1
Moving the Customer Experience Field Forward: Introducing the Touchpoints,
Context, Qualities (TCQ) Nomenclature
Arne De Keyser, Katrien Verleye, Katherine N. Lemon, Timothy L. Keiningham, and Phil
Klaus
Forthcoming in the Journal of Service Research
May 1, 2020
Arne DE KEYSER (contact author) is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Department of Marketing,
EDHEC Business School, France. Contact information: 24 Avenue Gustave Delory, CS 50411, 59057 Roubaix
Cedex 1, France, Tel. (+32) 494263493, Email: arne.dekeyser@edhec.edu
Katrien VERLEYE is Assistant Professor of Service Innovation at the Center for Service Intelligence,
Department of Marketing, Innovation and Organisation, Ghent University, Belgium. Contact information:
Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000 Ghent, Tel. (+32) 9-264-3494, Email: katrien.verleye@ugent.be
Katherine N. LEMON is Accenture Professor of Marketing at the Department of Marketing, Carroll School of
Management, Boston College. Contact information: Fulton Hall 510, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut
Hill, MA 02467, United States, Tel. (1) 617-552-1647, Email: kay.lemon@bc.edu
Timothy L. KEININGHAM is the J. Donald Kennedy Endowed Chair in E-Commerce and Professor of
Marketing at the Department of Marketing, Peter J. Tobin College of Business, St. John’s University. Contact
information: 8000 Utopia Parkway, Queens, NY 11439, United States, Tel. (1) 718-990-6800, Email:
keiningt@stjohns.edu
Philipp ‘Phil’ KLAUS is Associate Professor of Customer Experience Strategy and Management at the
Department of Marketing, INSEEC U Research Center, International University of Monaco. Contact
information: Le Stella, 14 Rue Hubert Clerissi, 98000 Monaco, Tel. (+377) 97-98-69-86, Email:
pklaus@monaco.edu
Keywords: customer experience, customer experience management, marketing strategy, touchpoints,
experience qualities, experience stages, experience context, customer journey
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge support of the Marketing Science Institute (MSI).
They also wish to thank seminar participants at CTF (Karlstad University) for their feedback, as well as Bart
Larivière (KU Leuven) and the members of the Center for Service Intelligence (Ghent University).
2
Moving the Customer Experience Field Forward: Introducing the Touchpoints,
Context, Qualities (TCQ) Nomenclature
ABSTRACT
In response to initial voices that put the customer experience (management) (CX(M)
hereafter) movement into question, this paper aims to introduce a formal nomenclature to
push the CX(M) field toward a more mature state. First, drawing from an inductive analysis
of 143 CX(M) papers, the authors identify twelve basic CX components which aggregate into
three overarching building blocks - touchpoints (T – i.e., points of interaction between the
customer and brand/firm), context (C – i.e., situationally available resources internal and/or
external to the customer), and qualities (Q – i.e., attributes that reflect the nature of customer
responses and reactions to interactions with the brand/firm). The TCQ nomenclature offers a
language to make CX actionable, moving beyond the breadth of the current definition and
frameworks by disentangling CX into small bite-sized chunks (i.e., the CX components) that
any academic and practitioner, regardless of their discipline, may understand and use to
discuss and manage CX. Second, using the TCQ nomenclature, the authors assess the current
state of the CX(M) literature and identify mature (e.g., firm-controlled touchpoints and
cognitive and emotional qualities associated with CX) and underdeveloped (e.g., non-firm
controlled touchpoints and the market and environmental context in which CX emerges)
areas ripe for future research. In addition, they also provide a set of recommendations to
strengthen the methodological rigor of the field. Third, the TCQ nomenclature may support
managers in auditing their current CXM practices and/or serve as a basis for CX design and
innovation.
Keywords: customer experience, customer experience management, marketing strategy,
touchpoints, experience qualities, experience stages, experience context, customer journey
3
In little time, CX has become one of the dominant marketing concepts for both practitioners
and academics. 93 percent of business leaders today say that delivering a relevant and reliable
CX is critical to overall business performance (HBR Analytic Services 2017). Not
surprisingly, academic research on CX and its management (CXM) is flourishing. Well-cited
work appeared in popular managerial outlets (e.g., Harvard Business Review: Meyer and
Schwager 2007; Rawson, Duncan, and Jones 2013) and high-ranked academic journals (e.g.,
Journal of Marketing: Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009, Lemon and Verhoef 2016;
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science: Homburg, Jozíc, and Kuehnl 2017, Lemke,
Clark, and Wilson 2011; Journal of Retailing: Grewal, Levy, and Kumar 2009, Verhoef et al.
2009; Journal of Service Research: McColl-Kennedy et al. 2019). Equally, CX(M) has been
featured a top priority in five consecutive publications of the Marketing Science Institute
research priorities, covering the 2010-2020 period (MSI 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018).
Despite the widespread conviction of CX(M)’s importance and the various
contributions delivered by academic and practitioner work, we observe a CX(M) field that is
struggling to reach a level of maturity that can and should be expected (Forrester Research
2019; Lemon and Verhoef 2016). Some reports claim that only 1 in 3 CXM initiatives are
successful (Thompson 2018), while others contend that the majority of brands/firms that
poured significant resources into their CXM programs fail to deliver and see weak returns
(Morgan 2018). Initial voices putting the CX(M) movement into question are slowly
growing, as exemplified by popular press quotes like ‘It’s time for CX to put up, or shut up’
(Thompson 2018) and ‘Customer experience will be a fad without a better business case’
(Latib 2018). Hence, action is needed if the CX(M) field wants to be more than just the
“flavor of the month” in the corporate world.
To date, CX(M) researchers have delineated CX from evaluative concepts such as
satisfaction and service quality and motivational concepts like engagement (e.g., Lemon and
4
Verhoef 2016). Building upon the most prevalent definitions across different research
traditions, Becker and Jaakkola (2020) defined CX as non-deliberate, spontaneous responses
and reactions to offering-related stimuli embedded within a specific context. The broadness
of this CX definition (i.e., CX is everything), however, does not provide much help to scope
and develop a manageable CX program (Maklan, Antonetti and Whitty 2017; Keiningham et
al. 2020). Becker and Jaakkola (2020) confirm that an atomistic understanding of the content
of CX is needed to delineate what its monitoring, design, and management entails and call for
novel research filling this void. Quotes from business press and popular blogs echo similar
concerns: ‘CEOs are giving lip service to CX, without really understanding what it means’
(Thompson 2018).
To add granularity to the very broad CX definition while also ensuring its
actionability, this research aims to disentangle small bite-sized chunks – here, labeled as CX
components – that any academic and practitioner regardless of their discipline may
understand and use to discuss and manage CX. By devising labels for these CX components,
this research establishes a much-needed formal CX nomenclature (Klaus 2019). Every
mature field necessarily relies on a nomenclature to reduce misunderstandings and support
effective research, measurement, design and management practices (MacInnis 2011; Mele,
Pels, and Storbacka 2015). Specifically, following an inductive analysis of 143 CX(M)
papers, we identify twelve CX components that aggregate into three overarching building
blocks: (1) Touchpoints (i.e., points of interaction between the customer and brand/firm), (2)
Context (i.e., situationally available resources internal and/or external to the customer), and
(3) Qualities (i.e., attributes that reflect the nature of customer responses to interactions with
the brand/firm). These building blocks and their components form the basis of the TCQ
nomenclature, capturing the essence of CX as a concept in simple and precise terms.
Additionally, we complement the development of the TCQ nomenclature with an analysis of
5
the meta-data (i.e., research method and research context) distilled from the analyzed CX(M)
literature.
The TCQ nomenclature will allow us to contribute to CX(M) research and practice in
three meaningful ways. First, the TCQ nomenclature helps reduce misunderstanding and
conceptual ambiguity among CX(M) researchers and practitioners through identifying and
listing all its underlying CX components (as called for by Keiningham et al. 2020). Second,
the TCQ nomenclature allows us to assess the current state of academic CX(M) work and
identify existing gaps in our knowledge. In combination with the meta-data analysis, we
make recommendations to broaden the methodological rigor and inclusiveness of the CX(M)
field. Third, the TCQ nomenclature makes CX actionable and enables business practice in
their CXM ambitions. Specifically, we discuss how the TCQ nomenclature may be used to
audit CXM programs and identify “quick wins” to strengthen current CXM and can also
serve as a basis for CX design and innovation practices, enabling fast identification of
opportunities for differentiation and excellence. This is in line with calls by Lemon and
Verhoef (2016) and Becker and Jaakkola (2020) for CX(M) research that may assist
researchers and managers to define the content of intended CXs – something a nomenclature
is well suited for. It is our hope that, armed with this new approach, brands/firms will
(finally) be able to make a clear business case for CXM.
The paper is organized as follows. First, we identify and describe the overarching CX
building blocks and their components by means of an inductive analysis of existing CX
definitions and a fine-grained analysis of 143 CX(M) papers. The analysis lays the
foundation for the TCQ nomenclature and develops each building block conceptually.
Second, we consider how strongly CX(M) literature has focused on each of the building
blocks and their components, identifying critical research gaps and opportunities to push the
field forward. Third, we discuss methodological challenges that need to be overcome in line
