TLDR: The term “CRO” no longer fits. Optimization professionals should focus on research, behavioral design, experimentation, personalization, and mapping the customer experience at every touchpoint. The strongest evidence that “conversion” was never the right focus isn’t found in e-commerce, but in government.
The problem with Optimizing for Conversions
Naming a discipline after a metric was always risky. Conversion Rate Optimization was never purely about the conversion. It encompassed the entire experience before and after that moment. However, the label limited practitioners to finding funnels, reducing friction, running tests, and moving the metric.
This mindset produced results but also created blind spots. For instance, a customer who completes a purchase through a simplified checkout but receives poor support and does not return is still considered a CRO success. While the numbers indicate the experiment worked, key business metrics such as lifetime value, brand perception, and word of mouth are overlooked.
This is the consequence of naming a field after the metric it seeks to improve.
The industry has been saying this for years
The optimization community has long debated whether CRO has outgrown its name. In 2023, CXL, a leading CRO education platform, clarified that “A/B testing,” “CRO,” and “experimentation” are distinct and should not be used interchangeably (CXL, LinkedIn, October 2023). This distinction reflects the different types of work these terms represent.
Peep Laja, founder of CXL, explained in a Kameleoon discussion with André Morys and Ben Labay: “CRO helps achieve short-term goals. Customer Experience Optimization is about acquiring and retaining customers based on more long-term metrics like Customer Lifetime Value.” The distinction between short-term and long-term relationships is precisely what the CRO label overlooks.
Ton Wesseling, founder of Conversion Hotel and the Experimentation Culture Awards, has consistently taken a more extensive approach. He includes CXO expertise alongside CRO and experimentation, stating that optimization is “not only a matter of data and tech, but also of human interaction and collaboration” (Kameleoon). This perspective emphasizes relationships over conversion rates.
Ben Labay’s team at Speero takes this further by treating experimentation as a “company-wide decision-making engine” that addresses profitability, business efficiency, and the overall customer experience, rather than focusing solely on conversion optimization (Speero, “Optimizing Beyond Conversion Rate”).
The movement toward CXO has existed for years, but it is now time to move beyond CRO entirely.
What CXO measures that CRO never could
Switching from CRO to CXO is more than a name change. CRO measures a single moment: did the user take the action? CXO evaluates the entire relationship: did the experience build enough trust, satisfaction, and value for the person to return?
In practice, this requires broadening the types of evidence we consider.
| CRO Metric | CXO Metric |
| Conversion Rate | Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) |
| Bounce Rate | Net Promotor Score (NPS) |
| Average Order Value (AOV) | Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT) |
| Funnel drop-off | Retention rate / churn |
| Revenue per session | Brand perception & trust signals |
None of these CXO metrics are new. CLV has appeared in marketing textbooks for decades, and NPS was introduced in Harvard Business Review in 2003. What is new is applying these metrics within experimentation programs to determine whether increases in conversion lead to lasting business value.
Viljo Vabrit at Speero summarized this gap: “[Conversion tactics] help you convert to make your first purchase. But the overall experience is often poor.” (Speero, “Optimizing beyond Conversion Rate“). This is the core CRO blind spot. An experiment may succeed initially but harm CLV over time. CRO programs that track only conversions will overlook this.
Conversions are symptoms. Experience is the cause
This shift in thinking makes CXO a distinct discipline, not simply CRO with a wider focus:
A conversion shows that an experience worked. It’s not the main goal.
The true goal is for individuals to find what they need, trust the organization enough to act, and leave the interaction feeling improved. In essence, this is behavioral economics applied to digital optimization.
Behavioral science research demonstrates that trust, ease of use, and fairness predict long-term customer behavior more effectively than any single conversion tactic. A checkout process that reduces anxiety not only improves conversion but also reduces chargebacks and returns, since effort is put into building trust rather than convincing users into buying something they might regret later.
Focusing on the “human experience” means CXO addresses both pre- and post-conversion stages:
- Upstream: What does the individual truly need, and does our experience meet that need before reaching a conversion point?
- Downstream: What occurs after the conversion, and does that experience create trust and encourage return visits?
This holistic approach is exactly how the Product and UX teams at citizenM approached optimizing digital products. With a website, mobile app, tablets and TV’s in the rooms, as well as check-in tablets, there were multiple touchpoints across the customer journey. From the first contact with the brand through the booking, stay, and beyond. The entire journey was mapped and central to optimizing the digital experience for guests, creating personal and meaningful experiences that built trust.
CXO beyond commerce: when there is no conversion to optimize
The key point in moving from CRO to CXO is that not every digital experience includes a conversion. As “CRO experts,” we have often struggled to explain how CRO applies to web applications without a clear conversion. There are user goals, but we are labeled conversion specialists, not goal specialists.
Take the UK’s Government Digital Services (GDS) as an example. Their teams of UX researchers, digital analysts, and service designers work closely on gov.uk, one of the most thoroughly user-tested digital products in the world. Their main metric is task completion rate: did the citizen renew their driving license, file their tax return, apply for benefits, or check eligibility without needing to call support?
There is no conversion rate to optimize and no transactions taking place. Instead, GDS conducts quarterly usability tests, continually improves navigation and content, and measures success by users’ ability to complete tasks and their confidence in doing so (GDS User Research blog). When launching new step-by-step navigation, success was measured by task completion and user confidence, not revenue per session.
In essence, they are practicing CXO.
This pattern is visible in public sector digital teams globally, not only in the UK. I’ve seen it personally with the Dutch Environmental and Planning Act. UX researchers interview users to assess the clarity of digital processes, digital analysts monitor how many residents start and abandon permit checks or applications in each municipality, and teams annually review digital accessibility to ensure all Dutch citizens can use the platforms.
None of these professionals use conversion metrics. They focus on improving the human experience through user research, data analysis, and supporting development teams in making updates. They have always applied a CXO approach, even if it was not labeled as such.
This clearly demonstrates that “conversion” has always been too narrow. When the commercial transaction is removed, as in government agencies, the core of the discipline remains: understanding user needs and designing interactions to meet them.
If CRO practitioners seek a simple reason for renaming the field, it is this: the most effective experience optimization often occurs where there is nothing to convert.
The objection: “Isn’t CXO just CRO with extra steps?”
The answer is clear: no.
CRO begins with a goal—conversion rate—and works backward to identify obstacles. CXO starts with a real person, considering their needs, concerns, and history with the organization, and works forward to design experiences that support them. Conversion is a result of good service, not the primary focus.
This distinction shifts the focus. CRO aims to remove friction at conversion points. CXO evaluates whether the experience leading up to that moment was honest, clear, and genuinely helpful. While these goals may sometimes align, there can be a tendency in CRO to focus solely on improving conversions at all costs. When CRO relies on urgency tactics or artificial scarcity, CXO asks the more challenging question: did we truly earn this outcome?
The government example illustrates this clearly: teams cannot use dark patterns in a passport renewal form. There is no pressure to convert, no revenue target, and no mandate for growth at any cost. The primary concern is whether the citizen completed their task and trusted the service enough to return. The service exists to help people obtain their passport and simplify their lives. If it fails in this, it fails its core purpose. This focus leads to better design and demonstrates that “conversion” has always been a business shortcut to a deeper objective.
Rebranding does not diminish rigor. The methods – experimentation, statistical standards, and hypothesis-driven testing – remain unchanged. What shifts is the central question guiding the work:
Did we serve this person well?
It’s time to retire the label
he CRO community has built something genuinely valuable: a rigorous, evidence-based approach to improving digital experiences at scale. The methodology is sound. The culture of testing over guessing is one of the most important ideas to enter digital practice in the last twenty years.
However, the name has become restrictive.
“CRO” limits what teams measure, what they optimize for, how they are perceived inside boardrooms, and most importantly, how teams define their roles. When the title is “conversion rate optimization”, stakeholders assume responsibility for a single metric. With “customer experience optimization”, the mandate is clearer, broader, and more accurately reflects the scope of the work.
Of course, some stakeholders may have concerns about moving away from established metrics and frameworks. They may worry about losing focus or making measurement more difficult. It is important to address this by clearly communicating how CXO connects improvements in customer experience to long-term business outcomes, and by demonstrating that CXO still relies on rigorous testing, measurement, and evidence. Framing CXO as a natural evolution that creates additional value while still supporting organizational goals helps lay the groundwork for these conversations and encourages support for the shift.
The government sector recognized this intuitively. Digital analysts and UX researchers at public agencies have practiced CXO for years, without a commercial conversion metric as a reference point. Their guiding principle was always the human experience. This should be the standard for all teams, whether in government, NGOs, or for-profit companies.
By 2026, the most rigorous and impactful optimization teams will not run CRO programs. They will operate CXO programs with experimentation and personalization at their core. The renaming is not cosmetic; it signals a wider scope, greater ambition, and a redefined understanding of success.
For teams beginning this transition, two practical first steps can help pave the way. First, audit your current metrics and reporting: identify where your team is focused solely on conversion rates and where you may be missing opportunities to track customer experience outcomes, such as customer satisfaction, retention, or task completion. Second, consider piloting a CXO-focused experiment—such as testing a user journey improvement aimed at building trust or increasing repeat engagement—and measure its impact on both conversion and broader experience metrics. Taking these actions can empower teams to move confidently toward CXO, demonstrating value with both short- and long-term results.
CRO has always aimed for this wider impact. It simply needed a more accurate name.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between CRO and CXO?
CRO (Conversion Rate Optimization) focuses on improving the percentage of users who take a specific action – typically a purchase, signup or form submissions. CXO (Customer Experience Optimization) optimizes the full customer relationship, measuring success through CLV, NPS, retention and satisfaction rather than a single conversion moment. CXO treats conversion as evidence of experience quality, not the primary target.
Can CXO apply to organizations with no commercial conversion – like government?
Yes – and government is actually the strongest proof of CXO’s value. Public sector digital teams measure task completion rates, user confidence and failure demand (citizens who abandon digital services and call instead). They run continuous usability research and iterate on service design without a conversion metric in sight. Digital analysts, UX researchers, and service designers in government have been practicing CXO for years under different names. The absence of a “conversion” doesn’t make their optimization work les rigorous – it makes the human-experience frame even clearer.
Has the CRO industry already started using the CXO term?
Yes, but not commited to it yet. CXL started in 2023 that the terms CRO, A/B testing and experimentation should no longer be used interchangeably. Peep Laja from CXL has explicitely contrasted CRO’s short-term focus with CXO’s orientation toward customer lifetime value. Ton Wesseling lists CXO as a core expertise area alongside his experimentation work. The vocabulary is evolving; the practice already had.
Why does the name matter, isn’t it just semantics?
The name matters because it shapes what teams measure, what they optimize for, and how leadership understands their mandate. A “CRO team” optimizes converstion rates. A “CXO team” optimizes human relationships with a digital service. Those are different scopes, different success criteria, different stakeholder conversations, and – ultimately – different business and social impacts. The label is a cultural signal that determines ambition.
Does switching to CXO mean abandoning A/B testing?
No. Experimentation and A/B testing remain core to CXO methodology – and 76% of CX leaders still use A/B testing as the foundation of their programs (CX Today, 2025). What expands is the scope of what gets tested (including post-purchase experiences and onboarding), what metrics are evaluated (including CLV and NPS), and how results are used – as inputs to personalization rather than one-size-fits-all rollouts.