“Rewards That Reward” by Lars Meyer-Waarden and Christophe Benavent is a fairly insightful overview of what are commonly called customer-loyalty programs.

“Rewards That Reward” was mentioned in an article in the WSJ print version but for some reason it’s not (yet?) on the WSJ web site. That’s certainly disappointing to say the least. Luckily it could be found on MIT Sloan Management Review (http://sloanreview.mit.edu).

Naturally, there are a couple things worth pointing out:

- In the 3rd or 4th paragraph they state: “Indeed, the proliferation of loyalty programs offering the same kinds of rewards has destroyed a key reason for them in the first place: differentiation.” We disagree – somewhat. It’s not the programs that lack imagination, it’s the marketing departments behind them. The last thing the world needs is another cookie cutter answer. Having a loyalty program isn’t enough to differentiate. The program itself must differentiate, or at least somehow be positioned to appear that way.

- This study was done in France between 2005 and 2007. How French your customer might be is up to you to decide.

- About half-way in they add, “Companies can use customers’ ages, incomes, sex and other factors to draw general conclusions about what motivates them…” But there’s a far better idea – just ask the guests  One-size-fits-all is obviously out, but there’s no reason to guess. Chances are pretty good the solution is going to be web based so just let your guests decide what they want for dinner and how they want it cooked. Obviously, that too becomes part of the guest’s profile that can be used to customize other communicated with them.

- They later say, “… An important step in designing rewards, then, is to make sure customers perceive them as being valuable.” Needless to say, duh! Sadly, there are companies who are going to find that level of guest-centricity as being some sort of stroke of genius.

For further reading the WSJ article did recommend for reading: SloanReview.mit.edu/wsj.

This is a copy of the letter that was inserted in with the WJS this past Saturday. Please give it a read and then we’ll follow with some analysis.

August 30, 2008

Dear Wall Street Journal Reader:

On Saturday, September 6, you will receive a new magazine from the Journal, appropriately called WSJ. – the masthead’s punctuation mirrors that of the newspaper, but the content of the magazine will highlight a
different side of our and your personalities.

WSJ. will blend the best of Journal writing with a design aesthetic that is quite unique. It will examine style with real substance, profiling individuals whose influence on fashion, collecting and philanthropy is profound, and assessing whether that influence is justified. We will not be suspending our critical faculties, and we will certainly be exercising our wit.

Whether it be an insight into the art market or an account of an international journey that goes far beyond the borders of the pedestrian, the Editor-in-Chief, Tina Gaudoin, and her team of Journal journalists will provide you with a magazine that is distinctive and distinguished. Look for WSJ. in your September 6 issue
of Weekend Edition. Once you’ve had a chance to read it, please send me
your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Robert Thomson
Managing Editor
The Wall Street Journal
Editor-in-Chief
Dow Jones & Company
r.thomson@dowjones.com

In super tiny print at the bottom of the letter head it read: “A second issue of WSJ. will appear in December 2008. WSJ. is available in select geographic markets to subscribers who receive Saturday delivery of The Wall Street Journal and on newsstands.”

On page A7 on the Saturday/Sunday issue there was a small 1.5″ high box two columns wide.
The copy read: WSJ. Magazine Preview: Gov. Sarah Palin, John McCain’s pick for the Republican vice-president spot, talks about her workout and fitness routine. Go to WSJ.com/Lifestyle”. There’s also a square photo of what one would assume is Ms. Palin running along a lake.

While reading this letter over my morning coffee a series of machine gun thoughts began to ricochet around the kitchen:

1 – For those of you who didn’t already notice, this new publication is called WSJ. Not sure if that’s “WSJ period” or “WSJ dot” or “WSJ something else”. Shouldn’t that be clear?

2 – Why would the brand widely known as WSJ – even their web address is WSJ.com – start a new brand called WSJ.? What overpaid genius decided that the best way to establish a new brand is to begin with a cloud of instant confusion?

3 – “…but the content of the magazine will highlight a different side of our and your personalities.” LOL, so different that the name is different too, eh? By a dot/period.

4 – What exactly does “masthead’s punctuation mirrors that of the newspaper” mean? Why is Mr. Thomson speaking in publishing industry jargon? How is that going to help this communication?

5 – “We will not be suspending our critical faculties, and we will certainly be exercising our wit.” Joke #2? Or is interviewing the woman who could very well end up being one heartbeat away from being Commander-in-Chief about her workout and fitness routine considered to be “critical”?

6 – In the letter there’s no mention of an specific web site or sub-portal within the established WSJ site. We’re coming up on 2009 and they’re rolling out an information/entertainment source and don’t make any mention of web presence?

7 – Why the ultra small print? Why hide those details? Why not just say, “For more details please check out www.WJS.com/WJDdot”?

8 – While we certainly realize the WSJ is about as business as business gets, and that Mr. Thomson is an editor but can this letter get any more dull? If there’s something to be interested in and/or excited about – like Ms. Palin views on Iraq, the falling dollar, etc? – it’s not coming through in this copy. With a debut like this will the advertisers really care?

One more from the WSJ: “It’s All About The Lighting” by Robert Lee Hotz.

1 – Could this be why we seem to be losing our ability to reach for the stars?

2 – Not only does this indicate an increase in lighting but it can also be seen as an increases in power consumption (i.e., more lights,  more power). If we were still able to reach for the stars maybe we could imagine how much energy could be saved if we were able to conserve and cut back just 10% of this figure. It is certainly seems sad that this is the world we are leaving to the next generations. It’s ironic how an innovation like the light bulb might actually be stifling future creativity.

Another from the WSJ, “Productive Brainstorms Take The Right Mix of Elements” written by Kelly K. Spors.

It certainly is interesting and we all agree that innovation is important, especially in today’s business environment. However, it seems as if this article might be an infomercial. If you notice there is no reference to success stories. There is no, “We used to do it this other way but now that we do it this way and we able to produce more, better, etc.”

At the risk of sounding like a glass-half-empty critic but there is just too much information here that is presented as “facts” when it’s much closer to opinion, theory and/or random happening.  The truth is, the people involved are more important than the structure of the process. But then again, isn’t that the case of any really successful company, project, campaign, effort, etc.?