Why the distinction between new and returning customers is irrelevant: The focus should be on answering ‘Why should I buy today?’ for everyone.

Imagine walking into Tesco, and the entire store reorganises itself around you. Your preferred pasta shapes (bow ties, obviously) slide to the front. The milk moves to eye level. Everything you bought last week arranges itself into a convenient welcome display just for you.

It would make shopping easier for you. It would make absolutely no sense for Tesco.

Supermarkets spend millions designing layouts that work for everyone. They guide foot traffic, maximise exposure, and balance convenience with temptation. The person buying their first loaf gets the same experience as someone who’s been coming for years. Nobody gets a special “returning customer” aisle.

Yet online, we’ve convinced ourselves that splitting customers by purchase history is strategic genius rather than organisational convenience. Just like a supermarket wouldn’t flip its layout depending on who’s entering, businesses should consider whether focusing solely on purchase history is genuinely customer-centric or merely convenient for internal organization.

Companies separate retention and acquisition because it makes budgets cleaner. Because someone needs to own each number. Because we need somewhere to put the CRM manager.

Not because customers wake up thinking, “I’m a returning customer today.”

Byron Sharp and the Ehrenberg Bass crowd have been shouting this for decades: even your “loyal” customers buy from competitors most of the time. To put it in perspective, research shows that around 55% of “loyal” customers still regularly purchase from other brands within the same category. People aren’t loyal to their toothpaste brand. They’re loyal to not running out of toothpaste.

Your customer’s purchase history doesn’t suddenly transform them into a different species. They still make decisions the same way everyone else does.

The only question that actually matters

Why would I buy today?

Works for everyone. First-timers, repeat buyers, people who haven’t thought about you in months. It’s the question they’re actually asking themselves, whether you’ve built elaborate retention workflows or not.

Underneath that question sit the real considerations. Can I get what I need? Is it the right price? Do I trust the seller? What could go wrong? Is there someone else I’d rather buy from?

None of these fundamentally changes because someone bought from you before. The answers might shift slightly. You might be easier to recall. But the evaluation process? Identical.

A cautionary tale about dairy

Britain once had a fleet of electric milk delivery vehicles that delivered fresh milk every morning. Door-to-door service, regular schedule, and personal relationship with customers. The ultimate retention model, before retention models had PowerPoint decks.

Then supermarkets arrived. Nearly as convenient. Much cheaper. Goodbye, milkman.

No amount of “loyalty” mattered when a better option emerged. Turns out people were loyal to the convenience of milk, not the person delivering it.

The cats, predictably, didn’t care either way. Until they were hungry.

How decisions actually happen

Someone needs something. Maybe their lamp broke. Maybe they just fancy new trousers, despite already having a wardrobe that’s achieved trouserfest status. Needs are flexible.

They search for options. Google, Amazon, ChatGPT, and asking a friend who seems to know about lamps.

They evaluate choices. Quickly or slowly, rationally or ridiculously. Usually, somewhere between “considered assessment” and “that one looks nice.”

They buy. Then they judge whether it was worth it.

This pattern persists from purchase one through purchase one hundred. The only thing that changes? You might get a shortcut into their consideration set. Mental availability, not relationship building.

Most products solve recurring problems for a limited time. Hunger comes back. Clothes wear out. Lamps go out of style or break. Then the whole process starts again.

The efficiency trap

“But CAC is lower for existing customers!”

Yes. Because you’ve already done the awareness work. That’s an efficiency gain from mental availability, not evidence of transformed buying behaviour. Efficiency saves budget; effectiveness drives growth. Understanding this distinction can unlock bigger media thinking.

They’re still making the same evaluation. You’ve just made the first question (“Does this seller exist?”) easier to answer. Useful, but not magical.

“Email lists prove retention works!”

Email lists prove that reminding people you exist is useful. Same as any other advertising, except you’ve convinced someone to give you permission upfront. Think of it as ‘pre-purchased attention,’ where the upfront permission ensures a trusting audience awaiting your message.

This trust dividend can be likened to paid media, prompting marketers to consider nurturing these lists just like they budget for other media. Cheaper? Yes. Fundamentally different from other marketing? No.

It’s just advertising with consent. Which makes it more cost-effective and more targeted. But the recipient still needs a reason to care today.

When subscriptions meet reality

Lovely, predictable revenue. Until people question whether they’re getting value.

Then they cancel, because subscriptions still require ongoing justification. The recurring charge shows up on their statement. They remember you exist. They ask themselves the same question everyone asks: Is this worth it?

Plus, they’re harder to upsell. Someone who’s subscribed has less reason to come back and browse your other offerings. You’ve given them permission to forget about you between charges.

However, consider the contrasting success of Dollar Shave Club. They built a subscription model resilient to cancellations by driving value through consistent quality and convenience, providing a compelling reason for customers to stay engaged.

The key takeaway is the importance of continuous perceived value, ensuring subscribers always feel they’re getting more than just a product, but a service that anticipates their needs.

The expensive points problem

Every loyalty program comes with its hidden costs. The infrastructure needed to sustain such programs often involves expenses that outweigh the benefits. Your loyalty program probably costs a fortune to build. And it probably delivers the same thing every other loyalty program delivers: discounts with extra steps.

By structuring your incentives this way, you may inadvertently complicate the decision for customers who might prefer straightforward savings.

Have you considered just offering discounts? It might be cheaper than maintaining the infrastructure. Definitely more honest about what’s actually driving the behaviour.

People love points until they realise points are just money with worse exchange rates. Then they love whichever shop gives them the best deal today.

The filter that matters

Before implementing any retention-specific strategy, ask one question: Would this answer change if I didn’t know the purchase history?

If the answer is no, you’re probably overthinking the distinction.

Customers want to make good choices about things they need. Sometimes that means buying from you again because you’re convenient and they remember you worked last time. Sometimes it means trying someone else because circumstances have changed.

They don’t wake up thinking about your funnel stages. They wake up thinking about whether they need cat food.

(For their cat. Obviously.)

What supermarkets understand

Same layout for everyone. Same considerations for everyone. Just make sure you’re the place they think of when the need arrives.

To translate supermarket wisdom into digital actions, consider a mental-availability checklist: easy to find, easy to buy, easy to trust. These concrete cues guide readers toward effective implementation. The mental shortcut you’ve earned from a previous purchase is valuable. But it’s not a relationship. It’s not loyalty. It’s not a fundamentally different buying process.

It’s just memory. And memory is only useful if there’s still a compelling reason to buy.

This article was written with the assistance of AI.