New research from the Lending Standards Board (LSB) has revealed significant disparities in customer experiences across financial services providers’ ‘webchat’ services – including key differences in experience between webchats supported by AI tools and by humans.
Webchat services have become a ubiquitous feature of financial services providers’ customer support toolkits, and comprise both ‘live chat’ services (text conversations with a human customer service colleague) and ‘chatbot’ interactions (conversations with an artificial intelligence or data-based machine).
The research found that 59% of customers who communicated through an AI-driven chatbot found the interaction unhelpful or very unhelpful. Nearly half (46%) of customers using a chatbot said they were not confident in the next steps or support available to them.
In contrast, 82% of customers who spoke to a ‘live’ agent said they felt confident following their interaction, while 77% described their experience as helpful or very helpful.
Chatbots were also less effective at picking up on particular customer circumstances: 74% of live chat users said they felt their circumstances were understood, whereas just 35% of chatbot users said the same. Meanwhile, 50% of customers using live chat felt that indicators of vulnerability were addressed, compared to just 31% for chatbot users.
Flexibility in communication emerged as a key determinant in whether the customer outcome was positive or negative. For instance, 89% of 'excellent' experiences were linked to a webchat which allowed free-flowing dialogue, while 74% of poor experiences were associated with fully templated interactions (as were 45% of ‘very poor’ experiences).
These findings raise concerns that vulnerable customers could slip through the cracks, as many banks and lenders’ chatbot services are failing to pick up on the signs of financial distress.
The research found that live chat interactions were more likely to identify and respond to signs of potential financial difficulties, as opposed to chatbot services. Almost three-quarters (73%) of customers using live chat felt indicators of financial difficulty were picked up on, dropping to 57% in chatbot interactions.
Anna Roughley, deputy chief executive of the LSB, commented: “When seeking support from their financial services provider, customers want to communicate freely, be understood, and quickly access the right help. When they can’t do that, it limits the chances that they’re able to access the right outcome for their situation – it can even stop them from trying to find help again.
“Webchats are a common – and often useful – feature of financial services providers’ websites, but customer experiences can be uneven. This is particularly the case when webchats rely on AI or templated interactions. There is a positive role for chatbots to play, but providers need to adapt to their limitations. It should be clear up front what a chatbot can or can’t do, and there should be clear signposting to where a customer can get help if a bot isn’t able to provide the right support on a consistent basis.
“The inability to freely explain their issue was a common frustration with those using chatbots as they are currently deployed. With significant leaps in AI technology in recent years, particularly the development of Generative AI, there is a growing opportunity for financial services providers to use AI to offer customers the free-flowing webchat conversations they find most useful. Whatever happens next, it’s vital that customers are the primary consideration – and that tech continues to deliver better outcomes, not block them.”
