CX report warns 51% of customers don’t even report bad experiences
In financial services, particularly in South Africa, that raises an important question - what should a better customer experience actually enable people to do?
Five years ago, customer service and customer experience were often discussed as if they were the same thing. That distinction now feels settled. Even AI has moved on from being treated as the next big idea. It is here, organisations are using it, and the conversation has become more practical.
For years, we have built the case for CX around Net Promoter Score (NPS), Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT), and Customer Effort. They are useful, but improving the score alone cannot be the end result.
The score should start the conversation
I increasingly see NPS and CSAT as early indicators. If CSAT improves in a service environment, I want to understand what changed underneath it. Were more queries resolved at the first interaction? Did customers get an answer faster? Those are changes an operational team can influence.
The 2026 South African Customer Experience Report found that after a poor experience, only 51% of respondents would give a negative survey score that accurately reflected how they felt. The remainder would soften or withhold that negative feedback.
The report also found that 81% of respondents had experienced a negative interaction in the previous 12 months, while public complaints have fallen sharply. Fewer complaints do not necessarily mean happier customers. Some may simply have stopped engaging with the business.
Follow the behaviour
A survey tells us what a customer was prepared to say. Behaviour tells us what happened afterwards. In financial services, I want to know whether people are completing the journey and using the product once they have access to it. Over time, we also need to understand whether they remain active because it continues to work for them.
Once those links become clearer, the CX conversation can move into the language a CEO or CFO already understands, including revenue, cost, risk, and lifetime value.
That does not mean forcing a rand value onto every interaction. It means being clear about which business outcomes CX aims to influence and showing how changes in the experience contributed to them.
I have seen businesses put the customer first until revenue comes under pressure. That is often when the customer needs more attention. If people are leaving or buying less, the experience is part of the commercial problem.
CX cannot belong to one department
The CX team does not control every part of the customer experience. Product, technology, operations, marketing, and service all play a role, but the customer sees one business. That makes it difficult to ask one CX team to own a score while the levers behind it sit elsewhere.
Each team should be able to see what its work changes for the customer and for the business. Better service might mean fewer repeat queries. A simpler product journey might mean more customers complete it.
Financial services make the connection clearer
This becomes especially important in financial services. A better experience can make it easier for more people to access financial services, complete the journey, and use the product once they get there.
Digital friction can be enough to stop someone from completing an application or transaction. The experience also affects whether customers can access other products as their financial needs change. Making those journeys simpler can reduce the effort for customers and the cost of serving them.
