In this episode of Human Centered, host Nick Brunker and Ben Geheb, VML's global chief experience strategy officer, discuss the evolving landscape of customer experience. They explore why CX index scores are at their lowest point, the challenges of measuring CX ROI, and the shift away from CX being owned by a single department. The conversation delves into the need for collaboration across multiple business areas to create effective experiences, the role of AI in shaping future CX strategies, and the importance of aligning objectives and accountability in modern CX practices.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Nick Brunker (00:02):
Hi, everyone, and welcome to Human Centered. I'm
Nick Brunker, a group directorof experience strategy at DML
and your host for the show.Thanks for giving us a listen.
Forrester's CX index scores thisyear were at their lowest point
since their measurement began.Even the elite brands have been
struggling.
In today's harsh businessclimate, CX is coming out of its
honeymoon period, and it'sexpected to drive real business
(00:23):
outcomes. This evolution raisescritical questions. What does
modern CX even look like? Can itbe owned by a single department?
And if not, what should CX teamsbe focused on?
And how can they be heldaccountable? We'll dive into
these questions and a whole lotmore with our guests today as we
talk about what we mightconsider a new dawn of customer
experience. Excited to welcomeback to the show VML's global
(00:45):
chief experience strategyofficer, Ben Gayhab. Ben, thanks
for being here. How are you?
Ben Geheb (00:49):
Hi, Nick. Thanks for having me again. Appreciate it.
Nick Brunker (00:51):
Yes. It's good to be back with you. I know we've
we've talked several times aboutForrester in the past. You've
been a a regular attendee to theCX summits over the years. And,
before we dive into all thespecifics that we just teed up,
I mentioned the CX index scoresfor 2024 off the top and the the
significant dips we're seeing.
(01:11):
How do you read into this and tothe why behind what we're seeing
there?
Ben Geheb (01:16):
Yeah. There's a lot happening in the, in the world
right now. It's kind of achaotic chaotic place. So, you
know, one aspect is one couldlook at is the environment just
more challenging than it's everbeen, and and maybe. But I
think, you know, I think on theother side of that is, there's
probably a couple differentforces.
1, companies have frankly, donethe low hanging fruit.
Nick Brunker (01:39):
They they they did they did what should have been
done
Ben Geheb (01:42):
a long time ago, and and so the the gains to be had
now and really increase theexperience is really hard to
nail down. It's, you know, ittakes more scrutiny in terms of
where the opportunities are. Ittakes a better understanding of
people and and, and, you know,what type of optimizations and
enhancements should be done toreally drive, that experience.
(02:03):
And when you look at theForrester index, it is kind of
that expectations treadmill.You're supposed to get better.
If you stay the same, youactually get a drop because it's
relative to the expectationsthat caught up to you. So, you
know, under that, it's harder tofind areas to, optimize and
enhance now than it probably wasbefore because there was a a,
(02:25):
you know, widespread, set ofopportunities. But the other
side of that, I think, is thereality is that a lot of those
investments take furtherfunding, further effort. And and
I think right now, there's a lotof demands on the on the funds
(02:47):
of companies. And so I don'tthink the investment levels are
probably where they totally needto go.
And that's not a critique at allof organizations. There's a lot
of pressures on them. But toreally drive, you take those two
forces together. Chances are thebigger, newer opportunities take
more investment than the lowhanging fruit.
Nick Brunker (03:08):
Mhmm.
Ben Geheb (03:08):
And we're at a place where, you know, those coming
together really starts to bringa drag. You know, the sea of
sameness is too strong rightnow, and it's hard to
differentiate, and the cost togo differentiate costs a lot.
And so it's, I think that showsup as as, you know, in this new
dawn that you let us into at thebeginning of this. It probably
takes a different approach, youknow, to unlock value than than
(03:31):
what we did at the beginning.
Nick Brunker (03:33):
And for a long time, we've been talking not
just internally, but I thinkwith with clients too about how
do you actually measure CX? Whatdoes it what does it look like?
And, you know, for a long time,there were beacon metrics you
would kind of, you know, try to,use as indicators of where where
we're going. And, hopefully,those end up tying back to
business results versus thebusiness results themselves. And
(03:54):
we think about the ROI story,that you need to build when
you're trying to maybe havethose conversations with
executives to say, you guys needto invest in this, and they ask,
well, what's the return gonnabe?
How has that conversationshifted away from, hey. Let's
think about MPS or even CX indexscores, like, to more maybe I
(04:14):
don't wanna use tangiblebroadly, but more of a tangible
business outcome like you mightsee if you're in marketing or
you're in engineering or inother areas of the business.
Ben Geheb (04:24):
Yeah. Each each organization is a little
different, but one thing I dofind that's common is that when
you're gonna go make budgetaryrequests, you need to prove an
ROI. Speaking simple math and interms that has a more direct
relationship between items thatpeople can tangibly understand.
Even if it's not directattribution to revenue or cost
(04:47):
savings, but it can beengagement, or it can be
someone, you know, coming intothe into the brand or business
more. I think, executives, it'seasier to wrap your mind
intangibly understand that.
It's harder when you go towardmore sentiment only metrics.
When you say, well, we're doingthis because there's
(05:08):
frustrations, and you'd say,well, that's great. So one of
the discussions we've had a fewtimes is whether it be an index
increase, NPS increase, anotherkind of more sentiment based
increase. They say, but how do Icontextualize one point x
increase in sentiment Yeah. Intodollars when I'm I need to
(05:29):
calculate an ROI.
And you're like, you get itbecause, you know, as an
organization where you don'thave infinite money, you've got
$1 to place. You know, even ifthe promise of something isn't
as big, if it's more tangibleand understandable, it's
probably a safer bet than onethat's that's less tangible
about it. And so, you know, Ithink what we're seeing now and
I think what we're advising alot of our, client partners
(05:53):
about is that balance. Doesn'tmean that something that's more
sentiment based is notappropriate, but we need to also
understand the business impactand what's I think the or I
think organizations are keptcatching up to is having both of
those. What they haven't oftendone then is the complex
analytics that correlate thosebetter.
(06:14):
How does understanding the keyenterprise value drivers relate
to increases or decreases insome type of sentiment, whether
that be CSAT or NPS orsomething? And how do we begin
to understand the relationshipsbetween those drivers that we
can balance the 2? And that isnot an easy thing to do, but I
(06:35):
think first aid is making sureyou've got the right structure
to do both both of those andthen have the right data systems
to be able to assess betweenthem.
Nick Brunker (06:43):
And I think back to when CX was really starting
to, for lack of a better word,catch on and and really become a
regular conversation inexecutive board rooms and with
with clients that we serve too.There was this idea, and I don't
think this is a broad brushnecessarily, but CX was kind of
(07:03):
the department. It was apractice, and it is a practice
still in a lot of ways. But youyou started hearing things,
across, you know, differentindustries where that the
experience is actually owned.The end to end experience is
owned by a a pillar, much likemarketing would be or IT or
tech.
And what's really interestingthat I love your perspective on
(07:26):
it is how the experience intotality doesn't ever really get
owned anymore or can't be ownedby a single department, or or
the question is, can it andshould it? And it feels like the
answer, and I'd love yourperspective, is it's it's no
longer a, quote, department oreven a practice that lives in in
(07:46):
its own world. There has to becollaboration across multiple,
areas of the business in orderfor an experience to actually
work between marketing, IT,wherever. Talk about that
balance and maybe that thatevolution from, yeah, the the
experience is owned by the CXteam versus it's owned by a lot
of teams that have to be workingkind of in tandem. Talk a little
(08:08):
bit about that.
Ben Geheb (08:09):
Yeah. I would say I believe that's probably one of
the biggest challenges at the atthe current state for how to
systematically operationalizeCX. You know, and in that is
because if you are a CXdepartment
Nick Brunker (08:25):
Mhmm.
Ben Geheb (08:25):
But yet you don't actually own any of the channels
that the experience manifestsin, then you have high
accountability, but you have noability to execute. So it's a
really hard place becauseeventually, you're just under
scrutiny.
Nick Brunker (08:38):
Yeah.
Ben Geheb (08:38):
And chances are we're not able to evolve as fast.
Because those channels havetheir priorities and objectives
that they're optimizing towards.And those may not be the same
just because of justorganizational dynamics. Yet
expecting one overlord of allchannels is also
Nick Brunker (08:56):
I mean, that's a big joke.
Ben Geheb (08:57):
When you look at, you know, global enterprises, that
is, like, a lot for many. And inmany regards, it's almost
impossible because therelationship between not only
Yeah. The experience, but thecontent, the messaging, but then
also the IT and the tech and theproduct infrastructure. So it's
hard to see all those gotogether. So what we're seeing
more than is a couple areas,which would be 1, you know,
(09:18):
organizations do need tighterobjectives to what we're talking
about earlier.
If I can align the objectives,then I can more seamlessly drive
collaboration against groupsthat will inherently in
departments that'll inherentlyown different pieces. So whether
they're in product, whether indigital product, or they own one
of the products that have kindof different components of play
(09:39):
retail or, you know, in in storeor point is it, whatever it
might be Mhmm. As well as thenall the other channels. If we
can kind of go around the sameexecutive level objectives and
have an aim for the contributionagainst them, then we can more
unite the ways in which we work.And that I think adds power
because it helps add scalabilityin a common structure so that
(09:59):
everybody's contributing to aset.
If we don't have that becausethey're split executives or we
just don't have that, then it'sconfusing how the experience
gets optimized, you know,optimized together. And I think
out of what you led is, I justthink the realities and the the
speed, pace, and scale thatecosystems are growing is really
hard for one person to kindaoversee it. So you you need
(10:22):
almost an enterprise levelcenter of gravity. Yeah. You
know?
Often, business objectives canalign that. Maybe that connects
to a vision or something. Butthat will help bridge these gaps
where I don't think it isreasonable to assume that that
whole ecosystem from digitalproduct to IT to marketing to CX
(10:42):
all goes under one umbrella inone organization at that point.
And for many, that is the wholeorganization. So you're just
like, it doesn't Right.
You know, that doesn't make anysense. So it's, you know, really
setting up the right governancemodel, the structure, the
measurement, the collaboration,and aligning that around a
portfolio that that kinda workstogether. But way easier said
(11:05):
than done for sure.
Nick Brunker (11:06):
Yeah. And I was gonna ask about about the
accountability aspect because,obviously, there are there are
like objects today even if youtake CS completely out of the
mix and you look at, I'm justgonna pick on IT and marketing
because it comes to mind. Butthere there has always been kind
of a collaboration betweendifferent departments to make
sure that we're all moving inthe same direction. There will
(11:28):
always be competing prioritiesat times that you have to
wrestle with. But if we go downthe path of what we've been just
talking about, what doesaccountability for a CX team
look like, and how do theseteams work together?
You were touching on it with,like, a shared objective set,
but then when you're saying endof a quarter, end of a year, I'm
saying, we we performed reallywell, and here's why. And, we're
(11:50):
accountable to x, y, and z. Whatis that x, y, and z in the new
world or the, you know, the newdawn, if you will, to borrow
that analogy again, that CX proscan start to say, yeah. This is
account that we're gonna beaccountable to this. What does
that look like?
Ben Geheb (12:05):
Oh, you know, it's a good question in that regard.
There's there's a few ways inwhich I think about it. One is
the team has to be accountableto something that can be managed
and optimized towards. I thinkthe challenge toward a lot of
the indexes that we have todayand others is it's hard to see
how you could manage towardsCXI. As, you know, mainly, you
(12:28):
can identify those key levers,but it's hard to kinda overall
manage to it and optimize it inthe same way that you might
optimize, say, like a conversionor something like that.
And I think a lot of the CXgroups say, you know, I'm
responsible for the overallexperience, and I'm gonna
provide, say, feedback intoother channels. Yet they're not
really accountable to the pointthat people's bonuses depend on
(12:50):
it. Yeah. They they divorcethemselves from the true
accountability. It's that, hey,let's measure it.
I'm gonna be the steward ofinsights, but I'm really gonna
provide that information to thechannels. Challenges, the
channels then get thatinformation, and they are
accountable to very direct, youknow, objectives. And so
unfortunately, a lot of those CXfeedback are are noise in the
system rather than there. Sowhat I usually say is that, you
(13:11):
know, how and where does theintegrated view of the
experience own some level ofaccountability? I think
naturally, if it's if it's atotally separate group, it's
hard to define, you know,exactly what that is.
And so, therefore, you need astakeholder who either helps
oversee a lot of the channelsand the manifestation of it, and
(13:34):
maybe they have a little bitmore organizationally are
responsible for that, plus maybean overall strategy for how the
ecosystem is orchestrated. Orthey are the owners of dominant
channels. And and they're inthere. And and, you know, I
think granted there are otherviews, maybe they sit in
strategy. I think, you know,oftentimes we're seeing CMOs or
other marketing, you know,executives step more into this
(13:57):
role.
There's some around technologyand product. I think the sum is
each have a pathway where theyown the manifestation of the
experience, and they probablyhave to influence others, but
they are accountable directly tohow things are showing up. And
in my mind, it's awkward becauseyou'd say, hey. Wouldn't you
want your CX executives and andteam to be a little bit more
channel agnostic? And I think intheory, yes.
(14:19):
But in practice, you have tohave a tighter relationship
Nick Brunker (14:23):
with accountability. Even mapping
that out has has become a bit ofa challenge. How do you wrangle
all that when there are gonna beso many journeys, so many
different experiences that crossso many channels and still
finding a way to make sense ofit all in a shared viewpoint, a
shared journey. Talk about howhow that might need to change or
how our approach to journeymapping needs to change in this
(14:47):
this new climate that we're in.
Ben Geheb (14:49):
Yeah. I mean, I've always been a believer that an
organization is best served whenthere's a line language. And
particularly around the journey,I don't think anybody owns the
macro journey. It is the naturallife cycle for which an
organization plays in. And so,you know, I I would say it has
fallen to some of the CXentities to define, but I don't
(15:09):
think it's theirs to own.
I think that really drives muchmore of an aligned language. The
next year so what you weresaying is there's infinite
number of micro journeys, andyou can kinda go deeper and
deeper to find, you know, definejourney as you think,
appropriate. Yet I think thechallenge is ever needs to
understand how does that ladderup to the objectives of that
(15:30):
kinda call it journey stage, themoments that are within there.
And then you're really drivingout what are those kinda you
know, there's a lot of differentterms that you use, like,
different value trees, differentstreams, the, you know,
different journeys. Withinthose, they all map into that
macro journey if we have analigned language.
If we don't have the samebreadth of that macro journey,
(15:51):
then we don't have an alignedlanguage. And then it's harder
for the system to orchestrate asa complete portfolio of activity
between where and how we'remessaging. What is the role of
dotcom in different areas?What's the role of apps in
different areas? But then also,what is the role of key
experiences that may beextending and complementing the
existing one?
(16:12):
So in automotive, that might bea service experience. If it's
about and, you know, if you'rein consumer electronics, maybe
that's about customer support ormaybe it's about the education
experience or some like, youknow, different groups own that
that experience. They are theorchestrators of that. But yet
those all fall in because weknow the jobs to be done at a
(16:32):
different level and have analigned language around, you
know, the different differentareas of kind of that overall
life cycle.
Nick Brunker (16:39):
So shifting a bit to the implications of all this,
and if if you're listening tothe podcast and thinking, man, I
gotta have some of thoseconversations with my senior
leaders, and and I've gotta havemaybe it is just aligning on
language, or it is understandinghow all of our, potentially
disparate or even just separateorganizations, maybe then
(17:00):
they're intentionallydisconnected, but different
organizations need to gettogether and work more
collaboratively. What's a goodplace that a CX pro listening to
this or a marketer can start totry and bridge some of those
conversations to, address whatwe've been talking about.
Ben Geheb (17:16):
I think a couple ones. I would ask maybe these
are more questions to yourselfin this regard, which is 1,
truly, what are you accountablefor in driving kind of
contribution back to theorganization? I hate to keep
only bringing back up, but Ithink that that is the
difference between somethingbeing noise in the system versus
being part of the systemexactly. So what are you truly
(17:40):
accountable for? And if that'snot easily definable, then I
recommend looking at the missionthat you have and say not that
the mission's wrong.
Maybe it's just not plugged intothe natural DNA and processes of
the system, and we need to getin there. The other side, which
we didn't go in a lot of thisis, you know, maybe as a CX
entity, maybe we should ownspecific experiences. So what
(18:02):
you know, a lot of experiencesneed to go manifest in app and
website and other things. Maybeas a CX entity, maybe the role
should pivot to say rather thanowning the full ecosystem of
everything and the summation ofit because it's really hard to
own that. Maybe take a beat andsay, actually, there are very
definable moments that we haveminimal action on, and it's my
(18:25):
job to start to drive action inthose.
That in some regards could beincubate and then get that
experience into the channels andlet those just mature and manage
in those. But for otherorganizations, you might mature
that over time. And so, youknow, that is, to me, a couple
areas where I would start, whichis saying, what are you
(18:45):
accountable for and and what doyou own? The other side would go
probably toward a little bitmore of the soft side of things,
which is just, do we understandwhat the overall objectives and
role of CX is in my organizationrelative to all the other
departments that are around,which is, you know, changes by
department? And the second, howdo I feel about some of the
(19:06):
languages being used not onlyaround CX, but frankly, just the
experience that may exist?
And is there a more unitingframework? And if there's not,
there may be an opportunity todrive that because without it,
it's gonna be hard to galvanizeeverybody in a singular kind of
direction or in a commondirection.
Nick Brunker (19:23):
It really could be its own podcast in itself, but
how much do you see the overlapof both CX and AI as practices
coming together in the yearsahead?
Ben Geheb (19:31):
That is a whole another podcast. But I I mean,
it has to come together.
Nick Brunker (19:40):
I don't think that
Ben Geheb (19:41):
they'll they'd necessarily have to be the same
thing, but there's no doubt thatAI is a transformative enabler
for experiences into the future,not only to bring greater
intelligence into our, you know,overall decision making in the
creation of the experience tospeed up. But I think equally so
(20:04):
is, you know, in a world ofgenerative AI and, you know,
let's just call it smart assist.I was talking with a a different
client partner about this a weekor 2 ago. And, you know, if you
have a really intelligent smartassistant that's with you that
can help populate super relevantcontent and information at your
(20:28):
fingertips at any time. So let'sjust say we're successful in
getting that in our cell phonesof any time.
Why would I search? Why would Igo to a web you know, a lot of
companies' websites are built onthe premise that we're gonna
build relevant content and I'mgonna personalize a website. But
if I can get all that in anassistant that's with me 247
learning, why would I go to abrand's website when I can kind
(20:50):
of get this intelligent view?Huge impact. Right?
Because now I'm now I cannotassume that if I have great
content, people engage, I haveto raise the value proposition
of my site, of my app, of the ofthe network to really have what
would be a compelling valueproposition for engagement
because I have to pull peopleaway rather than right now,
(21:11):
people are coming to to us forinformation. Information's
readily available, and itsynthesized at a speed and with
kind of content that outpacesany single dealer brand's
ability to deliver. So I thinkunder that regard, it says,
well, gosh. Now I gotta godesign in the realities of that
future. And I think thosecompanies have to go fight with
(21:31):
that battle, and then therefore,it's a battle of relevance.
It's a battle of speed andintelligence and personalization
and scale and execution. And AIis the most transformative
engine I think we've had in ourin that, and we'll just see more
of it. So I think I think theconsiderations have to come.
There's probably a whole podcastabout
Nick Brunker (21:49):
Yes.
Ben Geheb (21:49):
You know, how you think about prioritizing need
states and the application of AIboth for employee experience,
but also into the customerexperience. But inevitably, I
mean, the short shorter answerto your question is, like, yeah,
they gotta tango. They gottadance.
Nick Brunker (22:04):
Yeah. And talk about big bets. Like, even
within that, well, which whichbig bet are you making with AI?
Because there are a lot of waysyou could bet the farm on how
it's gonna work. I think it's toyour point on on the future of
web, man, that what is the roleof a website anymore if you have
the smart assistant in yourpocket?
Ben Geheb (22:20):
It would be fascinating for sure to to see.
I mean, and and some of that isI just think too, you can't fast
follow either. Right? The speedchange in this regard. I think
we always talk about the speedof change every year is, more
and more.
But in this regard, you know,it's a hard it's hard because
it's moving so fast that unlessyou're willing to go make a make
some mistakes and try your bestand get in and lower maturity
(22:43):
such that you can catch it inmid maturity, it's gonna be
really hard to catch on, youknow, just because the rate of
change is so so quick and theimpact there.
Nick Brunker (22:51):
And not to mention the risk involved when some of
the AI experiments you're gonnarun have, potentially dangerous
legal implications too. So asmuch as there's, you know, back
end stuff you can test forefficiency sake, anytime you're
involving stuff that's customerfacing, boy, you know, you hear
stories about the hallucinationsthat happen and, you know, legal
implications coming out of that.It's not as easy to just say,
(23:14):
yeah. Why not? Let's go testsomething.
That'll be fun. Like, sure. Youcan do that, but genie's out of
the bottle in a lot of ways.When you you put something in
front of the customer, they canscreenshot or they can share,
and all of a sudden, the therisk profile gets way more
challenging.
Ben Geheb (23:29):
And and I think that a little bit correlated to the
start for where we were, youknow, in this discussion is, you
know, I think correctinappropriate implementation,
even testing of AI, requiressome really good collaboration
across the organization Totally.In terms of how it's embedded
and how we think about, youknow, not only the content and
(23:49):
the messaging and and what we'retrying to train to make sure,
you know, as and experience isanchored towards. But that also
goes toward the experienceowners, the channel owners, but
then implications on technologyand the team. And if you're not
connected, you likely have somesubject matter expert that's in
IT that's really dreaming abouthow AI can be implemented in a
(24:09):
safe way. Yet the path toimplement, for some, you could
always get kind of a quick turnsolution, but then they go, you
said there's some weirdexperiences out there right now.
And, and so it could be you totrouble. So, you know, I think
the other side is, you know,it's a world where I just think
the complexities of kind of anexperience ecosystem is only
gonna go up and require morecollaboration to both do it at
(24:33):
speed, but do it responsibly.
Nick Brunker (24:35):
It's a great time to be to be in our field. We're
really we're living in such fun,fascinating, and always fast
paced times. So plenty more todiscuss on this topic and more.
We'll have you back and and domore more conversation around
this, and get get deeper on someof these topics as we go
forward, because I'm surethere'll be be no shortage of
news, in this space as we as wemove down the pike. Before we
(24:58):
wrap, though, there are 2 thingswe need to chat about.
Number 1, we're recording thispodcast in early August, which
can only mean one thing. We'rewe're staring down the barrel of
another NFL season. And forthose that have been listening
to the podcast for a long time,even dating back to the very
first episode we ever did withJohn Cook and your brother, Jeff
Gayhab, who are all, yourselfincluded, mega Kansas City fans.
(25:22):
For those that know me, I am inCincinnati, Ohio, huge Bengals
fan. I wanna talk to you realquick about the upcoming season
between your boys, look into 3Pete, and my boys, the Bengals.
How are you feeling about theyear, the NFL season? Do we
think that this is anotherchampionship season for the
(25:43):
Chiefs, or are they gonna getdethroned?
Ben Geheb (25:45):
I think it's promising. I you know, from the
radio this morning, it was, theteam is epically fast. The speed
on the Chiefs is is out of thisworld. And, you know, if I
compare the Chiefs to theBengals, and I'm sure I'll get
yelled at by a bunch of Bengalsfans for the statement, but, you
know, I think we're focused onwinning. I think the Bengals are
focused on not getting hurt,which I think are different
(26:06):
priorities.
Nick Brunker (26:07):
Alright. I'm I'm my connection's getting really
shoddy here, and we may have toend this this conversation now.
No. I think I think we have tooffline figure out what is gonna
be our wager between the 2 of usbecause, you know, you're a huge
fan of your team. I'm a huge fanof ours.
I I think mutual respect, but II think we gotta put some money
on this. So more to come onthat. But the other thing I
(26:28):
wanted to talk to you aboutbecause we've done fun facts
with you in the past, but onething that I know you've done in
in a relatively recent time, atleast since the last time you we
we've had a chance to get on thepodcast together, is you ran the
Boston Marathon. Tell me aboutthat experience, a, doing it, b,
training for it, and then, c,give us a a bit of, your yeah.
(26:49):
The inside look at the causesyou were running for.
Ben Geheb (26:51):
It wasn't this past year. Year before, I I ran ran
Boston. I I'm from Bostonoriginally, so it was kind of a
childhood dream and a bucketlist item to go do. So it was,
it was amazing. It it is was my5th marathon I run, and the
training in this one I think wasunique because it was in the
winter.
So it's, you know, Boston isrun-in April. So here in Kansas
(27:14):
City, even if it gets a littlewarmer a little earlier, you
still in January February, we'rerunning some pretty cold
weather. So, you know, it how'sit draining? I don't know.
Grueling and long.
Is there funny things? Yeah. Thewater bottle gets frozen shut
while you're running, andthere's kinda some laughing
things you gotta go around. Youknow, but most importantly, it
it's such an amazing event. Thetown rallies behind it for me.
(27:37):
You know, it hit a lot ofemotional reasons of of going to
it since I was a child, and andI just had a lot of, personal
ties to it. I, you know,fortunately, had the opportunity
to run, in support of DanaFarber, which is a big research
(27:57):
facility and care center, youknow, and, for cancer. And my
mom had had cancer a while back,and, obviously, cancer has
impacted a, she had breastcancer. It's great. You know,
it's it's recovered now, justfine.
And, so we're fortunate in thatregard, but I think my like
myself and many others, they'reimpacted on the hard side of of
(28:17):
cancer having just, you know,horrific challenges to many of
us. So I was fortunate that Igot to do that, and I was
insanely taken back by thesupport and contributions not
only of colleagues and friends,but I'll say the people that
come out of nowhere fromchildhood friends to people I've
never met before who whosupported in the fundraising and
(28:39):
the effort. So it was great. Ihope to do it again someday.
We'll wait a little bit and, youknow, still kinda run and help
slow life down a little bit.
There's not much to do if you'regoing on a multi hour run. So
it's it's a nice break, butrunning Boston was was certainly
special.
Nick Brunker (28:52):
Probably an obvious question, but was it as
as grueling as a layperson wouldexpect, or was it just kind of
another another run for you? Iknow it's a marathon's a
marathon for a reason, but howdid the, scale of it compare to
what your expectations weregonna be?
Ben Geheb (29:07):
It's pretty grueling. You know? I don't think my
body's really built for thosethose miles, but, you know, I
think always by the end, youknow, you you when you train, at
least for me, there's othersthat can train. They get a lot
of time, and they can run 100 ofmiles a week, whatever. I can't
do that.
So, you know, I only get so manymiles on the legs, and I would
(29:28):
say, you know, by the time thatyou have trained up to 20 some
odd miles and you're good to go,no matter what, those last 3
miles are punishing on on yourlegs. And, you know, it's a
balance of really enjoying theenvironment and the people
around you at the same timehoping you don't go down on a
full body cramp and andembarrass yourself.
Nick Brunker (29:49):
So it's yeah. Well, congratulations belatedly,
mega belatedly, but hugeaccomplishment, and thanks for
sharing your story on it. Andcertainly, more importantly, and
probably as importantly, Ishould say, thank you for taking
the time. I know you're swamped.Means a lot.
You took the hour or so to chat,and a great conversation as
always. Looking forward to doingit again.
Ben Geheb (30:08):
Absolutely. Thanks, Nick. Thanks for having me.
Nick Brunker (30:09):
And thanks to you all for listening to Human
Centered as well. To learn moreabout VML CX practice and our
approach to the work, you cancheck us out online, vml.com.
We'd also love to hear yourfeedback on the show. Give us a
rating and offer up yourthoughts wherever you listen to
your podcasts, including Apple,Spotify, Stitcher, Amazon, and
more. Have a topic idea or wannadrop us a line?
You can connect with me onx@nickbroker, or just shoot us
(30:32):
an email. The address ishumancentered@vml.com. Thanks
again for listening. We'll seeyou next time.
Hi, everyone, and welcome to Human Centered. I'm
Nick Brunker, a group directorof experience strategy at DML
and your host for the show.Thanks for giving us a listen.
Forrester's CX index scores thisyear were at their lowest point
since their measurement began.Even the elite brands have been
struggling.
In today's harsh businessclimate, CX is coming out of its
honeymoon period, and it'sexpected to drive real business
(00:23):
outcomes. This evolution raisescritical questions. What does
modern CX even look like? Can itbe owned by a single department?
And if not, what should CX teamsbe focused on?
And how can they be heldaccountable? We'll dive into
these questions and a whole lotmore with our guests today as we
talk about what we mightconsider a new dawn of customer
experience. Excited to welcomeback to the show VML's global
(00:45):
chief experience strategyofficer, Ben Gayhab. Ben, thanks
for being here. How are you?
Ben Geheb (00:49):
Hi, Nick. Thanks for having me again. Appreciate it.
Nick Brunker (00:51):
Yes. It's good to be back with you. I know we've
we've talked several times aboutForrester in the past. You've
been a a regular attendee to theCX summits over the years. And,
before we dive into all thespecifics that we just teed up,
I mentioned the CX index scoresfor 2024 off the top and the the
significant dips we're seeing.
(01:11):
How do you read into this and tothe why behind what we're seeing
there?
Ben Geheb (01:16):
Yeah. There's a lot happening in the, in the world
right now. It's kind of achaotic chaotic place. So, you
know, one aspect is one couldlook at is the environment just
more challenging than it's everbeen, and and maybe. But I
think, you know, I think on theother side of that is, there's
probably a couple differentforces.
1, companies have frankly, donethe low hanging fruit.
Nick Brunker (01:39):
They they they did they did what should have been
done
Ben Geheb (01:42):
a long time ago, and and so the the gains to be had
now and really increase theexperience is really hard to
nail down. It's, you know, ittakes more scrutiny in terms of
where the opportunities are. Ittakes a better understanding of
people and and, and, you know,what type of optimizations and
enhancements should be done toreally drive, that experience.
(02:03):
And when you look at theForrester index, it is kind of
that expectations treadmill.You're supposed to get better.
If you stay the same, youactually get a drop because it's
relative to the expectationsthat caught up to you. So, you
know, under that, it's harder tofind areas to, optimize and
enhance now than it probably wasbefore because there was a a,
(02:25):
you know, widespread, set ofopportunities. But the other
side of that, I think, is thereality is that a lot of those
investments take furtherfunding, further effort. And and
I think right now, there's a lotof demands on the on the funds
(02:47):
of companies. And so I don'tthink the investment levels are
probably where they totally needto go.
And that's not a critique at allof organizations. There's a lot
of pressures on them. But toreally drive, you take those two
forces together. Chances are thebigger, newer opportunities take
more investment than the lowhanging fruit.
Nick Brunker (03:08):
Mhmm.
Ben Geheb (03:08):
And we're at a place where, you know, those coming
together really starts to bringa drag. You know, the sea of
sameness is too strong rightnow, and it's hard to
differentiate, and the cost togo differentiate costs a lot.
And so it's, I think that showsup as as, you know, in this new
dawn that you let us into at thebeginning of this. It probably
takes a different approach, youknow, to unlock value than than
(03:31):
what we did at the beginning.
Nick Brunker (03:33):
And for a long time, we've been talking not
just internally, but I thinkwith with clients too about how
do you actually measure CX? Whatdoes it what does it look like?
And, you know, for a long time,there were beacon metrics you
would kind of, you know, try to,use as indicators of where where
we're going. And, hopefully,those end up tying back to
business results versus thebusiness results themselves. And
(03:54):
we think about the ROI story,that you need to build when
you're trying to maybe havethose conversations with
executives to say, you guys needto invest in this, and they ask,
well, what's the return gonnabe?
How has that conversationshifted away from, hey. Let's
think about MPS or even CX indexscores, like, to more maybe I
(04:14):
don't wanna use tangiblebroadly, but more of a tangible
business outcome like you mightsee if you're in marketing or
you're in engineering or inother areas of the business.
Ben Geheb (04:24):
Yeah. Each each organization is a little
different, but one thing I dofind that's common is that when
you're gonna go make budgetaryrequests, you need to prove an
ROI. Speaking simple math and interms that has a more direct
relationship between items thatpeople can tangibly understand.
Even if it's not directattribution to revenue or cost
(04:47):
savings, but it can beengagement, or it can be
someone, you know, coming intothe into the brand or business
more. I think, executives, it'seasier to wrap your mind
intangibly understand that.
It's harder when you go towardmore sentiment only metrics.
When you say, well, we're doingthis because there's
(05:08):
frustrations, and you'd say,well, that's great. So one of
the discussions we've had a fewtimes is whether it be an index
increase, NPS increase, anotherkind of more sentiment based
increase. They say, but how do Icontextualize one point x
increase in sentiment Yeah. Intodollars when I'm I need to
(05:29):
calculate an ROI.
And you're like, you get itbecause, you know, as an
organization where you don'thave infinite money, you've got
$1 to place. You know, even ifthe promise of something isn't
as big, if it's more tangibleand understandable, it's
probably a safer bet than onethat's that's less tangible
about it. And so, you know, Ithink what we're seeing now and
I think what we're advising alot of our, client partners
(05:53):
about is that balance. Doesn'tmean that something that's more
sentiment based is notappropriate, but we need to also
understand the business impactand what's I think the or I
think organizations are keptcatching up to is having both of
those. What they haven't oftendone then is the complex
analytics that correlate thosebetter.
(06:14):
How does understanding the keyenterprise value drivers relate
to increases or decreases insome type of sentiment, whether
that be CSAT or NPS orsomething? And how do we begin
to understand the relationshipsbetween those drivers that we
can balance the 2? And that isnot an easy thing to do, but I
(06:35):
think first aid is making sureyou've got the right structure
to do both both of those andthen have the right data systems
to be able to assess betweenthem.
Nick Brunker (06:43):
And I think back to when CX was really starting
to, for lack of a better word,catch on and and really become a
regular conversation inexecutive board rooms and with
with clients that we serve too.There was this idea, and I don't
think this is a broad brushnecessarily, but CX was kind of
(07:03):
the department. It was apractice, and it is a practice
still in a lot of ways. But youyou started hearing things,
across, you know, differentindustries where that the
experience is actually owned.The end to end experience is
owned by a a pillar, much likemarketing would be or IT or
tech.
And what's really interestingthat I love your perspective on
(07:26):
it is how the experience intotality doesn't ever really get
owned anymore or can't be ownedby a single department, or or
the question is, can it andshould it? And it feels like the
answer, and I'd love yourperspective, is it's it's no
longer a, quote, department oreven a practice that lives in in
(07:46):
its own world. There has to becollaboration across multiple,
areas of the business in orderfor an experience to actually
work between marketing, IT,wherever. Talk about that
balance and maybe that thatevolution from, yeah, the the
experience is owned by the CXteam versus it's owned by a lot
of teams that have to be workingkind of in tandem. Talk a little
(08:08):
bit about that.
Ben Geheb (08:09):
Yeah. I would say I believe that's probably one of
the biggest challenges at the atthe current state for how to
systematically operationalizeCX. You know, and in that is
because if you are a CXdepartment
Nick Brunker (08:25):
Mhmm.
Ben Geheb (08:25):
But yet you don't actually own any of the channels
that the experience manifestsin, then you have high
accountability, but you have noability to execute. So it's a
really hard place becauseeventually, you're just under
scrutiny.
Nick Brunker (08:38):
Yeah.
Ben Geheb (08:38):
And chances are we're not able to evolve as fast.
Because those channels havetheir priorities and objectives
that they're optimizing towards.And those may not be the same
just because of justorganizational dynamics. Yet
expecting one overlord of allchannels is also
Nick Brunker (08:56):
I mean, that's a big joke.
Ben Geheb (08:57):
When you look at, you know, global enterprises, that
is, like, a lot for many. And inmany regards, it's almost
impossible because therelationship between not only
Yeah. The experience, but thecontent, the messaging, but then
also the IT and the tech and theproduct infrastructure. So it's
hard to see all those gotogether. So what we're seeing
more than is a couple areas,which would be 1, you know,
(09:18):
organizations do need tighterobjectives to what we're talking
about earlier.
If I can align the objectives,then I can more seamlessly drive
collaboration against groupsthat will inherently in
departments that'll inherentlyown different pieces. So whether
they're in product, whether indigital product, or they own one
of the products that have kindof different components of play
(09:39):
retail or, you know, in in storeor point is it, whatever it
might be Mhmm. As well as thenall the other channels. If we
can kind of go around the sameexecutive level objectives and
have an aim for the contributionagainst them, then we can more
unite the ways in which we work.And that I think adds power
because it helps add scalabilityin a common structure so that
(09:59):
everybody's contributing to aset.
If we don't have that becausethey're split executives or we
just don't have that, then it'sconfusing how the experience
gets optimized, you know,optimized together. And I think
out of what you led is, I justthink the realities and the the
speed, pace, and scale thatecosystems are growing is really
hard for one person to kindaoversee it. So you you need
(10:22):
almost an enterprise levelcenter of gravity. Yeah. You
know?
Often, business objectives canalign that. Maybe that connects
to a vision or something. Butthat will help bridge these gaps
where I don't think it isreasonable to assume that that
whole ecosystem from digitalproduct to IT to marketing to CX
(10:42):
all goes under one umbrella inone organization at that point.
And for many, that is the wholeorganization. So you're just
like, it doesn't Right.
You know, that doesn't make anysense. So it's, you know, really
setting up the right governancemodel, the structure, the
measurement, the collaboration,and aligning that around a
portfolio that that kinda workstogether. But way easier said
(11:05):
than done for sure.
Nick Brunker (11:06):
Yeah. And I was gonna ask about about the
accountability aspect because,obviously, there are there are
like objects today even if youtake CS completely out of the
mix and you look at, I'm justgonna pick on IT and marketing
because it comes to mind. Butthere there has always been kind
of a collaboration betweendifferent departments to make
sure that we're all moving inthe same direction. There will
(11:28):
always be competing prioritiesat times that you have to
wrestle with. But if we go downthe path of what we've been just
talking about, what doesaccountability for a CX team
look like, and how do theseteams work together?
You were touching on it with,like, a shared objective set,
but then when you're saying endof a quarter, end of a year, I'm
saying, we we performed reallywell, and here's why. And, we're
(11:50):
accountable to x, y, and z. Whatis that x, y, and z in the new
world or the, you know, the newdawn, if you will, to borrow
that analogy again, that CX proscan start to say, yeah. This is
account that we're gonna beaccountable to this. What does
that look like?
Ben Geheb (12:05):
Oh, you know, it's a good question in that regard.
There's there's a few ways inwhich I think about it. One is
the team has to be accountableto something that can be managed
and optimized towards. I thinkthe challenge toward a lot of
the indexes that we have todayand others is it's hard to see
how you could manage towardsCXI. As, you know, mainly, you
(12:28):
can identify those key levers,but it's hard to kinda overall
manage to it and optimize it inthe same way that you might
optimize, say, like a conversionor something like that.
And I think a lot of the CXgroups say, you know, I'm
responsible for the overallexperience, and I'm gonna
provide, say, feedback intoother channels. Yet they're not
really accountable to the pointthat people's bonuses depend on
(12:50):
it. Yeah. They they divorcethemselves from the true
accountability. It's that, hey,let's measure it.
I'm gonna be the steward ofinsights, but I'm really gonna
provide that information to thechannels. Challenges, the
channels then get thatinformation, and they are
accountable to very direct, youknow, objectives. And so
unfortunately, a lot of those CXfeedback are are noise in the
system rather than there. Sowhat I usually say is that, you
(13:11):
know, how and where does theintegrated view of the
experience own some level ofaccountability? I think
naturally, if it's if it's atotally separate group, it's
hard to define, you know,exactly what that is.
And so, therefore, you need astakeholder who either helps
oversee a lot of the channelsand the manifestation of it, and
(13:34):
maybe they have a little bitmore organizationally are
responsible for that, plus maybean overall strategy for how the
ecosystem is orchestrated. Orthey are the owners of dominant
channels. And and they're inthere. And and, you know, I
think granted there are otherviews, maybe they sit in
strategy. I think, you know,oftentimes we're seeing CMOs or
other marketing, you know,executives step more into this
(13:57):
role.
There's some around technologyand product. I think the sum is
each have a pathway where theyown the manifestation of the
experience, and they probablyhave to influence others, but
they are accountable directly tohow things are showing up. And
in my mind, it's awkward becauseyou'd say, hey. Wouldn't you
want your CX executives and andteam to be a little bit more
channel agnostic? And I think intheory, yes.
(14:19):
But in practice, you have tohave a tighter relationship
Nick Brunker (14:23):
with accountability. Even mapping
that out has has become a bit ofa challenge. How do you wrangle
all that when there are gonna beso many journeys, so many
different experiences that crossso many channels and still
finding a way to make sense ofit all in a shared viewpoint, a
shared journey. Talk about howhow that might need to change or
how our approach to journeymapping needs to change in this
(14:47):
this new climate that we're in.
Ben Geheb (14:49):
Yeah. I mean, I've always been a believer that an
organization is best served whenthere's a line language. And
particularly around the journey,I don't think anybody owns the
macro journey. It is the naturallife cycle for which an
organization plays in. And so,you know, I I would say it has
fallen to some of the CXentities to define, but I don't
(15:09):
think it's theirs to own.
I think that really drives muchmore of an aligned language. The
next year so what you weresaying is there's infinite
number of micro journeys, andyou can kinda go deeper and
deeper to find, you know, definejourney as you think,
appropriate. Yet I think thechallenge is ever needs to
understand how does that ladderup to the objectives of that
(15:30):
kinda call it journey stage, themoments that are within there.
And then you're really drivingout what are those kinda you
know, there's a lot of differentterms that you use, like,
different value trees, differentstreams, the, you know,
different journeys. Withinthose, they all map into that
macro journey if we have analigned language.
If we don't have the samebreadth of that macro journey,
(15:51):
then we don't have an alignedlanguage. And then it's harder
for the system to orchestrate asa complete portfolio of activity
between where and how we'remessaging. What is the role of
dotcom in different areas?What's the role of apps in
different areas? But then also,what is the role of key
experiences that may beextending and complementing the
existing one?
(16:12):
So in automotive, that might bea service experience. If it's
about and, you know, if you'rein consumer electronics, maybe
that's about customer support ormaybe it's about the education
experience or some like, youknow, different groups own that
that experience. They are theorchestrators of that. But yet
those all fall in because weknow the jobs to be done at a
(16:32):
different level and have analigned language around, you
know, the different differentareas of kind of that overall
life cycle.
Nick Brunker (16:39):
So shifting a bit to the implications of all this,
and if if you're listening tothe podcast and thinking, man, I
gotta have some of thoseconversations with my senior
leaders, and and I've gotta havemaybe it is just aligning on
language, or it is understandinghow all of our, potentially
disparate or even just separateorganizations, maybe then
(17:00):
they're intentionallydisconnected, but different
organizations need to gettogether and work more
collaboratively. What's a goodplace that a CX pro listening to
this or a marketer can start totry and bridge some of those
conversations to, address whatwe've been talking about.
Ben Geheb (17:16):
I think a couple ones. I would ask maybe these
are more questions to yourselfin this regard, which is 1,
truly, what are you accountablefor in driving kind of
contribution back to theorganization? I hate to keep
only bringing back up, but Ithink that that is the
difference between somethingbeing noise in the system versus
being part of the systemexactly. So what are you truly
(17:40):
accountable for? And if that'snot easily definable, then I
recommend looking at the missionthat you have and say not that
the mission's wrong.
Maybe it's just not plugged intothe natural DNA and processes of
the system, and we need to getin there. The other side, which
we didn't go in a lot of thisis, you know, maybe as a CX
entity, maybe we should ownspecific experiences. So what
(18:02):
you know, a lot of experiencesneed to go manifest in app and
website and other things. Maybeas a CX entity, maybe the role
should pivot to say rather thanowning the full ecosystem of
everything and the summation ofit because it's really hard to
own that. Maybe take a beat andsay, actually, there are very
definable moments that we haveminimal action on, and it's my
(18:25):
job to start to drive action inthose.
That in some regards could beincubate and then get that
experience into the channels andlet those just mature and manage
in those. But for otherorganizations, you might mature
that over time. And so, youknow, that is, to me, a couple
areas where I would start, whichis saying, what are you
(18:45):
accountable for and and what doyou own? The other side would go
probably toward a little bitmore of the soft side of things,
which is just, do we understandwhat the overall objectives and
role of CX is in my organizationrelative to all the other
departments that are around,which is, you know, changes by
department? And the second, howdo I feel about some of the
(19:06):
languages being used not onlyaround CX, but frankly, just the
experience that may exist?
And is there a more unitingframework? And if there's not,
there may be an opportunity todrive that because without it,
it's gonna be hard to galvanizeeverybody in a singular kind of
direction or in a commondirection.
Nick Brunker (19:23):
It really could be its own podcast in itself, but
how much do you see the overlapof both CX and AI as practices
coming together in the yearsahead?
Ben Geheb (19:31):
That is a whole another podcast. But I I mean,
it has to come together.
Nick Brunker (19:40):
I don't think that
Ben Geheb (19:41):
they'll they'd necessarily have to be the same
thing, but there's no doubt thatAI is a transformative enabler
for experiences into the future,not only to bring greater
intelligence into our, you know,overall decision making in the
creation of the experience tospeed up. But I think equally so
(20:04):
is, you know, in a world ofgenerative AI and, you know,
let's just call it smart assist.I was talking with a a different
client partner about this a weekor 2 ago. And, you know, if you
have a really intelligent smartassistant that's with you that
can help populate super relevantcontent and information at your
(20:28):
fingertips at any time. So let'sjust say we're successful in
getting that in our cell phonesof any time.
Why would I search? Why would Igo to a web you know, a lot of
companies' websites are built onthe premise that we're gonna
build relevant content and I'mgonna personalize a website. But
if I can get all that in anassistant that's with me 247
learning, why would I go to abrand's website when I can kind
(20:50):
of get this intelligent view?Huge impact. Right?
Because now I'm now I cannotassume that if I have great
content, people engage, I haveto raise the value proposition
of my site, of my app, of the ofthe network to really have what
would be a compelling valueproposition for engagement
because I have to pull peopleaway rather than right now,
(21:11):
people are coming to to us forinformation. Information's
readily available, and itsynthesized at a speed and with
kind of content that outpacesany single dealer brand's
ability to deliver. So I thinkunder that regard, it says,
well, gosh. Now I gotta godesign in the realities of that
future. And I think thosecompanies have to go fight with
(21:31):
that battle, and then therefore,it's a battle of relevance.
It's a battle of speed andintelligence and personalization
and scale and execution. And AIis the most transformative
engine I think we've had in ourin that, and we'll just see more
of it. So I think I think theconsiderations have to come.
There's probably a whole podcastabout
Nick Brunker (21:49):
Yes.
Ben Geheb (21:49):
You know, how you think about prioritizing need
states and the application of AIboth for employee experience,
but also into the customerexperience. But inevitably, I
mean, the short shorter answerto your question is, like, yeah,
they gotta tango. They gottadance.
Nick Brunker (22:04):
Yeah. And talk about big bets. Like, even
within that, well, which whichbig bet are you making with AI?
Because there are a lot of waysyou could bet the farm on how
it's gonna work. I think it's toyour point on on the future of
web, man, that what is the roleof a website anymore if you have
the smart assistant in yourpocket?
Ben Geheb (22:20):
It would be fascinating for sure to to see.
I mean, and and some of that isI just think too, you can't fast
follow either. Right? The speedchange in this regard. I think
we always talk about the speedof change every year is, more
and more.
But in this regard, you know,it's a hard it's hard because
it's moving so fast that unlessyou're willing to go make a make
some mistakes and try your bestand get in and lower maturity
(22:43):
such that you can catch it inmid maturity, it's gonna be
really hard to catch on, youknow, just because the rate of
change is so so quick and theimpact there.
Nick Brunker (22:51):
And not to mention the risk involved when some of
the AI experiments you're gonnarun have, potentially dangerous
legal implications too. So asmuch as there's, you know, back
end stuff you can test forefficiency sake, anytime you're
involving stuff that's customerfacing, boy, you know, you hear
stories about the hallucinationsthat happen and, you know, legal
implications coming out of that.It's not as easy to just say,
(23:14):
yeah. Why not? Let's go testsomething.
That'll be fun. Like, sure. Youcan do that, but genie's out of
the bottle in a lot of ways.When you you put something in
front of the customer, they canscreenshot or they can share,
and all of a sudden, the therisk profile gets way more
challenging.
Ben Geheb (23:29):
And and I think that a little bit correlated to the
start for where we were, youknow, in this discussion is, you
know, I think correctinappropriate implementation,
even testing of AI, requiressome really good collaboration
across the organization Totally.In terms of how it's embedded
and how we think about, youknow, not only the content and
(23:49):
the messaging and and what we'retrying to train to make sure,
you know, as and experience isanchored towards. But that also
goes toward the experienceowners, the channel owners, but
then implications on technologyand the team. And if you're not
connected, you likely have somesubject matter expert that's in
IT that's really dreaming abouthow AI can be implemented in a
(24:09):
safe way. Yet the path toimplement, for some, you could
always get kind of a quick turnsolution, but then they go, you
said there's some weirdexperiences out there right now.
And, and so it could be you totrouble. So, you know, I think
the other side is, you know,it's a world where I just think
the complexities of kind of anexperience ecosystem is only
gonna go up and require morecollaboration to both do it at
(24:33):
speed, but do it responsibly.
Nick Brunker (24:35):
It's a great time to be to be in our field. We're
really we're living in such fun,fascinating, and always fast
paced times. So plenty more todiscuss on this topic and more.
We'll have you back and and domore more conversation around
this, and get get deeper on someof these topics as we go
forward, because I'm surethere'll be be no shortage of
news, in this space as we as wemove down the pike. Before we
(24:58):
wrap, though, there are 2 thingswe need to chat about.
Number 1, we're recording thispodcast in early August, which
can only mean one thing. We'rewe're staring down the barrel of
another NFL season. And forthose that have been listening
to the podcast for a long time,even dating back to the very
first episode we ever did withJohn Cook and your brother, Jeff
Gayhab, who are all, yourselfincluded, mega Kansas City fans.
(25:22):
For those that know me, I am inCincinnati, Ohio, huge Bengals
fan. I wanna talk to you realquick about the upcoming season
between your boys, look into 3Pete, and my boys, the Bengals.
How are you feeling about theyear, the NFL season? Do we
think that this is anotherchampionship season for the
(25:43):
Chiefs, or are they gonna getdethroned?
Ben Geheb (25:45):
I think it's promising. I you know, from the
radio this morning, it was, theteam is epically fast. The speed
on the Chiefs is is out of thisworld. And, you know, if I
compare the Chiefs to theBengals, and I'm sure I'll get
yelled at by a bunch of Bengalsfans for the statement, but, you
know, I think we're focused onwinning. I think the Bengals are
focused on not getting hurt,which I think are different
(26:06):
priorities.
Nick Brunker (26:07):
Alright. I'm I'm my connection's getting really
shoddy here, and we may have toend this this conversation now.
No. I think I think we have tooffline figure out what is gonna
be our wager between the 2 of usbecause, you know, you're a huge
fan of your team. I'm a huge fanof ours.
I I think mutual respect, but II think we gotta put some money
on this. So more to come onthat. But the other thing I
(26:28):
wanted to talk to you aboutbecause we've done fun facts
with you in the past, but onething that I know you've done in
in a relatively recent time, atleast since the last time you we
we've had a chance to get on thepodcast together, is you ran the
Boston Marathon. Tell me aboutthat experience, a, doing it, b,
training for it, and then, c,give us a a bit of, your yeah.
(26:49):
The inside look at the causesyou were running for.
Ben Geheb (26:51):
It wasn't this past year. Year before, I I ran ran
Boston. I I'm from Bostonoriginally, so it was kind of a
childhood dream and a bucketlist item to go do. So it was,
it was amazing. It it is was my5th marathon I run, and the
training in this one I think wasunique because it was in the
winter.
So it's, you know, Boston isrun-in April. So here in Kansas
(27:14):
City, even if it gets a littlewarmer a little earlier, you
still in January February, we'rerunning some pretty cold
weather. So, you know, it how'sit draining? I don't know.
Grueling and long.
Is there funny things? Yeah. Thewater bottle gets frozen shut
while you're running, andthere's kinda some laughing
things you gotta go around. Youknow, but most importantly, it
it's such an amazing event. Thetown rallies behind it for me.
(27:37):
You know, it hit a lot ofemotional reasons of of going to
it since I was a child, and andI just had a lot of, personal
ties to it. I, you know,fortunately, had the opportunity
to run, in support of DanaFarber, which is a big research
(27:57):
facility and care center, youknow, and, for cancer. And my
mom had had cancer a while back,and, obviously, cancer has
impacted a, she had breastcancer. It's great. You know,
it's it's recovered now, justfine.
And, so we're fortunate in thatregard, but I think my like
myself and many others, they'reimpacted on the hard side of of
(28:17):
cancer having just, you know,horrific challenges to many of
us. So I was fortunate that Igot to do that, and I was
insanely taken back by thesupport and contributions not
only of colleagues and friends,but I'll say the people that
come out of nowhere fromchildhood friends to people I've
never met before who whosupported in the fundraising and
(28:39):
the effort. So it was great. Ihope to do it again someday.
We'll wait a little bit and, youknow, still kinda run and help
slow life down a little bit.
There's not much to do if you'regoing on a multi hour run. So
it's it's a nice break, butrunning Boston was was certainly
special.
Nick Brunker (28:52):
Probably an obvious question, but was it as
as grueling as a layperson wouldexpect, or was it just kind of
another another run for you? Iknow it's a marathon's a
marathon for a reason, but howdid the, scale of it compare to
what your expectations weregonna be?
Ben Geheb (29:07):
It's pretty grueling. You know? I don't think my
body's really built for thosethose miles, but, you know, I
think always by the end, youknow, you you when you train, at
least for me, there's othersthat can train. They get a lot
of time, and they can run 100 ofmiles a week, whatever. I can't
do that.
So, you know, I only get so manymiles on the legs, and I would
(29:28):
say, you know, by the time thatyou have trained up to 20 some
odd miles and you're good to go,no matter what, those last 3
miles are punishing on on yourlegs. And, you know, it's a
balance of really enjoying theenvironment and the people
around you at the same timehoping you don't go down on a
full body cramp and andembarrass yourself.
Nick Brunker (29:49):
So it's yeah. Well, congratulations belatedly,
mega belatedly, but hugeaccomplishment, and thanks for
sharing your story on it. Andcertainly, more importantly, and
probably as importantly, Ishould say, thank you for taking
the time. I know you're swamped.Means a lot.
You took the hour or so to chat,and a great conversation as
always. Looking forward to doingit again.
Ben Geheb (30:08):
Absolutely. Thanks, Nick. Thanks for having me.
Nick Brunker (30:09):
And thanks to you all for listening to Human
Centered as well. To learn moreabout VML CX practice and our
approach to the work, you cancheck us out online, vml.com.
We'd also love to hear yourfeedback on the show. Give us a
rating and offer up yourthoughts wherever you listen to
your podcasts, including Apple,Spotify, Stitcher, Amazon, and
more. Have a topic idea or wannadrop us a line?
You can connect with me onx@nickbroker, or just shoot us
(30:32):
an email. The address ishumancentered@vml.com. Thanks
again for listening. We'll seeyou next time.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.