This article is the first in a series exploring what makes loyalty programs succeed—or fail—in the real world. Each installment will break down a different facet of loyalty design, from diagnosing problems to rebuilding trust and engagement.
Is Your Loyalty Program Weird or Broken?
Diagnosing whether a loyalty program is merely weird or truly broken starts with a simple idea: if a frontline associate can’t explain the value in one clear sentence a customer could repeat—and actually feel good about—you’ve got a problem.
“Weird” means value exists but it’s buried in awkward math, hidden redemption paths, or inconsistent partner rules. “Broken” means the incentives, economics, or trust are off—no amount of copy or design polish will fix it.
A quick reality check helps you tell the difference: ask a few customers what they get from the program, have two associates pitch it back to you, try redeeming a small balance yourself, and skim recent support tickets. If the vibe is mostly confusion, you’re dealing with weird; if the stories center on surprise losses, shifting rules, or “not worth it,” you’re looking at broken.
The 3C Lens: Clarity, Coupling, and Confidence
From there, apply a simple “3C” lens—Clarity, Coupling, and Confidence.
- Clarity asks whether people can see the value without a calculator.
- Coupling checks if earning naturally leads to burning, ideally within a few purchases and in the same places customers already shop or check out.
- Confidence is about trust: are there stealth changes, expirations, blackout dates, or partner inconsistencies that make members feel ambushed?
Score each from zero to two; low totals suggest fixable weirdness, high totals point to systemic issues.
Reading the Symptoms
The most telling symptoms align neatly with root causes:
- When customers can’t answer “what’s in it for me,” value is opaque.
- When earning and burning live in different worlds, design is decoupled.
- When devaluation is perceived, liability or pricing has drifted.
- When operations are awash in exceptions, rules are brittle.
- When the economics only work if people don’t redeem, the model is misaligned.
- And when surprises dominate, trust is leaking.
Because losses loom larger than comparable gains, any surprise “loss” will carry outsized weight in member memory and word of mouth.
Fast Reality Checks: The 48-Hour Diagnosis
You don’t need months of analysis to ground the conversation. In the next forty-eight hours, assemble a handful of artifacts: the one-sentence promise, time-to-first-redemption for a typical member, redemption success rate, a breakdown of ticket reasons (how-to versus loss/surprise), the outstanding liability and true point value, a quick partner rule matrix, and your change-communications cadence.
Patterns jump out fast: long time-to-first-redemption, high “surprise/loss” contacts, and inconsistent partner rules are the classic broken trio.
To pressure-test, run a few micro-experiments: can you redeem in two taps at checkout, can a customer do the value math in five seconds, do two typical receipts feel fair, and does the same balance redeem consistently across channels and partners? These tiny tests reveal whether you’re fighting UX clutter or structural misalignment.
Turning Insight Into Action
Finally, translate the verdict into action.
- If it’s weird, move redemption into checkout, simplify the earn/burn math, restate the promise in plain language with concrete examples, align partner rules and labels, and equip the frontline with clear “if they ask X, say Y” guidance.
- If it’s broken, name the losses you’re inflicting today, protect member value during any change, and design a rebuild that delivers an immediate day-one win and restores trust—backed by transparent migration rules so no one is worse off.
In short, a loyalty program is either a habit engine or a friction tax; this diagnosis turns that from a hunch into a plan.
