Despite identical app ratings (4.4/5), Bell generates
8x fewer chatbot complaints
through three deliberate UX decisions that acknowledge users'
emotional state. These decisions prevent the frustration cascade
that drives CCTS complaints.
Decision 1: Strategic Friction for Human Access
"Make users work slightly harder for dramatically better outcomes"
Evidence from Screenshots:
| Bell's Approach |
Rogers' Approach |
-
Path: Support → Contact Us → Need assistance? (3 taps)
-
Immediate blue button: "I want to speak to a person"
-
Clear hours: "Monday to Friday: 7 a.m. - 12 a.m. ET"
|
- Path: Support → Start a chat (1 tap)
-
Anna deflects: "I can answer many common questions without
the need to wait"
- No immediate human option despite explicit request
|
Impact
-
Bell chatbot complaints: 4 (0.11% of reviews)
-
Rogers chatbot complaints: 33 (0.37% of
reviews)
- Result: 8.25x fewer AI frustrations
"The paradox: Adding friction (3 taps vs 1) reduces frustration"
Decision 2: Core Functions Above Upselling
"Respect the user's financial anxiety"
Evidence from Screenshots:
| Bell's Approach |
Rogers' Approach |
- Home screen: Usage, Bill, MyBell WiFi (core needs)
- Offers hidden at bottom, small icon
-
Payment options: Clear current method BEFORE alternatives
|
-
Home screen: Rogers Bank ad dominates (62% of viewport)
-
Finance section: No fee banking, Mastercard, Loan options
- Bill payment competes with credit products
|
Impact
-
Bell payment mentions: 65.7% negative (vs
Rogers 71.1%)
-
Difference: 5.4 percentage points better
-
Psychology: Users checking bills are
financially anxious
"When users see their $150 bill next to a credit card ad, anxiety
compounds"
Decision 3: Transparent Payment Hierarchy
"Show current state before pushing new methods"
Evidence from Screenshots:
| Bell's Approach |
Rogers' Approach |
-
Payment screen shows: "Pre-Authorized Debit" as current
method
- Card icons secondary, below current method
- Clear hierarchy: What you have → What you could use
|
- Large card icons dominate (Mastercard, Amex)
- No clear indication of current payment method
- Ambiguous if setting up or changing payment
|
Impact
-
Payment confusion complaints: Lower for Bell
-
User confidence: Higher when current state is
clear
-
Error prevention: Fewer accidental payment
method changes
The Paradox of Good Design
| Metric |
Bell |
Rogers |
| App Store Rating |
4.4/5 |
4.4/5 |
| Written Review Score |
2.64/5 |
2.64/5 |
| Chatbot Complaints |
4 |
33 |
| Design Quality |
Superior |
Standard |
Both apps fail equally at core functions, but Bell's design
decisions create psychological safety nets that prevent complaint
escalation.
Strategic Insight
Bell's UX strategy isn't about preventing failures—it's about
managing emotional impact when failures occur.
The three decisions work together:
-
Strategic friction → Sets expectation that
human help requires effort
-
Priority hierarchy → Reduces cognitive load
during stressful bill viewing
-
Payment transparency → Prevents confusion
cascade
Recommendation for Rogers
Don't copy Bell's UX—fix the core issues that create emotional
cascades:
-
Immediate Implementation: Add clear "speak to
human" option after first chatbot response
-
Quick Win: Separate financial products from bill
payment flows
-
Medium Term: Show current payment method
prominently before alternatives
-
Strategic: Design for users in distress, not
users at ease
The Real Lesson
"Good CX design isn't about making everything easy—it's about making
the right things easy at the right emotional moments."
Bell understands that app users checking bills or needing support
are often anxious. Their design acknowledges this emotional state
rather than exploiting it.
Methodology Note
Based on analysis of 12,785 app reviews (Bell: 3,747, Rogers: 9,038)
and comparative UX evaluation of both mobile applications.
Screenshots captured May 2025.