January 20, 2026
AndreyPopov/Depositphotos.com
How Can Retailers Improve Shoppers’ Sense of Closure When Concerns Emerge?
In a recent survey of 1,000 U.S. shoppers profiled by Capacity’s Closure Index, the top-line statistic suggests retailers have a bit of work to do in enhancing their customer support apparatus.
According to the index, the majority (58%) of shoppers polled indicated that they are currently walking away from support interactions with their issues fully resolved. Of the remainder, 37% indicated that while their identified problem(s) were mostly resolved, lingering worries remained on the table; 13% suggested that their issue(s) were only partly resolved; and 6% expressed the notion that their concerns weren’t addressed whatsoever.
“Resolution is what companies measure. Closure is what customers feel,” David Karandish, founder and CEO of Capacity, said in a press release.
“It’s clear that customer support has become very good at closing tickets, but far less consistent at delivering confidence. Customers want speed, but they also want to know the issue won’t resurface,” he added.
How Can Retailers Improve Shoppers’ Sense of Satisfaction and Closure When Purchase Problems Arise?
Other notable findings produced by the index include:
- The overall closure score was pegged at 79, a figure which suggests that customer issues are often mostly or fully resolved after an interaction. However, as Capacity noted, it also “signals meaningful room for improvement for call centers.”
- Unresolved, or less-than-satisfactorily resolved, issues are big trouble for merchants. A third (33%) of shoppers state they will abandon a brand after a single unresolved or partially resolved customer support issue.
- AI support still has a lot of room to make up versus human agents. About three-quarters (75%) of respondents indicated that they felt true closure after support conversations with human agents. That number fell to less than half (48%) of respondents who said the same about AI chat support resolutions.
- The three primary levers to create closure, at least according to the index researchers: Clear communication (52%) around what happened, the fix, and what comes next; the speed at which resolution is reached (43%), particularly around both routine and time-sensitive concerns; and the seamless ability to migrate from an AI chatbot to a human agent (85%) was cited by a vast majority of those polled.
It’s that last bit that the Capacity index’s authors emphasized — that direct human involvement remained a cornerstone facet of any worthwhile customer service solution currently being tested by real-world shoppers. The push, enacted by many retailers, to offload service resolution to agentic AI solutions may end up backfiring.
“True closure requires an intelligent system that adapts to each individual’s needs and ensures a seamless bridge to a human the moment it’s required. That final moment of comprehensive reassurance is where trust is either built or quietly lost,” Karandish concluded.
BrainTrust
Nicholas Morine
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Is there too much emphasis placed on closing customer service tickets, as opposed to providing real closure to stated shopper concerns, in today’s retail world? If so, what’s driving this mentality, and what needs to change?
What are the simplest, or easiest to implement, changes which can be made to improve customers’ sense of closure?
Poll
Loading …
Yes — too often today, the metric that gets the most attention in retail service operations is “ticket closed” rather than “customer actually satisfied.” This reflects a mindset rooted in efficiency and internal KPIs rather than the experience the customer walks away with. When service teams are evaluated primarily on speed, volume, and closure counts, there’s a strong incentive to push interactions to resolution status quickly, even if the underlying concern — whether it’s product fit confusion, unclear returns policy, or unmet expectations — hasn’t truly been addressed in a way the customer feels resolved. That misalignment is driven by legacy contact center metrics, over-reliance on automated workflows that prioritize throughput, and a historical underinvestment in empathy-centered design in customer care.
To shift toward real closure, retailers need to reframe what success looks like: instead of “ticket closed,” success should be measured by customer understanding, issue resolution quality, and confidence in next steps. That means training associates (both frontline and service agents) not only on procedures but on listening, empathy, and effective communication. It also means using feedback loops — such as quick post-interaction surveys that measure resolution satisfaction, not just resolution status — and elevating those outcomes into performance metrics. When agents are empowered financially and culturally to solve the root cause of the problem rather than just checking boxes, customers walk away feeling genuinely supported.
There are several simple, easy-to-implement changes retailers can make to improve customers’ sense of closure:
- Clarify and humanize communication — ensure every interaction ends with a recap of the outcome and what the customer can expect next, using language customers easily understand rather than internal jargon.
- Follow-up confirmations — a brief email or text summarizing the resolution, timeline, and any remaining steps reassures shoppers that their concern wasn’t just “handled” but understood and addressed.
- Empower frontline solutions — give associates discretion to make small accommodations (like expedited shipping, partial refunds, or goodwill credits) without multiple approvals; quick gestures of goodwill build trust and a sense of real closure.
- Incorporate customer feedback loops — ask customers if they feel the issue was fully resolved and why, then use that insight to close process gaps.
Shifting from a ticket-centric mentality to a customer-centric one doesn’t require massive investment — it requires aligned metrics, better training, and clarity around what “resolution” actually means to the shopper. When retailers make those shifts, “closure” becomes less about a closed box in the system and more about a satisfied, confident customer who feels heard and valued.
In our CX work, we teach a five-step process on how our clients can handle complaints. I’ll share that in a moment, but keep this in mind. The goal is not just to fix a problem. The goal is to restore confidence. That’s the closure a customer wants – and it should also be the same for the retailer.
The five-step process is as follows:
Acknowledge the problem.Apologize for the problem.Fix it. If possible, take care of it immediately. If that’s not possible, discuss what happens next.Own it. It may not be your fault, but it’s your opportunity to take care of the customer.Act with urgency.Numbers four and five are what helps to restore confidence. Fix the problem AND the customer!
The struggle to infuse AI and other automated systems to reduce costs while ignoring the core customer issue. A focus on deflection rates and cost-per-transaction rather than long-term customer sentiment is likely to continue for most companies as they pivot toward a more sustainable, needed approach. Even better, can retailers move from reactive metrics to more resilient process designs that prevent issues before they occur?
A big reason closure falls short is that many support interactions feel generic. Shoppers want solutions that reflect their specific situation. Bots handle efficiency well, but personalization and nuance still matter.
The Capacity survey authors said it themselves: Direct human involvement remains a cornerstone facet of any worthwhile customer service solution. When you have an issue, interacting with AI isn’t going to cut it. At least not yet.
This data reinforces something retailers often underestimate: closing a ticket is not the same as closing the loop for the customer.
Shoppers are telling us they want confidence, not just speed, and that confidence comes from clear communication, reassurance, and knowing the issue will not come back tomorrow. AI can absolutely help with efficiency, but when it becomes a barrier to human judgment, empathy, or escalation, it quietly erodes trust.
The smartest retailers will design support journeys that use AI to remove friction while preserving fast, graceful handoffs to people who can resolve ambiguity.
When customers leave an interaction feeling heard, informed, and confident, loyalty tends to follow naturally.
The result is largely driven by how customer service success is measured. Most support organizations are still optimized around operational KPIs because those metrics are easy to quantify and report. Confidence, reassurance, and trust are harder to measure, so they often get deprioritized. The result is a system that rewards speed over certainty, even though customers are clearly signaling that unresolved anxiety is just as damaging as an unresolved issue.
What needs to change is the definition of “done.” Closure shouldn’t mean “case closed,” it should mean “customer confident.” That requires a mindset shift from transactional support to relationship-based support, especially in a market where loyalty is fragile and alternatives are a click away.
The simplest improvements don’t require massive replatforming. First, explicit acknowledgment matters: customers want to feel their concern is real, understood, and worth solving; even before a fix is offered. Second, adding lightweight human signals such as secure video calls or named agents who remain accountable, can dramatically increase confidence without increasing resolution time. Finally, retailers should rethink feedback loops. Traditional email and SMS surveys are ignored; in-the-moment, personalized feedback mechanisms embedded directly into the support flow are far more effective.
In 2026, the retailers that win won’t just resolve issues quickly but they’ll resolve doubt.
Despite direct human involvement being desired, I think many people can identify when those experiences went nowhere. AI may not be the solution YET but agentic AI may actually provide better service and resolution, at least in some cases, in the future.
The lack of resolution can, sometimes, come from a rigid system and a lack of empowerment. When I worked at John Lewis, every single employee – including associates on the shop floor – was authorized to spend money (with limits) on helping solve things or remedy problems. This might be giving a customer a free item, a discount, arranging for a costly delivery, or just sending a gift if service had been lousy. It worked wonders.
More Discussions
NRF 2026 Rewind: Abercrombie’s CEO Shares Leadership Lessons
In a session at the NRF Big Show, Abercrombie & Fitch Co.’s CEO Fran Horowitz shared…Is the Luxury Department Store Facing Extinction?
Are luxury retail stores expected to go the way of the dodo?Does Gap Inc. Need a Chief Entertainment Officer?
Does Gap need a chief entertainment officer or not?
Yes — too often today, the metric that gets the most attention in retail service operations is “ticket closed” rather than “customer actually satisfied.” This reflects a mindset rooted in efficiency and internal KPIs rather than the experience the customer walks away with. When service teams are evaluated primarily on speed, volume, and closure counts, there’s a strong incentive to push interactions to resolution status quickly, even if the underlying concern — whether it’s product fit confusion, unclear returns policy, or unmet expectations — hasn’t truly been addressed in a way the customer feels resolved. That misalignment is driven by legacy contact center metrics, over-reliance on automated workflows that prioritize throughput, and a historical underinvestment in empathy-centered design in customer care.
To shift toward real closure, retailers need to reframe what success looks like: instead of “ticket closed,” success should be measured by customer understanding, issue resolution quality, and confidence in next steps. That means training associates (both frontline and service agents) not only on procedures but on listening, empathy, and effective communication. It also means using feedback loops — such as quick post-interaction surveys that measure resolution satisfaction, not just resolution status — and elevating those outcomes into performance metrics. When agents are empowered financially and culturally to solve the root cause of the problem rather than just checking boxes, customers walk away feeling genuinely supported.
There are several simple, easy-to-implement changes retailers can make to improve customers’ sense of closure:
Shifting from a ticket-centric mentality to a customer-centric one doesn’t require massive investment — it requires aligned metrics, better training, and clarity around what “resolution” actually means to the shopper. When retailers make those shifts, “closure” becomes less about a closed box in the system and more about a satisfied, confident customer who feels heard and valued.
In our CX work, we teach a five-step process on how our clients can handle complaints. I’ll share that in a moment, but keep this in mind. The goal is not just to fix a problem. The goal is to restore confidence. That’s the closure a customer wants – and it should also be the same for the retailer.
The five-step process is as follows:
Acknowledge the problem.Apologize for the problem.Fix it. If possible, take care of it immediately. If that’s not possible, discuss what happens next.Own it. It may not be your fault, but it’s your opportunity to take care of the customer.Act with urgency.Numbers four and five are what helps to restore confidence. Fix the problem AND the customer!
The struggle to infuse AI and other automated systems to reduce costs while ignoring the core customer issue. A focus on deflection rates and cost-per-transaction rather than long-term customer sentiment is likely to continue for most companies as they pivot toward a more sustainable, needed approach. Even better, can retailers move from reactive metrics to more resilient process designs that prevent issues before they occur?
A big reason closure falls short is that many support interactions feel generic. Shoppers want solutions that reflect their specific situation. Bots handle efficiency well, but personalization and nuance still matter.
The Capacity survey authors said it themselves: Direct human involvement remains a cornerstone facet of any worthwhile customer service solution. When you have an issue, interacting with AI isn’t going to cut it. At least not yet.
This data reinforces something retailers often underestimate: closing a ticket is not the same as closing the loop for the customer.
Shoppers are telling us they want confidence, not just speed, and that confidence comes from clear communication, reassurance, and knowing the issue will not come back tomorrow. AI can absolutely help with efficiency, but when it becomes a barrier to human judgment, empathy, or escalation, it quietly erodes trust.
The smartest retailers will design support journeys that use AI to remove friction while preserving fast, graceful handoffs to people who can resolve ambiguity.
When customers leave an interaction feeling heard, informed, and confident, loyalty tends to follow naturally.
The result is largely driven by how customer service success is measured. Most support organizations are still optimized around operational KPIs because those metrics are easy to quantify and report. Confidence, reassurance, and trust are harder to measure, so they often get deprioritized. The result is a system that rewards speed over certainty, even though customers are clearly signaling that unresolved anxiety is just as damaging as an unresolved issue.
What needs to change is the definition of “done.” Closure shouldn’t mean “case closed,” it should mean “customer confident.” That requires a mindset shift from transactional support to relationship-based support, especially in a market where loyalty is fragile and alternatives are a click away.
The simplest improvements don’t require massive replatforming. First, explicit acknowledgment matters: customers want to feel their concern is real, understood, and worth solving; even before a fix is offered. Second, adding lightweight human signals such as secure video calls or named agents who remain accountable, can dramatically increase confidence without increasing resolution time. Finally, retailers should rethink feedback loops. Traditional email and SMS surveys are ignored; in-the-moment, personalized feedback mechanisms embedded directly into the support flow are far more effective.
In 2026, the retailers that win won’t just resolve issues quickly but they’ll resolve doubt.
Despite direct human involvement being desired, I think many people can identify when those experiences went nowhere. AI may not be the solution YET but agentic AI may actually provide better service and resolution, at least in some cases, in the future.
The lack of resolution can, sometimes, come from a rigid system and a lack of empowerment. When I worked at John Lewis, every single employee – including associates on the shop floor – was authorized to spend money (with limits) on helping solve things or remedy problems. This might be giving a customer a free item, a discount, arranging for a costly delivery, or just sending a gift if service had been lousy. It worked wonders.