Collecting customer feedback is often approached as if it were a competition: the more responses, the better.
That assumption is understandable, but incomplete.
Of course, receiving feedback matters. Responses provide insight, direction and learning. But customer feedback is not only about volume. Reducing it to a numbers game oversimplifies what feedback actually is and what it can do for an organisation.
Before asking how response rates can be increased, two fundamental caveats must be clearly understood. They set the context in which response rates should be interpreted — and they explain why low response is not automatically a problem.
Only once these two caveats are acknowledged does it make sense to talk about optimisation, survey fatigue and tactics to increase response. Without them, organisations risk optimising for numbers instead of meaning.
This paper therefore starts with those two caveats.
A feedback question is not only a data collection tool.
It is also a message.
Even when no response is given, something has been communicated clearly:
this organisation cares about your opinion.
That signal should not be underestimated. In many cases, it is more powerful than the answer itself.
Organisations often declare customer centricity in abstract terms. It appears in mission statements, value lists and annual reports. But customer centricity only becomes credible when it is made tangible through behaviour.
Making feedback visible and accessible is one of the simplest ways to do that.
These elements do not need to generate large volumes of responses to be effective. Their presence alone sends a clear signal: feedback is welcome here.
That is why it is a mistake to judge feedback initiatives solely by response rates. Even without responses, the organisation has already communicated something important about how it relates to customers, employees, partners or suppliers.
Customer centricity must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.
By consistently offering feedback opportunities, organisations move customer focus from rhetoric to reality. They show that listening is not an occasional exercise, but a structural attitude.
Beyond communication, feedback mechanisms serve a second, often overlooked purpose: early detection.
In practice, feedback channels rarely generate a constant flow of responses. Most of the time, they remain quiet. That silence is not a failure. It is a sign that nothing exceptional is happening.
But when something does go wrong, the same channels suddenly become active.
This is where feedback reveals its second value: it acts as a canary in the coal mine.
Even with low overall response rates, feedback can immediately signal when a problem emerges. A sudden spike in similar comments, complaints or signals is often the first indication that something requires attention.
This matters because it allows organisations to respond:
In that sense, feedback is less about averages and more about patterns and anomalies.
You do not need large numbers to notice that something is wrong.
You need an open channel — and the willingness to take it seriously when it activates.
Organisations that focus exclusively on response volumes risk disabling this early warning function. They may conclude that feedback “does not work”, when in reality it is doing exactly what it should do.
Once feedback is understood as communication and as an early warning system, the discussion about response rates becomes far more grounded.
The question is no longer:
Is this response rate high enough?
The more relevant question is:
Is this response rate sufficient for the purpose feedback is meant to serve?
There is no universal benchmark. In most environments, a realistic response rate sits between 5 and 20 percent, depending on context, timing and perceived relevance of the interaction. Rates above 50 percent do exist, but they are exceptional and tied to highly salient moments.
Treating those exceptions as the norm leads organisations to chase numbers instead of meaning.
More importantly, response rates should never be evaluated in isolation. A low response rate does not automatically imply failure if:
In other words:
response rate is not a performance score — it is a design outcome.
If feedback functions as a signal and as a canary in the coal mine, then the real test is not volume, but sensitivity:
Seen through that lens, many “low” response rates are simply honest. They reflect a system that is available when needed, not one that is constantly demanding attention.
Only after feedback has been placed in its proper context does it make sense to ask how response can be improved — not to maximise numbers, but to increase relevance without exhaustion.
Survey fatigue is rarely caused by feedback itself. It is caused by poorly designed feedback systems that ignore context, timing and human attention.
Five design principles consistently help organisations strike the right balance.
This is not a recommendation. It is a rule.
The effort required to respond must be immediately perceived as minimal. Ideally, answering a feedback question should require no more effort than dismissing it.
Long surveys, elaborate introductions and multi-step flows increase friction and reduce participation. Short, focused questions respect attention — and attention is the scarcest resource.
Feedback works best when it is clearly targeted:
Overexposure is one of the fastest ways to destroy feedback quality. Quarantine periods are therefore not optional features, but essential safeguards. They ensure that feedback remains meaningful rather than habitual.
Precision increases response. Frequency destroys it.
Feedback is an interaction, not a transaction.
When people take the time to respond, they expect recognition. Not a solution, not a report — but confirmation that their input was received.
A simple “thank you” is often enough to sustain trust. Silence, on the other hand, teaches people that responding makes no difference.
Feedback serves not only functional and emotional needs, but also a social one.
People are more willing to share their views when they believe their input contributes to improvement beyond their own case. That belief is reinforced when organisations communicate what they learn from feedback and how it shapes decisions.
Customer centricity must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.
Visibility turns feedback from a private exchange into a shared learning process.
Generic feedback requests feel interchangeable. Personalised requests feel intentional.
Personalisation does not require complexity. It requires relevance:
The more a feedback request feels like it was meant for someone, the less it feels like noise.
Survey fatigue is often portrayed as inevitable. In reality, it is usually the result of poor design choices.
People are not tired of giving feedback.
They are tired of:
Ironically, many organisations react to unclear insight by asking more questions. More surveys, more touchpoints, more measurement. The effect is predictable: response drops even further.
Survey fatigue is not a law of nature.
It is a design failure.
Those who reduce feedback to response rates miss the point.
Feedback is:
Low response rates do not mean feedback has failed.
They often mean feedback is honest.
The real questions are not:
How do we get more answers?
They are:
Organisations that treat feedback maturely:
They understand that customer centricity is not a slogan. It is a form of fuel that you feed into the machine that is your company. You do that wisely, knowing that without it, you’ll come to a halt fast.
Receive the best insights on Customer Experience and stay up-to-date with our latest company news.
