The database is getting bigger, but the relationship may be getting thinner
Mi-3 reports that Australians are joining more loyalty programs while paying attention to fewer of them, creating swollen member databases that can look healthy on a dashboard but hide weak engagement underneath. Quantum Jump CEO Ben Goodale and Australian general manager Rachel Wintle argue that the next loyalty contest will not be about enrolling more customers, but about earning active attention through tangible value, better customer data and personalisation that feels useful rather than intrusive.
That distinction matters for brand NFT teams because Web3 membership can easily repeat the same old mistake in shinier packaging. If the offer is simply “join, connect, claim, get a discount,” we have not built a community; we have rebuilt a coupon file with more friction. The value exchange has to be visible quickly: clearer access, better service, moments that feel earned, and rewards that match what the member actually wants.
Mi-3 cites Adam Posner’s For Love or Money survey, which found that 93% of Australians are members of at least one loyalty program. But the same reporting says consumers are trimming participation, with average memberships falling to their lowest level in a decade. Gen Z is described as disengaging fastest, with average memberships dropping from 5.0 to 3.5 programs since 2022. That is a loud signal: younger customers are not rejecting loyalty outright; they are rejecting loyalty that feels generic, forgettable or one-sided.
Bad data turns “personalisation” into noise
The most practical point in the report is also the least glamorous: broken data breaks the customer journey. Goodale gives the example of different franchise stores using different point-of-sale systems and product codes, leaving the central business without a consistent record of what customers had bought. In plain English, the brand may think it knows the customer, but its systems are speaking different dialects.
For loyalty leaders, that is where the friction starts. If the purchase history is messy, the next offer is likely to be lazy. If the preference data is incomplete, “personalisation” becomes guesswork with a mail merge. Mi-3 notes that, according to the For Love or Money study, almost two-thirds of members believe brands already have enough data, yet only 40% regularly receive relevant offers.
That gap is especially important in NFT-based membership. Tokens can help with access, status, collectability and portable identity, but they do not magically clean a retailer’s data stack. If the underlying customer record is fragmented, a token-gated campaign may still deliver the wrong perk to the wrong person at the wrong time. The technology can make the moment feel more premium, but it cannot rescue a weak proposition.
AI raises the stakes: relevance or “supercharged creepiness”
Goodale and Wintle also point to generative AI as a tool that could sharpen loyalty personalisation — or scale bad assumptions. That phrase should make every marketing team pause. AI can help brands tailor messages, offers and experiences more quickly, but if the inputs are poor, the output simply becomes faster, more confident irrelevance.
The risk is not only annoying customers. It is teaching them that the brand is watching without understanding. That is where personalisation crosses from helpful to intrusive: the offer feels oddly specific, but not meaningfully useful. For membership programs, especially those built around community building and access, trust is the asset we cannot afford to spend casually.
The practical move now is to audit the experience before adding another layer of automation. Which members are active, not just enrolled? Which rewards are genuinely used? Where does customer data become inconsistent between stores, channels or systems? And if you are using NFTs or token-gated benefits, ask the same question in simpler language: does this make the member’s life easier, more enjoyable or more valuable — or does it just give us another segment to target?
The loyalty battle Mi-3 describes is not anti-technology. It is anti-complacency. The brands that win will be the ones that treat attention as something to earn repeatedly, not something captured forever at sign-up.