top of page




Clever vs gimmicky. Most, but not all think clever.

Some people felt that the novelty of digital humans being used for traditional outbound purposes like feedback or relationship management could be seen as gimmicky.  Others simply saw it as clever.
We are imagining that the debate around this will centre of whether digital humans can serve a valuable purpose for businesses.  Gimmicky is where the tech is used for tech’s sake.  This article from Forbes looks at this issue.

The way we see it, digital humans are not a gimmick if the customer experience is improved, compared to other alternatives. For example, is giving feedback talking to a digital human on mobile when you’re on the move better than two-finger typing it when you’re at the desk?  And, is value created for organisations deploying digital humans for outbound?  For example, getting a better response rate means more feedback from the investment.

Some of your thoughts:

  • I think it's a cool gimmick, but the only way I see this working is if you invest in giving the avatar a personality/fame so that it becomes something people want to do.

  • I think it is too gimmicky, as above it is novel and may see an initial upturn in engagement due to the nature of new and novel.

  • If we don’t start experimenting with this stuff, we will lose our edge    

bottom of page