Customer experience (CX) for superannuation funds needs to focus on being “less worse” than being better, according to research from the University of Melbourne Business School.
Speaking at Superannuation CX Forum, Professor Don O’Sullivan from the University of Melbourne Business School, had said most members did not want to leave their funds.
“Most fund members absolutely do not want to leave, so the only way you’re going to make them leave is if you make it too difficult to stay with them,” Don O’Sullivan said.
“The best return on investment from CX is by making it less worse, not by making it better.”
O’Sullivan said people would only leave their superannuation funds if it was made too difficult to stay.
“Customers leave companies, they don’t go to other companies, they leave you because it is too difficult to stay with you,” O’Sullivan said.
“It’s useful to keep in mind in terms of the rule, people will leave you when you make it too difficult to stay because a lot of times when you’re talking about customer experiences it’s a bright, shiny thing – how can we make it even better for customers?”
O’Sullivan said customers had expectations around four elements: they did not want any experience to be difficult cognitively, temporally, physically and emotionally.
“If you make it difficult for me on one of those four, then I am likely to leave,” O’Sullivan said.
“It’s not about making it better for me on those four, it’s actually about not making it worse for me on those four because you’re going to get no return on investment for working on motivators.”
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.