When customer service works well, the impact it has is positive but overall, a non-event. A short call, a clear answer, problem solved.
But when it doesn’t, the cost goes far beyond time spent waiting. Our new research1 reveals that poor customer service quietly cuts into Australians’ personal lives, mental wellbeing and work. In fact, negative customer service experiences tend to take two to three times longer to resolve on average than positive ones.
The “time away” cost Australians are paying without realising
At a glance, customer service in Australia appears to be a strong performer. More than four in five Australians say their most recent customer service experience was positive (81%), and most interactions (73%) are resolved within 30 minutes. However, amidst our increasingly busy lives, where Aussies are juggling work, family, and personal commitments, even “short” interactions can feel costly. We see this reflected in the data, where nearly two in three Australians say their last customer service interaction took time or energy away from something that mattered (62%).
- The most common sacrifices were:
- Personal time or downtime (39%)
- Mental or emotional wellbeing (19%)
- Time with family or friends (13%)
- Work or income (11%)
- Sleep or rest (7%)
This hidden cost becomes significantly heavier when experiences turn negative. Among Australians whose last customer service interaction was poor, more than nine in ten (91%) absorbed some form of personal cost – including losing personal time (57%), mental energy (52%), family time (27%), work or income (23%) and sleep (18%)
Time an amplifier of frustration
Australians who resolved their issue in under 10 minutes reported overwhelmingly positive experiences (90% positive), while those whose interactions took more than an hour reported dramatically lower satisfaction (54% positive). Speed of resolution is strongly linked to how positively customers judge the experience.
But longer interactions do more than reduce satisfaction – they also increase the personal burden of dealing with the issue. Australians who reported a negative experience were far more likely to face prolonged resolution, with 30% spending 30 to 60 minutes resolving their issue compared with 13% of those who reported a positive experience, and 15% spending one to two hours versus only 5% for positive interactions.
Among those spending more than one hour resolving an issue, the consequences of the time taken away extend well beyond inconvenience:
- Personal time loss rose to 57%
- Mental or emotional energy loss to 45%
- Loss to family or friend time to 33%
- Impact to work or income to 24%
- Impact on sleep to 20%
In comparison, more than half of Australians whose issue was resolved in under 10 minutes reported no personal impact at all (56%). This points to a clear pattern – negative experiences are often driven by unresolved complexity, repeated escalations or system barriers that prolong resolution and drain customers' time and energy.
Not all Australians feel impact in the same way
The research shows that life stage plays a major role in how customer service affects Australians.
Gen Z feel the broadest impact
Despite being the most open to technology-based service, Gen Z report the widest overall “time away” burden, with 71% reporting it affected them – the highest among any generation.
Openness to technology doesn’t always mean immunity from the ‘time away’ cost. These findings reveal a glimpse into how customer service impacts lifestyles, revealing insights on how time scarcity, flexibility, and responsibility drive friction.
Millennials are squeezed at work and at home
Millennials are among the most likely generation to report losing work or income time (16%) and family or friend time (16%), reflecting the competing demands of careers, caregiving and daily responsibilities.
These findings highlight that Millennials sit at one of life’s most compressed stages, where even small points of friction in customer service can spill quickly into work and family commitments. In this context, service delays hold immediate, tangible costs rather than being minor inconveniences
Gen X lose precious downtime
For Gen X, customer service cuts more than any other generation into their personal time or downtime, affecting 44%
Baby Boomers are the most insulated
Baby Boomers experience the lowest personal cost, with more than half reporting no impact at all (52%), well above the national average (38%). This result may be due to many Baby Boomers having greater discretionary time and financial stability.
The myth that Australians want service without people
In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) and automation are becoming more integrated into the customer service experience, from chat bots to self-service tools. Increasingly, AI support is being used as the first step in a customer service enquiry. Yet, despite the rapid integration of AI and automation in people’s day-to-day lives, our research shows that Australians still overwhelmingly prefer human first support.
Across the general population, two thirds of Australians say they want to speak to a real person straight away when an issue arises (67%).
While one in eight Australians (12%) say they prefer fully automated options such as self-service websites or AI, even among this group, human support remains important when the stakes are high:
- Four in five say speaking to a real person is important or essential (93%) when it comes to issues affecting finances, health, or family.
- Nearly one in three still want to speak to a real person immediately when something goes wrong (32%).
This suggests openness to automation does not remove the expectation for human support. It also points to an interesting tension: Australians who prefer technology-based service tend to report greater spillover impacts on their lives than those who prefer human-based service. More than one in five report impacts on work or income (22%), alongside impacts on family or friend time (19%) and sleep (11%), while only 25% report no personal impact at all. By contrast, those who prefer human-based service are less likely to report broader impacts, with 39% reporting no impact, and just 10% reporting impacts to work or income.
Where Australians still rely on human support most
Phones remain the dominant customer service channel, with nearly half of Australians using the phone for their last interaction (49%), followed by:
- In-person service (23%)
- Live chat with a human (19%)
- Digital first channels were used far less frequently:
- AI chatbots (12%)
- Email (11%)
- Mobile apps (9%)
Insurance interactions are especially phone heavy, with nearly two thirds occurring over the phone (64%). This higher number of interactions over the phone highlights the significance of reassurance and timely answers when issues feel personal or high-stakes such as accidents or insurance claims.
Negative experiences are more commonly reported in interactions with government departments (20%) and telecommunication companies (19%), driven primarily by long wait times (38%), unresolved or ongoing issues (35%), and inconsistent or incorrect information (17%) where people may be spending less time interacting directly with a person.
Positive experiences, however, lean towards more human interactions attributed to issue resolution (28%), helpful and friendly staff (27%), and quick solutions (21%), with women and English as a second language (ESL) Australians particularly likely to credit friendly and helpful staff (28% vs 20% for men, and 37% respectively).
Where do our expectations lie?
Most Australians approach customer service with tempered optimism. A combined 57% enter interactions with high expectations, while a further 36% hold moderate expectations – meaning a significant 93% of Aussies approach a customer service enquiry at least expecting a reasonable outcome.
Only a small minority (7%) brace themselves for a poor experience from the outset.
Expectations are strongly shaped by what people have encountered before: Aussies that most recently had a negative experience are more than twice as likely to approach customer service with low expectations (17%), while those coming off a positive experience are far less likely to expect the worst (just 5%).
Baby Boomers set the bar highest, with more than one in four (28%) expecting service to be smooth, efficient, and resolved without unnecessary hassle. This appears to be grounded less in optimism and more in experience. Boomers are more likely than other generations to draw expectations from how companies have treated them in the past (42%) and slightly more likely to factor in the money involved. This suggests their expectations may often be drawn from personal experience and the perceived higher stakes, which may leave less tolerance for friction when service falls short.
In contrast, Gen Z and Millennials cluster around moderate expectations (43% and 41% respectively), pointing to a more practical view of service. Rather than expecting seamless experiences, they appear more likely to accept some effort or friction, provided issues are handled competently with transparency and speed. This may reflect not only greater familiarity with digital systems, automation and self-service, but also a broader tendency – particularly among Gen Z – to draw more on external signals such as reviews and testimonials when forming expectations.
When are customers least willing to tolerate friction?
Customer service expectations peak when time pressure is at its highest. Urgency is the most common trigger for elevated expectations, cited by 41% of Australians, ahead of health or safety concerns (34%), large financial stakes (32%), and premium pricing (30%).
However, the drivers of heightened expectations shift notably based on past experience and personal context. Australians coming off a recent negative experience are significantly more likely to say their expectations rise when they are already stressed (32% versus 21% overall) or when a company positions itself as high-quality (31% versus 24%), suggesting greater sensitivity to both emotional load and brand promises. At the same time, they are less likely to link heightened expectations to large sums of money (24% versus 32%).
A similar pattern appears among Australians whose most recent service interaction ran longer than an hour. Their expectations are most likely to spike when they are under stress (33%) or when a company promotes its quality credentials (30%), while large financial amounts matter less (23%).
ESL speakers stand out as the most engaged group overall, with half (50%) saying urgency raises their expectations and a significantly higher share pointing to large financial stakes (42%), reflecting how time pressure and financial risk combine to amplify the cost-of-service breakdowns for those navigating additional language complexity.
So, what's the price Aussies are willing to pay for good customer service?
Many would – particularly where better service reduces stress and delivers better outcomes. Nearly two thirds of Australians (64%) say they would pay a premium for a human first model.
Willingness to pay is spread across a range of price points:
- 23% prepared to pay 5% premium
- 20% willing to pay 10% premium
- 7% open to a 20% premium
- 2% comfortable with a 30% premium
A further 12% say they would choose a human‑first service regardless of price, highlighting strong perceived value among a meaningful minority.
Gen Z stands out as the most willing segment, with 81% being open to paying a premium. Their willingness is concentrated in the 10 to 30% range, suggesting a considered value exchange rather than just low-level price tolerance.
Millennials follow a similar pattern, with 73% willing to pay more for elevated comfort, particularly at the 10% and 20% levels. In contrast, Gen X and Baby Boomers are significantly more price resistant, with 44% and 50% respectively unwilling to pay a premium. Baby Boomers show different segments: despite having the highest “wouldn’t pay more” rate, they also record the highest willingness to choose a human first service regardless of price (16%). This points to a more polarised cohort, with one segment highly price resistant, while a distinct but meaningful segment places very high value on human support.
Notably, having a negative last service experience does not materially shift willingness to pay, indicating that poor service alone does not translate into a stronger or weaker commercial signal. Counter to expectations, Australians who prefer technology‑based service are among the most commercially engaged, showing significantly higher willingness to pay at the 10%, 20%, and 30% levels, while being less likely to choose a service regardless of price. This reinforces that even tech‑forward consumers recognise and value human support when it delivers clear, tangible outcomes.
The simple recipe for better customer service
Anthony Antonucci, Chief Customer Officer at Youi said the research reveals a clear blueprint for fixing the service industry problem, a simple recipe for good customer experience built on three essential ingredients.
“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,” said Anthony.
Australians consistently point to the same three ingredients for a genuinely good service experience:
- Access to a real person (51%)
- Clear, helpful communication (34%)
- Quick, effective resolution (33%)
When these elements are present together, experiences are overwhelmingly positive. When one is missing, frustration escalates, regardless of the technology involved.
“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.”
Why human first service still matters
For situations involving finances, health or family, expectations rise sharply. More than nine in ten Australians say speaking to a real person is important or essential in high-stakes situations (93% combined).
Baby Boomers express the strongest conviction, with 79% saying human interaction in high-stakes situations is essential. Even technology preferring Australians largely agree, with 81% saying human interaction is important or essential in these cases.
Many Australians are also willing to pay for better service. Nearly two thirds say they would pay something more for a human first service experience (64%).
Giving Australians their time back
Customer service doesn’t just resolve issues, it affects how Australians spend their time, energy and emotional bandwidth. When service is done well, people regain confidence, clarity and peace of mind. When it’s done poorly, the cost shows up. Great customer service isn’t just about efficiency, it’s about giving Australians their time back.
Explore the data
You can review the findings of the customer service survey yourself via our interactive data tool below.
Who prefers real-person support over automated services?
ShareHow to use this chart builder
- Select the survey question that you want to explore data in.
- Select the break downs you want to display using the options provided.
- Apply any filters if you want to limit the data being displayed.
- Choose a chart type (e.g. bar, line or pie).
- The chart will automatically update, so check that it looks right.
- Copy the embed code and paste it into your CMS or article.
- That’s it. The chart will render live on your site.
1 This article's data is sourced from a survey conducted by Ideally Group Limited between 10 March 2026 and 14 March 2026, involving 2,080 individuals aged 18 and above from all states and territories within Australia. Some percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Survey results have not been independently verified by Youi and may not be representative of the general population. Youi makes no representation or warranty of any kind of the accuracy, adequacy, reliability, or completeness of the data and accepts no liability for any loss or damage of any kind suffered as a result of the use of or reliance on the data. Individual experiences may vary.
