• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Market probe loyalty programs vs. loyalty behavior white paper
 

Market probe loyalty programs vs. loyalty behavior white paper

on

  • 343 views

Loyalty programs are often designed with minimal inclusion of potential or current member input.

Loyalty programs are often designed with minimal inclusion of potential or current member input.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
343
Views on SlideShare
343
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Market probe loyalty programs vs. loyalty behavior white paper Market probe loyalty programs vs. loyalty behavior white paper Document Transcript

    • Loyalty Programs vs. LoyaltyBehavior: Do Marketers GetWhat They Intend?Using Customer Advocacy Research to DriveDesired Loyalty Program Business OutcomesLoyalty and reward programs classically have two basic intentions.One objective is to generate important customer profile data that canbe used for targeted – even micro- segmented – marketing, promotionand communication initiatives. The other is to leverage loyal behavioramong the customer base and reduce the use of or consideration ofcompetitive products and services. To meet both of these objectives,the program, its array of components and perception of personal valueneed to be optimal. Are they?The CMO Council recently conducted a study, The Leaders inLoyalty:Feeling the Love FromThe Loyalty Club, the key findings ofwhich revealed that neither of these objectives was being met. Thestudy concluded that companies sponsoring loyalty programs werejust using them to deliver general discounts and perks to the mass ofmembers, ignoring customer profiles within the database that wouldhelp provide more targeted and relevant communication and strongervalue perception among program members. Only 13% of marketers inthe study felt that they have been highly effective in leveraging loyaltyand brand preference among club members and nearly 20% have nostrategy in place to do this. Almost 30% of marketers reported thatcustomers see little or no added value to becoming a loyalty programmember, though marketers admitted that most of their programcomponents were discounts, free products or premiums rather thanbetter service or improved customer handling.©2011 Market Probe,All Rights ReservedDr. Michael Lowenstein, Executive Vice President
    • Very significantly, more than half (54%) of loyalty program memberssurveyed in the CMO Council study were considering leaving theprograms or defecting from the brands and companies sponsoringthem, principally due to:1. The onslaught of irrelevant and off-target messages, low or non-meaningful program benefits, and2. The impersonal treatment they receive as members.At the same time, it has been well-established in multiple studies,such as those by loyalty program development consulting companyColloquy, that customers who participate in loyalty or rewardprograms are much more likely to positively communicate theirexperiences and recommend the product or service of the sponsoringorganization than the remainder of the customer base.For instance, Colloquy found that loyalty program members are70% more likely to be engaged in advocacy-type activities suchas positive word-of-mouth and referral compared to the generalpopulation. More than two-thirds of a program’s strongest advocateswill recommend the program’s brand within a year; and those who aremost active, i.e., using benefits on a regular basis, are more than threetimes more likely to engage in recommendation and word-of-mouthcommunication than other members. Finally, those program memberswho have redeemed for experiential rewards, and thus deepened therelationship between them and the sponsor, are 30% more likely to beadvocates than those members who used the program for discounts andbounce-back offers.Colloquy’s studies determined that the same lack of perceived programrelevance and value identified by the CMO Council carried over to theinability of marketers to identify within the program database thosemembers most likely to be advocates for the program. Nor was theremuch evidence of building relationships or encouraging positive word-of-mouth. In the CMO Council study, key actions for improving clubROI included personalizing interactions and target messages (51%),increasing relevance of communications (39%), gathering more insightsand intelligence (38%) and adding unique new benefits and incentives(36%).
    • Not every company is like leading worldwide supermarket chainTesco,with DunnHumby as their customer loyalty program data analyst toconduct detailed evaluation of loyalty program member profiles thatcan be converted into more effective program components, targetedmessages and promotions. However, every company with a loyaltyprogram can get smarter about:1. Using loyalty program member data to best effect, and2. Designing or redesigning its loyalty program to encourageparticipation and leverage positive word-of-mouth andpurchasing behavior.Loyalty programs are considered by many to be inexpensive methodsof attracting and acquiring customers, and getting them to stay incontact, return, and buy more; but, though inexpensive, they may alsobe ineffective and even damaging. There is a potential for disconnect,at least in terms of loyalty program design or redesign. Loyaltyprogram members can, and ideally should, actively represent theirmembership through advocacy-type activity. As proven by studiessuch as Colloquy’s, they are often far more likely to communicatewith others about their experiences with the programs; the moreactive their program participation, the more likely they are to spreadthe word. But if they are disengaged with the loyalty program, or donot see the value represented by membership, these customers willbecome passive about both the program and the products and servicesit represents. They may become negative communicators or defect.Too many companies belong to the Field of Dreams “if you buildit, they will come” school of loyalty program development. Theysubscribe to the conventional wisdom that if they create what theybelieve, or what they are told, is a compelling program with attractivecustomer benefits, then the company will be rewarded with both morecustomers and more sales as evidence of loyalty behavior. Once built,customers may come, or they may not.They may spend more and makemore referrals or they may not. Recent research byThe HartmanGroup, a marketing consultancy, determined that 74% of consumersagree that companies need new and better ways of rewarding loyalcustomers. Clearly, many loyalty programs are suboptimal ineffectiveness.The Good, Bad, Ugly and Opportunity Represented by Loyalty Programs
    • For marketers who hope to build profitable word-of-mouth behaviorfrom loyalty program members, the tools for doing so exist withinthe program database. They should identify the advocates embeddedwithin their membership bases. Then, they should build relationshipsthat reward these members for their positive word-of-mouth activity.Noted marketing Professor Philip Kotler, Northwestern University,believes that standout organizations are those that can most effectivelyoptimize stakeholder trust, engagement and perceived personal value.In a recent FinancialTimes interview article, Dr. Kotler said,“They usethe word-of-mouth effect of unpaid advocates – truly loyal customers– to boost their reputation.Advocates will do your marketing foryou if you mobilize them, listen to them and engage them.” Loyaltyprograms, used effectively, can be an excellent vehicle for creating andextending customer advocacy behavior.Beginning around the year 2000, major consulting organizations beganto recognize that critical changes in the marketplace were likely tohave profound impact on businesses, especially the shift from pushmarketing to dialogue marketing. The emphasis was moving towardoptimization of customer engagement and perceived value. Insteadof relying solely on such historic measures as satisfaction, loyalty,commitment, and recommendation, companies would need to identifyand focus on something more contemporary, more actionable, andmore predictive of key monetizing business outcomes, such as share ofwallet. That “something” was ultimately defined as customer advocacyby consulting companies, academics and business executives: i.e.,behavior driven by a strong bond with the preferred brand and active,voluntary online and offline word-of-mouth on behalf of that brand.Customer advocacy could now provide organizations with manyvaluable business outcome benefits. This new consumer influence alsomeant that market research companies would need to evolve beyondhistoric methods of interpreting customer attitudes and determininghow those attitudes could impact behavior, in order to incorporatedrivers of customer advocacy. Some new models were createdprincipally to evaluate emotional connection; however, in general,the market research industry has not embraced the new realities ofcustomer decision-making represented by customer advocacy. Havingidentified the power of customer advocacy to influence the customer’sown behavior and the behavior of others, the next challenge wasto create and prove the effectiveness of a state-of-the-art researchmetric or framework for measuring and leveraging power of customeradvocacy.We will examine how a new customer advocacy framework can beapplied to help optimize loyalty and reward program performance.Defining Customer Advocacy and Advocacy Measurement forLoyalty Programs
    • Advocacy occurs when:1. Customers select a single supplier from among all those theymight consider, giving that supplier the highest share of spendpossible, and2. Customers informally, voluntarily and often frequently tellothers about how positive their relationship is with the supplierand how much value and benefit they derive from it, withoutany form of compensation.It is principally based on positive, voluntary and active customer word-of-mouth and impression of the brand or vendor. However, word-of-mouth is a double-edged sword; customers’ negative communication,as much as praise, can have a damaging effect on other customers andnon-customers, as well as on the communicating customer.Marketers have recognized that their number one program prioritymust be to acquire and retain motivated and engaged participants. Inthe CMO Council study, 46% of marketing executives identified thisas their principal challenge. Other performance obstacles includedmeasuring marketing value and effectiveness (42%), deriving valuableinsight and intelligence (38%), delivering more personalized offers andinducements (34%), and creating more customized communications(33%). All of these key issues can be effectively addressed throughtargeted loyalty program advocacy research.For our case study, we will use a wine buyers’ customer loyaltyprogram and call it theWine Lovers Club. There are many of theseprograms around. They are offered by wine retailers, individualwineries, as add-ons to other loyalty programs, and as coalition oraggregated programs of multiple retailers, or retailers and otherproduct and service providers.Using Advocacy Research to Design or Redesign A CustomerLoyalty Program
    • This particularWine Lovers Club program was introduced in 1999.Asof this writing, it has 50,000 members. Cost of membership is $100 peryear with a membership fee rebate beginning in the second year that isbased on the amount of wine ordered in the previous year. The programhas been built incrementally over time, adding elements managementborrowed from other loyalty programs that they felt would make theirsmore successful. It now has nearly 20 program components:1. Personalized winery visit (U.S.,Australia, SouthAmerica,Africa, and Europe) availability2. Points earned for every purchase3. Special events, at wineries and locations around the U.S., withwine enthusiasts4. Free shipping on wine purchases at a case level5. Instant discount or rebate offers6. Access to pre-release, specialty, and limited production wines7. A members-only catalog with program logo items, which arereasonably-priced wine accessories8. Catalog accessories, food, hampers, gift baskets also available forpoints earned through purchase9. Discounted wine storage rates10.Free personalization of wine labels for gift-giving11.Referral benefits (discounts, points earned whenever a referredfriend buys wine or puts it into storage)12.Tier levels, with higher points per purchase as purchasesincrease13.Discounts on wine purchases increase as tier levels increase14.Points, tier levels, and credits (usage of points) accounted forautomatically15.Benefits earned never expire16.First priority ordering and exclusive wine selections17.OnlineWine Lovers Club community18.Exclusive‘ask the expert’ online and telephone availabilityClub membership has remained relatively static for several years,with about as many members defecting as joining. The program wasrarely mined for customer profile data, and is minimally profitable. Itgenerates add-on sales, but principally rewards through discounts thosemembers who are already active buyers. Apart from managementopinions, there is no real evidence as to what elements of the programwill most effectively drive member advocacy, or dampen it. MarketProbe’s advocacy framework was applied to help theWine Lovers Clubreframe and optimize its rewards program.
    • We applied a unique research framework to evaluate theWine LoversClub’s array of benefits, overall perception, and loyalty level relative tocompetitive wine clubs whereWine Lovers Club members belongedto multiple programs, on degree of advocacy. Based on answersto four questions regarding their experience with theWine LoversClub (future purchase intent, recommendation likelihood, brandfavorability/impression, and evidence of positive or negative word-of-mouth), club members were classified into four groups:1. Advocates – Frequent buyers of multiple types of wine,significant use of club benefits, strong club brand recognitionand favorability, active and positive word-of-mouth on behalf ofthe club2. Allegiants – Regular wine purchasers, moderate use of clubbenefits, generally positive club brand favorability, infrequent(though positive) word-of-mouth on behalf of the club3. Ambivalents – Moderate volume wine buyers, occasional useof club benefits, neutral club brand favorability, little evidenceof word-of-mouth on behalf of the club (but more negative thanpositive)4. Alienateds – Infrequent wine buyers, very little use of clubbenefits, low to moderate club brand favorability, generallynegative word-of-mouth on behalf of the clubBy our definitions,TheWine Lovers Club had about 12%Advocates,better than some competitors and poorer than others. It also had 38%Allegiant members, an attractive segment capable of stronger sales,deeper relationship, higher brand affinity and engagement, and moreactive and positive word-of-mouth. Similar to findings of the CMOCouncil’s study, the loyalty program also had a total of 51%AmbivalentandAlienated members who were minimally engaged and had thepotential for negative communication and defection.Wine Lovers Club Advocacy Research Results
    • Once the advocacy groupings were established, swing voter analysis(below) was applied. Some of theWine Lovers Club programcomponents, such as benefits that never expire, discounts, freeshipping, and discounted storage rates, were found to be one-dimensional relative to other loyalty program elements; that is,expected and non-leveraging. These features did little to drive loyaltyperceptions and continued member patronage, and may even becausing some damage. Other components such as referral benefits,points increases and increased discounts as tier levels rise, and a catalogwith club logo items, might be described as driving negativism becausethey were compromising the concept of exclusivity and lifestyleextension that were core to the club’s concept and value proposition.The most favorably perceived and leveraging program elements werethose seen to have real meaning and enriching, personal significance formembers. These included the winery visits, special events, access topre-release and limited production wines, first priority ordering andexclusive wine selections, and the‘ask the expert’ online and telephoneavailability feature. These club program components were synchedwith members’ life styles and self-perceptions, and advocacy researchfound them to be both attractive and differentiated.
    • From 1987 to 1996,American Express’ cardholder recruitment taglinewas “Membership Has Its Privileges,” promising exclusive elements ofdifferentiated, personalized value to anyone who held anAmex card.This campaign was award winning, and a high-water mark forAmericanExpress’ growth. This has direct application to what theWine LoversClub could be in the future.Wine is a high-end consumable, and those who have strong involvementin wine see it as an extension of their life-style. TheWine Lovers Club’spromises and components needed to reflect benefits with differentiatedand personalized value to members. As a result of using memberadvocacy research and swing voter analysis to optimize its components,TheWine Lovers Club was able to emphasize those five elements thathad the greatest personal interest to current members and which wouldbest attract financially attractive new members. Simultaneously, theClub was able to eliminate six costly and confusing components. Thenet result was a program that was more streamlined, more engaging andconsiderably more profitable.The Wine Lovers Club of the Future