Answer: Jonathan: See that's really hard, but my textbook definition would be an organization that has the information available on every customer and every employee to be empathetic at scale and at scale is the key thing here, we can all be employed at one to one. So it's not a textbook definition, but the key here is understanding the emotions of every customer and employee every day to allow you to put empathetic programs in place, which will then drive certain financial outcomes. Employees will have a reduction in churn and and the latter impacts on the customer outcomes.

Answer: Jonathan: It is a great measure because it's simple. You can stick it up to an executive, they were always easy to benchmark as we all understand it. The biggest problem actually with NPS and I would argue, the same with any other metric like CSAT score (Customer Satisfaction score), CES (Customer Effort score) is, it starts to become all about the score. And so we don't want to build an empathy score. The challenge with every cx program and every metric is, it has nothing to do with the score. It doesn't make sense if you measure NPS, CSAT and CES, but dont do anything about it. I think what NPS has behind it, which is useful, is a methodology. It's got a series of processes that people don't think about. My experience is for those companies who want to invest in a program, it's actually a very good program framework. It's about the methodology, how do you design a program, how do you close the loop, what are the governance structures, and the the measurement frameworksyou should be thinking about. But the reality is it's great for relationships, but terrible for transactions. i'm a fan of it because it's a simple measure but it's really divisive.