Customer Relations: The Utility of AI Remains to Be Proven on the Frontline

The adoption of AI tools among advisors is progressing, but the measured gains remain modest and vary significantly between profiles. Data security dominates concerns, and the usability is rated as average. Published by Smart Tribune and Sens du Client, an observatory coordinated by Thomas Gouritin sheds light on real usage, perception gaps, and success conditions.

Client data at the forefront of concerns and usability rated at 5.16 out of 10

The security and privacy of client information are the primary concerns, mentioned by nearly three-quarters of respondents, with 74.5% citing it as their top worry and 74% among others. In contrast, team resistance is the least cited concern, at 8.1% and 10.6%. In open responses, 20.3% praise the time that AI frees up for the benefit of clients, while 17.8% express rejection or strong concern, particularly regarding replacement, and 4.6% point to fears of a dehumanized relationship. The usability of the tools is rated an average of 5.16 out of 10, with very polarized scores. Katia Grenu from Alltricks believes that employability will depend on what AI cannot do, from negotiation to emotional personalization. Strengthening these skills requires training in client relations, and Thierry Spencer advocates treating AI as an HR topic that mobilizes skills and motivation.

On the front lines, lower noted benefits and divided usage

According to 53.8% of respondents, more than three-quarters of their time is spent on direct interactions with clients. Among five assessed concrete benefits, advisors in direct contact assign lower scores than other categories, with an average of 2.26 out of 5 compared to 2.44. In this group, the most common score is zero, and more than one in ten reports a complete lack of operational impact. Their usage of AI is more polarized: 16.2% use it for the majority of their tasks (compared to 8.2%), while 30% use it rarely or never (compared to 22%). Furthermore, 31% of respondents use personal tools like ChatGPT outside of a professional context; this "Shadow AI" affects 26.4% of front-line advisors compared to 36.5% of others. Front-line advisors report more intelligent routing (47.1% compared to 39.1%) and greater personalization of responses (48.7% compared to 42.1%).

Three dominant uses and perceived productivity gains but limited

Three uses structure the adoption: response assistance, automatic summarization of exchanges, and an intelligent knowledge base. Each is used by 55.4% to 65.5% of participants, with response assistance dominating among contact advisors. Teams generally view their working methods and productivity positively, with scores around 5.5 to 5.8 out of 10, but the concrete benefits, rated from 0 to 5, remain more modest. The sense of personal effectiveness scores 2.56 out of 5, and the improvement of client satisfaction scores 2.25. These findings come from an observatory published by Smart Tribune and Sens du Client, coordinated by Thomas Gouritin, on usages that are now embedded in daily routines but are heterogeneous across profiles.

For AI to be useful, it must be integrated into the profession and alleviate heavy tasks

A useful AI is nearly invisible: it delivers the right answer at the right time without disrupting the conversation. Its reliability is crucial; otherwise, systematic verification wastes time and undermines trust and usage. Its functioning relies primarily on an updated, homogeneous, and well-managed knowledge base. It must also handle complex tasks, such as information retrieval, qualification and routing of requests, or drafting summaries. Thomas Gouritin explains the observed gap on the front lines as a mismatch between how tools are designed and the reality on the ground, where advisors must deal with the unexpected, impatient or dissatisfied clients, atypical situations, and the simultaneous use of multiple tools. Designed far from the field, AI can add a layer, a response to verify or rephrase, complicating the work; incomplete or outdated information exposes the advisor to the client. This gap is not due to resistance to change but rather a lack of grounding in the profession, highlighting the importance of an approach that is close to end users. In the near future, Thomas Gouritin anticipates a more central role for the advisor.