The CX Confidence Disconnect - 2025 Research Report

Why Customers Struggle to Believe What Brands Promise Authored by Justin Robbins, Metric Sherpa

A 2025 Metric Sherpa Research Report THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

Underwritten by

1

Table of Contents Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Methodology & Respondent Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Reality Gaps: Where Leaders and Consumers Diverge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Gap 1: The Trust Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Gap 2: The Customer Churn Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Gap 3: Trust After Broken Promises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Gap 4: The Channel & Consistency Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Gap 5: The Recovery & Loyalty Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Gap 6: The Promise Alignment Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Gap 7: The AI Preference & Comfort Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Gap 8: The AI Trust Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Gap 9: The Overpromising Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Gap 10: The AI Disclosure Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 From Insight to Action: What Leaders Must Do Now. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 From Complacency to Confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 About Metric Sherpa and Sprinklr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

2

Executive Summary Customer trust has become the ultimate growth currency, yet it is eroding faster than leaders realize. Our research reveals a fundamental disconnect between how executives believe customers experience their brand and how consumers actually live it. This disconnect represents one of the defining risk factors for loyalty, reputation, and revenue.

The Evidence

91% of leaders believe customers describe their brand as intended.

Only

40%

of consumers say experiences are consistently aligned.

86% of leaders believe customers trust their brand promises.

Fewer than half of consumers agree. consumers report abandoning a brand entirely after 59% ofa single poor experience.

Just

42

% of leaders acknowledge this reality.

“I was a customer for over 20 years. When a billing issue came up, I couldn’t reach anyone who would help. I finally gave up and left for good.”

consumers say they are unlikely to trust a brand again More than half of after a broken promise...

yet leaders believe forgiveness is common.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

3

The Stakes •

Revenue at risk: Hidden churn and reduced willingness to pay a premium.

•

Eroded brand equity: Marketing investments undermined by inconsistent delivery.

•

Competitive exposure: Challenger brands emphasizing reliability and transparency can win faster.

“I ordered shoes online that didn’t fit. The company overnighted a new pair, free of charge, and told me to keep the original. That single experience earned my loyalty.”

•

AI missteps: Leaders overestimate customer comfort with automation by 25–30 points, risking alienation through poorly designed deployments.

The Path Forward Closing the CX Confidence Disconnect requires leaders to confront uncomfortable truths and recalibrate their strategies. This report identifies the 10 most consequential “reality gaps” between business leaders and consumers, ranked by severity of impact. It also explores a defining generational divide in attitudes toward AI, where digital natives demand instant gratification and transparency while older cohorts require reassurance and human oversight.

To rebuild confidence, organizations must: •

Re-baseline trust as a measurable, recurring metric, not an assumption.

•

Unify experiences across silos so promises and delivery align.

•

Redesign recovery playbooks around speed, restitution, and accountability.

•

Segment AI strategies by generation, balancing explainability with human backstops.

The CX Confidence Disconnect is real but solvable. Leaders who act decisively can turn the gap into an advantage, positioning their brands as the rare players who don’t just make promises, but keep them every time.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

4

Methodology & Respondent Profile This study is based on two complementary surveys conducted in Q2 2025 to capture both sides of the customer experience equation: business leaders and consumers. Together, they provide a dual-lens view of how promises are made, delivered, and perceived across industries.

Survey Design Instrument: Structured online surveys with single-choice, multiple-choice, and

•

forced-ranking questions.

Focus: Captured both quantitative metrics (e.g., % agreement, severity rankings) and qualitative

•

nuance (e.g., perceptions of broken promises).

Rigor: Randomized ordering to mitigate bias. Respondents were screened for relevance and

•

decision-making authority (leaders) or recent brand interaction (consumers).

Business Leader Sample (n = 869) RESPONDENT ROLE Executive Leadership (CEO, CMO, CIO)

INDUSTRIES 48%

26%

IT/Data/Digital

10%

Customer Service

31%

Technology & Digital Services

26%

Industrial & Manufacturing

9%

Marketing Other

7%

COMPANY SIZE (EMPLOYEES)

19%

<100

23%

22% 9%

100–499 500–999 1,000–4,999

27%

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

14%

5,000+

9% 9% 5%

Professional & Financial Services Healthcare, Education & Social Services Retail, Travel & Consumer Services

Other

Public Sector & Nonprofit

5

Consumer Sample (n = 1,818) AGE DISTRIBUTION

21%

12% 16%

18–24

35–44 45–54

18% 16%

17%

PROFILE

25–34

55–64 65+

Representative across gender, age, and income. All respondents reported at least one brand interaction in the past 90 days, across digital, in-person, and service channels.

Analytical Approach •

Gap Analysis: Leader and consumer data mapped to reveal perception gaps across promises, delivery, and recovery.

•

Severity Ranking: Each gap assessed against revenue risk, loyalty impact, and reputational exposure.

•

Generational Segmentation: Responses segmented by age cohorts to identify differences in AI comfort, trust, and patience.

Research Integrity This study was independently designed and analyzed to ensure impartiality. Respondents were anonymized, and no individual company or consumer data is disclosed.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

6

The Reality Gaps: Where Leaders and Consumers Diverge The CX Confidence Disconnect is defined by the distance between what leaders believe and what customers experience. Our analysis uncovered ten distinct “reality gaps” that cut across promises, delivery, and recovery.

Not all gaps carry the same weight. Some strike at the foundation of trust and loyalty; others reveal emerging risks that will grow more urgent over time. To help executives prioritize, we evaluated each gap against three dimensions: •

Revenue Risk: Likelihood of churn, reduced spending, or lost premium pricing.

•

Loyalty & Trust Impact: Degree to which customer confidence erodes after the gap is exposed.

•

Reputational Exposure: Potential for negative word-of-mouth, public backlash, or competitive vulnerability.

From this evaluation, the gaps were categorized into High, Medium, and Lower severity.

High-Severity Gaps Foundational issues that directly threaten loyalty and revenue.

1. The Trust Gap – Leaders overestimate customer trust by more than 40 points.

2. The Customer Churn Gap – Leaders underestimate the rate at which consumers abandon brands after poor experiences.

3. Trust After Broken Promises – Leaders believe forgiveness is common; consumers rarely grant it.

4. The Channel & Consistency Gap – Leaders assume unified experiences; customers see fragmented ones.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

7

Medium-Severity Gaps Misalignments that weaken recovery, confuse brand identity, and risk alienating customers.

5. The Recovery & Loyalty Gap – Leaders overvalue apologies; consumers want speed and compensation.

6. The Promise Alignment Gap – Leaders assume their brand promise is consistently understood; consumers experience contradictions.

7. The AI Preference & Comfort Gap – Leaders overstate how comfortable customers are with AI in service interactions.

Lower-Severity Gaps Important, but more incremental in impact compared to trust, churn, and consistency 8. The AI Trust Gap – Leaders assume stronger trust in AI’s fairness and security than consumers report.

9. The Overpromising Gap – Leaders see chronic exaggeration; consumers see “sometimes,” but still interpret it as broken promises.

10. The AI Disclosure Gap – Broad alignment exists, but leaders slightly understate the universality of disclosure expectations.

Individually, each gap exposes a blind spot. Collectively, they form a confidence deficit that undermines the relationship between customers and brands.

The following sections explore each of the ten gaps in detail, showing the data behind them, the implications for business outcomes, and the actions leaders must take to close them.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

8

GAP 1: The Trust Gap Business leaders:

Consumers:

86% believe customers completely or

Only 44% say they mostly or completely

mostly trust their brand to keep promises.

trust brands. The largest single group (34%) reports only “somewhat” trust.

This is the foundation of the CX Confidence Disconnect. Trust is the prerequisite for loyalty, forgiveness, and premium pricing but leaders are twice as confident in customer trust as consumers actually are. This optimism bias is dangerous because it encourages complacency: if leaders believe trust is already secured, they will underinvest in the daily, operational reliability that earns it.

The data shows that consumers are skeptical, cautious, and quick to temper their expectations. For them, trust is not automatic. It is earned and re-earned at every interaction. When leaders misjudge this baseline, they risk building strategy on a false sense of security.

“I ordered a laptop and it arrived damaged. I expected a fight, but the company immediately replaced it—no questions asked. That was the moment I began to really trust them.”

The Implication Trust is the foundation of customer loyalty and willingness to pay a premium. Yet leaders consistently overestimate how much of it they actually hold. This miscalibration creates hidden vulnerabilities across revenue, brand equity, and competitive position.

•

Revenue risk: Only 39% of consumers say they would pay more for a trusted brand, compared to 73% of leaders who believe they would.

•

Brand equity erosion: Leaders often overinvest in innovation or marketing campaigns while neglecting the consistency that actually sustains credibility.

•

Competitive exposure: Challenger brands that emphasize reliability and transparency can win market share from incumbents lulled into complacency.

Left unaddressed, this optimism bias encourages underinvestment in operational reliability, the very discipline that earns and protects trust.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

9

Closing the trust gap requires leaders to reframe trust as a measurable, ongoing discipline, not an abstract value. It must be operationalized across marketing, service, and delivery.

•

Re-baseline trust: Make trust a living KPI, measured quarterly alongside financial metrics.

•

Close the trust loop: Tie brand promises directly to operational measures so delivery teams are accountable for marketing claims.

•

Practice transparent recovery: When failures occur, acknowledgment and clarity restore more confidence than silence or spin.

The organizations that thrive will be those that treat trust like capital: tracked, protected, and intentionally grown.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

10

GAP 2: The Customer Churn Gap Business leaders:

Consumers:

42% acknowledge losing customers due

59% say they have stopped using a brand

to poor experiences.

entirely after a bad experience.

This is the revenue flashpoint of the confidence disconnect. Nearly six in ten consumers have cut ties with a brand after a single negative interaction, yet fewer than half of leaders admit it is happening.

Too often, organizations rationalize churn as inevitable or attribute it to external factors like pricing and competition. The reality is stark: much of it is preventable with better recovery, care, and follow-through.

For customers, the bar for departure has dropped. Abundant alternatives and low switching costs mean loyalty is more fragile than leaders assume. When leaders misjudge the rate of churn, they not only underinvest in prevention but also miss the true cost of poor experiences hidden within revenue reports.

“I was charged extra fees I never agreed to. That was the last straw—I switched providers immediately.”

The Implication Churn is not simply an operational nuisance; it is a direct threat to revenue stability. Misjudging its scale creates blind spots in both strategy and financial planning.

•

Direct revenue loss: Every percentage point of preventable churn represents hidden leakage that compounds quarter over quarter.

•

Misallocated resources: Leaders who misdiagnose churn often double down on the wrong levers (pricing changes, promotions, or sales pushes) while the real driver is unmet expectations.

•

Fragile tolerance: Consumers no longer give brands multiple chances. With alternatives just a click away, their willingness to walk is faster than leaders anticipate.

“They lost my package, gave me the runaround for weeks, and never refunded me. I haven’t been back since.”

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

11

Left unchecked, hidden churn distorts reporting, undermines forecasting, and creates a false sense of stability while customers quietly slip away.

Leaders must stop treating churn as an inevitable cost of doing business and start treating it as a preventable failure that demands active management.

•

Measure experience-driven churn: Build systems that capture not just “who left,” but why they left, tying CRM and service data to clear attribution.

•

Design zero-defection recovery: Establish playbooks that intervene within 24–48 hours of a service failure to proactively salvage at-risk relationships.

•

Elevate churn to the board level: Track and report churn alongside revenue and cost metrics, ensuring leadership visibility into the true scope and causes.

The organizations that outperform will be those that view churn as a solvable problem, not a sunk cost, treating every retained customer as a compound asset for growth.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

12

GAP 3: Trust After Broken Promises Business leaders:

Consumers:

38% believe customers are likely to trust a

Only 21% say they would, while 55% say

brand again after a broken promise.

they are unlikely or very unlikely.

Leaders continue to cling to the idea that customers are forgiving when mistakes happen. Consumers tell a different story: forgiveness is rare, and once trust is broken, it is exceptionally difficult to restore.

For customers, a broken promise is not just a service failure. It is a breach of an unspoken contract.

This miscalibration is dangerous because it shapes how organizations design their recovery strategies.

When leaders assume forgiveness, they underinvest in prevention and overvalue words like apologies, while consumers expect restitution and accountability. The result is a recovery gap that looks resolved internally but leaves customers unrecovered and unwilling to return.

“My expensive washing machine broke after two loads. Support told me it would be six weeks before anyone could look at it. I spent those weeks at the laundromat and never bought from them again.”

The Implication Overestimating forgiveness has ripple effects across loyalty, reputation, and retention.

•

Fragile loyalty: Believing forgiveness is common creates a false sense of security in customer retention models.

•

Word-of-mouth risk: Customers who lose trust rarely suffer in silence. They share their disappointment, amplifying reputational damage.

•

Recovery blind spots: Leaders emphasize apologies and outreach, but customers place higher weight on speed, fairness, and tangible restitution.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

13

This gap creates a dangerous illusion where organizations believe they have repaired trust, but customers have already disengaged.

Rebuilding trust after a broken promise requires more than empathy. It demands visible accountability and over-delivery.

•

Redefine recovery KPIs: Measure recovery not by closure rates or apology logs, but by postincident willingness to repurchase or recommend.

•

Treat promises as contracts: Build systems of accountability that minimize repeat violations and elevate promise-keeping to a board-level discipline.

•

Overcompensate in recovery: Offer tangible restitution, i.e., financial credits, upgrades, or priority service, that communicates respect and seriousness.

The brands that win back trust will be those that respond with decisive action, not hollow assurances. For customers, a broken promise is remembered. For leaders, recovery is the chance to prove that promises still matter.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

14

GAP 4: The Channel & Consistency Gap Business leaders:

Consumers:

71% believe their brand delivers a unified

Only 36% say brands deliver consistency

experience often or always.

across website, app, support, and in-store.

For leaders, investment in platforms and shared data creates the impression of progress. For customers, the seams are still showing. Fragmented handoffs, missing context, and siloed interactions undermine credibility: if a brand cannot recognize me across touchpoints, why should I trust it with bigger promises?

This disconnect may begin as a technical shortcoming, but it quickly manifests as a trust issue.

Consistency is the connection that makes a brand feel reliable. When it breaks, customers experience the brand as incoherent, no matter how strong the marketing message.

“I tried to cancel a subscription. I emailed, chatted, and called, but every time I had to start over from scratch. No one seemed to know what the other had told me. It took months to resolve.”

The Implication Inconsistent journeys weaken loyalty, drive up costs, and hand advantage to competitors who deliver smoother experiences.

•

Experience dilution: Fragmented channels make even strong brand promises feel hollow.

•

Operational inefficiency: Disconnected systems force customers to repeat themselves, creating rework, delays, and unnecessary escalations.

•

Competitive weakness: Challenger brands that deliver seamless continuity can differentiate quickly, turning consistency into a marketable strength.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

15

When consistency breaks down, it erodes both trust and efficiency, hitting customer loyalty and margins simultaneously.

Building consistency is not simply a technology initiative; it is a strategic commitment to “one brand, one experience.”

•

Audit for fractures: Use journey analytics to identify the points where customers fall into gaps between channels or teams.

•

Unify platforms: Consolidate tools and workflows so data flows across touchpoints and customers feel recognized at every step.

•

Make consistency a promise: Translate the brand promise into measurable delivery standards (e.g., “personalization” tied to data continuity, “speed” tied to wait times).

Organizations that succeed will treat consistency not as an IT project, but as a core dimension of brand credibility. Customers don’t just notice when it’s broken. They reward the brands that get it right every time.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

16

GAP 5: The Recovery & Loyalty Gap Business leaders:

Consumers:

Rank apologies, follow-ups, and

Place highest value on fast resolution

transparency as nearly as effective as

(23%) and compensation (21%), with

fast resolution.

apologies less effective.

Leaders view recovery as an emotional exchange: empathy, apologies, and reassurances. Consumers, however, see it as transactional. They want problems solved quickly and fairly, with compensation when appropriate. This disconnect explains why many recovery programs underperform: leaders overvalue words, while customers value actions.

“They kept apologizing, but my problem wasn’t fixed. After the third call, I gave up.”

The Implication Recovery moments are some of the most decisive in shaping loyalty. Misaligned strategies squander their potential and can even deepen disappointment.

•

Wasted investment: Over-indexing on apologies without fixing root causes drains resources without improving outcomes.

•

Lost loyalty opportunities: Service failures that could become loyalty builders instead push customers away.

•

Reputational drag: Scripted empathy without resolution breeds cynicism and accelerates negative word-of-mouth.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

17

Every failed recovery signals to customers that promises don’t matter. What leaders see as an attempt to rebuild trust often lands as empty rhetoric.

To rebuild loyalty, recovery must prioritize speed and restitution before words.

•

Reframe recovery playbooks: Design processes where resolution speed and compensation are the first priorities.

•

Empower the frontline: Give teams the authority to fix problems and offer restitution without layers of escalation.

“My order was delayed. They refunded shipping, sent me a gift card, and kept me updated. I felt valued even before the package arrived.”

•

Close the loop: Follow up to confirm satisfaction and signal accountability after a resolution is delivered.

True recovery is measured in fairness and speed, demonstrated through actions that make it right. Brands that reengineer recovery around fairness and speed will transform failures into moments that deepen, rather than diminish, customer trust.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

18

GAP 6: The Promise Alignment Gap Business leaders:

Consumers:

91% believe customers describe their

Only 40% say experiences are

brand the same way they do.

mostly consistent; another 41% say “sometimes consistent.”

Leaders assume that brand promises are consistently experienced by customers. Consumers reveal a different reality: contradictions abound. Promises of speed are undermined by long waits, personalization is diluted into generic interactions, and “seamlessness” often breaks down at channel handoffs. These contradictions create brand dissonance, eroding credibility both externally and internally.

“They promised one price when I signed up. My bill was higher every single month. After three months, I stopped trusting anything they said.”

The Implication When what’s promised diverges from what’s delivered, trust and equity erode quickly.

•

Brand dilution: Inconsistent delivery weakens even the most creative marketing campaigns.

•

Customer confusion: A fragmented identity drives disengagement and makes the brand forgettable.

•

Employee misalignment: Teams reinforce different interpretations of the brand, undermining cohesion and morale.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

19

The result is a brand that feels incoherent externally to customers and internally to employees. When promise and delivery fail to align, the brand itself becomes unstable.

Aligning promise with delivery requires both external validation and internal discipline.

•

Validate externally: Regularly survey customers on how they describe the brand to ensure alignment with intended positioning.

•

Cascade clarity internally: Ensure that every function, not just marketing, understands and reinforces the core brand promise.

•

Translate into standards: Tie promises directly to measurable outcomes (e.g., “speed” to wait times, “personalization” to relevance scores).

A promise only matters when it is honored consistently. The brands that succeed are those that anchor every decision, message, and interaction to a single, coherent identity customers can trust.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

20

GAP 7: The AI Preference & Comfort Gap Business leaders:

Consumers:

Believe most consumers are comfortable

Report much lower comfort. Only 34% are

with AI (60%+ across tasks).

very comfortable with AI for FAQs

Leaders are advancing AI-first strategies under the assumption that customers embrace it. Consumers are more cautious. For many, AI is acceptable for simple tasks but quickly becomes intrusive when applied to more personal or high-stakes interactions. They want AI to assist, not replace.

“The chatbot kept giving me the same useless answer. I asked for a human, but it never connected me. I felt ignored and gave up.”

The Implication Overconfidence in AI adoption risks alienating customers and undermining trust.

•

Adoption risk: AI-first deployments frustrate when customers expect human options.

•

Generational divide: Younger consumers are more open; older ones are significantly more skeptical.

•

Trust erosion: Missteps in AI design reinforce doubts about whether brands act in customers’ best interest.

When leaders misread comfort levels, they overengineer automation, placing convenience for the business over confidence for the customer.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

21

AI adoption must be designed for calibration, not overreach.

•

Segment design: Offer AI-first pathways for digital natives while maintaining human-first pathways for skeptical cohorts.

•

Be transparent: Disclose AI involvement clearly and provide seamless escalation to human agents.

“When I finally reached a person, they apologized and gave me a discount.

That one conversation fixed months of frustration.”

•

Measure comfort directly: Track satisfaction with AI interactions, not just usage volume, to avoid false confidence.

The goal is not to replace human touchpoints but to deploy AI where it helps most. Organizations that earn customer comfort interaction by interaction will see AI strengthen, not weaken, trust.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

22

The Generational Divide in AI Artificial intelligence is no longer a theoretical frontier; it is shaping everyday interactions between consumers and brands. Yet our research reveals that age is one of the strongest predictors of how consumers interpret, adopt, and trust AI. The divide is not subtle. It is consistent, pronounced, and strategically unavoidable.

Familiar Confirmation: Digital Natives Are More Comfortable The data validates a long-standing assumption: younger consumers are more comfortable with AI.

Comfort: Nearly 4 in 10 consumers

Trust: Younger cohorts average 35–

under 45 are “very” or “extremely

44% trust in AI’s ability to understand,

comfortable” letting AI handle service

treat fairly, and protect data, while

basics, recommendations, or escalation.

older cohorts languish at 11–19%. This

By contrast, fewer than 1 in 5 consumers

20–25 point trust gap is one of the most

over 55 feel the same.

consistent findings in the dataset.

Digital natives grew up in a world shaped by algorithms: search results, social feeds, streaming recommendations. They extend that familiarity to customer service, treating AI as a natural extension of their daily tools.

The Unexpected Divide: Adoption vs. Trust High adoption does not equate to blind trust.

Adoption: Consumers aged 35–44 lead

Trust: Yet even in the most favorable

the way, with 41% using GenAI tools

dimension, fairness, fewer than half

regularly. Nearly 40% of 18–24-year-olds

(46%) of 18–24-year-olds express

also report regular use.

strong trust.

This nuance matters. Many younger consumers treat AI as an efficiency tool, not an authority.

They rely on it for speed and convenience but remain skeptical of its ability to make consequential decisions.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

23

Instant Assistance vs. Resigned Patience The data reinforces a generational divide in expectations for speed.

YOUNGER COHORT

“If the AI can’t fix it right away, I want a person instantly.

I don’t have time to wait.”

OLDER COHORT

“I’ll wait 10 minutes on hold for a human. That’s just how customer service has always been.”

Younger cohorts: Roughly 30%

Older cohorts: Nearly half of consumers

demand instant escalation to a human

aged 55+ are willing to wait 5–10 minutes

when AI fails.

or more for a human resolution.

This isn’t because older consumers trust AI more. It reflects a different baseline of expectation. Having spent decades navigating customer service systems, many older consumers are resigned to friction and delay as the norm. Younger consumers, raised in an age of on-demand services and instant digital gratification, view delays as unacceptable.

The contrast is not just about age, but about lived experience: one generation expects effortless immediacy, while another has been conditioned to tolerate waiting.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

24

Collaboration Expectations: AI as a First Pass, Not a Final Answer Despite differences in comfort and trust, there is one area of cross-generational consensus: AI should assist, not replace.

•

Across all ages, the majority preference is: “Let AI try first, but make it easy to reach a human.”

•

Younger consumers (18–44) are more willing to let AI handle entire interactions if it works.

•

Older consumers (55+) diverge: some demand human oversight, others are willing to cede control to AI entirely, so long as it reduces effort.

The lesson: customers don’t reject AI. They reject being trapped by it.

The Role of Trust Features The divide also shapes what consumers say would increase their trust: •

Younger consumers prioritize transparency: showing sources and explaining reasoning.

•

Older consumers emphasize human oversight and brand credibility.

This split underscores the need for dual trust strategies: design AI interactions that are explainable for digital natives and human-supervised for digital migrants.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

25

Strategic Implications for Business Leaders 1. Design for a dual audience. ׄ

Younger consumers demand speed, convenience, and transparency.

ׄ

Older consumers require human validation, reassurance, and trusted brands.

2. Don’t mistake usage for trust.

Even frequent GenAI users remain skeptical of sensitive use cases. Adoption ≠ confidence.

3. Recognize the hidden patience factor.

Older consumers’ tolerance for delay reflects resignation, not satisfaction. Reducing wait times wins universally, but especially with younger segments.

4. Build trust through transparency and oversight. ׄ

For digital natives: prioritize explainable AI.

ׄ

For older cohorts: reinforce human accountability and brand credibility.

The Generational Reality Check What this research affirms: digital natives embrace AI more quickly.

What it reveals: trust remains fragile, and older consumers hold more nuanced, sometimes more patient, expectations than leaders assume.

For executives, the takeaway is clear: AI’s success will not be determined by technical capability alone, but by how well brands navigate the generational reality gap: blending transparency, oversight, and flexibility to serve different expectations within a unified experience.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

26

GAP 8: The AI Trust Gap Business leaders:

Consumers:

Believe half of customers mostly trust AI to

Only 27–34% express trust, dropping to

treat them fairly.

25% in areas like money and privacy.

Consumers are increasingly using AI, but usage does not equal confidence. Many accept AI for convenience but reserve real trust for humans and reputable brands.

The Implication Assuming consumer trust in AI creates reputational and adoption risks.

•

Adoption plateau: Without trust, AI usage grows in volume but stagnates in satisfaction.

•

Risk of overreach: Extending AI into high-stakes use cases before trust is established risks backlash.

•

Trust contagion: Failures with AI are rarely contained; they bleed into perceptions of the entire brand.

The danger lies in mistaking tolerance for trust. Customers may use AI when it is the easiest option, but that doesn’t mean they believe in it.

Trust in AI must be built deliberately, with proof over time.

•

Earn trust incrementally: Start with low-risk, low-stakes use cases and expand only after clear value is demonstrated.

•

Embed fairness and stewardship: Make equity, security, and accountability non-negotiables in AI design.

•

Communicate boundaries: Be explicit about what AI can, and cannot, do, so expectations are never set falsely.

Brands that cultivate AI trust step by step will gain the right to expand its role.

Those that rush into sensitive spaces without first earning confidence risk damaging not just their technology initiatives but their reputation as a whole.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

27

GAP 9: The Overpromising Gap Business leaders:

Consumers:

46% say brands in their industry often or

29% say often/always, while nearly half

always overpromise and underdeliver.

(49%) say sometimes.

Executives tend to view their industries through a cynical lens, assuming exaggeration is rampant.

Consumers, however, see overpromising as a more occasional frustration. The real danger is that leaders normalize exaggeration as inevitable, lowering accountability for promises that matter.

The Implication Treating overpromising as an industry norm risks weakening credibility.

•

Credibility erosion: Even “occasional” overpromising chips away at consumer trust.

•

Complacency risk: If leaders assume exaggeration is unavoidable, they deprioritize correcting it.

•

Differentiation opportunity: Brands that make only achievable promises and consistently deliver on them can stand apart in skeptical markets.

The disconnect is less about consumer naivety and more about leader cynicism. Consumers still interpret broken promises as breaches of trust, no matter how small.

The strongest brands commit to only what they can deliver and then consistently exceed it.

•

Audit language: Align brand claims tightly with operational realities.

•

Set conservative expectations: Under-promise when necessary; over-delivery remains the winning strategy.

•

Monitor breaches: Track promise failures as a trust KPI and report them alongside other core CX measures.

Consistency is the rarest differentiator in markets crowded with bold claims.

Brands that prove reliable, even in small ways, are the ones that ultimately earn loyalty.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

28

GAP 10: The AI Disclosure Gap Business leaders:

Consumers:

67% believe customers want disclosure

72% demand disclosure every time,

every time they’re interacting with AI.

with another 21% wanting it in complex/ sensitive cases.

Here, alignment is relatively strong. Both leaders and consumers recognize the importance of transparency. But the nuance matters: leaders slightly understate how universal the expectation is.

For consumers, disclosure is not situational. It is a baseline condition for trust.

The Implication As AI becomes more deeply embedded in customer interactions, disclosure will define credibility.

•

Regulatory exposure: Failing to disclose AI risks scrutiny in an increasingly regulated environment.

•

Consumer skepticism: Even minor lapses in transparency fuel suspicion and distrust.

•

Trust reinforcement: Disclosure is low-cost but high-impact, signaling respect and honesty.

Leaders who treat disclosure as optional are ignoring what consumers already see as table stakes.

Disclosure must be embedded into every AI interaction, not as a courtesy, but as a standard practice.

•

Standardize disclosure: Make it a default feature of every AI engagement, not a situational decision.

•

Design with dignity: Frame disclosures clearly and positively, positioning AI as an enabler rather than a trick.

•

Pair with choice: Always provide an easy, immediate path to a human for customers who want it.

Respect in AI interactions begins with disclosure. Brands that make transparency automatic will reinforce credibility in a technology space where skepticism still runs high.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

29

From Insight to Action: What Leaders Must Do Now The CX Confidence Disconnect leaves no leadership role untouched. Each function: executive, marketing, IT, and customer service, plays a distinct part in how promises are made, kept, and recovered when they falter. The following actions are strategic imperatives for survival in an era where trust is fragile and customers are quick to walk away.

FOR EXECUTIVES Executives set the tone for whether trust is measured, monitored, and prioritized. Too often, customer trust is treated as an abstract value rather than a business-critical metric. Leaders must put it on par with financial performance, reviewing it consistently at the board level.

Equally, churn must be tracked and reported with clarity, breaking down whether losses stem from pricing, competition, or poor experiences. Without this transparency, organizations misallocate resources and fail to see the real leakage points.

FOR MARKETERS Marketers are the architects of the brand promise. Yet when messaging outruns reality, it becomes the spark that ignites consumer disappointment. The mandate for marketing leaders is to root campaigns in what the organization can reliably deliver, then continuously validate customer perceptions against intended positioning.

The job does not end with a launch; it requires closing the loop between message and lived experience.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

30

FOR IT & DIGITAL LEADERS The infrastructure of trust is built, or broken, in the systems that hold customer data and orchestrate engagement. Fragmented platforms create the very inconsistencies customers identify as broken promises.

IT leaders hold the keys to unification: consolidating tools, ensuring data flows seamlessly, and designing AI with transparency at its core. For them, customer experience is not just a technology conversation but a risk management discipline.

FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE LEADERS When promises slip, the frontline is where trust can still be salvaged. Service leaders must redesign recovery around fast, tangible solutions that empower teams to resolve issues without delay or bureaucratic escalation.

“When I finally reached a person, they apologized and gave me a discount. That one conversation fixed months of frustration.”

Customers interpret speed and fairness as signals of respect; when those are absent, trust fractures permanently. Service organizations should position themselves as the stewards of brand repair, not just issue resolution.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

31

From Complacency to Confidence Many of the findings in this report may feel familiar. Customers expect consistency. They disengage quickly when disappointed. They rarely forgive broken promises. None of this is new. But that is precisely the danger. When leaders treat these realities as inevitable rather than solvable, complacency takes hold, and that is the true risk.

Every percentage point of hidden churn is a direct hit to revenue. Every misaligned message undermines marketing ROI. Every failed recovery compounds reputational damage. The disconnect is not defined by the existence of these problems. It is defined by the widening gap between recognition and response. Costs are escalating, and competitors are moving aggressively to seize advantage where others hesitate.

Yet this moment is not only a warning. It is also an opportunity. Customers are not demanding perfection. They are demanding consistency, accountability, and fairness. Brands that honor their promises, recover quickly when they falter, and design AI strategies with transparency will earn loyalty even in a climate of skepticism.

The leaders who act now can turn the CX Confidence Disconnect into a foundation for differentiation.

Those who delay will not only see the gap between perception and reality grow wider, they will watch competitors redefine the standard for trust, loyalty, and growth.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

32

About Metric Sherpa Metric Sherpa is the next-generation analyst firm organizations rely on for clear, independent business communication and customer interactions insight. We deliver original research, strategic guidance, and content that drives real decisions. Founded by customer experience expert Justin Robbins, we bridge the gap between strategy and execution with practical, experience-backed analysis. Our work helps tech companies and business leaders understand the market, sharpen their message, and lead with confidence. Learn more at metricsherpa.com.

About Sprinklr Sprinklr is the definitive, AI native platform for Unified Customer Experience Management (Unified CXM), empowering brands to deliver extraordinary experiences at scale – across every customer touchpoint.

By combining human instinct with the speed and efficiency of AI, Sprinklr helps brands earn trust and loyalty through personalized, seamless, and efficient customer interactions. Sprinklr’s unified platform provides powerful solutions for every customer facing team spanning social media management, marketing, advertising, customer feedback, and omnichannel contact center management enabling enterprises to unify data, break down silos, and act on real time insights.

Today, 1,900+ enterprises – including Microsoft, P&G, Samsung, and 60% of the Fortune 100 rely on Sprinklr to help them deliver consistent, trusted customer experiences worldwide.

This research was commissioned and underwritten by Sprinklr as part of their commitment to advancing customer experience best practices. Metric Sherpa maintained full editorial independence. Sprinklr did not influence the research methodology, data analysis, or conclusions.

THE CX CONFIDENCE DISCONNECT

33