Intuitively, we believe that all customers expect personalization and customization in the products or services they buy. Marketers are told they need to be more ‘relevant’ to the target consumer. Product Managers are taught to map out customer needs, and then address those needs through the products they design. Business folks understand that the revenue numbers they chase will grow as more and more customers see ‘value’ in their offerings. So much so, that n=1 is now the mantra of success – the ultimate segmentation goal is a segment of just one!

But, does hyper-customization always lead to an improved Customer Experience?

It’s a question worth asking, since considerable dollars are being diverted to the pursuit of providing customers with the tools they need, to tailor their experiences to their unique needs.

Take the example of a leading food-delivery app. Its initial mandate was to induce trial among hungry customers by offering them the ability to order food from their favorite local restaurants. As more and more restaurants (and customers) signed up, the app may have attracted bigger rounds of funding. And with it, came even better “features” in the app.

One such feature is the ability to add a “special instruction” along with the order placed. Of course, the app makes it clear that they merely promise to do their best to pass on these instructions to the restaurant. But, what happens if you are allergic to a substance, make a mention of strictly avoiding that substance in your order, and take delivery of a dish that includes said ingredient?

The customization feature in the app offered you the means to specify your needs, but the restaurant did not pay heed to it while preparing your order. By the time the app’s delivery boy arrived, it was too late to re-do the whole order. In such a scenario, who should take responsibility for the end product? Who is accountable for the ultimate customer experience?

Take another example of a leading five-star hotel chain that aims to make a guest’s stay as comfortable as possible. While signing up for its loyalty program some years ago, a friend of mine specified his preference as “smoking room/floor”, and this info was promptly relayed to the reservation systems for all future bookings.

Now, for the past few months, this friend has been working on quitting his smoking habit. Since his office does his bookings, he was not surprised when he discovered during a recent check-in, that he was assigned a room on the smoking floor. However, on requesting a change to a non-smoking floor, he was told that since he is a member of the loyalty program, the system would not allow this change until he logged in to his membership and updated his preference!

Imagine the plight of a weary traveler, at the end of a long working day in another town, made to recall a password to login to a system he hasn’t used in over a year – just to get a non-smoking room! Of course, it is possible to design the system such that this requirement is not mandatory. But, that’s not the point.

In our quest for providing more bells and whistles, more personalization and more customization, we may sometimes lose sight of what truly matters to our customers…

More does not always mean better. Technology does not always enable. And, let’s not forget that CX is how the customer ultimately experiences the product or service.