Before redesigning a program, look at how long a customer waits for a useful reward and what happens when they try to use the benefit.
For me, a useful starting point for a loyalty review is the first reward an ordinary customer is likely to reach. I want to understand how much they need to spend, how often they need to visit and what happens if they miss a month.
A reward catalogue tells the customer what is available. But the earning and redemption rules determine whether they will receive anything. So before adding another promotion or feature, I would look at those rules together, from the position of someone following their normal shopping habits.
The research points to specific frustrations
Antavo’s published findings from its Global Customer Loyalty Report 2026 list slow reward earning at 49.1%, rewards expiring before use at 41.1%, and unattractive rewards at 38.9% among consumer reasons for disappointment. The research includes a global panel of 10,000 loyalty members. [1]
I read these findings as a reason to examine the time, effort and reward value together. They describe frustration, but they do not tell us what a different threshold or expiry rule would achieve in a particular program. The next step is to understand how our own rules affect the customer.
How long a customer waits
Take a simple example. A first reward requires €500 of qualifying spend, and a customer spends €25 twice a month. They earn points on €50 of spending each month. With a fixed earning rate, no bonuses and no expiry, reaching the reward takes 20 purchases, or roughly ten months. These are illustrative numbers, not findings from either report.
Now suppose each point expires after six months, regardless of later activity. After six months, the customer has earned points on €300 of spending. As new points arrive, the oldest points begin to expire. With evenly spaced purchases, the balance stays around the equivalent of €300 of qualifying spend, below the €500 requirement.
Under these rules, continuing to shop at the same rate never gets this customer to the reward. The problem is more than a long wait. The earning rate, threshold and expiry rule do not work together for this purchase pattern. A reminder leaves this problem unresolved.
Someone spending €100 every week has a different experience under the same rules. This is why an average member figure is not enough for this review. I would test several real purchase patterns, including occasional customers, new members and frequent buyers, to understand who reaches a useful reward and who struggles.
For each group, the spend and time needed for the first relevant reward need to be considered alongside expiry. Points expiring after a fixed period are different from points expiring after inactivity. For a customer who keeps purchasing, this distinction changes the outcome.
A high threshold is not necessarily a mistake. A program might deliberately reserve a high-value benefit for frequent customers. But the choice needs to be clear. I would still want to know whether less frequent customers have an earlier benefit, and whether the proposition explains which rewards fit their normal behavior.
Earning and using a reward are different problems
Deloitte reports another source of difficulty. In its US survey, 40% of respondents sometimes forgot to redeem. The study’s methodology places redemption questions in the context of the respondent’s preferred program. [2]
This raises a separate question about what happens once a reward is available. The balance display, eligibility message and redemption steps deserve a review of their own. A practical way to start is to ask a colleague to use a member account without help from the team who designed the rules.
With an eligible account, the exercise follows the member from seeing the benefit through to using the reward. Excluded products, activation steps, minimum purchases or a switch between the app and checkout all form part of this experience. Where the person hesitates or asks for help gives the team something specific to examine.
Repeating the exercise with someone below the threshold helps separate the problems. One member has earned a reward but needs to understand how to use the benefit. The other still needs to qualify. Sending both the same message ignores the difference.
What to measure after a change
My preference would be to start with one change linked to a specific problem, such as a clearer reward message, a simpler redemption step or a lower entry reward. Agreeing the success measure before the trial makes the result easier to interpret. A comparable group would also help, where practical.
The review needs to show how many members become eligible, how many redeem and how long the process takes. New members should be grouped by joining period and given equal observation time. Members who never reach a reward still belong in the analysis. A median based only on redeemers leaves their experience out.
Reward cost and repeat purchasing matter alongside redemption. More redemptions alone do not establish a commercial return. The commercial question is whether the change led to useful member behavior beyond spending which would have happened anyway.
Before approving the next program enhancement, I would ask for one page showing how an ordinary customer reaches and uses a useful reward. The spend, elapsed time, expiry conditions and redemption steps should be visible together. This gives the team a practical basis for deciding what to improve next.
References
[1] Antavo. Global Customer Loyalty Report 2026. Findings verified in the publisher overview dated 12 March 2026, in the consumer value discussion. Consumer opinions and vendor research, without an experimental estimate of changing program rules. View source
[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