|
How this guide was prepared. Last updated October 2026. It draws on Brandmovers' experience designing consumer loyalty programs. It also draws on US research from Deloitte, Bank of America and Pew Research Center, and US privacy and consent rules, each checked at its source. |
Millennials and Gen Z both respond strongly to personalized, digital loyalty programs, and US research shows only modest differences between them on the measures available, so the best design is usually one program with flexible rewards, earning paths and communications, tested by behavior rather than split by birth year.
Pew Research Center's 2019 definition places Millennials as people "born between 1981 and 1996" and Gen Z as people born "from 1997 onward" (Pew). Together they now cover members from their teens into their mid-forties, at very different life stages. This guide sets out what neutral US research shows, where the two groups tend to differ, why variation inside each group matters, and how to design one program that serves both. The guide to gamification beyond points and badges covers game mechanics in more depth.
|
US research shows that Gen Z and Millennials respond to personalization and digital features at similar, high rates, and that both are far more open to them than older members.
Deloitte's 2025 Consumer Loyalty Program Survey, published in January 2026 and covering 5,564 US adult loyalty program members surveyed in September and October 2025, found:
|
Finding |
Gen Z |
Millennials |
Gen X |
Boomers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Willing to share personal information for more tailored offers or experiences |
89% |
87% |
78% |
64% |
|
Would opt into hyper-personalized loyalty settings to access better perks and rewards |
62% |
64% |
55% |
33% |
|
Would spend more at a brand that offered a personalized experience |
51% |
53% |
38% |
19% |
More than 90% of Gen Z and Millennial respondents found at least one tech-enabled feature useful, compared with 73% of boomers, and Deloitte reports that Gen Z and millennials "are placing greater importance on contributing to missions and causes, opportunities to participate in community member events, and efficient and enjoyable digital experiences."
Money pressure is part of the picture for younger members. Bank of America's May 2026 study found that 42% of Gen Z report living paycheck to paycheck, and 49% cite the cost of living as a top barrier to financial success. That suggests practical value is likely to matter to many Gen Z members alongside causes and experiences.
What the research does not show is a clean split. On the measures above, Gen Z and Millennials are within a few points of each other. The larger gap is between both of them and older members. These are stated intentions from adults already in loyalty programs: both studies cover adults only (Deloitte surveyed members aged 18 and over; Bank of America's Gen Z sample was aged 18 to 29), so they do not describe teenage members and may not match what members actually do. Test them against behavior.
A 30-year-old parent and a 42-year-old with no children are both Millennials; a 19-year-old student and a 28-year-old professional are both Gen Z, so birth year alone says little about what an individual member needs, and life stage, income and category are worth testing as segments alongside it.
Generational averages hide wide variation. Designing to a stereotype, for example assuming every Millennial wants savings and every Gen Z member wants experiences, will misfire for large parts of each group. Better inputs are:
Use generation as a starting hypothesis for testing, not as a segment that fixes the experience. Some programs do not collect members' ages reliably, which is another reason to design around behavior.
Offer a single catalog that spans practical savings and experiences, and show each member the rewards their behavior suggests they value, rather than building separate catalogs by age.
Common patterns to test:
Make attainability visible: members who conclude that a meaningful reward is out of reach are likely to disengage. Order the catalog for each member from their redemption history and stated preferences, and test whether that ordering changes redemption.
Use the same underlying mechanics for both groups, and test framing: progress toward a clear milestone for members who value status and tangible benefits, and challenges, streaks and shareable achievements for members who value play and recognition.
The mechanic can be identical while the framing differs. "Complete your profile to unlock Platinum benefits" and "Finish your profile to claim your Founding Member badge" describe the same action. Test which framing lifts completion in which segment rather than assuming by age. Keep mechanics tied to real value; games that feel trivial or manipulative lose members of any age. Design shareable moments, such as milestone cards, for members who like to share, and never require sharing to earn.
Offer both scheduled and triggered communications and let behavior decide the mix: some members read detailed status emails, others respond mainly to in-app and push messages tied to something that just happened.
Set frequency by response. Track opens, clicks and opt-outs by segment and channel, and reduce volume where engagement falls. The guide to Next Best Action covers choosing channel and timing per member.
Build one program with a flexible catalog, parallel earning paths to the same tiers, two communication tracks and neutral tier language, and test each element by segment.
Separate programs by generation are rarely worth it: they split member data, duplicate costs and misclassify the many members who do not fit their generation's average. Age still matters for eligibility: in age-restricted categories such as alcohol, tobacco and lottery, younger Gen Z members may be below the legal purchase age, so verify age at enrollment.
Willingness to share data does not replace consent: get permission for each channel, give notice where data is exchanged for rewards, and set a minimum age for the program.
This is general information, not legal advice.
Test design choices by segment and measure behavior, not stated preference alone.
A platform needs flexible earning rules, non-purchase earning, gamification, a deep catalog and testing tools to run one program for varied members.
BLOYL™, Brandmovers' loyalty platform, supports points, tiered and hybrid structures; non-purchase earning for referrals, reviews, social actions, profile completion, surveys, content engagement and in-app actions; gamification modules including challenges, badges and milestones; a rewards catalog of 100,000+ options; and A/B testing against a control group with real-time dashboards. See the loyalty platform overview for details.
Millennials and Gen Z are closer to each other than to older members on the measures neutral US research tracks: both are open to personalization, digital features, causes and community, and many Gen Z members report real budget pressure. Each group also spans very different life stages, incomes, categories and behaviors, which is where testing should focus. One program with a flexible catalog, parallel earning paths, scheduled and triggered communications and neutral tier language can serve both, provided each element is tested by segment and consent is handled properly.
|
Designing for a multi-generational member base? Brandmovers designs and runs loyalty programs on BLOYL, with non-purchase earning, gamification, a deep rewards catalog and built-in testing. Request a demo to talk through your program with the Brandmovers team. |