Data is one of the primary raw materials of modern business. It underpins the ability to serve a customer, fulfil a transaction, personalize a communication, and make a commercial decision. Without it, an organization is navigating blind. Yet despite its foundational importance, most organizations have a surprisingly fragile relationship with data, both in how they collect it and in what they do with it once they have it.
The gap between data ambition and data reality is striking. 87% of marketers describe data as the most underutilized 1 asset in their organization. 78% of B2C marketing executives concede that their marketing and loyalty technologies are siloed 2, meaning the data exists somewhere but cannot be connected or activated effectively. And on the consumer side, 67% of users say they know little to nothing about what companies actually do with their data 3, a number that has grown as digital literacy has increased. These are not teething problems. These findings point to an industry that has prioritized collecting data over understanding it and capturing consent over earning trust.
Brands want data to serve their marketing and commercial objectives so optimise for capturing it, while consumers share data as a byproduct of getting something they want. There is a misalignment, and understanding where brands and consumers align or diverge is the starting point for any data strategy that actually works.
This article exposes what brands could miss and the distance that may widen between their data ambitions and how consumers actually behave when asked to share information. That disconnect is most visible at the earliest moments of the relationship, registration and onboarding, where strategic thinking either grounds itself in consumer reality or it does not. Knowing why consumers share data and under what conditions is a starting point for a successful data and loyalty strategy.
What Consumers Share Data and Why
Consumers generate and share data in two distinct ways.
The first is unintentional. Every search query, page visit, app interaction, card payment, or location ping produces a data trail without the consumer making any conscious decision to share.
The second is intentional. Every account registration, loyalty program signup, preference setting, referral, or newsletter subscription is a deliberate act, and sharing data is part of it.
Both happen constantly, often simultaneously, and together they account for the extraordinary volume of consumer data that businesses now hold.
What drives intentional sharing comes down to three motivations.
Consumers share because they MUST. The transaction or interaction requires it. A delivery needs an email address, a flight needs a passport, a loyalty program requires a phone number for two-factor authentication. This is first party data at its most basic, collected directly within a transactional relationship, proportionate and rarely resented because the reason is self-evident. The interaction cannot happen without it.
It is worth noting that data shared for functional reasons can be used for other purposes. A mobile number provided for authentication for example, becomes a channel for SMS marketing. This is a contested grey area and regulations are constantly working on it. Companies that disclose the extended use of data and present an opt-in option for marketing build trust.
Consumers also share data because they WANT TO. For example, a member completes their profile or declares their preferences within a loyalty program to receive more relevant offers. When a skincare brand asks about skin type and concerns before recommending products, consumers are happy to answer. A streaming service inviting users to rate genres to improve their recommendations sees the same willing response. When a consumer shares directly and voluntarily, telling a brand something specific about their preferences or needs, that is zero party data. It is the most valuable signal a brand can receive because the consumer is actively and honestly communicating.
Consumers also share data because they HAVE TO. Access to a service is conditional on it. Spotify and Facebook require users to provide their date of birth and gender before an account can be created. Neither data point is needed to stream music. Facebook’s date of birth requirement serves a purpose in protecting minors, but gender has no operational function. Users provide it because there is no other way in. This is still first party data, but consumers are complying rather than willingly providing information.
Within loyalty, it is common for a program to ask for a date of birth during registration to reward members on their birthday. However, some program also ask for gender and household income and postcode before an account can be created, none of which are operationally necessary to enter the program. And in some instances earn or redeem points. A 2024 regulatory investigation found that nearly 40% of loyalty programs collect excessive data during registration that cannot be sufficiently justified by operational needs 4.
These three motivations produce fundamentally different quality data. When consumers share first party data because they must, it tends to be accurate because errors will hurt them directly. But when they share first party data because they have to, it tends to be less reliable and consumers game it. They may select a random gender option without thought or provide an inaccurate date of birth because they are clearing a gate rather than genuinely engaging.
Zero party data sits at the opposite end. Consumers provide it because they want to, actively communicating something true about themselves. It is the richest and most honest signal a business can hold. Consumers are increasingly data literate and are willing to provide data if they see value in it.
This distinction between the motivation behind sharing data matters enormously. How registration and onboarding is designed directly shapes that motivation. Getting it right is crucial for any loyalty or membership strategy.
Five Considerations for Loyalty & Data Strategy
Data collection in loyalty does not begin and end at registration. It feeds a member lifecycle, from the moment someone joins through every interaction that follows. The must/want/have-to is a practical lens, not just a way of understanding consumer behavior. It informs how program engage and collect better consumer data, build stronger relationships, and use it in a way that reflects how and why it was shared. Five consideration underpin that thinking.
Collect with intent
Only ask for data that serves a clear and stated purpose. Every field in a registration form, every survey question, every permission request should map to a specific value delivered to the member. If the purpose cannot be articulated and the member benefit cannot be demonstrated, the data should not be collected. Programs that collect with intent build cleaner databases, face less regulatory risk and start member relationships on more honest terms.
Design for want, not have-to
The motivation behind data sharing determines its quality. Registration and onboarding should be designed to shift members from compliance to willingness. A member who understands what their data enables shares it more honestly than one who is clearing a gate. The design of the join journey, the language used, the sequencing of questions and the transparency about data use, all shape whether a member enters a program in have-to or want mode.
Earn zero party data over time
The richest data is not collected at registration. Remember that the join process objective is to acquire a new member, not to collect data. Data will be earned through the relationship. Programs that create genuine reasons for members to declare preferences, update profiles and engage with personalization tools accumulate better data than those that front-load collection at signup. A member who has been in a program for two years and has actively shaped their experience is a more valuable data asset than a new member who filled in a mandatory form to get a welcome offer.
Use data visibly
Members who share data and never see it reflected in their experience stop sharing. Closing the loop, showing members that their preferences shaped an offer, a recommendation, or a communication, is what turns a data collection exercise into a data relationship. Visible use of data is not just good ethics. It is the mechanism that sustains zero party data over time.
Govern the data you hold
Understanding what data you have, how it was collected, and what motivated the member to share it is the foundation of responsible data practice. Must data, want data, and have-to data should be treated differently because they are different in quality, reliability, and consent. Program that govern with that understanding build more reliable member intelligence, make better commercial decisions, and operate with greater confidence in an environment where regulatory scrutiny of data practices is increasing.
Conclusion
Data strategy in loyalty is ultimately a question of relationship design. The businesses that treat data as something to extract tend to collect a lot of it and understand very little. The businesses that treat data as something earned through genuine value exchange tend to hold less of it but know far more.
A must/want/have-to lens helps visualize how consumers actually behave and why they share what they share. It supports program design, member recruitment, data collection and ongoing data use. It empowers loyalty program operators with customer insights that can be trusted, rather than unusable data volumes, inaccurate results or decisions made on information that misleads.
Every data capture moment is a test of the relationship. Members notice when they are being asked for something that serves the brand rather than them. They notice when their data is used well. And they notice when it is not used at all.
Building a program around that awareness, collecting with intent, designing for willingness, earning richer data over time, using it visibly and governing it responsibly, is both the ethical and the commercial case for doing data well.
