Virtual Incentives released initial research findings on September 19, 2016 suggesting that personalised rewards could improve brand consideration while also creating privacy concerns. The company said 56% of respondents expected a personalised incentive to improve their view of a brand, while one in four considered personalisation a privacy violation. [S01]

Interest does not remove the privacy question

The release also reported that 40% had received a personalised incentive and that one-third preferred a virtual gift card usable across merchants. Alter Agents designed and analysed the study, Voxpopme supplied video-response technology, and MindField Online provided programming and the sample. [S01]

Show data tableHide data table

Scroll left or right to see all columns

Interest does not remove the privacy question
Finding in the initial release	Reported share
Had received a personalised incentive	40%
Expected personalisation to improve brand consideration	56%
Viewed personalisation as a privacy violation	25%

These measures describe different questions and should not be added together. They concern reported experience or stated attitudes, not observed changes in spending. A favourable response about a personalised reward does not establish that the respondent bought more or became a more loyal customer.

The original infographic separately reported that 61% felt respected as a customer, while 24% would distrust a company offering a personalised incentive. The distrust measure is distinct from the one-in-four privacy-violation statement in the release; neither pair should be treated as exhaustive opposing responses. [S01]

Source

Virtual Incentives original September 19 infographic

Exact wording and whether responses were exclusive are not disclosed. Do not infer an unreported 15% remainder. These are attitudes, not observed trust or purchasing changes.

Show data tableHide data table

Scroll left or right to see all columns

Reported trust responses to personalisation (%)
Category	Respondents
Feel respected and business wanted	61%
Would distrust offering company	24%

Two decisions inside one reward

The findings separate the choice of reward from the information used to select or present it. A recipient may value a broadly usable card while still objecting to a message that exposes an unexpected amount of personal knowledge. The commercial attraction of relevance therefore comes with a design question: what makes the recognition feel appropriate to the person receiving it?

For programme operators, the practical issue is how to explain the connection between the customer’s action and the reward. A clear reason for an incentive can make the offer understandable. Additional personal detail does not automatically improve that explanation, and a higher stated preference cannot establish a causal business return.

The release described purchase history as the preferred basis for personalisation for 63%, compared with purchase location for 24% and use of a name for 23%. These reported categories are not an exclusive division of respondents. The accompanying graphic uses purchase-likelihood wording for the history measure, reinforcing the need to avoid interpreting the figures as measured sales effects. [S01]

Source

Virtual Incentives September 19 release

Categories sum to 110% and are not exclusive shares. The full questionnaire is unavailable; the infographic uses conditional purchase-likelihood wording for purchase history. No causal sales effect is established.

Show data tableHide data table

Scroll left or right to see all columns

Personalisation bases reported in the release (%)
Category	Respondents
Purchase history	63%
Purchase location	24%
Use of name	23%

An initial release with methodological limits

The published announcement did not give a sample size, fieldwork dates, question-level bases or weighting information. It described the findings as the first release from the study and said a fuller paper would follow. [S01] A December 14 account by study designer Alter Agents identifies US adults with incentive experience and a 15-minute survey including video responses, but still gives no numeric sample or weighting details. [S03] Those omissions prevent calculation of confidence intervals or a reliable assessment of population representativeness.

The figures are therefore best read as reported findings from a 2016 industry study. They identify a tension for reward design, while providing no basis for treating the percentages as current consumer benchmarks. The initial announcement documents that discussion at the time; it does not establish how attitudes subsequently changed.

Source

Virtual Incentives original September 19 infographic

Stated expectations, not observed changes or current consumer benchmarks. Sample size and question base remain undisclosed, so uncertainty and representativeness cannot be quantified.

Show data tableHide data table

Scroll left or right to see all columns