New research commissioned by Youi indicates that while most Australians are satisfied with their latest customer service interaction, many report a personal “time-away” cost that does not always appear in headline satisfaction scores. The national survey of 2,080 adults found that 81% described their most recent customer service experience as positive. At the same time, 62% said the interaction took time or energy away from something important to them, raising considerations for insurers and other service‑intensive sectors about how they configure automation and human support.
The findings point to a consistent pattern in which customer service, even when issues are resolved, competes with other priorities. Respondents most often reported losing personal downtime (39%), followed by mental or emotional wellbeing (19%), time with family or friends (13%), work or income (11%), and sleep or rest (7%).
This reported burden was higher when the experience was negative. Among respondents who rated their last interaction as poor, 91% said it had some personal cost. Within that group, 57% cited loss of personal time, 52% loss of mental energy, 27% reduced time with family, 23% loss of work or income time, and 18% impact on sleep. Only 9% reported no impact. Time to resolution was closely linked to both satisfaction and the intensity of this “time-away” effect. Where issues were resolved in less than 10 minutes, 90% of respondents reported a positive experience and 56% reported no personal impact. For interactions that lasted more than an hour, reported losses of personal time rose to 57%, mental or emotional energy to 45%, family or friend time to 33%, work or income to 24%, and sleep to 20%.
The research suggests that life stage and responsibilities shape how service interactions are felt. Gen Z respondents, who are generally comfortable with digital tools, recorded the widest “time-away” burden, with 71% saying their last customer service engagement affected them in some way. The data indicates that openness to technology does not necessarily reduce the perceived cost of time spent resolving issues. Millennials were among the most likely to report impacts on work or income (16%) and family or friend time (16%), reflecting competing demands across employment and caregiving roles.
Gen X respondents reported the highest incidence of lost personal downtime, with 44% saying customer service cut into their personal time. Baby Boomers reported the lowest overall personal impact. Just over half (52%) indicated no impact from their last interaction, compared with a national average of 38%. The survey suggests that greater flexibility in schedules and financial circumstances may help reduce spillover effects for this cohort.
The study was conducted against a backdrop of increased use of AI, chatbots, and self‑service portals by insurers and other organisations. While a minority of Australians prefer digital‑first pathways, the data shows ongoing demand for human contact, especially when financial or personal stakes are high. Across the total sample, 67% said they want to speak to a real person as soon as an issue arises. Only 12% expressed a preference for fully automated options such as self‑service websites or AI. Even within that technology‑preferring group, four in five respondents said human involvement is important or essential when problems relate to finances, health, or family, and nearly one in three still wanted immediate access to a person when something goes wrong.
Psychologist and human behaviour expert Sabina Read said the survey outcomes reflect how people view service interactions. “In a fast-moving world, with AI and chatbots infiltrating many of our daily interactions, it’s no surprise that human connection and clear communication top the list of ingredients that constitute a positive customer service experience. We’re hardwired for connection. Even the best technological innovations can’t replace the power of being seen, heard, and validated in a timely manner when we are seeking to resolve an issue that matters to us,” Read said.
In channel terms, the research found that phone remains the main mode of contact, used by 49% of respondents for their most recent interaction. In‑person service followed at 23%, with live chat with a human at 19%. Digital‑first options – AI chatbots (12%), email (11%), and mobile apps (9%) – were used less frequently. Insurance-related interactions were mostly phone‑based. Nearly two‑thirds (64%) of customer contacts with insurers occurred over the phone. The figures indicate that claim notifications, coverage questions, and other complex matters still commonly involve direct, real‑time conversation rather than self‑service channels alone. Negative customer experiences in the broader sample were more frequently linked with government and telecommunications providers, where respondents cited long wait times, unresolved or ongoing issues, and inconsistent or incorrect information. Positive experiences were most often associated with issue resolution, staff described as helpful, and quick solutions.
Youi chief customer officer Anthony Antonucci said the research highlights recurring elements in how Australians define an effective service interaction. “Great customer experience isn’t accidental – it follows a recipe. Australians tell us the three ingredients that matter most are simple: being able to speak to a real person, having clear communication, and getting a quick, effective response,” Antonucci said. Respondents identified access to a real person (51%) as the most commonly cited factor in resolving their issue, followed by clear, helpful communication (34%) and quick, effective outcomes (33%). The study links the combined presence of these three elements with higher reported satisfaction and fewer reported time‑away impacts.
Antonucci added: “But as more companies lean heavily into automation and AI, access to a real human is becoming harder to find, and consumers are feeling the consequences. Even tech savvy Australians, who are comfortable with digital tools, still credit real human support as critical to resolving their issue. That tells us something important – technology can absolutely help, but it can’t replace empathy, clarity, or genuine connection. These three elements are key to timely issue resolution, giving customers their time back.” The data describes a pattern in which AI and automation are used to manage simpler or lower‑risk tasks, while human case handlers remain central in claims, complaints, and other higher‑impact matters. In those situations, delays and complexity appear more likely to translate into measurable “time‑away” costs for policyholders, adding another lens for assessing service design and resourcing decisions.
