advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Grocery Loyalty Actually Lost Members From 2010 To 2012

Written by Frank Hayes
June 4th, 2013

What happens to CRM when loyalty programs hit a wall? Grocery chains may be about to find out. After years of steady growth, memberships in U.S. grocery chain loyalty programs fell by about 1 percent between 2010 and 2012, according to the 2013 Colloquy Loyalty Census. Yes, total membership really did shrink, from 173.7 million in 2010 to 172.4 million in 2012.

In practical terms, that’s not exactly falling off a cliff. But loyalty programs have been growing at a rate that means memberships would double every decade. If your CRM plans were based on needing the processing power to handle all those extra members’ data, it’s time to adjust those plans.

That doesn’t necessarily mean scaling back, though. Chances are good that you haven’t been mining all the data you’ve been collecting, out of fear that you won’t be able to deeply mine more than a fraction of CRM hoard. With a stable (or much more slowly growing) loyalty membership level, you’ll have one less variable and an easier time calculating how deeply you can mine. You might actually be able to generate better, more actionable results because your data set size is more predictable.

What’s not clear is why grocery loyalty memberships are flat. According to the study, gas station and convenience store loyalty programs actually lost 21 percent of their members, so it’s possible that the recent trend for grocery loyalty to be linked to fuel rewards hasn’t had the desired effect.

Or it could be that, as one loyalty guru we saw quoted said of grocery loyalty programs, “They’re boring.” Most grocery programs offer roughly the same rewards and the same fine print, which means there’s nothing to grab the customer’s attention.

The problem with that theory: The stagnant situation with grocery loyalty programs isn’t unique, but while grocery programs are flat, most other loyalty program memberships are up an average of 27 percent. For some reason, even if those other programs are boring, members are still hanging around.

And what if grocery CRM levels stay flat—or actually begin to drop more dramatically? If grocery loyalty really has seen its day, it may be time for some slightly more Big Brother-ish in-store tracking. That won’t give you the kind of long-term customer data that loyalty generated but, for example, using cellphone signals to follow customers through the aisles and compare where they went with what they bought at checkout could provide a new set of insights.

Or anyway, at least until customers (or management) decide that really is a little too creepy.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.