Originally Posted by
dalehill
Yes, quite possibly semantics, but then again, semantics are part and parcel to marketing. If the meaning of “loyalty” has morphed to simply mean ”brand preference”, then what happens if the product/brand (Crest toothpaste or Fords or whatever) is no longer preferable? Would you pay $20 for a tube of Crest out of loyalty? Or keep buying Fords regardless of quality or price or reliability?
The use of the word “loyalty” in marketing is an attempt to convince us to keep buying Fords even if it turns out there are better, more reliable, more stylish, more comfortable, more affordable vehicles available elsewhere.
But more to the point, I was responding to the idea that “loyalty” should be a 2-way street, and I think it generally should be, but to get angry at a huge corporation like DL when they don’t show loyalty is, in my opinion, misunderstanding the difference between a rewards program and loyalty. Semantics, yes, but DL owes me no loyalty, imho, for attaining PL. It only owes me the rewards promised to PL.
I think many people would make purchase decisions based solely on loyalty, more than one might think. I think this is true despite other factors such as price, reliability ect. Many purchase decisions are far more emotional than logical, so we agree that it is a marketing ploy to capitalize on that behavior.
But I understand your point better now, indeed in the context of business loyalty is only as good as the contract behind it as far as what is owed between parties.