Artificial intelligence has burst into customer service departments with breakneck speed. Chatbots, virtual assistants and automated systems are multiplying on websites and applications, promising to revolutionize the user experience. But it is worth asking: are companies making this decision based on solid evidence or simply following a trend?
The seduction of immediate savings
Let’s not fool ourselves: the economic factor is the big elephant in the room. Automating customer service can reduce operational costs dramatically. A chatbot doesn’t need vacations, doesn’t ask for salary increases, and can serve thousands of users simultaneously. For CFOs, the equation seems simple.
However, this short-term view ignores hidden costs: the development and implementation of robust AI systems, ongoing maintenance, the formation of hybrid human-machine teams, and most importantly, the reputational cost when technology fails or frustrates customers.
The Corporate FOMO Effect
There is a clear “fear of being left behind” in the business world. When competitors announce their advances in AI, boards of directors push to “do something with artificial intelligence.” AI has become a marketing element, a box to tick in the annual presentation of results.
This reactive, rather than strategic, adoption explains why so many implementations seem botched: confusing interfaces, bots that don’t understand basic queries, or systems that frustrate more than they help. Technology is deployed not because it solves real problems, but because “you have to be there”.
Did anyone ask customers?
Here we come to the most delicate point. How many companies have conducted serious studies on what their customers really prefer before automating? Anecdotal evidence suggests that many users still greatly value human touch, especially in complex or emotionally charged situations.
No one wants to navigate endless automated menus when they have an urgent problem. No one enjoys repeating their query three times to a bot that doesn’t understand the context. And yet, these experiences multiply every day.
The paradox is that it is a known fact (see studies) that clients prefers to deal with their pairs (human) when they are available, if they’re not available for any reason, customers seem to cope with the AI alternatives But the core paradox is that customers keep purchasing products and services without clearly selecting the ones with their preferred media of support: human, is it because there is very little offering on the market promoting customer support “made by humans”? Should this “label” be developed and promoted.
The efficiency argument… for whom?
Companies talk about “improving efficiency”, but efficiency for whom? A system can be efficient for the business (it processes more queries with fewer resources) and simultaneously inefficient for the customer (it requires more time, generates more frustration).
The real question is: are we measuring success correctly? If the metrics are purely internal (number of queries processed, average response time, cost reduction), we are optimizing for the business, not for the customer.
