Cycling commentators like to quip that the individual time trial is a “race of truth”. In other words there’s no place to hide as the man and machine face off against the clock.

The winner of the most recent edition of the Tour de France was decided on the final day in such a race, as Cadel Evans scorched his rivals and took the overall Yellow Jersey with the second best time of the day. Australia’s first overall Tour de France victor was undeniably better on this day – the truth was told.

Building a brand is much like a “race of truth”. Consumers are either for you or against you. And, there are only so many brands that stand out in today’s market evoking emotional response and nearly blind loyalty from their customers.

Starbucks, Apple, Coca-Cola, Facebook are brands that generate passion. Visa, MasterCard and Google register tremendous awareness but don’t necessarily conjure up “passionate” responses. I worked for Visa in the past and can attest to the fact that many consumers don’t understand the brand. I still get questions from friends asking if I can help fix their credit card problems! That of course is a matter between the issuing bank and the cardholder, not the domain of Visa/MasterCard.

Some brands are strong regionally but invisible outside their core market. Grocers Wegmans and Publix come to mind as do coffee chains Dunkin Donuts and Tim Horton’s. Dunkin is apparently embarking on national expansion, so the name may become more familiar across the U.S. soon.

Borders had a brand that was high profile, but became fuzzy. Some say that the lack of focus led to eroding customer loyalty and ultimately, the chain’s demise. You can read one assessment of Border’s failure here. IMHO, I’m not sure Barnes & Noble is doing a much better job in creating a brand that consumers care about – they just happen to be the last chain standing in the book-selling category.

Luxury brands drive customer loyalty through aspirational messaging, exclusivity, and, if backed up with customer experience that reinforces the brand, are sustainable. Nieman Marcus, Coach, Cartier, Tiffany are all brands that speak for themselves.

Some brands equate ubiquity with success. I wore Nike shoes in my early cross country days but my love of the swoosh waned as I saw the logo plastered on everything from golf balls to swim suits. Under Armour adopted the same approach from the starting gate as their logos seems to show up everywhere.

Does brand saturation create confidence or invite a suspicion of quality?

The brands that trigger emotion and sustain it over time seem to be highly focused. NorthFace and Patagonia have created aspirational brands among the outdoor and adventure travel set. I’m just waiting to see which one introduces the Bear Grylls line first!

Ironman has built a brand that oozes passion, commitment, aspiration, desire. Please write me if you know of another organization that sells out nearly every event it operates one year in advance, registering 2,000 people at the exorbitant price of $625, all for the privilege of torturing themselves through a 140.6 mile race.

With the ever expanding presence of the Ironman brand, it runs the same risk as Nike and Under Armour. The ubiquity of brand impressions in the market dilutes the core message to “best” customers and opens the door for competitors. As Ironman attempts to consolidate its hold on the endurance sport market, new race series have sprung up, most notably the HITS series using 6 time winner Dave Scott as spokesperson.

The importance of brand understanding for Loyalty Marketers is that we have to maintain perspective on the power of our brands to engage customers before any incentives are introduced. Every market is competitive and we need to study the range of customer choice in the market and understand the limits of impact for our loyalty strategies.

Organizations should adopt a holistic approach towards building loyalty strategy. Brand understanding is critical to crafting the value proposition that will complement core branding messages and further solidify relationships with our customers.

I recently shared a story in the Toronto Globe & Mail about how Canadian parents would rather talk with their children about sex, drugs or alcohol than money.

Sometimes when I talk with stakeholders responsible for loyalty program operations, I get the feeling that the question draining their complexion is not far from that mark. “Who pays for Loyalty?” is a simple question that can cause discomfort and spark lengthy discussion.

My first boss (just a few rungs up) was Hugh McColl, the ex-marine who built North Carolina National Bank (NCNB)into a regional powerhouse and set it on a course to become what is now Bank of America.  Mr. McColl taught me a lot and had a famous way to simplify the evaluation of a company’s commercial credit risk. In the middle of heated debates about which ratios should be included in a financial analysis to see if some Fortune 100 customer was able to handle a loan under consideration, Mr. McColl would remind us that “all loans have to be paid back from cash, somehow, sometime.”

This pure logic should be remembered by retailers as they push harder to lower interchange rates for card transactions. As the rush to meet implementation deadlines for the Credit Card Act of 2009 dwindles, attention is turning once again to interchange. A good take on the current debate can be found in this article.

The question before many loyalty sponsors today is actually closer to “How can I pay less for Loyalty points?” The behavior of card issuing banks responsible for loyalty programs during this recession speak loudly that reducing cost is high priority. The changes to program rules to hasten forfeiture of points or miles, added fees for redemption, and additional points needed to redeem rewards have all been applied in well known rewards programs over the past several months.

Funding the cost of loyalty can be borne by one party or shared by partners.  How the breakage of those points is shared influences how each party manages program rules and drives more (or less) breakage. In some pay-for-performance models where participating merchants fund rewards to debit card holders from their banking partner, breakage is not a critical issue for either party.

• The bank, typically paying out rewards as a cash back account credit, is not too concerned about the nearly “100% redemption rate” occurring since the retailer is footing the bill.

• Fortunately, the retailer is able to offset its expense with incremental sales earned, all of which is accomplished by a lower than average give-away (10% cash back equivalent versus 40% markdown).

Some people have tried to paint this “merchant funded” model as banks taking advantage of retailers, but I disagree. Intelligent targeting that drives incremental sales and reduces the retailer’s reliance on discounting, while delivering increased card spend at lower cost to the bank is a win-win for all parties.  With retailers papering the walls with “40% off everything in store” signs just to get consumer attention, funding the equivalent of a 10% cash back in points is an attractive alternative.

In my opinion, the renewed emphasis on legislating interchange rates is the red-herring of the year. Yes, MasterCard, Visa, and American Express have a lock on the acceptance network at the retailer. But any perceived threat of monopoly can be balanced with understanding that merchant sales increase when cards are accepted. The cost is high, but at this point, the opportunity cost  is unacceptable.

It is entirely reasonable that business wants to reduce cost, and here’s the lowest hanging fruit – train front-line personnel to stop asking customers if they want “debit or credit” and encourage them to enter their PIN for debit transactions. Consumers really don’t care how they use their card as long as the purchase is completed and there are significant cost reductions to be enjoyed by a continuing shift to PIN based purchases.

If the focus remains instead on reducing credit card interchange rates, card issuers will see a key driver of the rewards business case in jeopardy and could shut down the rewards nozzle even tighter. If cash is not available from the banks, if rewards cards were to go away all together (they won’t), retailers would be left to subsidize their own loyalty marketing efforts without the prospect of shared funding from another source. Private label cards are probably not a holistic answer as consumers have spoken that they want more utility from their payment devices and are only willing to carry the cards with highest utility in their wallets.

In a world without card based loyalty, retailers would be left one tool short of a solid toolbox. Breaking the cycle of discounts and endless sales will be increasingly difficult and consumers will be further trained to wait for the greatest discounts before “footfall” occurs in store.

Here’s the best part: consumers don’t care who pays for loyalty. They want the utility of their payment card, want to earn rewards, and want the best price with good quality from the items purchased in store. I would not want to be retail executive who puts a huge dent in interchange and, while celebrating a temporary victory, watches revenues shrink as the alternatives to ever growing rounds of discounts and pure price competition are diminished.

The visual image I leave you with is Leon Lett getting the ball knocked out of his hands just before he crosses the goal line and is denied his touchdown by Don Beebe on a play that should have led to a massive celebration.

PS: That play might be the only highlight for the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXVII

In the beginning, there was Air Miles. Actually, according to history, it was three men in a room that started Air Miles.

According to Air Miles corporate history, Keith Mills wasn’t one of those three guys, but somehow later it was Sir Keith Mills that sowed the seeds of the Air Miles brand and business model across continental Europe. Eventually, Sir Keith helped to found Nectar, the successful coalition loyalty program based in the UK.

There is a passage in Exodus when God tells Abraham that “I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.”  I am tempted to make a tongue-in-cheek analogy between Abraham and Sir Keith, though the family tree is becoming quite muddled at this point in time and the coming battle between Air Miles and Groupe Aeroplan will ensure that no-one’s inheritances comes easily.

Aeroplan, the spin-off of Air Canada’s frequent flyer program, has not been satisfied to improve its core business, but has set about acquiring loyalty schemes around the world, the most notable of which, until yesterday, being Nectar. Air Miles, to its credit, has apparently been eyeing expansion opportunities and recently announced that it has made a 29% investment in Dotz, the evolving coalition program in Brazil.

Yesterday, Aeroplan announced its planned acquisition of Carlson Marketing. It is not completely clear what the US$188 Million price tag purchased, but presumably Aeroplan has just strengthened it capabilities in offering a complete processing and operational solution for the large companies it is seeking as potential clients. It has also significantly added to its strategic planning abilities assuming that Peppers & Rogers is included in the deal.

The announcement will get the attention of the Air Miles folks in Toronto and its subsidiaries LoyaltyOne & Colloquy will increasingly feel competition in a sandbox that was nearly their own to play in until now. Half the residents of St. Louis will stay awake at night as well as Maritz, MasterCard and others seeking the crown of “leading loyalty solutions providers”  find themselves up against stiff competition and deep pockets.

What is means for the rest of the industry will be sorted out over the coming months. One message that is clear is that there is money to be made in Loyalty Marketing, especially if you are the owner of a currency that becomes valued by consumers and is traded widely.

There is also that the likelihood that consolidation will breed greater need for independent viewpoint, analysis and recommendation. Corporate executives making decisions with long term financial implications would be well served to evaluate the source of their advice.

Aeroplan and Air Miles trace their roots back to the same family tree in many ways. Let’s see what kind of family feud will brew now that Aeroplan has upped the ante of the game.

In the beginning, there was Air Miles. Actually, according to history, it was three men in a room that started Air Miles.

According to Air Miles corporate history, Keith Mills wasn’t one of those three guys, but somehow later it was Sir Keith Mills that sowed the seeds of the Air Miles brand and business model across continental Europe. Eventually, Sir Keith helped to found Nectar, the successful coalition loyalty program based in the UK.

There is a passage in Exodus when God tells Abraham that “I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.”  I am tempted to make a tongue-in-cheek analogy between Abraham and Sir Keith, though the family tree is becoming quite muddled at this point in time and the coming battle between Air Miles and Groupe Aeroplan will ensure that no-one’s inheritances comes easily.

Aeroplan, the spin-off of Air Canada’s frequent flyer program, has not been satisfied to improve its core business, but has set about acquiring loyalty schemes around the world, the most notable of which, until yesterday, being Nectar. Air Miles, to its credit, has apparently been eyeing expansion opportunities and recently announced that it has made a 29% investment in Dotz, the evolving coalition program in Brazil.

Yesterday, Aeroplan announced its planned acquisition of Carlson Marketing. It is not completely clear what the US$188 Million price tag purchased, but presumably Aeroplan has just strengthened it capabilities in offering a complete processing and operational solution for the large companies it is seeking as potential clients. It has also significantly added to its strategic planning abilities assuming that Peppers & Rogers is included in the deal.

The announcement will get the attention of the Air Miles folks in Toronto and its subsidiaries LoyaltyOne & Colloquy will increasingly feel competition in a sandbox that was nearly their own to play in until now. Half the residents of St. Louis will stay awake at night as well as Maritz, MasterCard and others seeking the crown of “leading loyalty solutions providers”  find themselves up against stiff competition and deep pockets.

What is means for the rest of the industry will be sorted out over the coming months. One message that is clear is that there is money to be made in Loyalty Marketing, especially if you are the owner of a currency that becomes valued by consumers and is traded widely.

There is also that the likelihood that consolidation will breed greater need for independent viewpoint, analysis and recommendation. Corporate executives making decisions with long term financial implications would be well served to evaluate the source of their advice.

Aeroplan and Air Miles trace their roots back to the same family tree in many ways. Let’s see what kind of family feud will brew now that Aeroplan has upped the ante of the game.

There are some things that people just can’t live without these days. The mobile phone tops the list and, depending on your age and demographic, is closely followed by the Blackberry, iPod, Instant Messaging service, or Xbox 360.

Fortunately for bankers, the 7.16 square inches of plastic known as a credit or debit card is high on the list as well. Each of the associations has contributed to reinforce the importance of payment plastic in our lives. American Express implanted the enduring message “don’t leave home without it”. MasterCard successfully reminds us that their card is “Priceless”, while Visa punctuates the importance of cards by shouting “Life takes Visa”.

Once universal acceptance was established and association brands gained global recognition, it was the rewards business that propelled cards to their next phase of development. Though there is a card for everyone, reward cards continue to capture the highest levels of consumer attention and drive profitability for issuers.

Don’t believe me? Then hear what Visa, Tower Group and McKinsey have to say:

• A 2005 Visa study reported that 50% of all general purpose cards offered rewards in the US market and accounted for 77% of all purchases.

• The Tower Group reported that ““Reward programs may be a lifesaver for an industry experiencing a 0.3% response rate to card-acquisition letters and long-term threats from new technology such as cell-phone payments”

• McKinsey provided more evidence with this comment: “Loyal customers typically generate 30 – 70% more value than run-of-the-mill clients do”

This body of evidence for card rewards has a dark side. It exists in the strong sense of entitlement for rewards by most cardholders and the lack of differentiation in card reward program structure in the market today. The question is, where do we go from here?

To establish leadership in the issuing business, 4 key questions must be answered:

• How can the rewards game be played at lower cost?

• How can program liability be better managed?

• Can rewards currency be used to achieve multiple goals beyond retention?

• Is there life after “points”, and how will the next wave of innovation take form?

Answers to these questions are complex. To merely focus on cost control may jeopardize cardholder perception of the value proposition. The industry is in desperate need of true innovation and fortunately some answers are in sight. Current attention getting trends include Relationship Banking and Merchant Funded rewards programs. Successful examples of each concept are in evidence though relationship banking has yet to promulgate through the industry and merchant funded rewards programs need further evolution.

Not yet on the radar is a rewards structure that will solidly engage the 80 million Americans known as Generation Y (the Millennials). Social networking and viral concepts including the patent pending “Xcelerator” might hold answers for the industry to break the code with younger consumers, but market trial is needed for validation.

One key to creating true innovation might be to set aside the traditional “product launch” mindset and approach the business from a consumer/cardholder viewpoint. Granted that many card marketers might discard this comment as dated, but if that’s so, why don’t we see the tree bearing fruit?

As example, I was on the ground in 2002 when the first Relationship Banking program was launched in North America. Despite the success of that program, I have not seen independent research indicating that offering rewards across multiple products will significantly change consumer opinion of their financial institution. In other words, are we creating products that enamor industry practitioners while we miss the mark with our customers? Are we even sure that consumers desire a relationship with their bank or will service, trust, and advocacy define brand loyalty in banking?

The card rewards race will continue to intensify and the issuers which emerge to capture market share will be those committed to pursuit of true innovation and have their ears tuned to the customer drumbeat.

Bill Hanifin