Purpose This paper interrogates the critical disconnect between technical accessibility compliance and the lived experience of disabled consumers in service environments. It introduces a framework distinguishing between technical accessibility, functional usability and experiential inclusion while challenging service marketing theory’s ableist assumptions. Design/methodology/approach This viewpoint uses autoethnographic analysis and critical disability theory to examine case studies in hospitality, transportation and academic contexts, revealing systemic accessibility failures across service domains. Findings Technical accessibility compliance frequently fails to deliver functional usability or experiential inclusion. Service providers consistently implement accessibility as afterthoughts rather than integrated design elements, whereas sustainability initiatives often create new accessibility barriers. The academic service marketing community itself reproduces exclusionary practices despite its rhetoric of inclusion. Research limitations/implications The paper proposes a research agenda calling for methodological innovation in accessibility research, reconceptualization of service theories to center disability experiences and examination of power imbalances in co-creation processes. Practical implications Service organizations must move beyond compliance to integrate disabled users as co-designers throughout development processes, recognize accessibility as a business opportunity rather than legal obligation and develop audit frameworks focused on lived experience rather than technical requirements. Originality/value This paper introduces the accessibility–usability gap framework, challenges foundational service marketing theories and reveals how “accessible” services often deliver inferior experiences despite premium pricing. It confronts the field’s complicity in perpetuating exclusion by privileging nondisabled perspectives in both theory development and research practice.
Volker G. Kuppelwieser (Fri,) studied this question.