The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0309-0566.htm

Reimagining
Reimagining customer service customer
through journey mapping and service

measurement
Charles H. Patti 2387
School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, and Received 1 July 2019
Revised 3 January 2020
Accepted 7 January 2020
Maria M. van Dessel and Steven W. Hartley
Department of Marketing, Daniels College of Business,
University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA

Abstract
Purpose – How can customer service be so bad in an era when companies collect endless data on customer
interactions? The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the important challenge of elevating customer
service delivery by providing guidelines for when and how to select optimal measures of customer service
measurement using a new decision framework.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses a comprehensive, multi-dimensional review of extant
literature related to customer service, journey mapping and performance measurement and applied a
qualitative, taxonomic approach for model development.
Findings – A process model and customer journey mapping framework can facilitate the selection and
application of appropriate and relevant customer service experience metrics to enhance customer service
experience strategies, creation and delivery.
Research limitations/implications – The taxonomy of customer service metrics is limited to current
publicly and commercially available metrics. The dynamic nature of the customer service environment
necessitates continuous updates of the model and framework.
Practical implications – Selection of customer service performance measures should match relevant
stages of the customer journey; use perception-based, operational and outcome-based metrics that track
employee and customer behaviours; improve omni-channel measurement; and integrate data-sharing and
benchmark measurement initiatives through collaboration with customer service communities.
Originality/value – A reimagined perspective is offered to the complex challenge of measuring and
improving customer service, providing a new decision-making framework for customer service experience
measurement and guidance for future research.
Keywords Customer service, Customer service experience (CSX), Customer experience (CX),
Customer service experience measurement (CSXm), Customer journey mapping (CJM),
Customer satisfaction (CSAT), Net promoter score (NPS)
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction: challenges for customer service

Value creation is the underlying principle of many transactional models and a source of
competitive advantage. A critical task of marketing strategy and thought is understanding
what customers value in different contexts and how to shape customer value creation European Journal of Marketing
strategies in particular contexts (Smith and Colgate, 2007). Increasingly, institutions rely on Vol. 54 No. 10, 2020
pp. 2387-2417
processes that create, communicate and deliver offerings that have value to the growing © Emerald Publishing Limited
0309-0566
variety of constituent groups. Most basic to value creation efforts is the element of customer DOI 10.1108/EJM-07-2019-0556
EJM service. Conventional wisdom suggests that good customer service ensures customer
54,10 satisfaction, leading to customer loyalty and positive performance on sales, market share
and profitability metrics. As a result, many experts advocate substantial investments in
contact centres, self-service, frontline employee training and development (in-person),
mobile apps, live chat/chatbots and other forms of customer service to improve efficiency,
cost-effectiveness and quality of customer-facing operations (Dixon, 2018; Dixon et al., 2017).
2388 Nevertheless, despite significant investment in customer service initiatives – to the tune
of more than $350bn each year – “people generally hate contacting customer service”
because of the misery and effort involved for customers (Morgan, 2017).

1.1 The customer service challenge

Despite the widespread importance of customer service – and the expenditures related to its
improvement – there is substantial criticism of current customer service practices and the
customer experiences they create (McGovern, 2017; Paquette, 2018; Swinscoe, 2015).
Common among customer complaints is the difficulty of reaching a service representative,
representatives’ lack of knowledge about and respect for customers, the inefficiency of
online and mobile customer service tools and the frustration created by attempts to scale
customer service with artificial intelligence applications. The explanation for this
circumstance is not readily apparent although a recent article simply suggests that customer
service is so bad because it is “profitable” (Dukes and Zhu, 2019). That is, the absence of
good customer service prevents many customers from returning products or obtaining
reimbursements. Further, many companies in industries with consistently low customer
service ratings (e.g. airlines, cable and satellite TV operators, insurance and telephone
services) do not typically experience a substantial negative financial impact as a result of
poor customer service.
A more robust perspective, however, acknowledges several other issues that contribute
to the actual and perceived condition of customer service. First, the state of customer service,
in terms of delivery and outcomes, is typically described by observational generalisations,
such as “our service is improving” and “we have a strong service history,” that do not often
capture many of the details of service interactions. Second, the relationships between service
quality measurements (e.g. call wait-time) and satisfaction, loyalty and advocacy are largely
intuitive. Third, the relationship between customer service experience (CSX)[1] and a
customer’s perception of value does not occur as a linear value chain process. According to a
study that investigated the relationship between CSX and perceived value, “[. . .] an analysis
of customer service experience cannot be restricted [to a] single customer service experience
[s] alone as each service experience is impacted and influenced by previous customer service
experiences” (Helkkula and Kelleher, 2010, p. 49). Therefore, evaluation and measurement of
CSX are critical to designing future CSX strategies, creation and delivery. Finally, a
comprehensive model of customer service experience measurement (CSXm), particularly in
the context of today’s complicated customer journeys, is not available.
The Marketing Science Institute (MSI) recognised the marketplace problems related to
poor customer service and customer experience when setting the 2018-2020 Research
Priorities that guide research activities for the next few years (Marketing Science Institute,
2019). For example, Research Priority 1, Cultivating the Customer Asset, specifically
identifies “Characterizing the Customer Journey along the Purchase Funnel and Strategies to
Influence the Journey” as a key research focus. In addition, Research Priority 4, Capturing
Information to Fuel Growth, highlights the ongoing importance of using data, such as key
performance indices (KPIs)/metrics, to improve experiences for customers and financial
outcomes for companies. This paper addresses these two research priorities through the lens Reimagining
of CSX. customer
service
1.2 The customer service opportunity
The above discussion suggests that an opportunity for improving customer service exists
through improvements in CSXm. Because customer information helps drive the
creation and delivery of CSX, a major driver of service improvement is service
performance data (Umashankar et al., 2017; Spencer-Mathews and Lawley, 2006).
2389
The measurement of customer service has been a part of marketing practice for
decades; however, changes in the marketplace and in our understanding of customers
are transforming the face of customer service. The marketplace changes include:
technology-mediated service environments and the expansion of self-service
(Froehle and Roth, 2004; Reinders et al., 2015); the increase in the use of artificial
intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), augmented reality (AR) and automation to
improve efficiency and reduce labour costs (Weber, 2019; Acuant, 2019); and the
proliferation of omni-channel usage (Faulds et al., 2018; Yrjölä et al., 2018). In addition,
changes related to customers include the widespread adoption of the customer
experience paradigm, increased interest in marketing accountability and the re-
emergence of customer journey mapping (CJM). These changes call for a new
perspective on CSXm and an underlying framework for measuring performance (Bititci
et al., 2012). As shown in Figure 1, the combination of the dynamic marketplace and the
complex nature of factors influencing our understanding of customers impacts the role
of CSX creation, delivery and measurement.

2. Objectives and contributions

This paper contributes to the increasingly important challenge of CSXm through the
development of a taxonomy of CSX metrics and a three-stage process model to
facilitate their selection and application. In addition, the paper stimulates scholarly

Figure 1.
Conceptual model to
address changes to
value creation in
customer service
EJM discussion on the relationships among current and foreseeable marketplace changes,
54,10 CSXm and CSX improvements. Our approach to CSX improvement resides within the
measurement area of a closed loop CSX evaluation process, as shown in Figure 1.
Specifically, this paper contributes to marketing theory and practice by providing:

a six-element inventory and analysis of 23 CSX metrics that includes: metric source,
description, empirical evidence, scale/method, advantages and disadvantages;
2390
a call for new CSX metrics that track efficiency, quality, satisfaction – across all
industry sectors, as well as attitudinal and behavioural dimensions of customers
and customer-facing employees;

identification of new foundations of CSXm that integrate stages of CJM (pre-
purchase, purchase and post-purchase) and three types of CSX metrics (perception-
based, operational and outcome-based) (Figure 2). This foundation provides
guidelines for how and when to select optimal measure of CSX using a CSXm
decision framework;

a call for improved implementation that reflects challenges in the emerging omni-
channel, customer contact environment through understanding new technologies,
self-service models and team approaches to CSXm; and

suggestions for the next phase of CSXm development through stronger
collaboration between the professional and academic communities.

The overall objective is to contribute to the scholarly and practitioner discourse regarding
how to improve CSX, thereby providing value to companies as they build positive, long-term
relationships with customers and to the academic community’s pursuit of service and
experience conceptual development.

3. Research method
This paper presents a comprehensive, multi-dimensional examination of well-established
and widely used CSX metrics. The analysis and conclusions are derived from a literature
review, supplemented with observations and insights on CSXm activities drawn from
companies in diverse industry sectors. These two information sources led to the presented
taxonomy, proposed measurement decision models and summary observations.
As interest in CSX has accelerated, so has the need to better understand influences on
customers’ decision-making and their journeys through the buying process. Descriptions
of customer decision paths – now known as CJMs – include the many touchpoints where

Figure 2.
Foundations of
CSXm
customers can obtain benefits and companies can create value (Rosenbaum et al., 2017). Reimagining
Together, the increasing interest in CSX and CJM has created a shift of energy and customer
resources, as companies of all sizes and from all industries seek service-driven, competitive
advantages. Nevertheless, managers experience limitations as they search for measurement
service
tools that provide the assessment of the financial and human resource investment in CSX
initiatives. As one analyst explains, “there is a substantial disconnect between the
importance of customer experiences and the capabilities of companies to deliver them”
(Wookey, 2017, p. 3). 2391
Investment in research to measure performance is costly, particularly when ambiguity
exists about which metrics should be used in what situation and where managers lack the
skill to properly implement or interpret their meaning. The inevitable questions about the
financial payoff of CSX performance measures are now being widely discussed and debated
(ICMI.com, 2011; Carter, 2017; Saleh, 2017; Galletto, 2016; Chang et al., 2012). This interest in
payoff is reflected in the recent “big data” revolution that leads companies to collect an
unprecedented volume and variety of customer information. Most companies now
have extensive data about customer demographics, media use, shopping patterns and
purchase behaviours. Yet the application of data for deep understanding of customers, their
purchase journeys and the measurement of CSX has been lacking. Many companies use a
“one size fits all” approach, such as net promoter score (NPS), and apply it to all buying
decisions in every conceivable situation. This approach probably contributes to the low
customer satisfaction scores received in some industries such as airlines and cable providers
(Steimer, 2018) and explains why innovation rates and new product success rates remain
low (Christensen et al., 2016).
In some industries, traditional customer-centric institutions are failing. In the retail
industry, for example, Macy’s, Kohl’s, Dillard’s, J.C. Penney and Nordstrom recently closed
hundreds of stores and collectively lost $4.6bn in market value (Conick, 2017). How can such
an intense focus on customer information collection still result in dissatisfied customers?
Part of the problem is an absence of a guiding framework for selecting and using
appropriate measures of CSX. While many CSX measures are available, they have often
been developed in narrow company and industry settings without a comprehensive
assessment of their relationship to customer choices and to companies’ financial outcomes.

4. Literature review of customer service and customer experience

measurement
4.1 Conceptual relevance of model development: state of customer service experience
measurement
The environment in which businesses operate changed considerably in the past decade, thus
impacting the measurement and management of performance outcomes. For example, in
today’s service environment, businesses take a more holistic view of performance,
integrating financial and non-financial information to assess process performance where
improvements can be made. Considerable research has been undertaken to examine
relationships between various service KPIs and the impact on business outcomes. However,
the need remains to rethink and reshape research in the field of performance measurement
(Bititci et al., 2012).
Despite the growing interest in CSX as a business paradigm, key marketing metrics
reference books do not include sections on customer service or customer experience (Davis,
2018; Bendle et al., 2016). Nevertheless, a review of published studies regarding CSX
identifies a variety of metrics used extensively in the business arena, such as SERVQUAL,
NPS, customer satisfaction measures, first contact resolution (FCR), wait/hold time,
EJM retention rate and customer lifetime value (CLV), among others. While the emergence of
54,10 alternative measures of CSX is encouraging, CSXm maturity requires the development of a
rigorous conceptual, theoretical or empirical analysis of service experience measurement
and its relationship to changes in the marketplace. This paper integrates key constructs of
CSX creation and delivery, CJM and CSX metric types, thus creating a decision-making
framework to facilitate the use of CSXm data to improve service experiences. Details of the
2392 constructs, journey stages and metrics are illustrated in Figure 3.

4.2 Customer service experience creation, delivery and measurement

Designing and managing CSX to create value for customers and companies is based on early
notions that consumption is influenced by many aspects of a product and/or experience
(Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). The popularity of this
perspective provided a substantial literature about specific customer activities and the
related outcomes. However, the tendency to define research questions narrowly has
prevented a comprehensive understanding of the determinants of a positive CSX. A review
by Alba and Williams (2013, p. 3) suggested that research “has yet to produce a full
understanding of when, how, and why customers find pleasure in the products they
experience”. Similarly, Lemon and Verhoef (2016, p. 85) observed that “there is also a dearth
of research on how customer experience can be influenced”. A study of the creation of
service experience in a retailing context suggests that the social environment, the service
interface, the retail brand, atmosphere, assortment, price and prior retail encounters all
contribute to the customer experience (Verhoef et al., 2009). Similarly, a study of the creation
of service experience in an online context suggests that verbal and visual elements, and
combinations of verbal and visual elements, are antecedents of customer experience (Bleier
et al., 2019). The circularity of CSX and customer’s perceived value very much depends on
customers’ specific interests and personal “lifeworld” context (Helkkula and Kelleher, 2010).
Trischler et al. (2018, p. 805) concluded that an analysis of CSX must go beyond service
delivery and consider the value of co-creation, suggesting the use of design methods to
capture “both in-depth insights into the customer’s lifeworld and the complexity of value
constellations”. Another study validated the moderating role of customer engagement when

Figure 3.
A process model of
CSXm
using digital platforms (mobile apps) and the impact on the satisfaction–loyalty relationship Reimagining
(Thakur, 2019). This multi-dimensional concept of “experience” complicates its customer
measurement, resulting in questions about the reliability of “experience” measures on
financial performance.
service

4.3 Customer service experience

The impact of the quality and content of CSX in business situations cannot be emphasised 2393
enough. Poor customer service experiences result in customer churn, lack of brand
advocacy, higher customer acquisition costs and low customer satisfaction scores. The CSX
influence includes all channels through which buyers interact with sellers, (e.g. social media,
advertising, webpages, retail personnel, chat and phone). The shortcomings of call centre
operations – just one communication channel – are well documented. Some of the most
common CSX complaints are related to call centre operations, including not answering calls,
long wait times, incomplete or unsatisfactory responses and long authentication procedures
(Lahrssen, 2014; Cyriac, 2014). A single bad contact centre experience can cause a customer
of a subscription-based business (for example, cable or satellite service, mobile phone
service or insurance) to terminate the relationship. The results are:

loss of the investment required to acquire the subscriber;

loss of the future recurring revenue from the subscriber; and

a large, but unknown, loss of reputation when the dissatisfied subscriber tells others
of the bad experience.

4.4 Customer journey mapping

Creating and delivering CSX requires an understanding of the specific interactions a
customer is likely to face during a transaction. Further, the sequence of the many individual
interactions is likely to influence the overall service experience. Rawson et al. (2013, p. 92)
suggested that “organisations able to skilfully manage the entire experience reap enormous
rewards: enhanced customer satisfaction, reduced churn, increased revenue, and greater
employee satisfaction”. Fortunately, past research on total quality management, customer
contact audits and service blueprints has provided a foundation for developing maps of the
paths customers often follow in making a purchase.
The difficulty of creating an optimal CSX is magnified by the complexity of today’s
customer journeys. While the concept of a customer journey may appear straightforward,
the dynamic nature of today’s multichannel purchase is increasingly complex. Mapping an
end-to-end journey includes multiple sources of information, a variety of functional
processes, operational hand-offs and varying use periods. In addition, each organisation is
likely to identify several key journeys such as new customer acquisition, current customer
repeat purchase or upgrade and dissatisfied customer recovery. Assessing performance at
each touchpoint for each type of journey necessitates a variety of employee and customer
surveys, operational data and integrated models, allowing elemental and global evaluations
that can be displayed in a CSX dashboard. Further, the most useful CJM includes buying
stages, touchpoints, key product/service features, purchase influencers, attitudes and
behaviours and other relevant dimensions identified by the marketer.
For example, energy companies and pay TV providers have identified “moving to a new
address” as a particular customer journey that requires many touchpoints from start to
finish and involves many internal groups from marketing, to sales, to billing and
installation, to customer service. A traditional representation of such a journey would
EJM include five sequential stages: need recognition, information search, alternative evaluation,
54,10 purchase and post-purchase evaluation. However, new perspectives resulting from the
growth of mutual value creation (co-creation) and mobile technologies suggest that the
customer decision process is becoming more holistic and interactive and can be represented
by three stages: pre-purchase, purchase and post-purchase (Faulds et al., 2018; Tynan and
McKechnie, 2009). This perspective acknowledges that customers are always part of a CSX
2394 journey and that the stages represent a continuous process. In addition, this perspective
necessitates attention to the entire decision process rather than focusing on a single element,
or a single outcome, of the journey (Jüttner et al., 2013).

4.5 Customer service experience metrics

A comprehensive assessment of the potential measures of CSX suggest three categories of
metrics:
(1) perception-based;
(2) operational; and
(3) outcome-based.

Perception-based metrics focus on a customer’s self-report of non-observable dimensions

such as loyalty, trust, forgiveness, satisfaction, advocacy and effort. Operational metrics
focus on tangible dimensions of the company-created service activities such as wait and
resolution time. Outcome-based metrics focus on observable customer behaviours such as
retention rate, churn and number of complaints.
A recent industry survey of 468 companies in 15 industries reveals that the most widely
used customer service/customer experience metric is NPS – a measure of advocacy and
loyalty – which was used by 89 per cent of the respondents (Customergauge, 2018). Other
perception-based metrics include the customer satisfaction (CSAT) survey and the customer
effort score (CES) survey. Beyond the widespread use of NPS, the professional view of CSX
metrics is dominated by perception-based options – that is, although other measures are
used, they are not currently viewed as a key metric to evaluate elements of CSX. The
following discussions provide details of each of the CSX metric types.
(1) Perception-based metrics: A variety of scales measure perception-based dimensions of
CSX. NPS is a single-item scale, based on the question “How likely are you to recommend
our company to a friend or colleague?” The NPS score is calculated by subtracting the
percentage of low likelihood respondents from the percentage of high likelihood
respondents. Some research indicates that NPS is a useful indicator of firm growth
(Reichheld, 2003). Alternative perspectives, however, suggest that the metric has limitations
and is not a better predictor than ACSI or other measures (Pingitore et al., 2007; Keiningham
et al., 2007; East et al., 2011). More recently, Schmidt-Subramanian (2019) – a principal
analyst at Forrester Research – stated that NPS is not a reliable proxy to measure CX, as it
measures loyalty, plus identifying CX improvement opportunities is difficult when based on
NPS. Similarly, an HBR article contended “There’s an elegance to a single question. But that
doesn’t mean it’s easy to understand NPS results – or improve them” (Stahlkopf, 2019, p. 5).
Thus, evidence points to the misuse of NPS, along with its failure to provide clear, detailed
or actionable data.
Another commonly used metric is customer satisfaction, which can be measured with a
variety of scales. Among these is the well-established American Customer Satisfaction
Index (ACSI), developed at the National Quality Research Center. The annual survey
includes approximately 180,000 respondents and reports results for more than 300
companies and 44 industries. While the scores can range from 0 to 100, typical high scores Reimagining
for companies include 85 for Toyota and Coca-Cola, and typical high scores for industries customer
include 84 for breweries and soft drinks. Research suggests that increased customer
satisfaction is related to increased customer loyalty and decreased customer complaints
service
(Anderson and Fornell, 2000).
When loyalty is used to describe an attitude about the use of a product, rather than as a
behaviour (e.g. repeat purchase), it is similar to the concept of advocacy (Bobalca and
Tugulea, 2012). The shortcomings in satisfaction and advocacy/loyalty assessment have 2395
increased interest in measuring customer effort. Managers have observed that some
satisfied customers still left a company and some dissatisfied customers would stay with a
company. A potential explanation is that the intention to stay or leave is related to the
amount of effort a customer exerts to solve a problem. Measuring effort allows a company to
assess if their service functions enable customers to conduct their transactions quickly and
easily. Research indicates that excessive effort is a service failure and leads customers to
defect and to negatively influence prospective customers (Dixon et al., 2010). Similarly,
several metrics related to trust or forgiveness are being used to augment other measures of
CSX, by developing better understanding of the negative emotions related to brands and to
solicit input from lost customers.
(2) Operational metrics: Operational metrics represent an important complement to
perception-based metrics. Historically, measures such as average wait time, average
resolution time and per cent of first contact resolution reflect a view of CSX service as a cost
centre (Birnbaum, 2018). They were used primarily to assess the productivity of customer
service agents, and as a result, today’s call (contact) centres use email, live chat, chatbots,
automation and many other innovations to operate more efficiently. As customer service
(also referred to as customer care) has become a part of the broader CSX domain, these
metrics contribute to the overall understanding of a customer’s journey. For example, while
a declining average handle time may indicate improvements in problem resolution,
confirmation should also be reflected in customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics.
Several of the most popular operational metrics are time-based because customers view
time as an important resource and because time has direct cost implications to the company.
Average wait time, for example, measures the amount of time a customer must wait to begin
the problem resolution process. Average resolution time can measure the amount of time
needed to resolve or escalate a problem. Other operational metrics focus agent effectiveness
and efficiency, such as percentage of first call resolutions or the percentage of call escalations.
More advanced operational metrics measure the cost of “saving” the customer and team
metrics (assessing the performance of a team of agents rather than individual agents).
(3) Outcome-based metrics: The general premise behind CSXm is that improvements in
CSX should be reflected in important customer behaviours. These behaviours can be
assessed through a variety of outcome-based metrics. Retention rate, for example, measures
the percentage of customers who remain active buyers over a specified time period.
Similarly, churn rate measures the percentage of customers a business loses. Definitions of
these metrics must be very specific, as the required frequency of activity (e.g. daily, monthly,
annually) can affect the retention calculation and whether a customer is lost to a competitor
or a subsidiary can change the churn calculation. Other outcome-based metrics include
number of complaints, number of incoming calls, profit/sales margin, market share and so
forth.
While these metrics typically use monthly or annual time periods for analysis, customer
lifetime value (CLV) helps assess a customer’s behaviour over a longer period of time. The
CLV metric estimates the present value of future purchases associated with a customer.
EJM Advanced versions of the CLV calculation can estimate profitability, which may increase or
54,10 decrease over time, and account for the number of new customers referred by the original
customer. Use of the CLV metric requires substantial information sources and efforts at
model development. Its application, however, helps optimise marketing and management of
resource allocations (Mzoughia and Limam, 2015).
A summary of key perception-based, operational and outcome-based CSX metrics is
2396 provided in Table I, including a description, methodology, synopsis of advantages and
disadvantages and reference sources, where appropriate formulas, calculations and
procedures for the use of a metric are provided. The metrics included in this table are the
most widely reported and representative of the variety of options available to customer
service practitioners and researchers. Of course, there are many additional measurement
instruments related to constructs such as satisfaction, loyalty, emotion, forgiveness,
advocacy and trust in the public domain. In addition, there are many proprietary measures
currently in use or under development.

5. Integrating and selecting specific customer service experience metrics

The complexity of CSXm requires a process for optimising the selection and integration of
metrics. Each element of the process model described previously in Figure 3 provides
insight and guidance as metrics options are considered. For example, changes in CSX
creation or delivery are likely to lead to changes in CSX that can only be monitored with
specific metrics. In addition, an understanding of the many omnichannel touchpoints in the
customer journey helps identify metrics for specific channel interactions.
Figure 4 provides an initial framework for beginning the process of matching specific
metrics with combinations of the customer journey stages and metric types. The
touchpoints of a comprehensive customer journey map are elements of three general stages:
pre-purchase, purchase and post-purchase. The types of metrics are also likely to align with
the CJM stage-dimension combinations.
Perception-based metrics such as trust may match with any of the stages, while
forgiveness would be used in later stages. Operational metrics are likely to match with the
purchase stage, and outcome-based metrics would follow a purchase. Another consideration
is that some metrics such as satisfaction are often considered backward-looking, while other
metrics such as loyalty are often considered forward-looking. All metrics provide a snapshot
at a point in time regardless of the stage of the journey for a respondent customer. However,
some metrics such as CLV use cross-sectional data to make projections over a long time
period. An advantage of a CSXm program that includes each step of the journey is that it
helps identify touchpoints where potential customers abandon the journey or migrate to
another channel. This enables marketers to engage in “recapture” activities and the
opportunity to salvage relationships severed by defecting customers.
The matching process is influenced by factors such as industry, product category,
product life cycle stage and other unique aspects of a strategic business unit or brand. The
CSX assessment is also likely to evolve over time as new data allow for improvements in the
administration of metrics and the analysis of the data they provide. Combinations of
multiple measures lead to improved predictive capabilities. In addition, customer
expectations change, creating new standards and new performance goals.

6. Summary contributions and moving forward

The growing interest in CSX among researchers and practitioners, along with changes in the
marketplace and the need to better understand customers (Aksoy et al., 2019), call for an
assessment of CSXm and its potential (Bueno et al., 2019). This paper provides a process
Metric Description Methodology Advantages Disadvantages

Dimension: perception-based
SERVQUAL Multi-item scale developed to Represents service quality by Serves as a diagnostic methodology for SERVQUAL model has come
assess customer perceptions of measuring the discrepancy uncovering broad areas of a company’s under extensive criticism by
service quality (performance between a customer’s service quality shortfalls and strengths marketing researchers because of
expectations) in service and expectations for a service Instrument is most valuable when used to the difficulty in replicating its
retail businesses offering and the customer’s periodically track service quality trends dimensions (Buttle, 1996; Cronin
perceptions of the service and when it is used in conjunction with and Taylor, 1992; Babakus and
receive on five constructs: other forms of service quality Boller, 1992; Carmen, 1990)
Tangibles, Reliability, measurement (Parasuraman et al., 1988) Expectations are not necessary in
Responsiveness, Assurance 20-year review of SERVQUAL research the measurement of service
and Empathy (Parasuraman reveals scale remains a useful instrument quality (Cronin and Taylor, 1992)
et al., 1985; 1988; 1991) for service-quality research, despite
extensive criticism (Ladhari, 2009)
American Measures the quality of goods An ACSI score is derived from Represents a cumulative evaluation of a Three-item scale
Customer and services as experienced by three questions: (1) overall firm’s market offering, versus individual Limited diagnostics
Satisfaction customers that consume them. rating of satisfaction; (2) the transactional evaluations Limited relationships with brand
Index (ACSI) The ACSI system estimates a degree to which performance Uses a multiple indicator approach to performance
firm-level customer falls short or exceeds measure overall satisfaction Satisfaction is poor predictor for
satisfaction index for each expectations; and (3) a rating Industry benchmarks – cross-sectionally a firm’s quality (satisfaction can
company in the sample and of performance relative to the and over time be high, while growth and
weights these firm-level customer’s ideal good/product Survey can be customised with additional loyalty remain low) (Reichheld,
indices to calculate industry, or service in category questions 2006)
sector, and national indices Range is 0-100 High satisfaction can increase loyalty, Uses three different types of
(American Customer reduce price elasticities, insulate current items (Rossiter, 2017)
Satisfaction Index, 2018; CFI market share from competitors, lower Goods score higher than services,
Group, 2020) transaction costs, reduce failure costs and while substantial downsizing can
costs to attract new customers, and help skew results (large index
build a firm’s reputation (Anderson et al., declines) (Fornell et al., 1996)
1994) Customer satisfaction is higher in
Improvement in service quality positively industries with a significant level
impacts sales and profit (Fierman, 1995) of competition and differentiation
(Fornell and Johnson, 1993)
(continued)
customer

analyses
Reimagining

identification and
metrics – an
Inventory of CSX
2397
service

Table I.
 EJM
54,10

2398

Table I.
Metric Description Methodology Advantages Disadvantages

Customer The CSAT measures the mean Responses are measured on a Well-established measure (since early Likert scales are subjective and
Satisfaction or average satisfaction score of five-point scale from Very 70s), occupying a central position in may not distinguish between
(CSAT) scale a customer for a specific Unsatisfied to Very Satisfied marketing thought and practice usability and experience
experience Serves as a predictor of post-purchase Applicable only after purchase of
behaviours, such as attitude change, goods or services
repeat purchase and brand loyalty Results vary between durable
Treating customers fairly (equity) and and nondurable goods
performance differences/discrepancies Disconfirmation (performance
between prior expectations and actual differences) is a determinant of
performance (disconfirmation) correlate satisfaction for nondurable
most strongly to customer satisfaction products, but not for durable
(Szymanski and Henard, 2001) products (Churchill and
Surprenant, 1982)
SERVPERF A modification to SERVQUAL SERVPERF model consists of Performance-based measures of service Instrument does not offer
that measures quality as an five service dimensions: quality and differences between the superior measurement capability
attitude, not satisfaction tangibles, reliability, importance and performance (Cronin and across all industries (Abdullah,
responsiveness, assurance and Taylor, 1994) 2006)
empathy, with two sets of 22 A superior scale to SERVQUAL that
item statements for the provides a relatively simple and
importance and perception inexpensive means of doing service
sections of the questionnaire quality assessment to assist the managers
(Cronin and Taylor, 1992) to identify where the performance
improvement can best be targeted
(Rasyida et al., 2016)
Service Measures the impact of the 19 items in four service Helps improve understanding of the Developed and tested in a service
experience distinctive drivers of the experience dimensions of: dimensions of service experience setting only
scale (EXQ) service experience based on Product Experience, Outcome Empirically tested scale that links a Low practicability (19-item scale)
four dimensions of the service Focus, Moments-of-Truth and customers’ evaluation of service quality as
experience Peace-of-Mind a determinant of customer satisfaction,
intention (repurchase), behaviour (e.g.
loyalty, word-of-mouth intentions/
recommendation/advocacy) and
subsequent financial performance
(profitability) (Klaus and Maklan, 2012)
(continued)
Metric Description Methodology Advantages Disadvantages

Net Gauges customer’s “likelihood Methodology examines the Easy to understand and administer One-item scale
Promoter to recommend” as a proxy for correlation between Net Global recognition and use across all Not diagnostic
Score (NPS) overall satisfaction with a Promoter levels and a industries Limited empirical support related
company’s product or service company’s revenue growth rate Industry benchmarks are published to relationship between NPS
and loyalty to the brand Customers rate the likelihood of Publicly available score and company or brand
(Satmetrix.com, 2018) recommending the company tor Promoted as “single most reliable performance
brand to a friend or colleague indicator of a company’s ability to grow” Companywide NPS is too big for
on an 11-point scale. The NPS is (Netpromoter.com, 2006; Nicks, 2006) any one person to own or directly
determined by subtracting the Strong correlation between a company’s control
percentage of customers who growth rate and the percentage of its Measures intention to recommend,
are detractors (0-6) from the customers who are “promoters” not actual recommendations
percentage who are promoters (Reichheld, 2003) (Rossiter, 2017)
(9-10) Not found to be a better predictor
Range is 100 to þ100 of growth versus other customer
satisfaction metrics (Keiningham
et al., 2007)
Customer Customer effort (CE) is a One-item scale “Effort” provides loyalty data that goes Limited to service elements of
Effort Score customer’s perception of the CES is measured by asking a beyond customer intention (which is offering that contribute to time
(CES) amount of time and energy single question: “How much where NPS works) and into actual and convenience evaluations
that they have to spend in an effort did you personally have customer behaviour
encounter with a brand/an to put forth to handle your Allows identification of actionable service
organisation request?” It is scored on a scale improvements
Focuses on reducing effort by from 1 (very low effort) to 5 Low effort leads to high levels of intention
creating quick and easy (very high effort) to repurchase, increased spending and low
transactions negative word of mouth. High effort leads
to high levels of negative word of mouth
(Dixon et al., 2010)
High predictive power. Effort is a key driver
of value for money and advocacy,
correlating strongly to loyalty,
outperforming NPS and CSAT in predicting
the power of repurchasing and increased
spending. Low CES show a reduction in
propensity to churn (Clark and Bryan, 2013)
(continued)
customer

2399
Reimagining

service

Table I.
 EJM
54,10

2400

Table I.
Metric Description Methodology Advantages Disadvantages

Service Four-factor structure of Seven-point and nine-point Relates to inter-personal aspects of customer- Developed and tested for B2B
encounter service encounter quality Likert scales measuring items supplier interactions in B2B exchanges service encounters
quality of: Service encounter quality Assesses levels of service encounter quality
perceptions, Service quality in detail and holistically, enabling
perceptions, CSAT, Firm comparison of company performance against
loyalty, and Individual loyalty competitors and service recovery efforts by
(Jayawardhena et al., 2007) identifying dissatisfied customers
Empirically tested, psychometric scale of
service encounter quality directly related to
customer satisfaction and service quality
perceptions, and indirectly to loyalty. Results
show that enhanced customer satisfaction
leads to improved forms of customer loyalty
(in a B2B setting) on two levels: (1) loyalty
towards the employee at an individual level
and (2) towards the organisation as a whole
(Jayawardhena et al., 2007)
Six Sigma A set of quality management A small team of (trained) in- Six Sigma recognises that there is a direct Lacked a theoretical
techniques to improve house technical leaders, correlation between the number of underpinning and a basis for
business processes by greatly known as Six Sigma Black product defects, wasted operating costs, research other than “best
reducing the probability that Belts apply techniques of the and the level of customer satisfaction practice” studies (Linderman
an error or defect will occur performance improvement Focuses on improving customer et al., 2003)
model known as DMAIC: requirements understanding, business For successful deployment, Six
Define-Measure-Analyse- systems, productivity and financial Sigma requires not only technical
Improve-Control (Harry, 1998) performance (Kwak and Anbari, 2006) understanding, but effective goal
Applicable across a range of industries with setting and behavioural insight.
demonstrated benefits ranging from Goals perceived as too difficult
improving quality/productivity and by organisational members can
processes, to cost savings, increased result in lower levels of
customer satisfaction and decreased commitment, which in turn
customer problems (Kwak and Anbari, 2006) decreases performance
(Linderman et al., 2003)
(continued)
Metric Description Methodology Advantages Disadvantages

Brand Trust Measures consumers’ Measured with four items on a Sirdeshmukh et al., scale: high reliability, Scales adapted from B2B
willingness to rely on the 10-point semantic differential. validity, and unidimensionality (Brudvig, literature, versus being
ability of a brand to meet Scale items are: undependable 2015) developed for a B2C application,
consumption expectations versus dependable; Consumer beliefs about reliability and or independently validated on a
incompetent versus honesty are important facets of trust, consumer sample
competent; low integrity operationalised by Sirdeshmukh et al. Not all brand trust scales
versus high integrity; scale accurately measure brand trust
unresponsive to customers or discriminate between service-
versus responsive to provider trust. E.g. scales by
customers (Sirdeshmukh et al., Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
2002) and Lau and Lee (1999) failed to
discriminate from an underlying
dimension of consumer-based
trust (Brudvig, 2015, p.18)
Forgiveness Quality of consumer–brand Measured with four items on a Highlights importance of creating deep, Scale by Fedorikhin et al. does
relationships effects seven-point scale from long-term relationships between not appear to be empirically
consumers’ willingness to disagree to agree on the customers and brand to heighten tested
forgive mistakes made by the following items: “I would likelihood of customers to “forgive”
brand (Aaker et al., 2004). probably give the brand mistakes or transgressions
Measures the willingness to another chance”; “I would Brand forgiveness affects brand
forgive if a product was probably buy the brand again relationship closeness and influences
purchased and found to be despite the experience”; “I negative brand outcomes, such as reduced
defective would be less likely to try the purchase intentions, desires to avoid the
brand again”; “I would forgive brand, and desires to seek revenge against
the brand and buy it again” the brand (Donovan et al., 2012)
(Fedorikhin et al., 2008)
Relationship dimensions, such Perceived level of Non-financial indicators of long-term
as satisfaction, trust, performance, range 0-100. performance
(continued)
customer

2401
Reimagining

service

Table I.
 EJM
54,10

2402

Table I.
Metric Description Methodology Advantages Disadvantages

Strength of commitment, advocacy, Measures the strength of 15 Benchmarks the relative strengths of Applies to relationship capital
Relationship goodwill and repeat business relationship dimensions: trust, relationships between an organisation and (stakeholder relationships) – not
Index (StoRI) are combined to provide a integrity, benevolence, equity, its key internal and external stakeholders consumers
numerical relationship capital commitment, satisfaction, Predicts that goodwill and conflict
index relationship value (goodwill), influence advocacy. Increased levels of
communication, competence, goodwill limit the potential for conflict in
customer orientation, conflict, stakeholder relationships (McHale, 2006)
repeat business, advocacy,
shared values, and retention
US Patent No. US 8,200,526 B2
(McHale, 2012)
Dimension: operational
First Contact The total number of contacts FCR=IF/I Widely used metric High cost when incident takes a
Resolution that were completely resolved IF = Number of incidents Enables tracking and benchmarking of lengthy period of time to resolve
(FCR) during the course of the first resolved on first contact trend performance against competitors
contact initiated by the I = Total number of incidents Diagnostic – identify underlying drivers
customer (and that therefore of performance gaps
do not require follow-up to One of the five most important call centre
resolve the issue) metrics – no single KPI has a bigger
(BenchmarkPortal.com, 2018) impact on CSAT than FCR (Rumburg and
Zbikowski, n.d.)
Overall satisfaction increases as
percentage of incidents resolved on the
first contact increases (Feinberg et al.,
2000)
Lowers operating costs, reduces risk of
customer defecting, and provides higher
employee satisfaction (ICMI.com, 2011)
(continued)
Metric Description Methodology Advantages Disadvantages

Average The time during which an This is the cumulative total of Enables tracking and benchmarking of A customer’s perception of how
Wait/Hold agent placed a call on hold all hold time, divided by the trend performance against competitors long they waited has a much
Time during the body of a call number of calls placed on As time in queue decreased, CSAT stronger influence on CSAT than
(BenchmarkPortal.com, 2018) hold, for the period that is increased. The less consumers have to actual wait times (Solink.com,
measured wait to get to an agent the greater their 2017)
satisfaction (Feinberg et al., 2000)
Customer’s perception of wait times can
be influenced, e.g. customers perceive
shorter waiting periods when time is filled
and are happier when waiting times are
similar to or shorter than expected (i.e.
under promise, over deliver) (Lin et al.,
2015)
Average Time it takes to completely ART = T/C Enables tracking and benchmarking of This metric puts the company
Resolution resolve an issue, from when T = Sum of time to resolution trend performance against competitors requirement (short ART) before
Time (ART) the customer first makes for all cases in a time period An indicator of how long it takes a team the customer needs. Customers
contact to when it is fully C = Number of cases in a time to resolve cases who contact the customer service
resolved period Used to assess performance agents and department do not care if a call
overall efficiency of call centres takes five minutes or fifty. They
Directly correlates to CSAT. The faster just want their issues resolved
teams resolve problems, the happier
customers will be. Short ART reflects a
team’s efficiency and overall team
performance. Managers can identify top
agents, and which agents need more
coaching and training (Burke, 2015)
(continued)
customer

2403
Reimagining

service

Table I.
 EJM
54,10

2404

Table I.
Metric Description Methodology Advantages Disadvantages

Service level/ Service level is a measure of Percentage of calls (X%) Enables tracking and benchmarking of Service level is about agent
Response how effective the centre is in answered within Y seconds (e. trend performance against competitors accessibility but not necessarily
time achieving call-answer goals g. 80% of calls answered in 20 Service level is a key target metric to use an indication of quality or good
seconds) for performance and workforce planning performance. Accessibility
Service level is usually defined (StrategicContact.com, 2018) means that contacts (by
as the percentage of calls As call centres are more effective in customers) are getting in and
answered within a answering a higher proportion of calls in x being handled efficiently.
predetermined number of seconds caller satisfaction rates increase. However, if quality is poor (e.g.
seconds As average abandonment rate decreases repeat contacts, unnecessary
caller satisfaction increases (Feinberg contacts, escalations), complaints
et al., 2000) will eventually drive service level
down (ICMI.com, 2011)
Ticket Tracks all tickets in a support Compare the amount of Provides a high-level view of the This customer support metric
Volume/ queue (for phone, chat, web support tickets month-over- workload for customer support teams can easily become very noisy,
Total forum, email and/or social month or week-over-week across different channels. Each of these especially if all conversations are
Tickets network channels) over a Particular attention should be channels requires different types of tracked (i.e. pulling in tweets to
period of time paid to spikes ticket numbers staffing and skills. Being able to track this the company that may not need a
after a new product or feature is vitally important to optimise the response). Also, Ticket Volume
release efficiency of help desks and where staff and Total Conversations are
may need to be moved, trained, or hired primarily valuable when tracked
(Zendesk, 2019) alongside other metrics such as
Customer Satisfaction, First
Response Time, and Customer
Growth (Geckoboard, n.d.)
(continued)
Metric Description Methodology Advantages Disadvantages

Product- A control system that helps to Performance is calculated by Enables tracking and benchmarking of Basic differences between the
service increase performance in rolling up the performance trend performance against competitors operating units regarding such
performance quality and delivery and to measures for each of the Measuring performance is important to: factors as culture, processes and
decrease cycle time and waste following four dimensions: determine if clients’ needs are met types of clients, as well as a lack
Quality: meeting customer understand internal processes and of standardised definitions make
expectations through 100% efficiencies to identify where problems, it difficult to manage and
delivery of defect-free bottlenecks or waste exist compare across different
products or services ensure decisions are based on fact operating units
Delivery: the quantity of show if planned improvements actually
products or services being happened
delivered on time to the meet client expectations through on-time
customer delivery or correct order, thereby
Cycle time: total elapsed time improving CSAT, improving retention
from when a unit of work and reducing number of complaints
enters a process until it exits (Stefenson, 2004)
the process, and
Waste: non-value-added
activities and resources
incurred in meeting the
requirements of the customer
Escalations Process by which a customer’s Number of customer Enables tracking and benchmarking of Knowing when to implement the
complaint or issue is presented questions/ issues that were trend performance against competitors escalation process one of the
to a more senior company escalated to a second service Measuring escalations aids largest challenges facing call
representative – usually a agent implementation of processes to reduce centres. At times, call centres use
supervisor or a manager number and associated high costs the process in situations that do
According to Etech.com, a reduction in the not require an escalation; thus,
number of escalations increases metric may be a false indicator of
efficiencies, reduces costs, and improves the importance/seriousness of
CX (Reynolds, 2015) complaints
Delayed responses in escalated
calls can make customers’ more
frustrated
(continued)
customer

2405
Reimagining

service

Table I.
 EJM
54,10

2406

Table I.
Metric Description Methodology Advantages Disadvantages

Field-service The number of support calls Field-service calls = Enables tracking and benchmarking of This metric puts the company
calls/Truck that require a field-service/ C/T trend performance against competitors requirement (low volume of field
Rolls truck roll to resolve a C = Completed field-service Can improve customer satisfaction/ visits) before the customer needs
customer issue calls/truck rolls loyalty, drive service productivity, and Less field visits for new work can
T = total field-service support increase revenue (upsell/cross-selling). impact on revenue generated by
calls Field-service calls/truck rolls are costly the service team. Revenue
(avg = $276) and degrade customer growth is the top goal for field
satisfaction, so first-time fix rate is service organisations and if field
important. (ECMConnection.com, n.d.) workers aren’t visiting new
clients, they aren’t able to drive
new revenue opportunities
associated with field service
visits
Dimension: outcome-based
Customer The number of customers that CCR = L/S Enables tracking and benchmarking of Difficult to measure in some
Churn Rate cancelled their purchase in a L=Number of customers lost trend performance against competitors settings, such as retail
(CCR) given time period during time period Churn is an indicator that suggests the Root causes of churn are often
Churn is also known as S=Number of customers at service purchased is not good enough. difficult to identify
customer attrition, customer start of period Low churn suggests general satisfaction Churn may be the result of other
turnover or customer defection Predictive abilities variables that are not related to
(Mutanen, 2006) Churn affects profitability as it is directly satisfaction/loyalty
related to the growth of a customer base Not all churn models are equal.
and increase in up-sell leads (Skok, n.d.) Method matters in terms of a
Retention costs are far less costly than model’s predictive ability, while
acquisition costs (avg. global value of lost models that explain churn do not
customers: $243) (Galletto, 2016) necessarily work as an effective
Customer churn impacts directly on predictive tool (Neslin et al., 2006)
retention and lifetime value (CLV) to that
company (loyalty) (Neslin et al., 2006)
(continued)
Metric Description Methodology Advantages Disadvantages

Customer Measures the profit a business Based on average order value, Quantitative measure Difficulty of obtaining the
Lifetime makes from a customer over a repeat purchase rate, and Measures the present and the future components of the calculation
Value (CLV) specific time period. The customer acquisition cost income from the customers CLV is to define and measure the
calculation can be historical or Retention and loyalty strategies can enjoy customer lifetime value during,
predictive (Mutanen, 2006) higher customer profitability. CLV or even before, the active stage of
analysis can also help customisation of customer relationship. While
products and services 76% of companies see CLV as an
CLV models are an efficient and effective important concept for their
way to evaluate a firm’s relationship with organisation, only 42% of
its customers. Benefits are twofold: (1) companies measure CLV
understanding the potential value of accurately (Saleh, 2017)
customers, and (2) prompting firms to
learn more about the patterns of
individuals or groups of customers
(Chang et al., 2012)
Number of Formal complaints about the Number of contacts from Enables tracking and benchmarking of Not all problem service attributes
Complaints product or service external customers who want trend performance against competitors are of equal concern or
to express dissatisfaction or Customers who are treated badly are more importance
displeasure with products likely to get in touch than customers who
and/or services produced and/ are treated well
or provided by the company Complaints from dissatisfied customers
(BenchmarkPortal.com, 2018) should be maximised:
a dissatisfied, once persuaded to stay, is
more loyal and more valuable
generous complaint management can
generate positive consumer WOM
consumer complaints can be useful
sources of design ideas (Goodman and
Malech, 1985, in Fornell and Wernerfelt,
1987)
(continued)
customer

2407
Reimagining

service

Table I.
 EJM
54,10

2408

Table I.
Metric Description Methodology Advantages Disadvantages

Appropriate handling of complaints is

important as:
85% of customers who stop buying from
a company do so because they believe the
company does not care about them or
their business
only 4% of disgruntled customers report
complaints to a company. 96% simply
take their business elsewhere
Over 91% of customers dissatisfied with a
company’s products or services will not
buy from the company again
65% of a company’s business comes from
repeat sales
Lowering churn by as little as 5% can
increase a company’s profits by as much
as 85% (Carder and Gunter, 2001)
 Reimagining
customer
service

2409

Figure 4.
Linking customer
journey stages with
CSXm
EJM model based on an analysis of the extant literature and observational intelligence. The result
54,10 of the research and analysis leads to five summary observations regarding:
(1) integration and use of current metrics;
(2) the need for new CSX metrics;
(3) implementation of a CSXm framework;
2410 (4) possible advances through improved implementation; and
(5) the advantages of collaboration.

(1) Review and analysis of CSX metrics: A contribution of this paper is its analyses of 23
CSX metrics found in the literature and observed in marketing practice. Most of these
measures are in use and some have undergone validity and reliability testing. The
heavy reliance on a single metric (NPS) is challenged here and a reimagined,
integrated, multi-metric approach is recommended. The 2018 CustomerGauge survey,
reporting that 89 per cent of companies prefer NPS as their CSX metric
(CustomerGauge, 2018), indicates an opportunity for CSXm. As our understanding of
moderator variables related to customers, the environment, the customer journey and
dimensions of CSX improves, our need for multiple metrics increases. There is value in
the popular NPS metric; however, as reported in Table I, published and proprietary
research demonstrates that other metrics are equal, if not better, predictors of
performance and growth. This paper also points out the value in linking metrics to
CJM to better understand the actions that will maximise marketing resources required
to attract, serve and retain customers. Thus, integrating metrics provides a more
holistic view of the customer and how best to enhance the CSX.
(2) Need for new metrics: As marketing has evolved to a CSX orientation, a variety of
metrics has been applied. This evolution is evident in the popularity of the temporal/
efficiency operational metrics, such as average handle time, to perception-based
measures, such as customer satisfaction and customer effort, to outcome-based
measures, such as customer lifetime value. Today, integrative scales that track
efficiency, quality, satisfaction and employee and customer behaviours are needed.
Unfortunately, integrative scales are rare or are deficient in validity and reliability or
are industry specific. Such shortcomings call for the development of new metrics that
can be used for all industry sectors as well as attitudinal and behavioural dimensions of
customers and customer-facing employees. The new metrics would also provide more
meaningful benchmarks for CSX ratings.
(3) Implementation of a new CSXm decision framework: A major contribution of this
paper is the presentation, analysis and interpretation of 23 leading CSX metrics, within the
three broad stages of the customer journey and within an understanding of three types of
metrics. The resulting CSXm decision framework (Figure 5) involves the following decisions
to guide the selection of the optimal measures of CSX:

identify the relevant customer journey stage (pre-purchase, purchase and post-
purchase);

determine the most relevant type/s of CSX metrics (perception-based, operational or
outcome-based); and

select the CSX metrics from the CSX metrics inventory (Table I).

Implementation of the CSXm decision framework is moderated by a number of factors.

These include number and value of prospects and customers in each stage of the customer
journey; availability of human and financial resources; organisational commitment to
 Reimagining
customer
service

2411

Figure 5.
CSXm decision
framework

measurement; time constraints; and corporate comfort levels for perception-based,

operational or outcome-based measures.
(4) Improved implementation: There is substantial room for CSXm improvement through
innovative implementation of existing measurement tools. Measuring multiple touchpoints
across multiple channels for individual customers and assessing the cumulative experiences
of customer segments may be possible through new technologies, self-service models and
team approaches to CSXm. A silo-orientation limits the full potential of CSXm and this is
most evident in the lack of an omni-channel approach to measurement. There is ample
CSXm activity, but the next-level opportunity lies in understanding how to measure the
attribution of multi-touches within an omni-channel environment. For example, in many
product categories, customers visit retail stores, engage in in-bound calls, visit webpages,
use chat features, interact with in-home service representatives and are exposed to multiple
print and digital promotional materials. There is little understanding of how the service
experience is affected by the volume, combination and interaction of these touchpoint
interactions. Further, there is much to learn about the effects of the interaction of service
with the other dimensions of customer experience, for example, functionality of the product/
service, sensorial attributes (Mahr et al., 2019), communication and degree of customer-
centricity culture.
(5) Collaboration: CSX is a multidisciplinary paradigm in which current practice leads
academic research. Advancing measurement expertise requires collaboration in the form of
shared data, as practitioners and scholars develop new metrics, assess their validity and
reliability and bring a deeper understanding of how to maximise the service experience for
the customer with the right level of human and financial resources for the marketer. There
are many opportunities for collaborations in the form of conferences, institutes, professional
associations, workshops, blogs and journals that intersect the interests of both communities.
Increasingly, today’s marketing scholars are seeing the contributions they can make by
working closely with practitioners and demonstrating the value of applying theory to
practice. At the same time, practitioners can become more open about sharing data that will
benefit an entire industry if not the entire practice of CSX management.
In summary, this paper develops a taxonomy for the CSX metrics in use; provides a
decision-making framework to enhance the selection, application and interpretation of the
outcomes of CSX metrics; and offers five observations and recommendations for moving the
measurement component of CSX to its next level of maturity. The goal of this paper is to
EJM contribute to the thinking and execution of CSX management, thereby stimulating thought
54,10 and research within the academic community and helping marketers and their customers.

Note
1. Customer service is a foundational component of the customer experience paradigm, particularly
in the sense that both concepts include the dimensions of functionality, communications,
2412 sensorial attributes and customer-centricity. Therefore, this paper uses the term customer service
experience (CSX) to embrace a holistic view of customer service.

References
Aaker, J., Fournier, S. and Brasel, S.A. (2004), “When good brands do bad”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Abdullah, F. (2006), “Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF”,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 31-47.
Acuant (2019), “Self-service tech market to exceed $31b by 2020”, available at: www.acuantcorp.com/
news/self-service-tech-market/
Aksoy, L., Guilloux, L., Duneigre, H. And Keita, S. (2019), “Viewpoint: service research priorities –
bridging the academic and practitioner perspectives”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33
No. 5, pp. 626-631.
Alba, J.W. and Williams, E.F. (2013), “Pleasure principles: a review of research on hedonic
consumption”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 2-18.
American Customer Satisfaction Index (2018), “About asci: building the cross-industry index”,
available at:www.theacsi.org/about-acsi/building-the-cross-industry-index
Anderson, E.W. and Fornell, C. (2000), “Foundation of the American customer satisfaction index”, Total
Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. S869-S882.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994), “Customer satisfaction, market share, and
profitability: Findings from sweden”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 53-66.
Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), “An empirical assessment of the servqual scale”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 253-268.
Benchmarkportal.Com (2018), “Glossary of terms for contact centers”, available at: www.
benchmarkportal.com/glossary-of-terms/
Bendle, N.T., Ferris, P.W., Pfeifer, P.E. and Reibstein, D.J. (2016), Marketing Metrics, Pearson
Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Birnbaum, B. (2018), “The evolution of customer service metrics”, Forbes.com: Forbes Media, available
at: www.forbes.com/sites/bradbirnbaum/2018/05/08/the-evolution-of-customer-service-metrics/
#636a570d664d
Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dörfler, V. And Nudurupati, S. (2012), “Performance measurement:
challenges for tomorrow”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 305-327.
Bleier, A., Harmeling, C.M. and Palmatier, R.W. (2019), “Creating effective online customer
experiences”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 98-119.
Bobalca, C. And Tugulea, O. (2012), “Developing a scale to measure customer loyalty”, Procedia
Economics and Finance, Vol. 3, pp. 623-628.
Brudvig, S. (2015), “Consumer-based brand trust scales: validation and assessment”, in Spotts, H. (Ed.)
Revolution in Marketing: Market Driving Changes. Developments in Marketing Science:
Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, Cham, p. 18.
Bueno, E.V., Weber, T.B.B., Bomfim, E.L. and Kato, H.T. (2019), “Measuring customer experience in Reimagining
service: a systematic review”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 39 Nos 11/12, pp. 779-798.
customer
Burke, C. (2015), “Why your time to resolution matters”, InsightSquared, available at: www.
insightsquared.com/2015/04/why-your-time-to-resolution-matters/
service
Carder, S. and Gunter, L. (2001), “Can you hear me? Corporate America’s communication with
dissatisfied customers”, The Journal of American Culture, Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 109-112.
Carmen, J.M. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL 2413
dimensions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. Spring, pp. 33-35.
Carter, B. (2017), “The top ten benefits of customer retention”, available at: https://blog.
accessdevelopment.com/the-top-ten-benefits-of-customer-retention
CFI Group (2020), “Solutions for business”, available at: https://cfigroup.com/
Chang, W., Chang, C. And Li, Q. (2012), “Customer lifetime value: a review”, Social Behavior and
Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1057-1064.
Christensen, C.M., Hall, T., Dillon, K. And Duncan, D.S. (2016), “Know your customers jobs to be done”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 94 No. 9, pp. 55-62.
Churchill, G.A. and Surprenant, C. (1982), “An investigation into the determinants of customer
satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 491-504.
Clark, M. and Bryan, A. (2013), “Customer effort: help or hype?”, available at: https://rantandrave.com/
wp-content/uploads/Customer-Effort-Help-or-Hype.pdf
Conick, H. (2017), “The end of retail”, Marketing News, pp. 40-47.
Cronin, J.J., Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Cronin, J.J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1994), “SERVPERF versus SERVQUALl: reconciling performance-based
and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality”, The ”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 125-131.
Customergauge (2018), “2018 NPS and CX benchmarks report”, available at: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/
hubfs/421919/ebooks/2018%20CustomerGauge%20NPS%20&%20CX%20Benchmarks%
20Report.pdf
Cyriac, F. (2014), “10 most common customer frustrations that every call center should avoid”, available
at: www.ameyo.com/blog/10-most-common-customer-frustrations-that-every-call-center-should-
avoid
Davis, J.A. (2018), Measuring Marketing, John Wiley and Sons, Singapore.
Dixon, M. (2018), “Reinventing customer service”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 96 No. 6, pp. 82-90.
Dixon, M., Freeman, K. And Toman, N. (2010), “Stop trying to delight your customers”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 88, pp. 116-122.
Dixon, M., Ponomareff, L., Turner, S. And Delisi, R. (2017), “Kick-ass customer service”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 110-117.
Donovan, L.A.N., Priester, J.R., Macinnis, D.J., and Park, C.W. (2012), “Brand forgiveness: how close
brand relationships influence forgiveness”, in Fournier, S., Breazeale, M. and Fetscheri, M. (Eds)
Consumer-Brand Relationships: Theory and Practice, Routledge, New York, NY.
Dukes, A. And Zhu, Y. (2019), “Why is customer service so bad? Because it’s profitable”, Harvard
Business Review, available at: https://hbr.org/2019/02/why-is-customer-service-so-bad-because
-its-profitable
East, R., Romaniuk, J. And Lomax, W. (2011), “The NPS and the ACSI: a critique and alternative
metric”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 2-16.
Faulds, D.J., Mangold, W.G., Raju, P.S. and Valsalan, S. (2018), “The mobile shopping revolution:
redefining the consumer decision process”, Business Horizons, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 323-338.
EJM Fedorikhin, A., Park, C.W. and Thomson, M. (2008), “Beyond fit and attitude: the effect of emotional
attachment on consumer responses to brand extensions”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
54,10 Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 281-291.
Feinberg, R.A., Kim, I.-S., Hokama, L., Ruyter, K.D. and Keen, C. (2000), “Operational determinants of
caller satisfaction in the call center”, International Journal of Service Industry Management,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 131-141.
Fierman, J. (1995), “American’s can’t get no satisfaction”, Fortune Magazine, December, available at:
2414 http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1995/12/11/208433/index.htm
Fornell, C. and Johnson, M.D. (1993), “Differentiation as a basis for explaining customer satisfaction
across industries”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 681-696.
Fornell, C. and Wernerfelt, B. (1987), “Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint
management: a theoretical analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 337-346.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996), “The American
customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60
No. 4, pp. 7-18.
Froehle, C.M. and Roth, A.V. (2004), “New measurement scales for evaluating perceptions of the
technology-mediated customer service experience”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Galletto, M. (2016), “What is customer churn?”, available at: www.ngdata.com/what-is-customer-churn/
Geckoboard (2020), “Ticket volume: what is ticket volume?”, available at: www.geckoboard.com/learn/
kpi-examples/customer-support-kpis/ticket-volume/
Harry, M.J. (1998), “Six sigma: a breakthrough strategy for profitability”, Quality Progress, Vol. 31
No. 5, pp. 60-64.
Helkkula, A. And Kelleher, C. (2010), “Circularity of customer service experience and customer
perceived value”, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 37-53.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods, and
propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 92-101.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-140.
ICMI.com. (2011), “Seven metrics to watch for call center success”, available at: www.icmi.com/
Resources/Metrics/2011/02/Seven-Metrics-to-Watch-for-Call-Center-Success
Jayawardhena, C., Souchon, A.L., Farrell, A.M. and Glanville, K. (2007), “Outcomes of service encounter
quality in a business-to-business context”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No. 5,
pp. 575-588.
Jüttner, U., Schaffner, D., Windler, K. And Maklan, S. (2013), “Customer service experiences: Developing
and applying a sequential incident laddering technique”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47
No. 5/6, pp. 738-769.
Keiningham, T.L., Cooil, B., Andreassen, T.W. and Aksoy, L. (2007), “A longitudinal examination of net
promoter and firm revenue growth”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 39-51.
Klaus, P. and Maklan, S. (2012), “EXQ: a multiple-item scale for assessing service experience”, Journal
of Service Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 5-33.
Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F.T. (2006), “Benefits, obstacles, and future of Six Sigma approach”,
Technovation, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 708-715.
Ladhari, R. (2009), “A review of twenty years of servqual research”, International Journal of Quality and
Service Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 172-198.
Lahrssen, C. (2014), “Top 4 customer complaints about call center phone systems”, Oxygen: The Blog
That Fuels Businesses, available at: www.nexogy.com/blog/top-4-customer-complaints-about-
call-center-phone-systems
Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C. (2016), “Understanding customer experience throughout the customer Reimagining
journey”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. 69-96.
customer
Lin, Y.-T., Xia, K.-N. and Bei, L.-T. (2015), “Customer’s perceived value of waiting time for service
events”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 28-40.
service
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S. and Choo, A.S. (2003), “Six Sigma: a goal-theoretic
perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 193-203.
McHale, R.J. (2006), “Relationship capital”, Financial Management: Technical Matters, April, 2415
available at: www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/ImportedDocuments/FM_April06_Technical_
Relationship_Capital.pdf
McHale, R.J. (2012), “Method and system for collecting stakeholder relationship data”, United States
Patent Application Patent No. 200, B2.US, Vol. 8, pp. 526.
Mahr, D., Stead, S. And Odekerken-Schröder, G. (2019), “Making sense of customer service experiences:
a text mining review”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 88-103.
Marketing Science Institute (2019), “2018-2020 Research priorities”, available at: www.msi.org/
research/2018-2020-research-priorities/
McGovern, G. (2017), “Customer experience continues to get worse”, available at: www.cmswire.com/
customer-experience/customer-experience-continues-to-get-worse/
Morgan, B. (2017), “Customer service is a $350 billion industry, and it’s a mess”, available at: www.
forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2017/09/25/customer-service-is-a-350b-industry-and-its-a-mess/
#2d21824311be
Mutanen, T. (2006), Customer Churn Analysis – a Case Study, No VTT-R-01184-06, Technical Research
Centre of Finland (VTT).
Mzoughia, M.B. and Limam, M. (2015), “An improved customer lifetime value model based on markov
chain”, Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 528-535.
Neslin, S.A., Gupta, S., Kamakura, W., Lu, J. and Mason, C.H. (2006), “Defection detection: measuring
and understanding the predictive accuracy of customer churn models”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 204-211.
Netpromoter.com (2006), “What is Net Promoter?”, available at: www.netpromoter.com/know/
Nicks, S. (2006), “What not to do with Net Promoter”, BusinessWeek Online, available at: www.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-07-31/what-not-to-do-with-net-promoter
Paquette, D. (2018), “Customer service keeps getting worse’: tight job market means workers can be less
patient”, available at: www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-customer-service-20180904-story.html
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Servqual: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991), “Refinement and reassessment of the servqual
scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420-450.
Pingitore, G., Morgan, N.A., Rego, L.L., Gigliotti, A. And Meyers, J. (2007), “The single-question trap”,
Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 9-13.
Rasyida, D.R., Ulkhaq, M.M., Setiowati, P.R. and Setyorin, N.A. (2016), “Assessing service quality: a
combination of SERVPERF and importance-performance analysis”, MATEC Web of
Conferences, Vol. 68.
Rawson, A., Duncan, E. and Jones, C. (2013), “The truth about customer experience”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 91 No. 9, pp. 90-98.
Reichheld, F.F. (2003), “The one number you need to grow”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 12,
pp. 46-54.
EJM Reichheld, F.F. (2006), The Ultimate Question. Driving Good Profits and True Growth, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
54,10
Reinders, M., Frambach, R. And Kleijnen, M. (2015), “Mandatory use of technology-based self-
service: Does expertise help or hurt?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos 1/2,
pp. 190-211.
Reynolds, P. (2015), “How to handle call center escalations”, available at: www.etechgs.com/blog/
handle-call-center-escalations/
2416
Rosenbaum, M.S., Otalora, M.L. and Ramirez, G.C. (2017), “How to create a realistic customer journey
map”, Business Horizons, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 143-150.
Rossiter, J.R. (2017), “Optimal standard measures for marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 33 Nos 5/6, pp. 313-326.
Rumburg, J. and Zbikowski, E. (n.d.), “How does your service desk stack up? The seven most important
performance indicators for the service desk”, available at: www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&
q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjsqMjFm6DoAhUIHDQIHXfIARA QFjABeg
QIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fround-lake.dustinice.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.thinkhdi.com%2F%2Fmedia%2FHDICorp%2FFiles
%2FLibrary-Archive%2FRumburg_SevenKPIs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2VFgwttcuwlsbMBgzX3GXC
Saleh, K. (2017), “Customer acquisition vs. retention costs – statistics and trends”, available at: www.
invespcro.com/blog/customer-acquisition-retention/
Satmetrix.com (2018), “Customer experience: no compromises”, NICE Systems, available at: www.
satmetrix.com/
Schmidt-Subramanian, M. (2019), “Is net promoter score right for you? Loyalty and CX are not the same
thing”, Customer Relationship Management, available at: www.destinationCRM.com
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), “Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 (January), pp. 15-37.
Smith, J.B. and Colgate, M. (2007), “Customer value creation: a practical framework”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Solink.com (2017), “Reduce wait times at queue lines and keep customers happy during service delays”,
available at: https://solink.com/resources/reduce-wait-times-at-queue-lines-and-keep-customers-
happy-during-service-delays
Spencer-Mathews, S. And Lawley, M. (2006), “Improving customer service: Issues in customer contact
management”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 1/2, pp. 218-232.
Stahlkopf, C. (2019), “Where net promoter score goes wrong”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 2-6.
Stefenson, T. (2004), “Performance measurement at DHL solutions”, Master of Science Programme
Master’s Thesis, Luleå University of Technology.
Steimer, S. (2018), “Flying blind: how airline get customer experience so wrong with so much data”,
Marketing News, February, pp. 42-49.
Swinscoe, A. (2015), “Is customer service going to get worse before it gets better?”, available at: www.
forbes.com/sites/adrianswinscoe/2015/03/10/is-customer-service-going-to-get-worse-before-it-
gets-better/#35efe3ae6b36
Szymanski, D.M. and Henard, D.H. (2001), “Customer satisfaction: a Meta-analysis of the empirical
evidence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-35.
Thakur, R. (2019), “The moderating role of customer engagement experiences in customer
satisfaction–loyalty relationship”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 7,
pp. 1278-1310.
Trischler, J., Zehrer, A. And Westman, J. (2018), “Designerly way of analyzing the customer
experience”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 805-819.
Tynan, C. And McKechnie, S. (2009), “Experience marketing: a review and reassessment”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 25 Nos 5/6, pp. 501-517. No
Umashankar, N., Ward, M.K. and Dahl, D.W. (2017), “The benefit of becoming friends: Complaining Reimagining
after service failures leads customers with strong ties to increase loyalty”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 79-98. customer
Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M. and Schlesinger, L.A. (2009), service
“Customer experience creation: determinants, dynamics and management strategies”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 31-41.
Weber, L. (2019), “Business news: Accenture retrains as automation grows – consulting firm preps
staffers for new roles when technology upends their jobs”, The Wall Street Journal, available at: 2417
www.wsj.com/articles/accenture-retrains-its-workers-as-technology-upends-their-jobs-11561318022
Wookey, J. (2017), “Closing the customer experience gap”, Harvard Business Review, Research Report,
available at: https://hbr.org/sponsored/2017/08/closing-the-customer-experience-gap
Yrjölä, M., Saarijärvi, H. And Nummela, H. (2018), “The value propositions of multi-, cross-, and omni-
channel retailing”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 46
Nos 11/12, pp. 1133-1152.
Zendesk (2019), “Top 10 help desk metrics”, available at: www.zendesk.com/resources/top-10-help-
desk-metrics/

About the authors

Charles H. Patti is the James M. Cox Professor and Senior Fellow at The Cable Center (Denver,
USA). He is the former Interim Dean of the Daniels College of Business at the University of
Denver and Professor Emeritus at Queensland University of Technology (Brisbane, Australia). He
is the author and co-author of dozens of articles, papers, and books on various aspects of
marketing, marketing communications, and customer service experience. Professor Patti has held
several international appointments, including Bocconi Graduate School of Business (Italy),
Helsinki School of Economics (Finland) and Otago University (New Zealand). Dr Patti’s PhD is
from the Institute for Communications Research at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign,
USA). Charles H. Patti is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Maria M. van Dessel is a Senior Fellow at The Cable Center and a Research Scholar in the
Department of Marketing in the Daniels College of Business at the University of Denver. Dr van
Dessel’s principal research covers the general area of marketing communications with a focus on
advertising. Her teaching assignments have included undergraduate and graduate courses in
marketing, market research, marketing process and strategy, marketing communications,
advertising and advertising management subjects. Dr van Dessel holds a BS (marketing and
management), and a PhD, both from the Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
Steven W. Hartley is Professor of Marketing and Co-chair of the Marketing Department in the
Daniels College of Business at the University of Denver. Dr Hartley’s research has appeared in the
Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal of Business Research, the Journal of Advertising Research,
Industrial Marketing Management, the Journal of Marketing Communications and other business
publications. He is co-author of Marketing, 15th Edition, which has been translated into eleven
languages. His teaching and research interests include marketing planning and customer service
experience management. Dr Hartley holds Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering, MBA, and PhD
degrees from the University of Minnesota.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]