Abstract
Loyalty programs are a ubiquitous marketing tactic, yet many of them perform poorly and the reasons for loyalty program failure remain unclear to both marketing managers and researchers. This article presents three studies—two experiments and one survey—in support of the notion that a greater understanding of loyalty program performance demands an expanded theoretical framework. Specifically, researchers and managers must account for loyalty programs’ effects on both target and bystander customers in the firm’s portfolio, the simultaneous effects of three performance-relevant mediating mechanisms (gratitude, status, unfairness), and the contingent effects of program delivery (rule clarity, reward exclusivity, reward visibility) on specific mediating linkages. The results provide insights into why and when loyalty programs fail and into the complex trade-offs managers face. Loyalty programs have opposing effects on target and bystander customers’ loyalty and sales. While rule clarity suppresses both negative bystander as well as positive target effects, reward visibility enhances both types of effects. Exclusive rewards offer a means to alleviate negative bystander effects without affecting targets. The article both conceptually and empirically establishes a comprehensive analysis framework that can help marketing managers and researchers evaluate and improve loyalty program effectiveness.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For our experimental manipulation, we chose a type of reward of a loyalty program that is visible to customers (i.e., premium customer check-in over a red carpet in the lobby) and then varied the degree of visibility (low versus high) within the range of visibility. An alternative approach would be a manipulation where the reward is invisible in some experimental groups (e.g., welcome gift in the hotel room) versus visible in the other experimental groups. With our manipulation, our aim is to provide a more conservative test of the effects of reward visibility on both target and bystander customers beyond testing the two extreme cases of visibility versus invisibility.
Our assumptions are based on the 80/20 rule discussed in the literature (Brierley 2012; Koch 2005). The 80/20 rule, also referred to as the Pareto Principle (Drèze and Nunes 2009), suggests that 80% of a company’s sales are produced by 20% of customers, whereas 80% of customers produce 20% of sales. First, we assume a company rewards its top 20% of customers, resulting in a 4:1 ratio of bystanders to targets. Second, we use the rule to establish a factor of the average sales difference between target and bystander customers as follows: \( \frac{80\%}{20\%} \)/ \( \frac{20\%}{80\%} \) = 16. Thus, we assume that a typical target makes 16 times the sales of a typical bystander. With these two assumptions, we explicitly account for the fact that target customers are more valuable than bystander customers (i.e., higher customer lifetime value).
We included customer goal motivation as an additional mediator in our conceptual model. Yet we found the effect of loyalty program bystander on customer goal motivation to be non-significant. Hence, bystander customers do not seem to be motivated by seeing others being rewarded in a single interaction with the other mediating mechanisms in the model (in our contexts). Due to this non-significant result, we omit the goal motivation mechanism from our model. We are aware that other studies focusing only on goal motivation have found effects (Foster 1972; Frank 1999), so future research needs to investigate when goal motivation may need to be included as an additional mediation path.
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–436.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic.
Allison, M. (2010). Starbucks discontinues duetto visa card, another blow for some loyalists. The Seattle Times, (February 11). Retrieved January 21, 2013 from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/coffeecity/2011050289_starbucks_discontinues_duetto.html.
Anderson, C., John, O., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 116–132.
Barone, M. J., & Roy, T. (2010). Does exclusivity always pay off? Exclusive price promotions and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 121–132.
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.
Berry, J. (2013). Bulking up: The 2013 COLLOQUY loyalty census – Growth and trends in U.S. loyalty program activity. COLLOQUYtalk (Vol. June, pp. 1–13). Cincinnati: LoyaltyOne/COLLOQUY.
Bolton, R. N., Kannan, R. K., & Bramlett, M. D. (2000). Implications of loyalty program membership and service experiences for customer retention and value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 95–108.
Brierley, H. (2012). Why loyalty programs alienate great customers. Harvard Business Review, (July-August). Retrieved January 21, 2013 from http://hbr.org/2012/07/why-loyalty-programs-alienate-great-customers.
Butori, R., & De Bruyn, A. (2013). So you want to delight your customers: The perils of ignoring heterogeneity in customer evaluations of discretionary preferential treatments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(4), 358–367.
Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. (1978). Equity theory: The recent literature, methodological considerations, and new directions. The Academy of Management Review, 3(2), 202–210.
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 51–69.
Dahl, D. W., Honea, H., & Manchanda, R. V. (2005). Three Rs of interpersonal consumer guilt: Relationship, reciprocity, reparation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 307–315.
Darke, P. R., & Dahl, D. W. (2003). Fairness and discounts: The subjective value of a bargain. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 328–338.
Daryanto, A., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Patterson, P. G. (2010). Service firms and customer loyalty programs: a regulatory fit perspective of reward preferences in a health club setting. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(5), 604–616.
Dawson, S. (1988). Four motivations for charitable giving: Implications for marketing strategy to attract monetary donations for medical research. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 8(June), 31–37.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(May), 269–277.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.
Drèze, X., & Nunes, J. C. (2009). Feeling superior: The impact of loyalty program structure on consumers’ perceptions of status. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 890–905.
Drèze, X., & Nunes, J. C. (2011). Recurring goals and learning: The impact of successful reward attainment on purchase behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), 268–281.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11–27.
Emmons, R. A. (2004). The psychology of gratitude: An introduction. In R. A. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 3–16). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2004). The psychology of gratitude. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Feinberg, F. M., Krishna, A., & Zhang, Z. J. (2002). Do we care what others get? A behaviorist approach to targeted promotions. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(3), 277–291.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.
Finkel, N. J. (2000). But it’s not fair! Commonsense notions of unfairness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(4), 898–952.
Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 5–8.
Foster, G. M. (1972). The anatomy of envy: A study in symbolic behavior. Current Anthropology, 13, 165–202.
Frank, R. H. (1999). Luxury fever: Why money fails to satisfy in an era of excess. New York: Free Press.
Garnefeld, I., Eggert, A., Helm, S. V., & Tax, S. S. (2013). Growing existing customers’ revenue streams through customer referral programs. Journal of Marketing, 77(4), 17–32.
Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 227–236.
Heffetz, O., & Frank, R. H. (2011). Preferences for status: Evidence and economic implications. In J. Benhabib, A. Bisin, & M. O. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of social economics (Vol. 1A, pp. 69–91). San Diego: Elsevier.
Henderson, C. M., Beck, J. T., & Palmatier, R. W. (2011). Review of the theoretical underpinnings of loyalty programs. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(3), 256–276.
Henseler, J., & Fassott, G. (2010). Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: An illustration of available procedures. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares – Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 713–735). Berlin: Springer.
Homburg, C., Droll, M., & Totzek, D. (2008). Customer prioritization: Does it pay off, and how should it be implemented? Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 110–130.
Jiang, L., Hoegg, J., & Dahl, D. W. (2013). Consumer reaction to unearned preferential treatment. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 412–427.
Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The idiosyncratic fit heuristic: Effort advantage as a determinant of consumer response to loyalty programs. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 454–467.
Koch, R. (2005). The breakthrough principle of 16x: Real simple innovation for 16 times better results. Dallas: Pritchett, LP.
Kumar, V., & Reinartz, W. J. (2006). Customer relationship management: A databased approach. Hoboken: Wiley.
Lacey, R., Suh, J., & Morgan, R. M. (2007). Differential effects of preferential treatment levels on relational outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 9(3), 241–256.
Leenheer, J., van Heerde, H. J., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Smidts, A. (2007). Do loyalty programs really enhance behavioral loyalty? An empirical analysis accounting for self-selecting members. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(1), 31–47.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 58–87.
Mayser, S., & von Wangenheim, F. (2013). Perceived fairness of differential customer treatment: Consumers’ understanding of distributive justice really matters. Journal of Service Research, 16(1), 99–113.
Meyer, W.-U., Reisenzein, R., & Schützwohl, A. (1997). Toward a process analysis of emotions: The case of surprise. Motivation and Emotion, 21(3), 251–274.
Meyer-Waarden, L. (2007). The effects of loyalty programs on customer lifetime duration and share of wallet. Journal of Retailing, 83(2), 223–236.
Meyer-Waarden, L., & Benavent, C. (2009). Grocery retail loyalty program effects: self-selection or purchase behavior change? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 345–358.
Morales, A. C. (2005). Giving firms an “E” for effort: Consumer responses to high-effort firms. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 806–812.
Niepel, M., Rudolph, U., Schützwohl, A., & Meyer, W.-U. (1994). Temporal characteristics of the surprise reaction induced by schema-discrepant visual and auditory events. Cognition and Emotion, 8(5), 433–52.
Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2006). Your loyalty program is betraying you. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 124–131.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Palmatier, R. W., Jarvis, C. B., Bechkoff, J. R., & Kardes, F. R. (2009). The role of customer gratitude in relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 1–18.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (2000). Should we delight the customer? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 86–94.
Samaha, S. A., Palmatier, R. W., & Dant, R. P. (2011). Poisoning relationships: Perceived unfairness in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 99–117.
Shugan, S. M. (2005). Brand loyalty programs: Are they shams? Marketing Science, 24(2), 185–193.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15–37.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross–national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–107.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Utne, M. K., & Kidd, R. F. (1980). Equity and attribution. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 63–93). New York: Springer.
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2009). Leveling up and down: The experiences of benign and malicious envy. Emotion, 9(3), 419–429.
Van Prooijen, J., Van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. (2002). Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1353–1361.
Wagner, T., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Rudolph, T. (2009). Does customer demotion jeopardize loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 69–85.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.
Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139–153.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the Marketing Science Institute (MSI) for their support of this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Scenario descriptions
Scenario 1: Retail
Target Customer/Low Rule Clarity |
You are a customer of the international coffee shop chain CrownCoffee. You have regularly patronized CrownCoffee in the past and have always been satisfied. Today, on your way to work, you go to CrownCoffee to buy your coffee. |
While you wait in line, you notice that some customers in front of you receive a free pastry with their drink. When you walk up to the counter to order your drink, you are also offered a free pastry. You have no idea of why you were selected. You buy your favorite coffee and choose a free pastry. As usual, other customers are able to buy pastries with their drinks for an additional charge. |
After you paid, you get back in your car to go to work. |
Target Customer/High Rule Clarity |
You are a customer of the international coffee shop chain CrownCoffee. You have regularly patronized CrownCoffee in the past and have always been satisfied. Today, on your way to work, you go to CrownCoffee to buy your coffee. |
While you wait in line, you notice that some customers in front of you receive a free pastry with their drink. When you walk up to the counter to order your drink, you are also offered a free pastry. You know you were selected because your past purchase history meets CrownCoffee’s reward guidelines, which are published on the company’s website. You buy your favorite coffee and choose a free pastry. As usual, other customers are able to buy pastries with their drinks for an additional charge. |
After you paid, you get back in your car to go to work. |
Bystander Customer/Low Rule Clarity |
You are a customer of the international coffee shop chain CrownCoffee. You have regularly patronized CrownCoffee in the past and have always been satisfied. Today, on your way to work, you go to CrownCoffee to buy your coffee. |
While you wait in line, you notice that some customers in front of you receive a free pastry with their drink. However, when you walk up to the counter to order your drink, you are not offered a free pastry. You have no idea of why you were not selected. You buy your favorite coffee. As usual, you are able to buy pastries with your drink for an additional charge. |
After you paid, you get back in your car to go to work. |
Bystander Customer/High Rule Clarity |
You are a customer of the international coffee shop chain CrownCoffee. You have regularly patronized CrownCoffee in the past and have always been satisfied. Today, on your way to work, you go to CrownCoffee to buy your coffee. |
While you wait in line, you notice that some customers in front of you receive a free pastry with their drink. However, when you walk up to the counter to order your drink, you are not offered a free pastry. You know you were not selected because your past purchase history does not meet CrownCoffee’s reward guidelines, which are published on the company’s website. You buy your favorite coffee. As usual, you are able to buy pastries with your drink for an additional charge. |
After you paid, you get back in your car to go to work. |
No Loyalty Program (Control Group) |
You are a customer of the international coffee shop chain CrownCoffee. You have regularly patronized CrownCoffee in the past and have always been satisfied. Today, on your way to work, you go to CrownCoffee to buy your coffee. |
While you wait in line, you do not notice any special promotional discounts or reward program offerings. You walk up to the counter to order your drink. You buy your favorite coffee. As usual, you are able to buy pastries with your drink for an additional charge. |
After you paid, you get back in your car to go to work. |
Scenario 2: Hotels
Target Customer/Low Reward Visibility |
You are a customer of the international hotel chain BestResidence. You have regularly patronized BestResidence in the past and have always been satisfied. Today, you arrive at a BestResidence hotel for another overnight stay. |
When you enter the lobby, there are two check-in counters: a normal customer check-in counter where customers need to wait in line and a premium customer check-in counter where customers walk over a red carpet and check in without any waiting time. You check in at the premium customer check-in counter. While you walk over the red carpet and check in quickly, the lobby is empty; no customers are waiting at the normal customer check-in counter. |
You receive your key from the friendly receptionist and go to your room, which meets your expectations. |
You are a customer of the international hotel chain BestResidence. You have regularly patronized BestResidence in the past and have always been satisfied. Today, you arrive at a BestResidence hotel for another overnight stay. |
When you enter the lobby, there are two check-in counters: a normal customer check-in counter where customers need to wait in line and a premium customer check-in counter where customers walk over a red carpet and check in without any waiting time. You check in at the premium customer check-in counter. While you walk over the red carpet and check in quickly, the lobby is crowded; a lot of customers are waiting at the normal customer check-in counter, watching as you check in. |
You receive your key from the friendly receptionist and go to your room, which meets your expectations. |
Bystander Customer/Low Reward Visibility |
You are a customer of the international hotel chain BestResidence. You have regularly patronized BestResidence in the past and have always been satisfied. Today, you arrive at a BestResidence hotel for another overnight stay. |
When you enter the lobby, there are two check-in counters: a normal customer check-in counter where customers need to wait in line and a premium customer check-in counter where customers walk over a red carpet and check in without any waiting time. You check in at the normal customer check-in counter. As usual, you wait in line. While you wait, you do not see a premium customer walk over the red carpet and check in quickly. |
You receive your key from the friendly receptionist and go to your room, which meets your expectations. |
Bystander Customer/High Reward Visibility |
You are a customer of the international hotel chain BestResidence. You have regularly patronized BestResidence in the past and have always been satisfied. Today, you arrive at a BestResidence hotel for another overnight stay. |
When you enter the lobby, there are two check-in counters: a normal customer check-in counter where customers need to wait in line and a premium customer check-in counter where customers walk over a red carpet and check in without any waiting time. You check in at the normal customer check-in counter. As usual, you wait in line. While you wait, you see several premium customers walk over the red carpet and check in quickly. |
You receive your key from the friendly receptionist and go to your room, which meets your expectations. |
No Loyalty Program (Control Group) |
You are a customer of the international hotel chain BestResidence. You have regularly patronized BestResidence in the past and have always been satisfied. Today, you arrive at a BestResidence hotel for another overnight stay. |
When you enter the lobby, there are several check-in counters. You go over to one of the check-in counters. As usual, you wait in line. |
You receive your key from the friendly receptionist and go to your room, which meets your expectations. |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Steinhoff, L., Palmatier, R.W. Understanding loyalty program effectiveness: managing target and bystander effects. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 44, 88–107 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0405-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0405-6