CX really needs an NPS sibling metric to highlight its financial impact

Companies committing to CX strategies suggests they’re truly recognizing that customers drive their success (or failure), and that they’re willing to invest in relationships with their customers, sometimes even without immediate payback. This feels like a big deal given the seemingly unshakable grip short-termism has on today’s business decisions. 

Unfortunately, a few recent conversations have shaken my faith in the CX movement. One global exec who works with companies all over the world suggested that ‘CX is yet another flash in the pan concept and is in the autumn of its lifecycle.’ Another Fortune 500 leader suggested CX is bordering on being a ‘bad word’ after their company made big investments with little to show in return. I’m also hearing about CX teams being among the first to see layoffs as companies aggressively manage costs in uncertain times.

I refuse to believe this is CX’s fate.

My hypothesis: in a period of ubiquitous belt tightening, CX is in a tough spot without a clear link to financial impact. While NPS provides valuable diagnostic insights and has the benefit of being easily understood, easily tracked, and easily benchmarked, it doesn’t provide CFOs with what they require to justify investments.

Leaders have shown this is a solvable problem. Broadly speaking, they’ve turned ‘Customer Value Added to the Ecosystem’ into the R in their ROI. When they invest in experiences, they quantify the impact on both short- and long-term Customer value drivers (e.g., purchases levels, frequency, and diversity over time, profit margins, loyalty, purchase frequency, etc.). This, in turn, links directly to financial impact and ROI, and can be tuned based on any given company’s timing requirements.

Why isn’t this thinking more widespread? Seems like such a logical approach, but I’ve only come across a few companies thinking this way. I have my own hypotheses, but I’d love to hear what others think.