, ,

Free Loyalty Programs Get Sign-Ups—Paid Ones Get Spend

(New York, NY) Brand loyalty programs are popular with today’s cardholders, but free and paid offerings serve very different purposes. While free programs drive enrollment, paid programs encourage ongoing engagement, according to a recent issue of Auriemma Group’s Mobile Pay Tracker.

Over 8-in-10 credit cardholders (81%) are currently enrolled in at least one brand loyalty program, but enrollment alone tells only part of the story. Free programs champion enrollment, with 71% in a free program versus 45% in a paid program. Yet when it comes to likelihood of use over the next six months, paid programs dominate—Amazon Prime, Sam’s Club Plus, Walmart+, and Costco Executive Membership top the list of paid programs members plan to use.

The appetite for paid programs extends beyond current members. Over 7-in-10 cardholders say they would join a $50-per-year program offering free shipping, exclusive discounts, early access to sales, and members-only perks. Even 6-in-10 of those not enrolled in any loyalty program say the same. That willingness is grounded in what cardholders already value. Earning rewards on purchases, free or fast shipping, and access to exclusive discounts are the top motivators for joining a loyalty program—table stakes for a well-structured paid program.

Paid programs also move the needle for spending. Half of paid loyalty program enrollees say they spend more with the partner brand since joining, and only slightly fewer non-enrollees believe they would spend more if they did.

“Paid loyalty programs have a genuine engagement advantage over their free counterparts—members are more active, more likely to spend, and more committed to the brand,” says Jaclyn Holmes, Director of Research at Auriemma Group. “But that advantage only materializes when the value proposition is clear. Cardholders are telling us they need to feel confident they’ll use the benefits and that the cost is fair before they’ll commit to a fee.”

What keeps members in a paid program is the same thing that drives them out when it is missing—perceived value. 53% have cancelled a paid loyalty program, most often because the cost no longer felt worth it or because they simply were not using the benefits. Price sensitivity sharpens that dynamic further—62% are likely to enroll at $50 per year versus 52% at $100.

“Getting someone to sign up for a loyalty program is the easy part,” says Holmes. “Keeping them requires making sure the program’s value exceeds its cost.”

Survey Methodology

Mobile Pay Tracker

This Auriemma Group study was conducted online within the US by an independent field service provider on behalf of Auriemma Group (Auriemma) in July 2025 among 2,172 Mobile Pay (i.e., Apple Pay, Google Wallet, Samsung Wallet) eligible adult credit cardholders. The number of interviews completed for both is sufficient to allow for statistical significance testing among sub-groups at the 95% confidence level ±5%, unless otherwise noted. The purpose of the research was not disclosed, nor did respondents know the criteria for qualifying.

 

/by
, ,

Agentic AI Interest Exists, but Hinges on Whether Actions Feel Safe, Optional, and Reversible [Abstract]

Read more
/by
, ,

Premium Annual Fee Cards Must Work Harder to Prove Their Worth

(New York, NY) Premium credit cards continue to evolve, rolling out new perks, lifestyle credits, and expanded travel benefits to justify rising annual fees and attract high-value customers. The Chase Sapphire Reserve is the latest example, introducing refreshed dining and travel credits alongside a $795 annual fee. But do richer perks meaningfully offset higher costs? Auriemma Group’s latest issue of Cardbeat US finds that cardholders hold premium rewards cards to a high standard—and expect the value they deliver to clearly outweigh the price.

Premium annual fee cards remain a niche segment—over 4-in-10 credit cardholders hold an annual fee card, but only 12% carry a premium card priced at $300 or more. Among those who do, expectations climb steeply with the annual fee. Perks and benefits are the leading driver of acquisition, and cardholders expect them to scale with cost. For a card like the Chase Sapphire Reserve, that translates into a substantial value threshold: 25% of annual fee cardholders say it would need to provide $5,000 or more in value to justify its $795 price tag.

“Premium cardholders will pay more, but only when the math works,” says Jonathan O’Connor, Senior Manager of Research at Auriemma Group. “Issuers need to ensure their benefits program delivers multiples of the price tag, not just an incremental enhancement to existing products.”

Auriemma’s research found that 41% of credit cardholders are likely to apply for a card like the Chase Sapphire Reserve. Sign-up bonuses remain the most influential acquisition driver, followed by marketplace multipliers and the overall value of rewards, perks, credits, and memberships. Prestige and exclusivity can also heighten appeal, but the combination of immediate incentives and long-term earning potential ultimately drives adoption.

“A strong premium card program would include a mix of upfront credits and ongoing rewards,” says O’Connor. “Cards that present value both immediately and over time are best positioned to attract applicants, whereas over-indexing on either approach risks narrowing the audience.”

As premium card fees rise, the issuers that will stand out are those that make their value unmistakable. Clear, easy-to-use benefits, paired with rewards that scale meaningfully with spend, will determine which products resonate in an increasingly discerning market. As competition intensifies, premium cards must not only look compelling—they must prove their worth every day.

Survey Methodology

Cardbeat US

This Auriemma Group study was conducted online within the US by an independent field service provider on behalf of Auriemma Group (Auriemma) in September 2025 among 800 adult credit cardholders. The number of interviews completed for both is sufficient to allow for statistical significance testing among sub-groups at the 95% confidence level ±5%, unless otherwise noted. The purpose of the research was not disclosed, nor did respondents know the criteria for qualifying.

/by
, ,

BNPL Credit Reporting Poised to Reshape Payment Behaviors

(New York, NY) As major credit bureaus begin incorporating Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) data into their reporting systems, consumer payment behaviors are poised to shift—but only for those who are aware of the change. According to Auriemma Group’s latest issue of The Payments Report, over half (54%) of cardholders say BNPL credit reporting would influence whether they choose to pay with BNPL over a credit card—with more saying they’d lean toward credit cards (38%) than toward BNPL (16%).

This potential shift in preference is accompanied by changes in repayment behavior. One-third (34%) of BNPL users say they would prioritize paying off balances as quickly as possible if their activity were reported. Yet others would move away from BNPL altogether, with 6% saying they would stop using it. This dual reaction suggests that, for some, credit reporting doesn’t simply change payment methods—it alters their approach to debt management altogether.

Over 6-in-10 debit cardholders feel that BNPL providers should be reported to credit bureaus. However, Auriemma’s research found that over half worry that doing so will harm borrowers overall.

“These findings underscore that awareness alone isn’t enough to drive behavior change,” says Jonathan O’Connor, Senior Manager of Research at Auriemma Group. “Cardholders are weighing the benefits of building credit against the possibility of negative outcomes, and their choices will depend on how they perceive and balance those risks.”

Generational differences also play a role. Millennials are far more likely than their older counterparts to believe BNPL credit reporting would yield a positive impact on their credit score while Baby Boomers and older, who are less engaged with BNPL overall, are more likely to believe the change will have no impact on their scores.

“Reporting BNPL activity to credit bureaus introduces both accountability and opportunity,” says O’Connor. “Some cardholders will embrace BNPL as a credit-building tool, while others will treat it more cautiously, changing how and when they choose to borrow. But for many, the biggest change will come only once they fully understand how BNPL activity affects their credit profile.”

Want to learn more about Buy Now, Pay Later? Auriemma has been capturing trend data about BNPL offers, enrollment, providers and more on a quarterly basis since 2019. Email research@auriemma.group for more information.

Survey Methodology

The Payments Report

This Auriemma Group study was conducted online within the US by an independent field service provider on behalf of Auriemma Group (Auriemma) in June 2025 among 802 adult debit cardholders. The number of interviews completed for both is sufficient to allow for statistical significance testing among sub-groups at the 95% confidence level ±5%, unless otherwise noted. The purpose of the research was not disclosed, nor did respondents know the criteria for qualifying.

/by
, , ,

Cardholders Still Prefer Human Support Over AI—Especially for Fraud, Disputes, and Complex Issues

(New York, NY) Even as artificial intelligence (AI) tools grow more sophisticated, cardholders still want a human on the line when it matters most. Auriemma Group’s latest issue of Mobile Pay Tracker reveals that despite the rise of chatbots and generative AI (GenAI) tools like ChatGPT, live agents remain the most used customer service channel, especially for complex or sensitive issues like fraud, disputes, and multi-step problem resolution.

“In moments that require trust, empathy, or judgment, cardholders continue to rely on people—not bots,” says Jonathan O’Connor, Senior Manager of Research at Auriemma Group. “Digital tools offer convenience, but trust is still earned through human connection. Issuers who balance automation with meaningful service support will be best equipped to meet cardholder expectations.”

Interactions with live agents—whether by phone (40%), chatting by website or app (32%), or in-person (27%)—outpaced AI-based communications within the past 12-months. Only 21% utilized a chatbot or virtual assistant, and even fewer interacted via AI-based text messaging or with an interactive voice response (IVR) system over the phone (13% each). While automation can streamline simple tasks, the findings show that cardholders still lean more heavily on human support.

This distinction is especially evident in support preferences. Even as digital tools expand, cardholders still favor human support for nearly all service interactions, especially those involving complexity, risk, or disputes. Nearly 9-in-10 cardholders prefer human support for multi-step issues and to identify or resolve potential fraud. Automated support is more welcome for simpler tasks, like resetting passwords or replacing damaged cards.

“AI is not an absolute replacement for human support,” says O’Connor. “While many issuers are exploring how GenAI—and agentic AI in particular—can transform their servicing capabilities, they must caution against removing too much of the human element. When trust and empathy matter, cardholders still want to speak to a person.”

While some (22%) believe AI-based customer service solutions improve overall service quality, nearly twice as many (41%) say they reduce it—signaling a potential backlash if providers over-automate. This is particularly relevant as agentic AI models become more advanced and conversational. Though they may appear human-like, savvy cardholders may find the interaction off-putting if they realize they are not talking to a human (or are not told up front), especially in situations that require reassurance, discretion, or accountability.

As issuers pursue cost efficiencies through automation and AI, these findings serve as a reminder that not every support interaction should be digital-first. Getting the balance right is key—not just for service satisfaction, but for long-term loyalty.

Survey Methodology

Mobile Pay Tracker

This Auriemma Group study was conducted online within the US by an independent field service provider on behalf of Auriemma Group (Auriemma) in April 2025 among 2,181 Mobile Pay (i.e., Apple Pay, Google Wallet, Samsung Wallet) eligible adult credit cardholders. The number of interviews completed for both is sufficient to allow for statistical significance testing among sub-groups at the 95% confidence level ±5%, unless otherwise noted. The purpose of the research was not disclosed, nor did respondents know the criteria for qualifying.

/by
© Copyright - Auriemma Group