they make the purchase is to transition themselves to the happy end-state in which a current consumer exists.

Meanwhile, you are limited to appealing to a specific market segment - that which matches the customers you already have - and relying on the body of prospects to reason for themselves that consumership is a desired end-state to achieve.   If you instead consider the prospect to be different to the customer, you can have a singular ownership experience, but tailor appeals to the specific interests of prospects, who may bring different desires or expectation than your present customers - and moreover, once they have purchased the product and experienced ownership or consumption, it is likely that the expectations of prospects will align to those of consumers.

I don't think there can be a full resolution - though I suspect that there are certain areas of overlap.  That is, some expectations are exclusive to the prospect, others are exclusive to the experienced consumer, and a third set is common to both groups.   So long as the area of overlap is sufficient, it is likely that this will enable prospects to transition into consumers, shedding prospect-exclusive interests and adopting consumer-exclusive ones, with the common factors to facilitate their evolution from one to the other.

All of this seems abstract, and in attempting to concretize it by way of an example has done nothing to resolve the differences - what I've arrived at is the notion that it depends on the idiosyncrasies of a product and the manner in which it is used by a given customer segment.   Some products seem to lend themselves to the consistent strategy, others to the evolutionary strategy.

The only generalization I feel safe making at this point is that the duration of ownership experience is likely a factor.   For products that are consumed quickly (food items, for example) consistency of the prospect and consumer experiences seems to be the better course because the short duration of ownership does not provide ample time for the prospect/consumer to change his expectations, whereas products with a longer period of ownership (an automobile or major appliance) provide, and perhaps even require, a transition to be made because the product will remain in the owner's experience long after the experience he had as a prospect is forgotten.