If you show an employee you value them, and not just the replaceable work that they do, they will probably be more loyal.

If you show a customer you value them, and not just their wallet, they will probably be more loyal too.

People want to feel valued, and once they have that, it's smooth sailing. On the contrary, if you make them feel under-appreciated, you will soon be in trouble.

A lot of people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing...

This is quite possibly the least informative/descriptive post title I've ever seen. I don't have the vaguest idea what the post is about before clicking the link.

I completely agree.

In an effort to help others, here is a summary of the article as I understood it:

Loyalty cards from supermarkets and other merchants do nothing to instill loyalty. Doing things that provide value to others is how you build loyalty. For example, Zappos linking their customers to their competitors when out of stock of a desired shoe, or the author providing his users with a data export feature from his application.

Hope that helps. If it did, feel free to give a quick upvote.

This. Most people I know, myself included, have loyalty cards only because you get something in return. With supermarket loyalty cards, it's the only way to get the sale prices each week.

I think the writer initially started out with the idea of what makes a brand/company more attractive to it's clients and are able to retain their loyalty while the others are just a part of the herd. But he deviated a lot from the topic and mentioned his product "Draft". I checked out https://draftin.com/ , it is for sure very simple to use, but I am not sure it is useful for most people. This could have a more suited title in "Are Loyalty points really buying Loyalty?"

"- that, instead of handing out prizes to customers, gave customers the ability to award prizes to employees who treated them well..."

that's how we ended up with the patronising bullshit called tipping.

Tipping actually started as a way to establish priority in a queue--being served first at a bar, being able to make a song request to the guy performing, etc. It happened before you were served, as a way to signal that you care enough about your service to pay more, so you should be prioritized. (The clatter of coins in a tip jar was the original "bell" one would ring for service.) The modern concept that's most similar is "business class" on an airline--simple, good

The concept diverged from its original purpose as queues became fixed by company policies (could you imagine anything other than FIFO-order at a McDonalds?), companies grew until the people you'd tip got separated from the people who decide who gets served and how well (the maitre d' is not the waiter), etc.

For some people, tipping isn't patronizing but part of their minimum wage.

For others, it's an indication that their service was appreciated.

For yet others (NYC I'm looking at you!) it's considered a right: "Would you like change?"

Personally, I tip 10% as a rule. But if the service I receive is appalling, I'll withold it. And if the service is excellent, I'll tip more. And I'll only ever tip by card if I can't make it in cash - I trust leaving cash on the table for my server to be a lot more likely to go specifically to them than any house "pool" system...

Just FYI, if you tip 10% in restaurants in a major American city you will probably be perceived as under tipping.

In my short career of patronizing eating establishments, the accepted baseline tip has moved from 15% to 18% and now I believe it's at 20%.

It's your prerogative to tip as you see fit, but as it is a social norm, it's useful to be aware of what the "norm" is.

Maybe I've lived in exceedingly generous cities, so I'd be happy to hear back if 20% is not the "norm" for tipping a waiter at dinner.

10% is customary here in the UK, but then we do have minimum wage; AFAIK tips are tips.

When I was last in NYC the minimum was 12.5%, and that wasn't all that long ago - I was impressed that the bill included tip calculations, but what really annoyed me was the "would you like the change" thing.

I live in the US, and as far as I know the standard is still 18%. 20% is generous.

But 10% is definitely undertipping.

Tipping isn't patronizing; it's a cost-sharing mechanism. You don't have to like it, but you shouldn't mistake what it is.

I think he meant "patronising" as in "being a dick" not "being a patron".

Yes, that's what I thought he meant.

As an insider I can tell you that many companies have tried and/or are considering every one of these suggestions. That's not to take away from OP's point; the suggestions given are definitely out there for the average brand, and would set them apart.

Some examples:

KLM Surprise. "When passengers check in at KLM’s Foursquare locations, the KLM Surprise team finds out information about the passenger, then uses this to come up with a personalized gift to surprise the passenger with." http://surprise.klm.com/

Citi ThankYou Points. "Through a Facebook application, ThankYou members can combine points to make a charitable donations or choose from rewards. Citi says this gives members a chance to help their friends get a bigger reward or support a common cause." http://www.lowcards.com/share-citi-thankyou-rewards-with-fri...

But those examples are not going far enough to be truly remarkable. They're still not putting the customer's interests ahead of their own.

With Citi, how about instead of making giving your rewards to charity an option, make it the only option? That would be remarkable.

What if KLM instead emailed me saying "we found a cheaper/more pleasant flight than the one you've already booked with us. Click here and we'll automatically change your reservation and refund you the difference, no fees." That would be remarkable.

> With Citi, how about instead of making giving your rewards to charity an option, make it the only option? That would be remarkable.

I don't see how this is "putting the customer's interests ahead of their own".

> Imagine a loyalty program in which customers could band > together and accumulate points together, in return for > group-based rewards

Nice idea, but it doesn't really work. I'll buy 6 sandwiches to get the 7th one free, but for some reason if you told all the customers if they bought 10,000 sandwiches they'd get one free, it doesn't pan out.

I'm not sure if it's the sharing of the reward or distrust in others to not contribute, or what. Maybe it's just the achievement is removed.

Groups are very powerful in other situations - look at the results you can get from an online fundraiser. People visit the page from all over to donate.

I think your analogy is a bit flawed. The local Boy Scout troop would love to have such a promotion if the rewards were achievable. 10,000 sandwiches to earn one free sandwich is obviously ludicrous but if it was more like "When the group buys 100 sandwiches, Subway will cater your next pack meeting", then the kids/parents would be all over that.

Pizza Hutt used to do something similar with school programs back in the South East US. Kids that participated in a reading program got a free personal pizza. I forget all of the details since i was in 2nd or 3rd grade at the time, but along with bringing more people in for the free part, it also got a lot of people in just because they were supporting a program like that.

You're probably thinking of Book It (http://www.bookitprogram.com/faq/). I don't think it is South East USA specific (we had it in the midwest and the website doesn't indicate that it doesn't apply nationally.)

That looks like it, I didn't realize it was still going on, or that it was that big across the nation.

Pizza Hut was getting a lot of pressure to cancel that program, accused of bribing kids with food and pizza marketing.

This was something I participated in New Jersey as well.

This totally works — especially if the recipient is an organization or a cause. Grocery stores and other places do this where on certain nights they will donate a percentage of proceeds to a local school, etc.

People are willing to trade a small reward for themselves for a larger reward that a group can achieve.

There's a local deli here in Seattle where you drop your business card in for a chance to get catered or something. (It's been a while since I've been there; too packed.) If all your coworkers drop in, likelihood kinda shoots up.

I thought this was about GNU Hurd and was disappointed it's just some schlocky rewards fluff. If you want to reward your loyal customers make your punted junk cheaper nobody cares about points

The implication that people care about GNU Hurd amuses me. I have nothing against it, but at this point, it's fairly clear that Hurd lost the kernel battle.

And I thought the same thing (about it being Hurd).

"The kernel battle"? Oh please. Why must everything be cast in terms of winners and losers?

If you insist: the absence of a microkernel implementation, regardless of its technical feasibility, means we are all losers of "the kernel battle".

You make it sound permanent.

At the end of the post I clicked to see what Draft was. Then I clicked on "Try Draft" but that lead to a screen where I have to create an account.

Why would one need to create an account just to "try" a product? That doesn't happen in the real world.

Looks pretty herdish to me.