This is a misleading statement. Sure ‘CE is all about how perceive,’ but ‘basing’ this on ‘effort expended’ tsk tsk on you. Sounds like usability to me.

Furthermore, Customer Experience is not brand, nor is it brand ‘building,’ or cognition of brand, etc. Customer Experience is separate from brand like brand is separate from actual service. There is an ethnography of Experience you are ignoring, without which, everyone would be modeled the same.

‘Brand,’ for instance, as immaterial, has nothing to do with actual service. It floats above actual service as word-image-sensation — as you like it — an anchor (similar to how the word ‘hand’ floats above yours when you put it before you). It’s a disembodied route, path, to be sure. And as conception, always equally arbitrary (i.e. “stop at the first motel we pass”).

You begin this way. And this is what you will come back to.

>the power of assigning numerical values to customer experiences

The Emperor’s New Clothes? You got to be kidding. Let me guess. Pick a number from 1 to 10… Sounds like parlour-tricks.

As for the rest, I’m afraid I have to side with Jack.

Is this not what most people commonly think is successful “brand”? Or is this a really a successful “badge”? – Ron

The marketing-strategy here is like jam and tea. Your heavy boots and Caterpillar’s Equipment are complimentary products.

So, for instance, even if you don’t have a CAT to play around with at home, you’ve got the boots, right? You’re halfway to Mexico.

Will this mean you’re going to rush right out and buy a Skid Steer Loader or a Track Loader? No.

But it does mean that they have another pair of shoes out there promoting their company.

Does that mean somebody is going to see your shoes and rush right out to buy an Excavator or an Integrated Toolcarrier? No.

But exposures to the logo, and good feelings about the brand (they fit best) are better than no exposure or negative feelings. Besides, they made a couple of bucks selling you those boots.