We had a story the other day about a new law being proposed in Congress – with, apparently, bipartisan support – that would require companies to report AI-related job losses.
I commented:
I don’t get a vote, but you can mark me down as an enthusiastic supporter of this legislation. Not just because I believe in corporate transparency, but because the broader impact of AI on the economy, and the devastation it could bring to communities around the country if we’re not vigilant, needs to be exposed to sunlight. I’ve said it before – I have no confidence in the mendacious, avaricious executives who run the AI companies and who don’t much care about the societal impact of the technologies they develop. And I fear that they will seduce other executives into accepting their solutions without concern about the long-term impacts. There may be little anyone can do about that. But let’s at least force them to be transparent.
One MNB reader responded:
Imagine you are part of a mainstream grocery retailer that has suffered sales declines of -2.5% for the last three years, and now in 2026 the forecasting team is being reduced because AI can do a lot of the forecasting tasks. Do you really blame AI for that layoff? Or do you blame the retailer for no growth for the past three years? This legislation will do nothing but impose costs on business with no benefit for consumers.
If the legislation established a floor in terms of the size of the companies that have to report AI-related job losses, I’d probably be okay with that.
I don’t think we’re just talking about consumer benefits here. I also think we’re talking about information that should be available to investors and shareholders.
But as a consumer, I’d also like the option of knowing AI-related policies of the companies that I patronize.
The interactive ad agency Razorfish came out with a new study on the nature of loyalty, making the observation that while marketers tend to believe that loyalty comes from emotional devotion, which they presumably nurture through a variety of means, in fact loyalty is “driven by far more practical factors – convenience, product performance, and situational need.”
I commented:
I would question whether this is true across-the-board. I’d be willing to bet, for example, that love is more critical to people’s loyalty to Dorothy Lane Market or Central Market or Stew Leonard’s than convenience – people love those retail brands so much that they’ll go out of their way to get there. Same for non-retail brands such as Apple – we pay more because we love the brand.
But Amazon? I think it is fair to say that I am loyal to Amazon because it is the ultimate in convenience. Not because I love it.
In fact, I think some of the study’s assertions are being challenged and proven these days, as brands sometimes behave in ways that even their most loyal customers find distressing. Sometimes, love is tested. Brand loyalty has its limits.
MNB reader Howard Schneider wrote:
Brand loyalty is a nuanced, complex spectrum that runs from fanatical brand love to radical convenience, to inertia and barriers to switching. Any number of factors drive loyal behavior, and customer / brand relationships are as diverse as customers themselves.
Yes, many brands confuse convenience-driven habit with brand devotion, and too many marketers deceive themselves about why consumers act the way they do. The fact is few brands will ever achieve the kind of emotional loyalty that Stew Leonard’s or Apple enjoy.
Loyalty programs that provide relevant experiences and deliver real value, remain powerful drivers of long-term, profitable relationships. A real-world example is the programs that unite supermarket giants like Kroger and Albertsons to fuel brands Shell and Chevron respectively. I would suggest that few consumers “love” Safeway or Chevron, but those programs are quite effective at driving loyal behavior.
From another reader:
As you know I have been doing market analysis for over forty years (still can’t believe I just wrote that LOL) and from my days at Malone and Hyde and Piggly Wiggly, to thirty years with Food City supermarkets along with a concurrent decade plus long stint on the defunct(?) FMI Consumer Market Research Committee working on the bench mark Trends study the categories of: Convenience – Home; Store Cleanliness and Perishable Quality has always been the table stakes for a successful supermarket operation. There will always be unique operators such as Dorothy Lane, Wegmans and Stew’s that break this mold, but the fundamental blocking and tackling of the basic supermarket business model are the factors noted above. Other factors are important, don’t get me wrong, but my review of over 1 million consumer surveys over the years (can’t believe I just said that either but I checked my math) factors such as food service, unique variety selection, etc. drive variations in the above premise but do not supersede the above premise. The above is the reason why, almost fifty years after its basic development, gravity modeling still is the best way to forecast supermarket sales for a new, or expanded, location (Of course I could be a bit prejudiced on that last statement being a gravity grunt. but as folks tend to like to say nowadays “Prove me wrong” LOL.)
Before anyone raises up and says “What about price!?!” Yes, price is a critical factor, in fact a driving factor for about 20% of consumers in any given market, but price is relative to one’s competition…it’s kind of like being the skinniest person in fat camp, if the entire market is high priced, the lowest high priced operator will have the best price image.
No criticism to you, I’m glad you mentioned the study, but I am amused that this is being presented somewhat as something of a revelation. What is old is new again.
MNB reader John Hennessy wrote:
You’re mistaking love for excellent execution of the soft benefits the study cites. Too many loyalty programs expect loyalty. They deliver the bare minimum to their loyal customers. Many require those “loyal” customers to jump through hoops to prove their loyalty.
The retailers you listed deliver loyalty. Proactively. Across multiple soft and hard benefits.
That change in the direction of loyalty from retailer or any company to customer makes a big difference in the depth of that loyalty. It’s not love, it’s loyalty that’s earned.
I am, unfortunately, an infrequent guest of the retailers you list. I seek them out when I am able because of their consistent execution focused on the customer experience. Not love.
From MNB reader Margaret Mittelstadt:
Consumers enjoy convenience. It’s handy. Non-committal. Consumers love what they trust. Requires a little more work. That’s earned loyalty. If brand loyalty takes a nosedive, what happened to lose that trust? Looking at you, Target, Tesla.
And MNB reader Mark Heckman wrote:
Absolutely, you nailed the distinction.
True loyalty—the kind that makes someone choose Nordstrom even when Zappos is cheaper, or book the same boutique hotel in Charleston year after year—is emotional, almost irrational. It’s forged in moments: the sales associate who remembered your name after one visit, the front-desk manager who upgraded you “just because,” the steak that always arrives exactly medium-rare with the perfect char. That’s not a program; that’s a relationship.
Loyalty programs, on the other hand, are transactional by design. They only work when the friction is near-zero and the payoff feels disproportionate to the effort. Southwest Airlines is a decent example of one such program for me because it is simple enough to participate and the rewards are transparent and worthwhile.
I have learned the hard way as someone that has managed loyalty programs—that most fail because they add complexity instead of removing it.
We took note of stories earlier this week about how Starbucks has a new, limited-edition cup for the holiday season, shaped like a bear and wearing a green Starbucks beanie.” Apparently, fights were breaking out among customers over the limited inventory, which led me to comment:
Proof positive that America is filled with stupid, greedy, myopic people. Fighting over a glass cup? Really? There are a lot of things in this world worth fighting over, but this ain’t one of them.
The Wall Street Journal quotes one person as saying that “my daughter will divorce me” if she doesn’t get one of those cups. Well, maybe that parent should point out to the child that she doesn’t get to divorce her parents – that she is dependent on her parents for housing, clothing and food, and that she should be quiet and rethink her priorities. And then that parent ought to think about the values that have been instilled in that child, and consider whether the wrong messages are being sent.
There is nothing adorable about parents who behave like morons.
One MNB reader responded:
People were fighting over the Starbucks cup to be the first one to put it on ebay.
So they’re not just moronic, but greedy?
That makes it so much better.
And from another reader:
I’ve been subscribing to your newsletter for over 10 years now. I love your opinions and am usually thinking the same thing. So, I thought it was about time to send you a note to say, “thank you for all the work you do and helping me stay informed”. The thing that made me finally send you a note was your comments today about the fight over the Starbucks cup…
Thanks.
The post Your Views: AI Data, Loyalty, & A Cup More Than Half Empty appeared first on MNB.
View Original Article
