<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: IPSOS &#8211; There&#8217;s no &#8220;P&#8221; in Loyalty?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.hanifinloyalty.com/2009/06/25/ipsos-theres-no-p-in-loyalty.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.hanifinloyalty.com/2009/06/25/ipsos-theres-no-p-in-loyalty.html</link>
	<description>Straight talk and opinion about Customer Strategy, Loyalty Marketing, and Measurable Marketing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:27:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Twitted by billhanifin</title>
		<link>http://blog.hanifinloyalty.com/2009/06/25/ipsos-theres-no-p-in-loyalty.html/comment-page-1#comment-8940</link>
		<dc:creator>Twitted by billhanifin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:12:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hanifinloyalty.com/?p=1229#comment-8940</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was Twitted by billhanifin [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was Twitted by billhanifin [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa Stephens</title>
		<link>http://blog.hanifinloyalty.com/2009/06/25/ipsos-theres-no-p-in-loyalty.html/comment-page-1#comment-8939</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Stephens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:33:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hanifinloyalty.com/?p=1229#comment-8939</guid>
		<description>whew. 

“most company surveys wrongly define what constitutes a business’s most loyal, and thus desirable, customers”

First, with the preponderance of survey data available, how can the writer of the article attempt to qualify this statement as &quot;most&quot; without initially, defining an amount, and then, ascribing determinable information through qualified example... second, should a metric exist for such qualified example, the terms &quot;loyalty&quot; and &quot;desirability&quot; are exclusive from one another, so would be segregated in a prescribed metric... so,

Some customers are loyal, some customers are desirable, some customers are both, and then a determination would need be made with respect to timing; all customers fit all of these attributes, some of the time, if not all.

&amp;, also, 

“Why a Loyal Customer Isn’t Always a Profitable One” 

The title of the article, &amp; I&#039;m assuming, the writer&#039;s attempted thesis, adds another, and separate, dimension to the equation through the suggestion of &quot;profitability&quot; ... 

It seems the writer needs to brush up on some basic math before attempting to decide an industry&#039;s fate.

While I am not a loyalty marketer, I am a consumer of some of the services delivered through these programs, and, by definition, benefit through mutual relationship with such business providers.  Since my introduction to the industry of loyalty program marketers, I have a new-found appreciation and desire to protect these programs via awareness.

And, beyond that, all I gotta say is, you offer SO MUCH information in one article (blog post), as to make it absolutely impossible for one to respond, in a reasonably-responsible and concise way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>whew. </p>
<p>“most company surveys wrongly define what constitutes a business’s most loyal, and thus desirable, customers”</p>
<p>First, with the preponderance of survey data available, how can the writer of the article attempt to qualify this statement as &#8220;most&#8221; without initially, defining an amount, and then, ascribing determinable information through qualified example&#8230; second, should a metric exist for such qualified example, the terms &#8220;loyalty&#8221; and &#8220;desirability&#8221; are exclusive from one another, so would be segregated in a prescribed metric&#8230; so,</p>
<p>Some customers are loyal, some customers are desirable, some customers are both, and then a determination would need be made with respect to timing; all customers fit all of these attributes, some of the time, if not all.</p>
<p>&amp;, also, </p>
<p>“Why a Loyal Customer Isn’t Always a Profitable One” </p>
<p>The title of the article, &amp; I&#8217;m assuming, the writer&#8217;s attempted thesis, adds another, and separate, dimension to the equation through the suggestion of &#8220;profitability&#8221; &#8230; </p>
<p>It seems the writer needs to brush up on some basic math before attempting to decide an industry&#8217;s fate.</p>
<p>While I am not a loyalty marketer, I am a consumer of some of the services delivered through these programs, and, by definition, benefit through mutual relationship with such business providers.  Since my introduction to the industry of loyalty program marketers, I have a new-found appreciation and desire to protect these programs via awareness.</p>
<p>And, beyond that, all I gotta say is, you offer SO MUCH information in one article (blog post), as to make it absolutely impossible for one to respond, in a reasonably-responsible and concise way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bram Hechtkopf</title>
		<link>http://blog.hanifinloyalty.com/2009/06/25/ipsos-theres-no-p-in-loyalty.html/comment-page-1#comment-8937</link>
		<dc:creator>Bram Hechtkopf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:35:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hanifinloyalty.com/?p=1229#comment-8937</guid>
		<description>I appreciate the desire by the authors of the WSJ article to stir debate, namely to try to sell their book, but the article is lazy at best and misinformed at worst.  One of the main reasons loyalty programs have proven successful is because they are data-driven, focus on behavior change, and most importantly are measurable.  Companies or programs that don&#039;t focus on those elements are set up to fail.  That should have been the focus of the article.  Companies that claim to be in the &quot;loyalty&quot; game but don&#039;t actually design, implement and manage customer loyalty programs  should not be writing articles for the WSJ (nor should the WSJ be publishing them).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I appreciate the desire by the authors of the WSJ article to stir debate, namely to try to sell their book, but the article is lazy at best and misinformed at worst.  One of the main reasons loyalty programs have proven successful is because they are data-driven, focus on behavior change, and most importantly are measurable.  Companies or programs that don&#8217;t focus on those elements are set up to fail.  That should have been the focus of the article.  Companies that claim to be in the &#8220;loyalty&#8221; game but don&#8217;t actually design, implement and manage customer loyalty programs  should not be writing articles for the WSJ (nor should the WSJ be publishing them).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
