Are you designing rewards for convenience, choice, or connection?

The more relevant the rewards, the more valuable they are – to both the organisation giving them and the people receiving them.

One of the most basic questions in any incentive or reward program is: What will the reward(s) be? 

I say “basic” in the sense that it’s fundamental, not that it’s simple – as I’ll elaborate on. But in one sense, the answer depends on how you respond to another question: what are you designing the reward for? And in this article, I’ll look at three different things you could design rewards for: convenience, choice, and connection. 

Designing for convenience. 

 When designing for convenience, that convenience is partly for the recipient, but mainly about your organisation: can you obtain the rewards easily and affordably, can you get the reward to the recipients reliably, and can you manage the whole process efficiently?

Often, the most convenient solution is to give every recipient the same reward. A bottle of wine, a small appliance, a gift card. Choose something appropriate, buy it at scale and distribute it. 

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this approach. It can be practical, cost-effective and easy to administer. And sometimes, a well-chosen reward will delight most recipients. But as I said, the starting point is largely the organisation. The recipient only enters the equation later, and sometimes only in a small way. 

And because people value different things, there’s an obvious limitation. What delights one person may leave another cold. A bottle of wine is wasted on someone who doesn’t drink. An appliance may be something the recipient already owns. The gift card may be for a retailer they never use. 

To overcome this, the question needs to evolve from simply What can we give them? to What would they like? 

Designing for choice. 

Points-based reward programs provide a very good solution. Participants earn points and decide for themselves how to use them. One person might choose electronics, another travel, another something for the home.  

There’s a reason this approach works so well. Value is personal, and giving people choice recognises that. 

It also solves one of the fundamental problems with blanket rewards. The organisation doesn’t need to decide whether you would rather have a toaster, a restaurant voucher or a new pair of headphones. You decide. 

Neither does the organisation have to take responsibility for getting the reward to you. In some ways, points-based rewards are more logistically convenient than giving the same thing to everyone. 

That is good reward design. 

But there is actually another question worth asking: Can a reward do more than give someone something they want? 

Designing for connection. 

Imagine you belong to the loyalty program of a large beauty retailer. You buy your skincare, cosmetics and fragrances there and earn points as you spend. Eventually, you accumulate enough points for a substantial reward. From thousands of options, you choose a frying pan. 

It’s a very nice frying pan. You needed one. You’re pleased with your choice.  

It also did something that a bottle of wine or appliance might not have: it made the reward relevant. You needed a frying pan, you had certain criteria about what kind of pan (material, size, brand) and it ticked all your boxes.  

But: what does that frying pan have to do with the beauty retailer? Very little.

Now imagine that the same program gives you the opportunity to use your points for a premium facial, or a consultation with a leading make-up artist, or an exclusive beauty experience, or early access to a sought-after product, or a fragrance, or a luxury skincare set you wouldn’t normally buy for yourself. 

Assuming these are things you genuinely want, the reward still delivers value to you. But it does something else, too. It makes sense coming from the brand. 

And it has maximised relevance, because it’s not just useful to the recipient – it’s reinforced connection to the brand as well. The frying pan says: Here’s something you wanted. The skincare set can say: Here’s something you wanted that means more because it came from us. 

The experience becomes another interaction with the world of beauty, and another positive association with the company that provided it. The reward doesn’t simply complete the transaction. It strengthens the relationship. 

That’s connection. 

The principle isn’t limited to customer loyalty. Imagine an employee celebrating 20 years with an organisation. Giving that person points to spend however they choose may be highly appreciated. But 20 years is a significant moment in the relationship between an employee and an organisation. There may be an opportunity to recognise it with something that feels considered. Maybe this employee loves cooking (in which case the frying pan is a great reward), or golf (and needs a new putter). 

The same principle can apply to a salesperson who exceeds a target. A generic reward may be highly desirable. But if you’re a car brand, won’t you make more of a connection by giving an exclusive motoring accessory? If you’re an electronics brand, might a newly released phone be more relevant, and create a stronger, more lasting association with your organisation? 

These examples show that the core question isn’t about what rewards, but rather how well you’re designing the rewards around the people receiving them. 

Why isn’t every reward designed for connection?

Based on the advantages I’ve described, it’s reasonable to ask why all rewards aren’t designed for connection. 

Well, there’s a straightforward answer: it’s harder. 

Designing for choice is wonderfully scalable. You can give millions of people in disparate locations access to an enormous range of options. Participants solve the relevance question themselves because they know what they want. 

Designing for connection requires more thought. Who are the participants? Why are they being rewarded? What relationship do they have with the organisation? What would be meaningful in this particular context? And how do you deliver that efficiently and at scale? 

The answers will differ from one program to another. There isn’t one reward strategy that works for every audience and every occasion.

That’s where design comes in. 

Choice or connection? Why not both? 

Designing for connection doesn’t mean taking choice away. Choice can still be the foundation of the reward strategy. 

A program can offer thousands of redemption options, while also curating or highlighting rewards that are particularly relevant to the participant or organisation. The beauty retailer can give recipients points to use how they want, but highlight more relevant options like treatments or fragrances. It can promote rewards that naturally connect to the brand, while still allowing participants to spend their points elsewhere if they prefer.  

Designing for connection doesn’t need to mean less choice. It’s really about more thoughtful choice. 

The point isn’t to force relevance on people. A beauty retailer insisting that you redeem your points for a facial when what you really want is a frying pan hasn’t created connection. It has simply taken away your choice. But the opportunity is to design rewards so that relevance is available and appealing. Curation and choice aren’t mutually exclusive. 

Designing for both sides of the relationship.  

Convenience, choice and connection aren’t necessarily competing approaches. All three matter. 

Convenience matters because a reward strategy needs to be practical, scalable and reliable. A brilliant idea that can’t be fulfilled effectively isn’t good design. Choice matters because value is personal, and it means recipients can receive something they genuinely want. But connection takes the idea one step further, serving both the organisation and the recipient better. 

Connection asks whether the reward can create value for the participant while also reinforcing the relationship. In that sense, connection is the point at which the interests of the participant and the organisation meet. For the participant, the reward is desirable, relevant and meaningful. For the organisation, the reward becomes another opportunity to strengthen an association. 

Rewards deserve more thought than simply getting something into someone’s hands. The reward is the most tangible thing a participant takes away from the entire experience. It may be something they use, remember, photograph or talk about. What that reward is, and how it makes them feel, matters. 

That’s why rewards aren’t just about asking what you can give, or even what the recipients would like. Well-designed rewards ask what the recipients would value that means more because it came from us. 

Get our eGuide: How to design an incentive program.
This 7-part series covers the major parts of program design in short, accessible issues. Get Issue 1 now.