UX as a Competitive Advantage in Digitalization

In many digital projects we see the same moment: The launch is done, the budget nearly exhausted – and yet everything feels somewhat “sluggish.” Users click, drop off, don’t return. Internally, tickets are created because processes aren’t understood. And eventually, this phrase hangs over the project: "Actually, the solution is good, but it’s not being used."

This is where UX as a competitive advantage begins. Because digitalization is no longer just about whether you have a portal, app, or shop. It’s about whether people enjoy working, buying, donating, booking, learning with it – and whether they feel understood and respected.

Why is this particularly crucial now? First, because feature parity exists in many markets: What you offer can often be technically replicated by the competition. Second, because expectations are shaped by the major platforms. Speed, clarity, mobile-first – these are assumed.

And third, because a single bad experience is enough to lose trust. According to PwC, 32 percent of customers avoid a beloved brand after just one bad experience. PwC

Our perspective at Pola is simple: UX is not “design magic.” UX is a contract between you and your users. You promise: "I make it easy for you." And when you fulfill this promise, something hard to copy emerges: a relationship.

In practice, this often looks small. A form that asks only what is really necessary. Language that doesn't sound bureaucratic. A page that doesn’t just “kind of work” on mobile but feels really good. Small decisions – big impact.

Bad UX is expensive – but rarely visible as an invoice. It doesn’t show up as a single line in your budget; it spreads like fine dust over everything: in support, in lost leads, in meetings where you wonder why people don’t follow the path you built for them.

A classic example is abandonment. We often hear: “We have enough traffic, but few inquiries.” Then we look into the funnel and find friction: too many fields, unclear next steps, missing safety signals. And because users don’t have time to “learn” your system, they’re gone.

This isn’t just gut feeling, the numbers show it: 88 percent of online customers don’t return after a bad experience. edcontent.de

Another cost block is rework. If UX questions are only taken seriously after launch, every fix becomes more expensive: new logic, new tests, new development loops. IBM is often quoted in this context: Fixing errors after release can be up to 100 times more expensive than discovering problems early in design. edcontent.de

And then there’s the most expensive item: lost trust. 75 percent of people judge the credibility of a company based on website design. Tecnovy

We like to call this the “silent cancellations”: Users don’t complain. They just leave. Especially in digitalization, this is tricky because it feels like everything is okay – until the competition with the better experience visibly captures market share.

The good news: These costs are not inevitable. They are a signal that you can improve clarity, speed, and trust in the right places – and suddenly, digitalization becomes not harder, but easier.

When we talk about UX in projects, we quickly notice: Many mean UI. Colors, components, screens. That’s understandable – it’s the visible.

But UX is the experienced. It’s the moment someone thinks, “I understood what’s happening here.” Or: “I don’t dare because I don’t know what’s next.” UI is part of it, but UX happens along the entire journey.

An image helps: Imagine entering a good café. Not only is the decor nice. You’re greeted, find your way around, get exactly the info you need, and leave with the feeling: “That was easy.” UX is this feeling.

To make it tangible, we separate four levels in practice without artificially isolating them: Usability (how easy something is to use), UI (how it looks and feels), UX (how it is experienced over time) and CX (the overall experience across all channels). When you transform digital processes, these levels work together.

Our first tried-and-true method is the Clarity Check. It sounds unspectacular but is often the fastest route to noticeable improvement: We take a central flow (e.g., make an inquiry, book an appointment, start onboarding) and in a short session with real people, check two things. First: Do they understand in the first 10 seconds where they are and what they can do here? Second: Can they find the next step without thinking?

Why 10 seconds? Because users scan in everyday life, not “read.” If your information architecture and language don’t hold up, even beautiful details won’t help later.

If UX is to function as a competitive advantage, it requires a decision: Not “more design,” but “more clarity.” And that’s always strategy – because you decide what you leave out to make the essential visible.

The best UX arguments are those that feel like everyday life. Not “design trends,” but situations you know.

An example from retail: Walmart radically simplified the checkout and reduced mandatory fields in the form from 15 to 7. The result was a 214 percent increase in conversion; the investment paid off in a few days. neue.world

Or the famous “Proceed without Registration” moment: An e-commerce company brought in enormous additional revenue by introducing a guest checkout – in the account up to 300 million dollars per year, even. Plytix

What both stories have in common: It wasn’t about “nicer.” It was about respect for users’ time and energy. Registration is often reasonable – but not as a mandatory step at the decisive moment.

We see similar patterns in B2B software. An onboarding that feels like a form marathon has little chance. In one case, an onboarding completion rate rose from 35 to 78 percent after steps were reduced and presettings were wisely set. neue.world

For us, it contains a small, effective rule: Get people to the first success experience as quickly as possible. Not all features, not perfect setup. The first moment that says: “Ah, this helps me.”

When you transfer this to your digitalization, exciting questions arise: How quickly does someone reach a meaningful action with you? How fast do they understand that your solution truly suits them? How soon do they feel secure?

And then there’s a level rarely mentioned in case lists but crucial in purpose projects: impact. Simplifying donation processes or making educational offers more accessible, the ROI is not just revenue. It’s participation, reach, trust – and ultimately real change.

That’s why it’s worth seeing UX not as “sideline optimization,” but as part of what you want to trigger in the world.

When we talk about a competitive advantage, it quickly sounds like “winning.” But we believe: The most sustainable advantage arises when people feel safe. When they don’t feel manipulated. When they understand what they are consenting to. And when you respect their boundaries.

This is the essence of Ethical UX. No dark patterns, no hidden costs, no intentionally confusing cookie dialogs. Instead, clear decisions, clear language, clear consequences.

PwC shows how fragile this relationship is: 32 percent of customers turn away after a bad experience. PwC

In practice, we find: Trust is often a UX detail. A checkout that transparently explains why data is needed. An account that can be deleted without a game of hide-and-seek. Consent that truly feels voluntary. Purpose brands particularly win here, as their values become visible in the interface.

Our “secret ingredient” is not technology, but attitude: We treat UX as relationship maintenance. That also means: We don’t optimize just for short-term conversion, but for long-term loyalty. PwC reports that people are even willing to pay more for good experiences – up to a 16 percent price premium was measured. PwC

For digitalization, this means: You can make every process efficient. But if it feels cold, something is lost. Ethics and clarity are not opposites of business goals. They are the foundation for them.

And yes: That’s also a competitive advantage. Because features can be copied. Trust cannot – at least not quickly.

When you as a team approach this point, the discussion changes: Not “How can we get even more?” but “How do we create an experience that people like to stay with?”

UX becomes a real advantage when it’s not understood as a “phase,” but as a rhythm. Not done once – but regularly.

We like to work in a simple loop that works even in small teams. It’s not complicated but consistent: understand, design, test, improve.

Almost always, a problem that you can measure stands at the beginning: too many drop-offs, too little activation, too many support requests, too little usage of an internal tool. Then we collect two types of signals: numbers (analytics, funnel, tickets) and voices (short interviews, observations, support feedback). Only in combination does it become clear what is really happening.

Then we translate insights into prototypes. Not as a big novelty, but as alternatives that can be quickly shown. Here, Figma is often our tool because teams can work together on it.

And then comes the part many skip, although it’s the cheapest: testing. You don’t need a huge setup for this. Even small tests yield surprisingly much. In a known rule of thumb, many central usability problems can already be found with five test persons. Plytix

What’s important is that you decide in this loop logic: What is “good enough” for the next step? And what must really hit home because it affects trust or access?

An additional Pola aspect is longevity. We like to think of UX together with systems: design systems, content structures, clean components. Not because it’s “neat,” but because it makes later changes easier. It’s sustainable because you have to throw away less.

If you’re wondering where to start: Take the flow that hurts the most. The one that costs the most money, time, or trust. UX is strongest when it begins right there.

We encounter a few sentences so often that they almost seem like natural laws. Yet they are mostly just myths.

The first: “UX is what gets prettied up at the end.” If that were so, you could retrofit UX arbitrarily. In reality, UX is closely linked to logic: what options do you give, which do you take away, how do you explain decisions, how do you handle errors?

The second: “We’ll fix it later.” Later often means more expensive, more stressful, more political in digital projects. And it means: You risk users not returning after the first frustrating experience. 88 percent don’t return after bad UX. edcontent.de

The third: “It’s only worthwhile for large companies.” We see quite the opposite: If you don’t have the biggest advertising power, your experience is all the more important. Good UX makes you credible. And credibility is the hardest currency in many markets.

The fourth: “We know our users, we don’t need tests.” That’s human. Teams invest heart and soul, and eventually the solution feels self-evident. But that’s where tunnel vision arises. Small tests aren’t distrust, they’re protection against expensive assumptions.

And lastly: “UX is too expensive.” Expensive is often what you don’t see: the revenue left on the table, time in support, loops in development. A good UX investment rarely feels like “extra” – more like tidying up so that work can flow again.

When we dissolve these myths in the project, something relaxing happens: UX becomes less opinion, less power play. It becomes a common interest. Because in the end, everyone wants the same thing: for people to embrace digitalization – and to feel good doing so.