The paradoxes of generative AI-enabled customer service: A guide for managers
Open accessAbstract
Generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) presents a disruptive innovation for brands and society, the power of which is still yet to be realized. In the context of customer service, Gen AI affords companies new possibilities to communicate, connect, and engage customers. This article draws on scholarly research and consultation with customer service leaders to present and discuss the possibilities for Gen AI in the context of customer service, specifically Gen AI chatbots. Importantly, this article presents potential paradoxes of Gen AI enabled customer service, adding to the debate about the role and impact of Gen AI for brands. Specifically, we present six paradoxes of Gen AI customer service, namely: connected yet isolated, lower cost yet higher price, higher quality yet less empathy, satisfied yet frustrated, personalized yet intrusive, and powerful yet vulnerable. For each paradox, we suggest brand response strategies to mitigate downside and manage potential upside.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In platform-mediated settings, AI agents and platforms increasingly function as autonomous economic actors that interpret intent, allocate visibility, and direct the movement of demand.
“In platform-mediated settings, AI agents and platforms increasingly function as autonomous economic actors that interpret intent, allocate visibility, and direct the movement of demand (Ferraro et al., 2024).”
From Marketing to the Machine: Rethinking Global Marketing for the AI Era (2026) · cites this paper as Ferraro et al., 2024
At the firm level, competition may increasingly occur inside opaque, agent-mediated systems as opposed to traditional media or cultural channels.
“At the firm level, competition may increasingly occur inside opaque, agent-mediated systems as opposed to traditional media or cultural channels (Ferraro et al., 2024).”
From Marketing to the Machine: Rethinking Global Marketing for the AI Era (2026) · cites this paper as Ferraro et al., 2024
Cites
Artificial intelligence in service
Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2018) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670517752459 · Cited by 3,978 · see citing works
Chatbots: History, technology, and applications
Adamopoulou, E., & Moussiades, L. (2020) · Machine Learning with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2020.100006 · Cited by 1,090 · see citing works
Budhwar, P., Chowdhury, S., Wood, G., Aguinis, H., Bamber, G. J., Beltran, J. R., Boselie, P., Lee Cooke, F., Decker, S., DeNisi, A., et al. (2023) · Human Resource Management Journal · doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12524 · Cited by 908 · see citing works
Regulating ChatGPT and other Large Generative AI Models
Hacker, P., Engel, A., & Mauer, M. (2023) · 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3593013.3594067 · Cited by 466 · see citing works
Nicolescu, L., & Tudorache, M. T. (2022) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics11101579 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
The impact of chatbots on customer loyalty: a systematic literature review
Jenneboer, L., Herrando, C., & Constantinides, E. (2022) · Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.3390/jtaer17010011 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
Predicting consumer responses to a chatbot on facebook
Zarouali, B., Van den Broeck, E., Walrave, M., & Poels, K. (2018) · Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2017.0518 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Marketing to the Machine: Rethinking Global Marketing for the AI Era
Sands, S., & Campbell, C. (2026) · Journal of Global Marketing · doi:10.1080/08911762.2026.2697021
“At the firm level, competition may increasingly occur inside opaque, agent-mediated systems as opposed to traditional media or cultural channels (Ferraro et al., 2024).”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Ferraro, C., Demsar, V., Sands, S., Restrepo, M., & Campbell, C.
- Affiliations
- Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
- University of San Diego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sands, Sean
- Venue
- Business Horizons
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-09
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 549-559
- ISSN
- 0007-6813 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4394981780
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 58 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 24
- FWCI
- 21.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Business Horizons (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
- Keywords
- generative AI, customer service, AI chatbots, paradox, customer empathy, customer satisfaction, personalization, disruptive innovation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
