Consumers still want loyalty, rewards, and digital value. Weak engagement is not a demand problem. It is a delivery problem.

The loyalty industry has a comfortable explanation for softening engagement: fatigue. Consumers are enrolled in too many programs, exposed to too many offers, and no longer motivated enough to participate.

It is a tidy diagnosis. It is also wrong.

Antavo’s 2026 data shows that 43.2% of consumers are more likely to join a loyalty program than they were a year earlier, and 65.9% say loyalty programs are now part of their lives. A market in retreat does not produce numbers like those.

The attainability data tells the story directly. Antavo found that 49.1% of consumers say rewards take too long to earn, and 41.1% say rewards expire before they can be used. More than a quarter of points earned — 27% — go unspent. Another 12% expire in programs that use expiration rules. But the most telling figure is this: 74% of members quietly quit after two months, slipping into inactivity while keeping their membership. Only 3.4% actively opt out. The delivery is broken.

The consumer logic behind this is more practical than the industry often admits. The same research found that 70.8% join loyalty programs for money-saving benefits — coupons, vouchers, cashback. Free products and services matter to 46.3%, and personalised offers to 41.6%. Only 15.1% cite VIP treatment and conveniences.

The dominant expectation is not prestige. It is usable value. And usable value, by definition, requires a system that makes use easy.

That is where the industry’s real problem becomes visible. Friction in loyalty is not just a bad interface. It is long earning cycles, expiring balances, awkward onboarding, inconvenient apps, and disconnected touchpoints.

Comarch’s 2026 research puts numbers on it: 32% of consumers cite long or difficult onboarding as the main obstacle to participation, 28% abandon because of inconvenient apps. The real issue is not which channel wins. It is whether recognition and value remain accessible as the consumer moves between them. When they do not, the system loses the member quietly — not through active rejection, but through accumulated inconvenience.

Gaming is useful here as a reference point for loyalty — not as a novelty comparison, but as a mature commercial category already dealing with the same underlying problem at scale. Gaming is no longer a niche activity. Newzoo says 85% of consumers engage with games in some way, 80% play them, and more than 90% of Gen Alpha and Gen Z engage with games.

The global games market is forecast at more than $188 billion in 2025, with mobile alone accounting for about $103 billion. For younger consumers in particular, gaming is woven into everyday life — and many of the same consumers brands are trying to retain through loyalty are spending significant time inside digital entertainment environments where value is immediate, visible, and continuously reinforced.

What makes gaming directly relevant to this argument is where its growth now comes from. Growth is no longer mainly about finding more players. It is about deeper monetisation of the ones already there. Players increasingly expect fairness, transparency, and value-for-money. How a company monetises now matters more than whether it can acquire.

That shift should sound familiar to any loyalty operator. The challenge is no longer reach. It is how effectively existing attention, stored value, and user identity are carried forward and converted into ongoing engagement.

This is the deeper overlap between the two fields. Loyalty and gaming are increasingly serving the same broad consumer population, and both are being shaped by the same shift in expectations. Gaming has largely solved the problem loyalty is still struggling with. The industry learned, through direct commercial consequence, that engagement dies when value is invisible, distant, or hard to reach — and rebuilt its product philosophy around making progress legible, reward continuous, and the path from participation to payoff as short as possible.

Consumers now spend more of their lives inside digital systems that train them to expect value to be immediate, legible, and portable. When loyalty still asks them to wait too long, restart too often, or tolerate too much dead value, the system starts to look weaker than it really is — not because the proposition is wrong, but because the delivery fails the expectation the broader digital environment has set.

The strongest loyalty programs will not be the ones with the largest enrolled bases or the most elaborate reward catalogues. They will be the ones that shorten the distance between interest and use.

The enrolled base is already there. The demand is already there. What the data consistently shows is that the system is losing people between the moment of interest and the moment of felt reward.

Consumers have not stopped wanting value. What they are rejecting is the effort required to reach it.

That is not fatigue. It is friction.

About the Author