Updated: September 15th, 2026
Key takeaways:
-
Installers rank an easy claims process (52%) above every other programme feature, including the rewards themselves.
-
They prefer practical, business-relevant rewards — 61% choose tools or equipment — and simple earning mechanics over tiers or gamification.
-
The most common reason for non-participation is hassle (41%), and nearly half say they would switch brands over a programme that becomes too cumbersome.
Most reward programmes are built around what's easy for a brand to offer — not what installers actually value. That gap is expensive. It shows up as low redemption rates, quiet disengagement, and installers who default to whichever manufacturer makes the paperwork least painful.
We surveyed installers across the UK and EMEA to find out what they genuinely want from an incentive programme. The results are refreshingly unglamorous. Installers aren't asking for gamification, elaborate tiers, or aspirational experiences. They want practical rewards, predictable earning mechanics, and a claims process that doesn't eat into their day.
Here's the design spec the data points to.
What rewards do installers actually want?
Installers favour rewards they can use on the job. Asked what they would most like to earn:
- 61% prefer tools or equipment — the clear top choice
- 49% choose gift cards
- 42% want cash
- 36% select merchandise
- 18% are interested in holiday or travel rewards
- 16% value training vouchers
- 10% opt for charity donations
What this means for programme design: lead with business-relevant, on-the-job rewards — tools, equipment, and flexible cash or high street gift cards. Reserve experiential rewards for top-tier participants. For most of the base they're a nice-to-have, not a driver.
But "right" matters as much as "type." A reward that's technically popular yet poorly matched to the installer — the wrong tool brand, a gift card they can't spend locally, cash that triggers a tax headache — will underperform even if it ticks the category box. Reward relevance needs validating at segment level, not assuming from the top-line figure.
Should first-time and existing installers be treated differently?
Yes, and this is where a lot of programmes go wrong. They design one reward structure and apply it uniformly. The data suggests the two groups respond to very different signals.
First-time installers are evaluating whether your brand is worth the switching cost. They respond to immediate, low-effort proof points: fast first payouts, simple onboarding, and rewards with obvious instant value such as cash or gift cards. This is not the moment to introduce tiers or long-term point accrual. It's the moment to prove the programme works.
Existing installers have already made the switching decision. They're optimising for efficiency and consistency — predictable earning mechanics, low admin burden, and rewards that compound, such as tools, equipment, or training that builds their business. Novelty matters less than reliability.
Treating these as one audience with one reward table is the single most common design mistake we see. Segment your reward communications and, where possible, your reward options accordingly.
How do installers prefer to earn rewards?
Simplicity and predictability beat complexity:
- 33% prefer points per purchase
- 28% have no strong preference
- 23% want cashback per qualifying product
- 10% are interested in tiered levels
- 4% like instant win or spot rewards
- 3% prefer bonus points on specific products
What this means for programme design: build the core mechanic around points or cashback. Add tiers and bonuses as an overlay for advanced, high-engagement users — not as the foundation. Tiered structures appeal to one installer in ten, and designing the whole programme around them means designing for a minority.
Which programme features matter most to installers?
The features installers rank highest have almost nothing to do with the reward itself:
- 52% require an easy claims process
- 44% expect good customer service
- 37% want low administrative burden
- 28% value a simple mobile app
- 26% seek fast payouts
- 25% need clear rules and qualifying criteria
- 24% prefer automatic purchase tracking
What this means for programme design: prioritise claims UX, response time and cutting administrative steps before touching the reward catalogue. This is the part of the programme installers interact with most often, and the part that determines whether they come back.
Why do installers stop participating in reward programmes?
Installers disengage quietly, and often permanently, when programmes become cumbersome:
- 41% cite "too much hassle" as the main reason for non-participation
- 26% say rewards aren't worth the effort
- 16% mention excessive admin
- 16% are frustrated by slow payments
- 15% find the claims process too complicated
- 14% struggle with tracking
Every extra form, approval step and delay adds to that total. Cross the threshold and installers don't complain — they leave. Nearly half say they'd switch brands over it.
Notice what isn't on this list: reward value appears once, at 26%, and every other reason is procedural. Programmes rarely fail because the prizes were too small. They fail because claiming became work.
How do you test whether a programme is well designed?
Ask one question before launching or revising a programme:
Would the majority of installers say this is simple and high-value?
If you can't confidently answer yes, you're putting share of wallet at risk. The data is consistent on this point: 52% say an easy claims process is the most important feature in a rewards programme. Not bigger prizes. Not flashier tiers. Just make it easy.
Make it easy before you make it generous
The temptation in reward programme design is to compete on generosity — richer rewards, more tiers, better prizes. The data suggests that's the wrong axis.
Installers are telling us something simpler. They want rewards they can use at work, mechanics they can predict, and a claims process that doesn't cost them an evening. When those three things are in place, the specific reward matters less than you'd expect. When they're not, no reward is generous enough to overcome the friction.
Before adding anything to a programme, it's worth checking what could be removed from it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Hassle is the leading cause. 41% of installers cite it as the main reason for non-participation, ahead of rewards not being worth the effort (26%), excessive admin (16%), slow payments (16%), a complicated claims process (15%) and difficulty tracking progress (14%). Disengagement tends to be silent rather than complained about, and nearly half of installers say they would switch brands over it.
Tools and equipment are the clear preference, chosen by 61% of installers surveyed across the UK and EMEA, followed by gift cards (49%) and cash (42%). Merchandise sits at 36%. Experiential rewards such as holiday or travel appeal to a much smaller group at 18%, making them better suited to top-tier participants than to the general programme base.
An easy claims process, ranked most important by 52% of installers — ahead of customer service (44%), low administrative burden (37%) and fast payouts (26%). The features installers value most concern how the programme operates rather than what it pays out, which suggests process design deserves more attention than the reward catalogue.
Only as an overlay, not a foundation. Just 10% of installers express interest in tiered levels, compared with 33% preferring points per purchase and 23% preferring cashback per qualifying product. Tiers can work for advanced, high-engagement participants, but building an entire programme around them means designing for a minority of the base.
Yes. First-time installers are still assessing whether the brand is worth the switching cost, so they respond to fast first payouts, simple onboarding and rewards with immediate obvious value. Existing installers have already committed and optimise instead for predictability, low admin and rewards that compound over time. Applying one reward structure to both is a common design error.
