A useful membership report explains who joined, who participated and how participation changed.
When a program reports a million members, I want to understand who is included. Accounts created since launch, people who purchased recently and members who earned or redeemed during a defined period are different measures. Without the definition, the number leaves too much open to interpretation.
This matters when the team sets a growth target. More registrations tell us the registered base has grown. They do not explain whether existing members are participating. If the report shows only the total, the discussion might focus on acquiring more members while an issue with existing members goes unexamined.
Research distinguishes joining from participating
Deloitte’s consumer loyalty survey reports eight memberships and participation in five programs per respondent, on average. The study covered 5,564 US adult loyalty members in September and October 2025. [2] These self-reported averages are not a target activity rate for an individual program.
Starbucks provides a useful example of a more specific measure. In Q1 FY2026, the company reported 35.5 million US members active over 90 days, using data from 28 December 2025. [3] The label gives the reader a market and an activity window. An all-time registration total would answer a different question.
For me, the useful lesson is the definition, not the number. A 90-day window will not suit every business. The period needs to reflect the purchase cycle, and the reader needs to know which activity qualifies before drawing a conclusion from the result.
What counts as participation
If a retail program aims to encourage repeat purchases, purchasing activity should be visible separately from app visits or email interactions. Logging in and checking a balance are useful signals, but neither means the customer bought again. Combining all three under one active-member figure makes the commercial result harder to interpret.
I would agree the definition before setting a target. A purchasing member might, for example, be a unique member with at least one qualifying, non-refunded transaction in the previous 90 days. This is an illustrative definition, and the team would still need to agree how returns, duplicate accounts and qualifying transactions are treated.
Other activities still have a place in the report, under clear labels. A redemption measure describes redemption, and a visit measure describes visits. If the team combines them, there should be a clear reason linked to the decision the combined figure is meant to support.
Why growth and participation belong together
The following example uses invented figures. Both snapshots cover the same market, account rules and definition of a qualifying purchase in the previous 90 days.
| Measure | Earlier snapshot | Later snapshot |
|---|---|---|
| Registered members | 100,000 | 110,000 |
| Members with a qualifying purchase in the previous 90 days | 30,000 | 28,000 |
Registrations rose by 10%, but the active count fell by 2,000. Reporting registration growth alone leaves the decline in recent purchasing out of the discussion.
These figures do not explain why participation fell. Existing members might have stopped purchasing, or recent joiners might not have made a first purchase. Seasonality and changes in acquisition activity also deserve attention. Following members by joining month, over equal periods, would help separate these explanations.
Where the data allows, separate first-time activity, continued activity and reactivation. Someone returning after a long absence raises a different management question from someone making their first purchase.
A report should help the team decide
For the next review, I would show the registered base, recent purchasing members and new-member activation together. The definitions, time periods and changes since the previous review need to be clear, with a proposed action and an owner beside each finding.
If registrations are growing but first purchases are weak, the joining proposition and onboarding journey need attention. If established members have stopped purchasing, their previous frequency, recent experience and the wider trading context become relevant. These situations need different responses, even when both appear as weak participation.
Recent joiners need a fair comparison. Someone who joined yesterday has had less time to purchase than someone who joined three months ago. Activation comparisons need to state each group’s observation period.
A change in definition needs the same care. A broader activity rule might increase the reported number without any change in customer behavior. Recording the change and rebuilding the comparison where possible helps the team understand how much of the movement comes from measurement.
A frequent purchaser is active, but establishing whether the program caused additional purchases requires further analysis. I would keep this distinction clear. The membership report gives the commercial review a reliable starting point, without claiming more than the figures show.
References
[2] Deloitte. 2025 Consumer Loyalty Program Survey, findings published 12 January 2026. Methodology and endnote 4 describe scope. Relevant sections cover participation and redemption. View source
[3] Starbucks. Starbucks Card, Loyalty and Mobile Dashboard, Q1 FY2026, page 1. Updated 7 January 2026, using data from 28 December 2025. The active-member measure covers the US. View source