Financial pressure is prompting consumers to scrutinise their purchases more carefully, while artificial intelligence is giving them new ways to compare products and assess businesses’ claims.
The findings come from a second-quarter survey of 2 000 consumers drawn from ovatoyou’s online panel, supplemented by responses from 56 business executives.
Seventy-two percent of consumers said their financial position was unchanged or had worsened, while 23% identified AI search tools as helpful when researching products and services, up from 12% in 2025.
Value for money was the factor most frequently identified as bringing consumers closer to an organisation, selected by 71%. The report’s authors interpret this as evidence that consumers are evaluating purchases not only by price, but also by quality, reliability, effort, and the risk of regretting their decision.
The 2026 South African Customer Experience Report was produced by Rogerwilco’s chief executive, Charlie Stewart, online research platform ovatoyou’s founding director, Amanda Reekie, and Julia Ahlfeldt of Julia Ahlfeldt CX Consulting. It is the eighth edition of the annual study.
Financial pressure changes the value calculation
The survey found that 30% of consumers believed they were financially worse off than they had been a year earlier, while 42% said their circumstances were broadly unchanged. Only 27% believed they were better off.
This pressure was reflected in their shopping behaviour. More than half, 56%, said they had bought more supermarket house brands or no-name products during the preceding six months. Forty percent were comparing prices before making purchases, 39% were looking for deals on social media, and 36% were using search engines to identify the best value.
Of greater concern, 21% said they had drawn on savings or retirement funds to meet monthly expenses.
“Consumers are making every rand count, and every purchase is now a high-stakes calculation,” Julia Ahlfeldt said in a media release accompanying the report.
The report argues that consumers’ calculation of value now incorporates the potential costs of a poor decision. These can include disappointing quality, hidden fees, unreliable service, product unavailability, difficult refunds, and the time and effort required to resolve a problem.
Consumers and businesses prioritise different forms of assistance
The survey also identified differences between what consumers and executives considered the most important qualities in customer-facing employees.
Respondents could select a maximum of three qualities. Among consumers, 57% selected appropriate skills and knowledge, 52% selected clear explanations, and 50% selected help finding the best prices or deals.
Among the 56 executives surveyed, 80% prioritised knowledge and skills. However, only 39% selected clear explanations, and 7% identified helping customers find the best deal as one of their priorities.
The executives placed greater emphasis than consumers on understanding customers’ needs and emotions, selected by 63% of executives and 39% of consumers. Taking ownership and accountability for a problem was selected by 45% of executives and 26% of consumers.
These differences do not establish that businesses are unconcerned about value or that consumers care only about price. They indicate that the two surveyed groups prioritised different aspects of customer-facing service when required to select no more than three qualities.
AI joins the consumer’s research toolkit
AI is emerging as part of a wider range of information sources that consumers consult before making purchasing decisions.
When asked which sources they found helpful when looking for products or services, 58% selected customer reviews on a company’s website. Recommendations from friends and family were selected by 51%, promotional information by 49%, independent reviews by 44%, and Google by 38%. AI search tools were selected by 23%.
AI therefore remains less widely used for product research than reviews, personal recommendations, and traditional search. Its rapid growth is nevertheless significant because generative systems allow consumers to ask follow-up questions, compare options, and obtain summaries before visiting a company’s website or contacting it directly.
Information seeking was the most common use of AI among the consumers surveyed, selected by 66%. Writing was selected by 48%, practical guidance by 43%, and technical assistance by 38%.
“AI is more than just another Google,” Ahlfeldt said. “Consumers aren’t only using it to find information; they’re starting to use it to make decisions and take action on their behalf.”
The survey does not, however, establish that AI has become consumers’ dominant source of purchasing information or their general first port of call. It found that one in four consumers first turned to online search when they encountered a problem and needed assistance. The report described this category as encompassing Google and generative AI, meaning the result did not isolate AI search.
The report suggests that many businesses are still deciding how to respond as consumers increasingly obtain information through AI-generated answers.
Only 27% of the executives surveyed said their organisations had developed a dedicated strategy for managing how they appear in these answers. A further 27% were actively exploring strategies for generative-engine optimisation.
Consumers will not delegate every decision to AI
Consumers’ willingness to allow AI to act on their behalf varied significantly according to the task.
Sixty-seven percent said they would be comfortable allowing AI to fill an online shopping cart for their review, while 62% would allow it to place a meal-delivery order. Half would be comfortable allowing AI to book flights or accommodation, and 51% would allow it to book a medical appointment.
Only 9%, however, said they would be comfortable allowing AI to apply for a loan on their behalf. Among the executives surveyed, 32% believed consumers would accept AI performing this task.
Consumers therefore appeared considerably more willing to delegate routine shopping and administrative tasks than a consequential financial decision.
Consumers expect businesses to disclose their use of AI
Although consumers are increasingly using AI themselves, the report found that they also expect businesses to be transparent about their use of the technology.
Eighty-five percent regarded it as important for a company to tell them when they were communicating with AI instead of a person. Sixty-seven percent selected the highest point on the report’s seven-point importance scale.
Only 21% of the 56 executives surveyed said their organisations had a formal policy of consistently disclosing the use of AI at customer-facing touchpoints. A further 14% said disclosure depended on the channel or use case, while 14% did not disclose because they assumed customers would recognise when they were dealing with AI.
Poor experiences can lead to quiet withdrawal
Consumers’ growing ability to research and compare businesses is occurring alongside a willingness to withdraw their support when experiences fall short.
The report found that 81% of respondents had experienced a negative customer experience during the preceding 12 months, compared with 76% in 2024.
Yet only 24% said they would post about a poor experience on social media or an online review platform, down from 50% in 2023. Fifty-two percent said they would stop supporting the organisation, while 55% said they would switch to an alternative brand. Respondents could select more than one answer.
“The danger is that businesses may interpret declining complaints as improving customer experience when customers have simply stopped telling them what is wrong,” said Reekie.
The underlying result relates to posts on social media and online review platforms, which are public expressions of dissatisfaction. It does not establish a corresponding decline in formal complaints submitted to businesses, ombuds, or other dispute-resolution bodies.
Customer surveys may provide only part of the picture
The report’s findings also suggest that conventional customer surveys may not capture every poor experience.
When consumers were asked how they generally responded to a survey after a poor experience, 51% said they would give a negative score that matched how they felt.
However, 25% said they would provide a neutral score despite being unhappy, 14% would ignore the survey, and 10% would give a higher score than the experience deserved. About half would therefore not provide a negative score accurately reflecting the poor experience.
The report does not attribute this behaviour to deliberate dishonesty. Respondents may avoid conflict, lack the time or motivation to complete a survey, experience survey fatigue, or believe that providing feedback will not result in change.
Nor do the findings mean that every neutral score conceals dissatisfaction or that every person who ignores a survey is unhappy. Rather, they indicate that the customers who respond to a survey, and the scores they submit, may not represent the complete customer experience.
The report recommends that businesses consider measures such as the Net Promoter Score and Customer Satisfaction Score alongside behavioural evidence. This could include retention, repeat purchases, abandoned transactions, customer reviews, complaints, and switching behaviour.
Findings are indicative rather than nationally representative
The consumer survey was completed during the second quarter of 2026 by 2 000 members of ovatoyou’s panel of more than 40 000 online South Africans. Respondents completed the 24-question survey through the platform’s mobile and web applications.
Women accounted for 70% of the consumer sample. Fifty-nine percent of respondents were black, 18% white, 17% coloured, and 6% Indian or Asian. Thirty-nine percent were aged between 35 and 49, while 32% were aged 50 or older.
The report’s methodology section does not state whether the consumer results were weighted to reflect the national population. The findings should therefore be treated as indicative of the experiences and attitudes of the online consumers surveyed, rather than as nationally representative.
The business component consisted of responses from 56 executives across several industries. Although 54% occupied senior-management positions and 21% were C-suite executives, the size and composition of the sample limit the conclusions that can be drawn about businesses generally.
The report ultimately depicts consumers who are putting more effort into deciding what to buy but may put less effort into telling businesses when an experience goes wrong.
AI is giving them another way to research and compare their options before engaging directly with an organisation. But their reluctance to allow it to submit a loan application indicates that enthusiasm for automation has limits, particularly when a transaction involves a consequential financial commitment.
