Skip to content 
Airlines Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May carried the full weight of the summer travel surge into the aviation sector, with passenger volumes climbing steadily as school holidays began and international routes reached near-capacity loads. Carriers managing high-frequency corridors faced a familiar tension between operational throughput and service quality, and the month tested whether the communication improvements from April had taken root or were simply a seasonal dip in contact pressure.
The data pointed to a sector making incremental progress on response speed while still carrying a deeply negative sentiment baseline. Daily ticket volume dropped from 398 in April to 354 in May, yet NPS improved only modestly from -61.96% to -51.62%. The passengers reaching out were still predominantly those carrying unresolved frustration from prior interactions, and that accumulation was shaping every exchange.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 0.52% |
Engagement Rate | 7.1% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 3.05 |
Average First Response Time | 53 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 16 hours, 11 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 354 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | -51.62% |
Average SLA Response Time | 4 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | 8 hours, 1 minute |
CXM Diagnosis
The first response time of 53 minutes was a genuine improvement over April’s 1 hour 23 minutes and reflected faster triage on incoming contacts. The SLA response time of 4 minutes confirmed that priority escalations were being handled efficiently. What the numbers also revealed was that faster acknowledgment was not translating into faster resolution. At 16 hours and 11 minutes average resolution time, passengers were still spending most of a day waiting for outcomes on rebooking requests, compensation queries, and schedule disruptions.
The NPS of -51.62% placed aviation among the most challenged sectors in this report. With 354 daily contacts, the volume was manageable. The frustration signal was coming from resolution quality, not contact volume, which meant the answer was not more agents but better process design around what happens after the first response.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
Summer travel brought a specific frustration profile. Families and group travelers with fixed holiday windows experienced every delay as a downstream cascade, and when carriers failed to communicate proactively about disruptions, those passengers absorbed the full anxiety of uncertainty. A passenger who learned about a gate change by walking to the wrong gate and finding it empty had a fundamentally different experience than one who received a notification 30 minutes earlier.
A second frustration source was the gap between what self-service channels promised and what they could actually resolve. Passengers who began a rebooking journey through an app and hit a wall requiring agent intervention felt the system had wasted their time. That handoff friction, arriving at an agent without any context from the digital interaction, added emotional load on top of an already stressful travel disruption.
CX Priorities for Next Month
The clearest opportunity for June was closing the gap between first response and first meaningful action. Carriers that enabled self-service rebooking for the most common disruption types, weather delays, missed connections, and equipment changes, saw faster resolution times and meaningfully better satisfaction scores even when the rebooking outcome was not the passenger’s first preference. Agency reduced frustration independent of outcome.
A second priority was building proactive disruption alerts that triggered within 20 minutes of any operational change. The data consistently showed that passengers who received early honest updates, including acknowledgment that a full picture was still forming, reported lower frustration than those who waited for a complete answer that arrived 90 minutes later. Speed of communication mattered more than completeness.
Final Word
Aviation’s May data confirmed what April suggested: the infrastructure for fast response exists and is working. The SLA pathway handles priority cases in 4 minutes. The problem is that most passengers never reach that pathway fast enough. Carriers that redesign triage logic to bring more contacts into the fast-response flow, rather than reserving it for only the most escalated complaints, will be better positioned as summer volume peaks through July.
Automobile Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May brought sustained service demand to the automotive sector as spring maintenance carried over into early summer preparation. Customers who had returned in April for deferred winter servicing were now coming in with longer-term requests, tyre changes, air conditioning checks, and pre-road-trip inspections, adding both volume and complexity to workshop queues. The month continued a pattern where operational capability was not the limiting factor. Communication was.
The NPS improved slightly from April’s -16.17% to -14.86% in May, a modest but directionally positive signal. Daily ticket volume dropped from 497 to 486, and resolution time edged up marginally from 15 hours 32 minutes to 17 hours 37 minutes. The improvement in sentiment despite a longer resolution time suggested that something in how shops communicated with customers was shifting, even if the operational timelines had not yet caught up.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 1.08% |
Engagement Rate | 8.22% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 3.22 |
Average First Response Time | 5 hours, 24 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 17 hours, 37 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 486 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | -14.86% |
Average SLA Response Time | 44 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | 5 hours, 7 minutes |
CXM Diagnosis
The resolution time of 17 hours and 37 minutes against an SLA benchmark of 5 hours and 7 minutes remained the defining tension in automotive CX for May. That gap pointed to a two-speed service environment: customers who moved through the priority pathway resolved their queries in under 6 hours, while the broader population waited through extended timelines, often without knowing where their vehicle or their query stood. The customers in that second group drove the NPS score.
The first response time of 5 hours 24 minutes was unchanged from April. For a sector where customers often drop a vehicle in the morning expecting a same-day return, a first response arriving 5 hours later frequently meant the first contact came after the customer had already begun to worry. Worry at hour 3, unanswered, becomes frustration by hour 5.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
The core frustration pattern in May was unchanged from April but more concentrated. Customers whose vehicles required additional work beyond the original scope were not being contacted until late in the service day, often after the window for same-day completion had already closed. A customer who brought a car in for a brake inspection at 9am and received a call at 4pm explaining that the job would not be done until tomorrow had effectively lost two days with minimal notice.
Parts availability continued to affect timelines in ways that shops found difficult to communicate early. Customers understood that parts could be delayed. What they did not understand was why they were hearing about it only after the original completion deadline had passed. The information existed in workshop management systems hours before customers were told, and that gap between internal knowledge and customer communication was where trust eroded.
CX Priorities for Next Month
The most direct priority for June was establishing a midday check-in protocol for any vehicle still in the workshop at noon. A brief outbound message confirming status, flagging any complications, and giving a realistic completion estimate would address the primary driver of secondary contact. Customers who heard from the shop before they had to call in reported significantly better experiences, regardless of whether the news was good or bad.
A second priority was training service advisors to give range-based estimates at intake rather than single-point predictions. Telling a customer a job will take three to five days, with a note that parts delivery sometimes adds two more, built realistic expectations from the start. That framing required no process change. It was a communication habit, and it was the cheapest intervention available to improve satisfaction scores before June volumes arrived.
Final Word
May’s slight NPS improvement was encouraging but fragile. It reflected better individual communication practices in some shops rather than a sector-wide process shift. The gap between SLA resolution benchmarks and actual resolution times is too large to close through goodwill alone. Automotive CX in June will be defined by which shops turn May’s communication improvements into documented workflows rather than leaving them as individual habits that disappear when a team member is on leave.
Insurance Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May was a transitional month for the insurance sector, sitting between the spring claims activity of April and the more demanding summer weather season ahead. Policy administration workloads remained steady, and the moderate claims volume from seasonal weather events kept teams occupied without pushing them into the kind of surge conditions that expose structural weaknesses. The question May answered was whether April’s strong performance was a trend or a temporary high.
The answer was mixed. NPS pulled back from April’s 26.55% to 21.4% in May, a meaningful drop but still firmly positive territory. First response time held steady at 1 hour 5 minutes, close to April’s 1 hour 8 minutes. Resolution time, however, extended from just under 12 hours to nearly 18 hours, which was the most significant change in the data and the likely driver of the NPS decline. Policyholders who experienced slower resolution in May felt the difference, even when the first response arrived quickly.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 0.35% |
Engagement Rate | 4.51% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 1.27 |
Average First Response Time | 1 hour, 5 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 17 hours, 59 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 25 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | 21.4% |
Average SLA Response Time | 2 days, 6 hours, 2 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | Not available |
CXM Diagnosis
With only 25 daily tickets, each interaction carried significant weight in the NPS calculation. A handful of poorly handled resolutions could move the score materially, which made consistency of process more important in this sector than in higher-volume categories. The NPS decline from April to May was not a volume problem. It was a resolution quality problem concentrated in a small number of interactions that went longer than they should have.
The SLA response time of over two days reflected the sector’s administrative routing reality, where many digital inquiries follow a slower path than urgent claims. This metric captured the full population of contacts including low-urgency requests. What it did not capture was the emotional weight policyholders attached to even routine queries when they involved money, coverage, or outstanding claims.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
The frustration pattern in May centred on policyholders who had experienced a smooth April interaction and arrived in May with higher expectations as a result. When May resolutions took longer, the contrast sharpened the disappointment. A policyholder who had a claim resolved in 10 hours in April and waited nearly 22 hours for a comparable resolution in May did not experience the second interaction in isolation. They experienced it relative to the first.
A secondary frustration source was the absence of mid-process updates on complex claims. Policyholders who filed and heard nothing for 12 hours began calling in to check status, adding to contact volume and extending the resolution cycle for other customers. The insurers who had built proactive update checkpoints into their claims workflow avoided this loop almost entirely.
CX Priorities for Next Month
The most important priority for June was protecting the first response time gains while closing the resolution gap. The two metrics were moving in opposite directions in May, which suggested that teams were prioritising acknowledgment over action. Acknowledging fast is necessary but not sufficient. The follow-through from first response to active resolution needed the same attention that the initial contact had received.
A second priority was formalising the proactive update schedule that had driven April’s strong performance. Insurers that could document a standard checkpoint cadence, an update at 6 hours, another at 12, and a confirmation at resolution, would protect their NPS scores through the more demanding summer months when claims volumes would put individual communication habits under pressure.
Final Word
Insurance remains one of the better-performing sectors in this report and May’s NPS of 21.4% reflected genuine progress in how the industry handles customer communication. The dip from April was a reminder that performance at low ticket volumes is fragile. Every interaction either builds or erodes the trust that makes this sector’s NPS positive in the first place. June’s priority is turning good habits into durable process before summer claims season tests them properly.
Banking Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
The banking and finance sector entered May with steady transaction volumes and a digital engagement environment that continued to reflect the broader shift toward app-based customer interactions. Customers managing everyday financial activity increasingly expected the same response speed from their bank that they received from retail and food delivery services, and May’s data showed the sector still working to close that gap.
NPS deteriorated further in May, falling to -42.04% from April’s -27.14%. Daily ticket volume held at 58, which meant the frustration signal was intensifying despite manageable contact numbers. As in April, the absence of recorded response and resolution time data limited operational diagnosis, but the sentiment decline told a clear story about interactions that were not meeting the standard customers expected from institutions managing their money.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 0.71% |
Engagement Rate | 2.49% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 2.47 |
Average First Response Time | Not available |
Average Resolution Time | Not available |
Average Daily Tickets | 58 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | -42.04% |
Average SLA Response Time | Not available |
Average SLA Resolution Time | Not available |
CXM Diagnosis
A sector handling 58 daily tickets with an NPS of -42.04% was not facing a volume challenge. The contacts that arrived in May were generating a strongly negative sentiment outcome, which pointed to structural issues in how disputes, queries, and account concerns were being handled rather than any capacity constraint. In financial services, trust is the product. When a customer contacts their bank and leaves the interaction feeling unheard or unresolved, the damage extends beyond the individual query.
The absence of response and resolution time data for a second consecutive month suggested a measurement gap that would benefit from attention. Without visibility into how long customers waited for meaningful responses, the sector was navigating its CX challenges without one of its most important instruments.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
May’s frustration drivers followed the pattern established in April but with greater intensity. Customers pursuing dispute resolution or transaction queries that had financial consequences were encountering a system that acknowledged their issue without visibly progressing it. A customer who flagged an unrecognised charge and received a reference number but no follow-up for 48 hours was not experiencing slow service. They were experiencing indifference, and that perception was difficult to reverse once formed.
The digital-to-human handoff remained a persistent friction point. Customers who began a resolution journey through mobile banking and were redirected to a branch or call centre arrived at that handoff point frustrated before the human interaction had even started. Agents who received these customers without any context from the digital journey compounded the frustration by requiring customers to re-explain the full history of their issue.
CX Priorities for Next Month
The most urgent priority for June was establishing visible status tracking for every open dispute or query with financial implications. A customer who could see their complaint was logged, assigned, and progressing through a defined workflow experienced a fundamentally different emotional journey than one who filed and waited in silence. This transparency did not require faster resolution. It required the will to communicate progress at each stage of a process that customers cared deeply about.
Closing the measurement gap on response and resolution times was a parallel priority. The sector could not improve what it was not measuring, and two months of missing data on core CX metrics represented a genuine operational blind spot. Establishing clean data capture for June would give teams the visibility they needed to make informed decisions about staffing, routing, and escalation thresholds.
Final Word
Banking and finance’s May NPS of -42.04% reflected a sector where the gap between customer expectation and service reality was widening rather than narrowing. The fundamentals for improvement were present: ticket volumes were manageable, and the digital infrastructure to communicate proactively with customers already existed. What was missing was the process discipline to use that infrastructure consistently. June was an opportunity to close the measurement gap, establish status transparency for open queries, and begin reversing a two-month NPS decline before it became a trend customers noticed and acted on.
Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May was a challenging month for consumer packaged goods brands managing customer experience across digital channels. With post-election consumer sentiment still finding its footing and promotional cycles driving spikes in product queries, the sector faced a contact profile that was disproportionately weighted toward complaints and clarification requests rather than positive engagement. The brands that handled this well were those that had invested in clear, consistent response frameworks. Those that had not showed up clearly in the numbers.
The data painted a picture of a sector under real strain. NPS landed at -47.54%, among the weaker readings across all industries in this report. More telling was the first response time of just over 24 hours and a resolution time of 1 day 8 hours, both of which suggested customers were waiting through an entire day and more before their queries found any meaningful resolution. With only 32 daily tickets, those long timelines were not a capacity issue. They pointed to prioritisation and workflow gaps.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 2.29% |
Engagement Rate | 1.48% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 1.49 |
Average First Response Time | 1 day, 0 hours, 2 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 1 day, 8 hours, 13 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 32 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | -47.54% |
Average SLA Response Time | 2 hours, 14 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | 1 day, 21 hours, 31 minutes |
CXM Diagnosis
The contrast between the SLA response time of 2 hours 14 minutes and the average first response time of just over 24 hours was the most important signal in May’s CPG data. It told the story of two distinct customer populations: a small group of escalated contacts that reached the priority pathway quickly, and a much larger group that waited through the full day before receiving any acknowledgment. The customers in the second group generated the NPS score.
The SLA resolution time of 1 day 21 hours represented the ceiling of what the worst-case resolution journey looked like, and for a sector managing 32 daily tickets, that ceiling was too high. Brands with the infrastructure to resolve issues faster were not applying it consistently across the full contact volume.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
CPG customers reaching out in May were predominantly dealing with product quality concerns, delivery discrepancies, and promotional redemption issues. These were not emotionally neutral queries. A customer who bought a product that failed to meet expectations and then waited 24 hours for a first response had spent that entire day with their frustration unacknowledged. By the time the response arrived, the interaction had already been shaped by the silence that preceded it.
Promotional period contacts added another layer of complexity. Customers who encountered issues redeeming offers or reconciling pricing discrepancies were operating under time pressure that the 24-hour response window did not accommodate. A promotional offer that expired before the customer received help resolving their redemption issue was not just a service failure. It was a broken promise, and it registered that way in sentiment.
CX Priorities for Next Month
The single highest-impact action for June was reducing first response time to under 4 hours for all incoming contacts, not just escalations. With 32 daily tickets, this was operationally achievable without additional headcount. It required routing logic changes to ensure all incoming contacts reached a response queue rather than sitting in an unmonitored channel. The gap between a 2-hour SLA response and a 24-hour average first response was a routing problem, not a capacity problem.
A second priority was building dedicated handling workflows for promotional period contacts. When a campaign was live, contacts related to that campaign needed an accelerated path. Standard response queues were not designed for time-sensitive promotional queries, and the friction created when those contacts moved through a generic process was disproportionately damaging to sentiment.
Final Word
May’s CPG data was a clear signal that good follower growth and a reasonable post frequency were not translating into good customer experience. The sector was publishing content at a steady pace while leaving a meaningful share of its customers waiting through an entire day for a response to a query that could have been handled in hours. June’s opportunity was straightforward: fix the routing, close the response gap, and stop letting workflow inertia define the customer experience.
Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) Beverage Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
Fast moving consumer goods brands faced a high-energy May shaped by summer product launches, competitive promotional activity, and the elevated social media engagement that comes with warmer months and increased out-of-home consumption. The sector’s contact volume was among the highest in this report at 511 daily tickets, and the breadth of that volume reflected everything from product feedback and stock queries to delivery complaints and influencer-driven spikes in brand mentions.
The NPS of -19.31% was a step back from where the sector needed to be, but it was a more moderate reading than several other high-volume categories in this report. First response time of 13 hours 59 minutes was the most pressing operational concern, given the pace at which FMCG customers expected brands to engage. A customer who reached out about a product issue on a Monday morning and received a first response late on Tuesday was not experiencing digital-native service standards.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 1.9% |
Engagement Rate | 6.81% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 7.31 |
Average First Response Time | 13 hours, 59 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 17 hours, 46 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 511 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | -19.31% |
Average SLA Response Time | 30 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | 1 day, 0 hours, 11 minutes |
CXM Diagnosis
Publishing 7.31 posts per day while leaving customers waiting nearly 14 hours for a first response created a visible inconsistency that customers noticed. Brands were active and present as content publishers but slow and distant as service providers, and that contradiction showed up in sentiment. The engagement rate of 6.81% confirmed that audiences were paying attention to content. The NPS confirmed that the service experience was not matching what the content promised.
The SLA response time of 30 minutes showed that the fast-response infrastructure existed and was being used for priority contacts. The challenge was extending that speed to the broader contact volume rather than reserving it for escalations. At 511 daily tickets, this was a genuine capacity and routing challenge, not a simple workflow fix, but the gap between 30 minutes and 14 hours was too wide to leave unaddressed.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
FMCG frustration in May had two distinct sources. The first was product availability, with summer SKU launches creating stockout queries that required coordinated responses across retail, distribution, and brand teams. Customers who asked where to find a specific product and received a generic response pointing to a store locator felt that the brand had not engaged with the actual question. The frustration was less about the stockout itself and more about the quality of the answer.
The second source was the mismatch between social media brand voice and social media response quality. Brands running high-energy, personality-driven content were being judged against that same standard when customers reached out with complaints. A brand that spoke like a friend in its content but responded like a corporate template in its service interactions created a dissonance that customers found jarring, and that dissonance expressed itself in negative sentiment.
CX Priorities for Next Month
Reducing first response time was the headline priority for June. The target should be under 6 hours across the full contact volume, with an interim step of ensuring all contacts received at least an acknowledgment within 2 hours. At 511 daily tickets, achieving under 6 hours required dedicated response team capacity during peak social media hours rather than a single end-of-day processing window.
A second priority was aligning the voice of social content with the voice of social responses. Brands that had invested in content tone and personality needed to extend that investment to their response frameworks. Response templates that matched the brand’s content personality, while maintaining clarity and accuracy, consistently outperformed generic corporate language on sentiment metrics.
Final Word
FMCG’s May data reflected a sector with genuine audience engagement and a real service delivery gap sitting behind it. An engagement rate of 6.81% on 7.31 daily posts represented meaningful brand interest. Turning that interest into positive NPS required the same energy in responses that was going into content. The audience was already there. June’s job was making sure the service experience was worth staying for.
Real Estate Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May is traditionally one of the busiest months in real estate, and 2026 was no exception. Property enquiries picked up as buyers and renters who had been holding through the uncertainty of early Q1 began making active decisions. Developers managing large residential projects faced an influx of pre-launch queries, while agencies handling resale inventory dealt with a contact profile that mixed genuine purchase intent with early-stage research. The result was a high-complexity month where the quality of every customer interaction carried outsized commercial consequence.
The data reflected a sector struggling to keep pace with that complexity. NPS came in at -28.83%, and while daily ticket volume was modest at 18, the resolution time of 1 day 16 hours 58 minutes was the second longest in this report. For customers making some of the largest financial decisions of their lives, a resolution window approaching two full days was not just inconvenient. It was a signal about how much the brand valued their time.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 1.18% |
Engagement Rate | 3.07% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 2.85 |
Average First Response Time | 9 hours, 23 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 1 day, 16 hours, 58 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 18 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | -28.83% |
Average SLA Response Time | 5 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | 9 hours |
CXM Diagnosis
The SLA response time of 5 minutes and the SLA resolution time of 9 hours showed that when real estate brands chose to prioritise a contact, they could handle it with genuine speed. The average first response time of 9 hours 23 minutes and resolution time of nearly 41 hours showed that most contacts were not receiving that treatment. The sector had the capability but was applying it selectively rather than systematically.
With only 18 daily tickets, the operational case for faster response was straightforward. There was no volume justification for a 9-hour first response on a contact base of 18 per day. What the data suggested instead was a structural deprioritisation of digital CX within organisations that were still primarily oriented around in-person and phone-based customer journeys.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
Real estate customers in May expressed frustration concentrated around two moments. The first was the gap between online property listings and the responsiveness of the teams behind them. A customer who submitted an enquiry through a developer’s website about a project they were genuinely considering buying into, and then waited 9 hours for a first response, had spent that window exploring competitors. In a market where purchase intent was peaking in May, slow digital response was a direct commercial cost, not just a CX metric.
The second frustration point was around follow-through after initial contact. Customers who received a first response but then experienced long gaps in subsequent communication during what should have been an active sales or rental process reported feeling managed rather than supported. The relationship quality that real estate brands cultivated in their content and in-person interactions was not carrying through to their digital follow-up.
CX Priorities for Next Month
The most valuable thing real estate brands could do for June was establish a 2-hour response commitment for all digital property enquiries during business hours. At 18 daily tickets, this required no additional headcount. It required a dedicated monitoring workflow that treated digital enquiries with the same urgency as an in-person walk-in. A customer who enquired online and received a response within 2 hours was in an active conversation. One who waited 9 hours had often already moved on.
A second priority was building a structured follow-up cadence for contacts that moved past first response into the consideration phase. Customers who were actively evaluating a property needed regular, substantive touchpoints that progressed the conversation. Generic check-in messages added noise. Specific updates tied to the customer’s stated interests, pricing movements, availability changes, or site visit opportunities, built the kind of relationship that converted enquiries into transactions.
Final Word
Real estate in May had 18 daily tickets and an NPS of -28.83%. Those two numbers together told the story more clearly than any single metric: a low-volume, high-stakes contact environment was being managed with response times designed for a high-volume, low-stakes one. June’s opportunity was simple to identify and straightforward to act on. Treat every digital enquiry like the serious commercial intent it represented, and the NPS will follow.
Gaming Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May was a significant month for the gaming sector, with several major title releases and seasonal content updates driving a sustained surge in player engagement and support demand. The sector’s social media presence was operating at full intensity, with 4.67 posts per day and an engagement rate of 6.91% reflecting a highly active and vocal audience. That same vocal audience, when it encountered service issues, expressed its frustration with equal energy, and May’s data captured the full weight of that dynamic.
The NPS of -87.13% was the second lowest reading across all industries in this report and represented a significant CX challenge for a sector where community sentiment is a core business asset. Player communities that feel unheard do not stay quiet. They amplify their frustration through the same social channels that brands rely on for organic reach, and the compounding effect of that dynamic was visible in May’s numbers.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | -0.07% |
Engagement Rate | 6.91% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 4.67 |
Average First Response Time | Not available |
Average Resolution Time | Not available |
Average Daily Tickets | 468 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | -87.13% |
Average SLA Response Time | Not available |
Average SLA Resolution Time | Not available |
CXM Diagnosis
With 468 daily tickets and an NPS of -87.13%, gaming presented one of the most acute volume-to-sentiment imbalances in this report. The absence of recorded response and resolution time data made it difficult to pinpoint where the service journey was breaking down, but the NPS score left little ambiguity about the outcome. Players who reached out were leaving interactions more frustrated than when they arrived, and that pattern was playing out nearly 500 times a day.
The follower decline of -0.07%, while small in absolute terms, was the only negative follower growth reading in this report. In a sector where community size is directly tied to commercial performance, even a marginal decline warranted attention. It suggested that the gap between content output and service quality was beginning to affect brand perception at the audience level, not just among those who had contacted support.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
Gaming frustration in May had a clear primary driver: technical issues during launch windows that were not being addressed at the speed the player community expected. When a highly anticipated title launched with server instability or progression bugs, the community’s tolerance window was measured in hours, not days. Studios and publishers that communicated actively within the first few hours of a known issue, acknowledging the problem, sharing a timeline for investigation, and providing interim workarounds, consistently absorbed less long-term sentiment damage than those that went quiet.
A second frustration source was account and transaction support. Players who encountered issues with purchases, in-game currency, or account access were dealing with problems that had a direct financial dimension, and the expectation of resolution speed in those cases matched or exceeded what financial services customers expected from their banks. The gaming sector’s support infrastructure had not yet caught up to that expectation.
CX Priorities for Next Month
The most urgent priority for June was establishing a rapid-response protocol specifically for launch windows and known technical issues. This meant a dedicated communications queue that activated within 30 minutes of a confirmed issue, with templated but personalised acknowledgments going out to affected players while investigation was still underway. The goal was not to solve the problem faster, though that mattered too. The goal was to ensure players felt the issue was being taken seriously before frustration had time to compound.
A second priority was separating account and transaction support from general gameplay support in routing logic. Players with financial concerns needed a faster path to resolution than those with gameplay questions. Mixing them in a single queue disadvantaged the higher-urgency contact type and produced worse outcomes for the interactions that carried the most commercial and reputational risk.
Final Word
Gaming’s May data was a wake-up call dressed in familiar clothes. The sector had the audience, the content engine, and the daily volume to build a genuinely strong CX operation. What it lacked was the structural investment to match service quality with community expectations. An NPS of -87.13% in a sector built on community loyalty was not a statistical footnote. It was a signal that the gap between what players experienced in the game and what they experienced when they needed help had become wide enough to damage the brand relationships that everything else depended on.
Healthcare Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May brought sustained demand to healthcare brands managing customer experience across digital channels, with appointment queries, medication questions, insurance clarification requests, and post-consultation follow-ups making up the bulk of the contact volume. The sector operated in an environment where every interaction carried a higher emotional weight than most other categories in this report. Patients and caregivers reaching out were not asking about a delayed delivery or a promotional redemption. They were asking about their health, or the health of someone they loved, and that context shaped every dimension of the service experience.
The data told a cautiously positive story. NPS came in at -4.42%, a modest negative reading that placed healthcare in the middle of the pack for this report but represented meaningful improvement potential given the stakes involved. First response time of 5 hours 45 minutes and resolution time of 11 hours 15 minutes were workable but left room for improvement in a sector where timely information could directly affect patient decisions.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 4.76% |
Engagement Rate | 2.56% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 2.81 |
Average First Response Time | 5 hours, 45 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 11 hours, 15 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 144 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | -4.42% |
Average SLA Response Time | 31 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | 1 day, 4 hours |
CXM Diagnosis
The follower growth of 4.76% was the third highest in this report and reflected genuine audience interest in healthcare content, a trend that had been building as patients became more proactive in seeking health information through brand channels. The engagement rate of 2.56% suggested that content was reaching audiences without fully activating them, a common pattern in healthcare where regulatory constraints on what can be said limit the depth of social engagement relative to other sectors.
The SLA response time of 31 minutes showed a functional escalation pathway for priority contacts. The average first response of 5 hours 45 minutes showed that the broader contact population waited considerably longer. For a sector managing 144 daily tickets, that gap was addressable without structural change. It required consistent monitoring and routing discipline rather than additional capacity.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
Healthcare frustration in May concentrated around information delays in contexts where patients felt time-sensitive. Customers waiting for clarification on prescription instructions, appointment availability, or test result timelines were not experiencing the same emotional state as someone waiting for a response about a consumer product. The anxiety that accompanied healthcare queries amplified every hour of silence, and patients who waited 5 or 6 hours for a first response had spent that time in a state of unresolved concern that the eventual answer could not fully neutralise.
A second frustration driver was the inconsistency between the quality of information provided through formal channels and through social media response. Patients who asked the same question through an official website and through a brand’s social media profile sometimes received different levels of detail, or worse, contradictory guidance. That inconsistency undermined confidence in the brand as a trustworthy health information source, which was the most valuable thing a healthcare brand could be.
CX Priorities for Next Month
Reducing first response time for health-related queries to under 2 hours during business hours was the most impactful single action available for June. The operational infrastructure to achieve this already existed, as the 31-minute SLA pathway demonstrated. The priority was extending that responsiveness to the full contact volume through better routing and monitoring protocols rather than limiting it to the most escalated cases.
A second priority was establishing content-to-response alignment, ensuring that the information provided in response to social media queries matched the depth and accuracy of what was available through official brand channels. This required a centralised knowledge base that response teams could draw from rather than relying on individual agent knowledge, which varied by experience level and training recency.
Final Word
Healthcare’s May NPS of -4.42% sat close to neutral, which in a sector managing deeply personal customer interactions represented an opportunity rather than a ceiling. The brands that moved this number into positive territory in June would be the ones that treated every digital contact with the urgency it deserved given the emotional context behind it. Follower growth of 4.76% showed an audience that wanted to engage. The job for June was ensuring that when those followers needed help, the response they received matched the trust they had placed in the brand.
Hospitality Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May marked the beginning of peak season for hospitality brands across hotels, resorts, dining, and experiential travel. Booking volumes climbed sharply as consumers locked in summer plans, and with that surge came a corresponding increase in pre-stay queries, reservation modifications, and special request communications. The sector entered the month with the highest NPS in this report and the challenge of sustaining that performance as volume and operational pressure increased.
The data was genuinely encouraging. An NPS of 50.83% placed hospitality at the top of all 16 industries covered in this report, a reflection of an industry that had invested meaningfully in the human dimension of customer experience. First response time of 4 hours 12 minutes and resolution time of 21 hours 41 minutes showed room for operational improvement, but the sentiment outcome confirmed that customers were experiencing something beyond the metrics. The quality of the interaction itself was carrying significant weight.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 1.42% |
Engagement Rate | 8.33% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 1.6 |
Average First Response Time | 4 hours, 12 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 21 hours, 41 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 40 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | 50.83% |
Average SLA Response Time | 8 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | Not available |
CXM Diagnosis
The engagement rate of 8.33% was the highest in this report alongside Automobile, and it was achieved on just 1.6 posts per day, the second lowest post frequency across all industries. Hospitality brands were generating more audience interaction per piece of content than almost any other sector, which pointed to content quality and emotional resonance rather than volume as the driver of engagement. This pattern extended into the service experience, where the warmth and personalisation that characterised good hospitality translated into positive sentiment even when operational metrics were not exceptional.
The resolution time of 21 hours 41 minutes was the longest in this report outside of Real Estate, yet NPS was the highest. That combination was unusual and instructive. It suggested that hospitality customers were not primarily measuring their experience against resolution speed. They were measuring it against how they were treated throughout the process, and the sector’s investment in human-centred communication was showing up in the outcome.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
Frustration in the hospitality sector in May was concentrated among a specific subset of contacts: customers managing last-minute changes in the days immediately before their stay. These were higher-stakes interactions where the emotional investment was greatest and the time window for resolution was smallest. A guest who needed to modify a booking three days before arrival and waited 4 hours for a first response had spent that time uncertain about whether their plans were secure, and that uncertainty overshadowed an otherwise positive booking experience.
A secondary frustration point emerged around special requests that had been acknowledged but not actioned. Guests who had communicated dietary requirements, accessibility needs, or celebration arrangements well in advance of their stay and arrived to find no evidence those requests had reached the relevant teams experienced a specific kind of disappointment that was particularly damaging to loyalty. The request had been received. The follow-through had failed.
CX Priorities for Next Month
With peak season fully underway in June, the primary priority for hospitality brands was reducing first response time for pre-arrival contacts to under 2 hours. Guests finalising their plans in the days before a stay were in an emotionally invested state, and fast, warm responses in that window did more for loyalty than any post-stay recovery effort. The 8-minute SLA response time confirmed that the capability for fast response existed. Extending it to the broader pre-arrival contact pool was the operational priority.
A second priority was building a fulfilment confirmation workflow for special requests. Every special request accepted through a digital channel should trigger an internal confirmation step that verified the request had reached the operational team responsible for delivering it. A pre-arrival confirmation message to the guest, sent 48 hours before their stay, confirming their requests were noted and prepared, would eliminate one of the sector’s most avoidable frustration points.
Final Word
Hospitality’s May performance was the standout result in this report. An NPS of 50.83% in a peak season month, achieved on 1.6 posts per day and 40 daily tickets, reflected a sector that understood what its customers actually valued. The lesson for other industries was not to copy hospitality’s operational metrics but to understand why the numbers worked: customers who felt genuinely cared for forgave slower resolutions. June’s job for hospitality brands was protecting that warmth under the higher volume and operational pressure that peak season would bring.
Online Travel Agencies Monthly CXM Report: April 2026
February performance in Online Travel Agencies reflects a sector navigating fluctuating customer sentiment while continuing to manage steady digital interaction volumes. Travel planning remains highly dependent on digital platforms, leading customers to frequently engage with brands for booking support, cancellations, refunds, and itinerary changes.
The data suggests that while interaction volumes remain manageable, delays in response and resolution timelines may be influencing overall customer satisfaction.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 0.3% |
Engagement Rate | 1.08% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 3.62 |
Average First Response Time (FRT) | 1 day, 4 hours, 13 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 1 day, 9 hours, 18 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 70 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | -66.23% |
Average SLA Response Time | 5 hours, 38 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | 14 hours, 7 minutes |
CXM Diagnosis
Online travel agencies continue to see steady customer interaction volumes, driven by booking confirmations, flight or hotel changes, cancellation requests, and refund processing inquiries. These conversations often require coordination with airlines, hotels, and third-party providers, which can extend resolution timelines.
Response times appear significantly slower than expected for a customer-facing industry where travel decisions are often time-sensitive. This delay in acknowledgment may be contributing to growing customer frustration.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration or Sentiment
Travel customers often reach out during high-stress moments such as last-minute cancellations, booking errors, itinerary changes, or refund delays. In these situations, quick acknowledgment and transparent communication are critical.
The strongly negative NPS score suggests that customers may be experiencing difficulties during support interactions, particularly when issues involve third-party coordination or delayed refunds.
CX Priorities for Next Month
Reducing first response time should be a priority for online travel agencies. Faster acknowledgment of customer queries can significantly improve customer confidence, especially during urgent travel-related situations.
Improving transparency around booking policies, refund timelines, and partner coordination can also help manage expectations and reduce friction during customer interactions.
Final Word
February’s Online Travel Agencies CX performance highlights a sector where customer expectations remain extremely high due to the time-sensitive nature of travel. Improving response speed and streamlining issue resolution will be essential to rebuilding trust and improving overall customer sentiment.
Manufacturing Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May was a steady operational month for manufacturing brands managing B2B and B2C customer experience across digital channels. Order tracking queries, product specification requests, warranty claims, and distributor coordination issues made up the bulk of the contact volume, with 122 daily tickets reflecting a sector that generated consistent rather than seasonal demand. The month did not bring any particular external shock, which made the NPS reading of -14.23% a useful baseline signal about the structural state of manufacturing CX rather than a response to a specific event.
The data described a sector where the fundamentals were functional but uninspired. Response times were long without being catastrophic, resolution times were extended without being exceptional, and sentiment was negative without being dire. The manufacturing sector’s CX challenge in May was less about putting out fires and more about the slow erosion of customer confidence that comes from interactions that were technically resolved but never felt particularly good.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 1.01% |
Engagement Rate | 2.66% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 2.09 |
Average First Response Time | 10 hours, 55 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 19 hours, 59 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 122 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | -14.23% |
Average SLA Response Time | 26 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | 3 hours, 51 minutes |
CXM Diagnosis
The SLA resolution time of 3 hours 51 minutes was one of the stronger benchmarks in this report, and it demonstrated that manufacturing brands had built capable resolution pathways for priority contacts. The average resolution time of nearly 20 hours showed that most contacts were not reaching those pathways. The gap between 3 hours 51 minutes and 19 hours 59 minutes was not a capacity gap. It was a routing and prioritisation gap, and closing it represented the clearest available lever for NPS improvement.
The first response time of 10 hours 55 minutes placed manufacturing in the slower half of all industries for May. For B2B customers managing procurement timelines or production schedules, a first response arriving nearly 11 hours after contact was not just slow. It was a disruption to their own operational planning, and the frustration it generated carried downstream consequences beyond the original query.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
Manufacturing customers in May expressed frustration most acutely around order and delivery queries that had direct production implications. A purchasing manager waiting for confirmation of a component delivery date could not finalise a production schedule without that information, and every hour of delay in the response compounded the downstream impact. These were not queries where a slow response was a minor inconvenience. They were queries where the absence of timely information had a measurable operational cost for the customer’s business.
A secondary frustration source was the technical quality of responses to product specification queries. Customers who asked detailed questions about materials, tolerances, or compliance certifications and received responses that either deflected to documentation or provided incomplete answers felt that the brand did not have adequate command of its own products. In a sector where technical credibility was a core purchase driver, that impression was particularly damaging.
CX Priorities for Next Month
Reducing first response time for order and delivery queries to under 2 hours during business hours was the most commercially significant priority for June. These contacts represented customers with active operational dependencies on the information they were seeking, and the cost of a slow response extended beyond sentiment into the customer’s own business performance. Brands that could guarantee a 2-hour response on order-related contacts would differentiate themselves in a sector where that standard was not yet common.
A second priority was investing in response quality for technical queries. Building a structured knowledge base that response teams could use to answer specification and compliance questions accurately and completely would reduce the frequency of follow-up contacts and improve the impression of technical competence that manufacturing customers weighted heavily in their overall brand assessment.
Final Word
Manufacturing’s May NPS of -14.23% was a result the sector could improve meaningfully without major operational investment. The SLA pathway already existed and was performing well. The priority for June was systematic rather than structural: extend the speed and quality of that pathway to the full contact volume, focus first on the order and delivery queries that carried the highest commercial stakes, and treat technical response quality as a credibility investment rather than a support function. The brands that did this consistently would find NPS following naturally.
EdTech Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May was one of the most intense months of the year for edtech brands, arriving at the intersection of exam season, academic year-end activity, and summer course enrolment. Students preparing for high-stakes assessments, parents evaluating platforms for their children, and institutional buyers renewing or expanding subscriptions all landed in the contact queue simultaneously, creating a contact profile that was both high in volume and high in emotional stakes. The sector had to perform well precisely when it was most stretched.
The data showed it largely did. An NPS of 36.39% was the second highest in this report, behind only Hospitality, and it reflected genuine satisfaction among the customers who engaged with edtech support in May. The engagement rate of 63.1% was exceptional by any measure across this report, a figure that reflected the intensity of audience engagement during exam season rather than routine content interaction. First response time of 2 hours 59 minutes and resolution time of 12 hours 14 minutes were among the better operational readings across all 16 industries.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 3.56% |
Engagement Rate | 63.1% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 2.36 |
Average First Response Time | 2 hours, 59 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 12 hours, 14 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 148 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | 36.39% |
Average SLA Response Time | 2 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | 8 hours, 43 minutes |
CXM Diagnosis
The SLA response time of 2 minutes was the fastest in this report and reflected a sector that had built genuinely responsive priority handling infrastructure. Combined with a first response time of under 3 hours across the full contact volume, edtech brands were delivering the kind of speed that students and parents in the middle of exam season needed. The resolution time of 12 hours 14 minutes was reasonable given the complexity of many edtech queries, which often involved account access, subscription management, and technical troubleshooting that required coordination across multiple systems.
The follower growth of 3.56% combined with a 63.1% engagement rate told the story of an audience that was not just present but actively involved. Exam season content, revision tips, study schedules, and motivational messaging resonated at a level that drove interaction well beyond what passive content consumption would generate. That engagement created both an opportunity and an obligation: audiences that engaged this deeply expected the brand to show up equally well when they needed support.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
Edtech frustration in May was concentrated among students who encountered technical issues at high-stakes moments, specifically platform access problems during exam preparation windows or assessment submission deadlines. A student who could not access their learning materials the evening before an exam was not experiencing a routine technical inconvenience. They were experiencing a crisis, and the emotional intensity of that moment demanded a response calibre that matched the stakes.
A secondary frustration source was onboarding friction for new users joining during the enrolment surge. Parents who signed up for a platform based on positive recommendations and then encountered unclear setup processes, missing content, or payment confirmation delays in the first 48 hours formed negative impressions that were difficult to reverse. First impressions during high-enrolment periods carried disproportionate weight in shaping long-term retention.
CX Priorities for Next Month
With exam season winding down and summer enrolment beginning, June presented edtech brands with a transition challenge. The high-intensity support demand of May would give way to a different contact profile centred on new user onboarding, feature discovery, and course selection guidance. The priority was ensuring that response frameworks designed for the urgency of exam season adapted smoothly to the different but equally important needs of the onboarding period.
A second priority was building a dedicated rapid response protocol for platform access and technical issues reported during known high-stakes windows, specifically in the hours before assessment deadlines or live sessions. The 2-minute SLA response time showed the capability existed. Formalising a trigger that activated that capability automatically when contacts arrived during defined high-stakes windows would protect students at their most vulnerable moments.
Final Word
Edtech’s May performance was one of the genuine success stories in this report. An NPS of 36.39% during the highest-pressure month of the academic calendar, delivered against a contact volume of 148 daily tickets and a 63.1% engagement rate, reflected a sector that had built its support infrastructure around the rhythms and emotional reality of its audience. The challenge for June was sustaining that standard through the transition to summer mode, when the urgency of exam season gave way to the quieter but equally consequential work of converting new enrolments into long-term learners.
Q-Commerce Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May was a high-pressure month for quick commerce platforms, with warmer weather driving elevated order volumes across grocery, personal care, and convenience categories. The sector’s operational promise, delivery in under 30 minutes, created a customer expectation environment unlike almost any other in this report. When everything worked, customers experienced the service as almost magical. When it did not, the gap between what was promised and what was delivered generated frustration at a speed and intensity that matched the delivery model itself.
The data reflected that dynamic in stark terms. An NPS of -88.18% was the lowest reading across all 16 industries in this report, and it arrived alongside the highest daily ticket volume at 536. The sector was generating more contacts and worse sentiment than any other category in May, a combination that pointed to structural service gaps operating at scale rather than isolated incidents.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 2.28% |
Engagement Rate | 25.25% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 6.48 |
Average First Response Time | 7 hours, 10 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 3 hours, 38 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 536 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | -88.18% |
Average SLA Response Time | Not available |
Average SLA Resolution Time | Not available |
CXM Diagnosis
The most striking element of quick commerce’s May data was the relationship between resolution time and first response time. Resolution, at 3 hours 38 minutes, was faster than first response, at 7 hours 10 minutes. That inversion told an important story: once a contact reached an agent, it was resolved relatively quickly. The problem was the 7-hour window before that first contact was made. Customers who had placed an order expecting delivery within 30 minutes and were waiting 7 hours for acknowledgment of their complaint were not experiencing a resolution problem. They were experiencing an acknowledgment problem, and that gap was driving the NPS score.
The engagement rate of 25.25% was the second highest in this report, reflecting the intense social media presence quick commerce brands maintained through promotional content, offer announcements, and community interaction. That same social presence amplified negative sentiment when customers who felt ignored by support channels turned to public posts to express their frustration.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
Quick commerce frustration in May had a clear and consistent driver: the mismatch between delivery promise and service response speed. A platform that promised 30-minute delivery but took 7 hours to acknowledge a complaint about a missing item or a wrong order had created a contradiction at the heart of its brand proposition. Customers did not expect quick commerce support to operate on the same timeline as a traditional retailer. They expected it to be as fast as the service itself, and the gap between those expectations and the 7-hour reality was the primary engine of the sector’s -88.18% NPS.
Order accuracy complaints were the dominant contact type, with missing items, substitutions made without notification, and incorrect quantities generating the highest volume of negative interactions. Customers who had relied on quick commerce for a specific ingredient or household item and received the wrong product found themselves without what they needed and without a fast path to resolution, compounding an already frustrating experience.
CX Priorities for Next Month
The single most impactful priority for June was reducing first response time to under 30 minutes for all order-related contacts. This was not an arbitrary target. It was the number that aligned customer service speed with the delivery promise that defined the sector’s value proposition. A platform that could deliver groceries in 30 minutes but took 7 hours to respond to a complaint about those groceries was communicating a hierarchy of priorities that customers noticed and remembered.
A second priority was building automated acknowledgment for order issue reports that activated the moment a contact was received. An immediate automated message confirming the issue had been logged, providing a reference number, and giving a realistic resolution timeline would break the silence that was driving the most acute frustration. Customers who knew their complaint was in a queue behaved differently from customers who were uncertain whether anyone had seen it at all.
Final Word
Quick commerce’s May data was the most urgent CX story in this report. An NPS of -88.18% on 536 daily tickets was not a signal to monitor. It was a signal to act on immediately. The sector had the audience engagement, the content infrastructure, and evidently the resolution capability once contacts were picked up. The missing piece was the front end of the service journey, and the cost of that gap was showing up in a sentiment score that undermined everything else the platforms were building. June’s priority was simple: be as fast at responding to problems as you are at delivering orders.
Retail Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May brought the retail sector into a transitional period between spring clearance and early summer collection launches. Consumer spending was active across both physical and digital channels, with promotional events and pre-summer sales driving order volumes and the contact load that accompanied them. Return queries, delivery tracking requests, size and availability questions, and post-purchase complaints formed the backbone of the contact profile, and the sector managed all of them against a backdrop of heightened customer expectations shaped by the best-in-class digital experiences consumers encountered daily.
The NPS of -15.62% placed retail in the moderately negative range for May, consistent with a sector that handled a large proportion of transactional contacts where the emotional stakes were lower than healthcare or financial services but where the volume and repetitiveness of negative experiences could accumulate quickly into negative sentiment. Daily ticket volume of 282 and a resolution time of 1 day 2 hours 14 minutes suggested a contact environment that was manageable in scale but slow in throughput.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 1.37% |
Engagement Rate | 2.89% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 4.06 |
Average First Response Time | 9 hours, 20 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 1 day, 2 hours, 14 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 282 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | -15.62% |
Average SLA Response Time | 45 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | 7 hours, 13 minutes |
CXM Diagnosis
The SLA resolution time of 7 hours 13 minutes and the average resolution time of just over 26 hours reflected the same two-speed service environment visible in several other sectors in this report. The gap between them, nearly 19 hours, was significant enough to suggest that priority routing was working but that the broader contact population was moving through a much slower channel. For a sector publishing 4.06 posts per day and maintaining active social media channels, leaving a substantial share of customer contacts in a slow-resolution queue created a visible contradiction between brand presence and service delivery.
The first response time of 9 hours 20 minutes was the more pressing concern for retail specifically. In a sector where purchase decisions were made quickly and customers expected equally quick confirmation that their concerns were being addressed, a 9-hour wait for a first response frequently meant the customer had already formed a negative impression before any substantive help had been offered.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
Retail frustration in May fell into two clear categories. The first was delivery-related, with customers tracking orders that had missed estimated arrival windows and receiving either no proactive communication from the brand or updates that were too vague to be actionable. A customer who had ordered a gift for an upcoming occasion and discovered through their own tracking that the delivery was delayed, without any proactive notification from the retailer, felt let down by a brand that had taken their money but not their post-purchase experience seriously.
The second category was returns and refunds, where the gap between policy as communicated and process as experienced was a consistent frustration driver. Customers who initiated a return expecting the process to take 5 to 7 business days and discovered through their own follow-up that it had been sitting unprocessed for 10 days reported frustration that extended beyond the original transaction into their overall assessment of the brand’s reliability.
CX Priorities for Next Month
Proactive delivery exception communication was the highest-priority intervention available to retail brands for June. Any order that fell outside its estimated delivery window should trigger an automatic outbound notification before the customer had to ask. This single change addressed the most common frustration driver without requiring any change to the underlying logistics operation. The delivery delay itself was often outside the brand’s direct control. The communication about it was entirely within it.
A second priority was establishing a returns status update protocol that provided customers with at least one proactive update during the processing window. A brief message confirming that a return had been received and was being processed, sent within 24 hours of the return arriving, eliminated the uncertainty that drove the majority of returns-related follow-up contacts and reduced repeat contact volume on one of the sector’s highest-frequency complaint types.
Final Word
Retail’s May performance reflected a sector that was operationally capable but communicatively passive. The infrastructure to respond faster and communicate more proactively existed across most of the brands in this category. What was missing was the discipline to use it consistently rather than reactively. Customers who received proactive updates on their orders and returns did not need to contact support, which meant better proactive communication would improve both NPS and reduce the contact volume that was absorbing team capacity. June’s opportunity was to stop treating good communication as a nice-to-have and start treating it as the operational priority it genuinely was.
Apparel Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May was a commercially significant month for apparel brands, with summer collections landing in stores and online simultaneously and the promotional calendar accelerating toward mid-year sales events. The contact profile that accompanied this period was predictably weighted toward size and availability queries, order tracking, return initiations, and styling questions, all arriving against a backdrop of heightened consumer interest and elevated purchase intent. Brands that managed this window well positioned themselves for strong summer trading. Those that did not found that poor service experiences during high-interest periods had an outsized impact on loyalty.
The data reflected a sector in moderately positive territory overall. An NPS of 15.94% was one of the better readings in this report and suggested that apparel brands were getting more right than wrong in their customer interactions. First response time of 13 hours 14 minutes was the area most in need of attention, particularly for a sector where purchase decisions moved quickly and customers who did not receive timely help frequently completed their transaction with a competitor rather than waiting.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 1.76% |
Engagement Rate | 11.35% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 2.93 |
Average First Response Time | 13 hours, 14 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 9 hours, 36 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 49 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | 15.94% |
Average SLA Response Time | 5 hours, 38 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | 14 hours, 7 minutes |
CXM Diagnosis
The relationship between first response time and resolution time in apparel’s May data was worth examining closely. Resolution, at 9 hours 36 minutes, was faster than first response, at 13 hours 14 minutes, which mirrored the pattern seen in quick commerce and pointed to a similar dynamic: once contacts were picked up, they moved through resolution relatively efficiently. The bottleneck was in the acknowledgment phase rather than the handling phase.
The engagement rate of 11.35% was among the higher readings in this report and reflected the inherently visual and aspirational nature of apparel content. Audiences engaged readily with product imagery, styling content, and collection launches. That same audience brought correspondingly high expectations to their service interactions, shaped by the premium experience that strong visual branding implied.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
Apparel frustration in May concentrated around two moments in the purchase journey. The first was pre-purchase, where customers with sizing or availability questions who did not receive a timely response completed their purchase elsewhere or abandoned it entirely. The commercial cost of a 13-hour first response during active browsing was not just a sentiment metric. It was a conversion metric, and in a sector where margin pressure was constant, losing transactions to slow response times was a problem with a direct bottom-line consequence.
The second frustration moment was the returns experience, consistent with the retail sector’s findings. Apparel returns were structurally more frequent than in most other categories given the nature of fit and colour matching, and customers who encountered friction in the returns process held it against the brand more strongly than in categories where returns were rare. An apparel brand’s returns experience was not a edge case. It was a routine part of the customer journey that a meaningful share of buyers went through with every order.
CX Priorities for Next Month
Reducing first response time to under 4 hours for all pre-purchase and order-related contacts was the most commercially motivated priority available for June. With only 49 daily tickets, this was entirely achievable within existing team capacity. It required a monitoring rhythm that ensured incoming contacts were reviewed and acknowledged during active shopping hours rather than processed in batches at the end of the day. The brands that achieved this would see the impact in both NPS and conversion rates.
A second priority was streamlining the returns initiation process to reduce the number of steps a customer had to take to begin a return. Every additional step in the returns journey was a point at which a customer could become frustrated, and in a sector with structurally high return rates, optimising that process was a high-leverage investment. A returns experience that felt as smooth as the original purchase was the standard apparel customers were beginning to expect, and the brands that met it would differentiate themselves clearly in a competitive market.
Final Word
Apparels entered June with an NPS of 15.94% and a genuine opportunity to push that number meaningfully higher. The contact volume was low enough that operational changes would have immediate and visible impact on sentiment scores. The engagement rate confirmed that the audience relationship was strong. Closing the first response gap and smoothing the returns journey were the two changes most likely to convert a positive NPS into a strong one, and both were within reach before the mid-year sales period brought its next wave of contact volume.
Telecommunications (Telecom) Industry Monthly CXM Report: May 2026
May was a steady month for telecommunications brands managing customer experience across mobile, broadband, and bundled service categories. Bill queries, network performance complaints, plan change requests, and device upgrade enquiries formed the core of the contact load, with 320 daily tickets representing one of the higher volume readings in this report. The sector operated in an environment where customers had limited switching friction in many markets and where a poor service experience translated more directly into churn risk than in categories where switching was more costly or complex.
The NPS of 3.36% was the sector’s most important signal for May. A narrow positive reading in a high-volume, high-churn-risk category represented a meaningful achievement, reflecting a sector that had worked to close the gap between the complexity of its products and the clarity of its customer communications. First response time of 2 hours 47 minutes was among the better readings across this report, and resolution time of 14 hours 23 minutes, while extended, was reasonable given the technical depth of many telecommunications queries.
KPI Snapshot
Metric | Value |
Follower Growth | 0.29% |
Engagement Rate | 3.41% |
Post Frequency (per day) | 4.03 |
Average First Response Time | 2 hours, 47 minutes |
Average Resolution Time | 14 hours, 23 minutes |
Average Daily Tickets | 320 |
Net Promoter Score (NPS) | 3.36% |
Average SLA Response Time | 20 minutes |
Average SLA Resolution Time | 30 minutes |
CXM Diagnosis
The SLA resolution time of 30 minutes was the most striking metric in telecommunications’ May data. Against an average resolution time of 14 hours 23 minutes, it confirmed that the sector’s priority handling pathway was extraordinarily fast when activated, and that the vast majority of contacts were not moving through that pathway. The distance between 30 minutes and 14 hours was not a capacity story. It was a triage story, and understanding which contact types qualified for the fast pathway and which did not was central to any NPS improvement strategy.
The first response time of 2 hours 47 minutes was encouraging and placed telecommunications comfortably ahead of several higher-NPS sectors in this report on this specific metric. It suggested that the front end of the service journey was functioning well and that the NPS challenge was concentrated in the resolution phase rather than the acknowledgment phase.
What’s Driving Customer Frustration and Sentiment
Telecommunications frustration in May had two consistent drivers. The first was billing disputes, where customers who identified discrepancies in their statements encountered a resolution process that required multiple contacts across several days before reaching a definitive outcome. Billing was the highest-stakes contact type in telecommunications from the customer’s perspective, carrying both financial and trust implications, and the length of the resolution cycle for disputed charges was a primary driver of negative sentiment in the sector.
The second driver was network performance complaints, where customers reporting connectivity issues received responses that acknowledged the problem but could not provide specific resolution timelines. Customers understood that network issues were complex and sometimes beyond the immediate control of front-line agents. What they found frustrating was the absence of a visible process. An acknowledgment without a timeline felt like a holding pattern rather than active resolution, and customers who had to follow up repeatedly to check on progress accumulated frustration with each contact.
CX Priorities for Next Month
Establishing a dedicated billing dispute pathway with a guaranteed resolution timeline was the highest-value intervention available for June. Billing contacts needed to be triaged separately from general service queries, routed to agents with the authority and system access to resolve discrepancies in a single interaction, and closed with a clear written confirmation of the outcome. The brands that achieved single-contact resolution on billing disputes would see the strongest NPS improvement from the investment.
A second priority was building a network issue communication protocol that provided affected customers with specific milestone updates rather than generic acknowledgments. When a network fault was logged, customers who had reported it should receive an automatic update confirming the fault was under investigation, a follow-up when a resolution timeline was established, and a confirmation when service was restored. This three-touch protocol required no additional agent time and addressed the core frustration of feeling invisible during a service disruption.
Final Word
Telecommunications’ May NPS of 3.36% was a positive number in a sector where achieving positive sentiment at scale was genuinely difficult. The sector managed 320 daily tickets with a first response time of under 3 hours and emerged with more promoters than detractors, which was not a small achievement. The opportunity for June was to push that margin wider by addressing the two contact types that were holding the score back. Billing disputes resolved in a single interaction and network issues communicated through a structured update protocol would move the needle on both customer satisfaction and the churn risk that sat behind it.
