At the checkout, the receipt says you saved 30 kroner. You did, if the comparison is with buying the same products at that store without the offer. But perhaps you bought two packs when you needed one, paid more for the rest of your groceries, or earned a bonus that will sit unused in an app. The receipt can accurately report a discount and still leave the most important question unanswered. Did this shop cost less than the trip you would realistically have made without the offer?
That distinction matters in Norway, where loyalty programs have become part of everyday grocery pricing. A shopper can encounter an ordinary shelf price, a member price, a personalized discount and a future bonus on a single trip. A discount can make a planned purchase cheaper. A different offer can draw spending forward, change the store a household chooses, or reward a purchase it never intended to make. Those effects can occur on the same receipt. The illusion begins when the amount displayed as saved stands in for the cost of the entire basket.
Norwegian research offers a way to examine that gap without assuming that discounts are deceptive or that shoppers who use them are making a mistake. Two reports from Consumption Research Norway (SIFO) document extensive membership, perceived savings and difficulty comparing prices. A British competition regulator found that most promotions it examined delivered a genuine discount against the same retailer’s usual price, even though some offers were still more expensive than a rival’s price. Taken together, the evidence makes it possible to ask a more precise question of any offer. Which purchase became cheaper, for whom, and compared with what? (Alfnes et al., 2026; Competition and Markets Authority [CMA], 2024; Nortvedt et al., 2026).
How loyalty moved from annual dividends to the checkout screen
Norway’s grocery rewards have roots in cooperative ownership. Coop traces its history to an association founded in Ytre Arna in 1867, where members could receive a share of the surplus in proportion to their purchases. Members once submitted paper receipts to account for their shopping. Cards later automated the record, and that change reduced the work of proving eligibility. The underlying principle survives in today’s kjøpeutbytte, a purchase dividend paid to members of a cooperative. Calling it a coupon would obscure both its ownership structure and the timing of the benefit (Coop, n.d.-b, n.d.-c).
NorgesGruppen dates the formal launch of Trumf to 1997. Its model gave customers a way to accumulate rewards across participating stores under one program. Over time, chain-specific programs added another layer to that shared infrastructure. KIWI PLUSS arrived in 2016 and MENY MER in 2024, according to SIFO’s review. A shopper could therefore have a Trumf membership and receive different benefits depending on which banner they visited and what they bought. Interviews published by SIFO in 2017 already identified customer programs as an important source of detailed shopping data for Norwegian grocery businesses (Alfnes et al., 2026; Dulsrud & Alfnes, 2017; NorgesGruppen, 2015).
REMA 1000’s launch of Æ in January 2017 made a different promise. The program offered a checkout discount on the customer’s ten most purchased products. That feature ended in 2022, and personalized cuts changed format. In February 2025, REMA-appen replaced Æ. The distinction matters because a description of the original ten-product rule can sound like practical advice years after it ceased to apply. The current program combines some immediate discounts with rewards that can be used on a later shop (Alfnes et al., 2026; REMA 1000, 2018, 2026).
The smartphone widened the set of tasks a retailer could put between the shopper and the benefit. A card can identify the account at checkout. An app can also invite a customer to activate a coupon, announce a deadline, show progress toward a reward, or vary the offer using purchase history. The same app can save time by storing receipts and displaying available discounts before a trip. The practical issue is which functions are automatic and which depend on the shopper taking action, because a benefit left unactivated or unused has a different value from cash already deducted at checkout (Alfnes et al., 2026).
What the Norwegian evidence establishes
The clearest recent Norwegian evidence comes from a government-commissioned SIFO project published in two parts in 2026. Ann-Kristin Ansteensen and Alexander Schjøll coauthored both reports. Frode Alfnes is first author on the review of literature and app design, which also lists Svein Ole Borgen. Thomas Nortvedt is first author on the empirical report, which also lists Alfnes and Peder L. Stampe. Together the reports describe how programs work and how customers and other participants experience them (Alfnes et al., 2026; Nortvedt et al., 2026).
For the empirical report, Norstat surveyed 1,837 panel participants from January 15 to February 10, 2026. To qualify, respondents had primary or shared responsibility for their household’s grocery purchases. The researchers weighted survey results by sex, age and geography. They also used four focus groups, interviews with stakeholders and snapshots of prices and grocery leaflets. The combination gave researchers several ways to study how the schemes operate. To establish how much joining a scheme causes a household to save or spend, researchers would also need to observe purchases over time and account for what the household would otherwise have done (Nortvedt et al., 2026).
Among respondents, 97% reported membership in at least one program and 49% reported using all three principal programs. About 57% fully or partly agreed that loyalty programs produced noticeable savings, with 14% fully agreeing. Yet 45% disagreed that it was easy to work out where it paid to shop. It is entirely plausible for a shopper to notice a real discount on coffee and remain unsure where the family’s weekly basket costs least. The survey records what respondents perceive and report, while the net effect on household spending remains an empirical question (Nortvedt et al., 2026).
About 64% fully or partly agreed that they chose grocery stores based on offers linked to programs they belonged to. In a separate ranking question, general price level and location came ahead of program benefits. Those responses describe a choice with several moving parts. A coupon might determine which of two convenient stores someone visits on a Thursday. Distance might still determine which stores they consider in the first place. Membership in several schemes also gives shoppers ways to switch while qualifying for offers, although it requires them to keep track of more conditions (Nortvedt et al., 2026).
International grocery research illustrates why the comparison group matters. In a two-year panel of 1,909 Dutch households, Leenheer et al. (2007) estimated that membership raised a retailer’s share of a household’s grocery spending by about 4.1 percentage points. The estimate was about one-seventh of what a simpler calculation suggested when it ignored the tendency of already loyal shoppers to enroll. A German study using 60 weeks of customer data from one retailer found that coupon use and points redemption were associated with changes in trips and expenditure at that retailer. A grocer can capture a larger share of a family’s spending even if the family’s total grocery outlay falls or stays constant. Retailer-level results leave that second outcome open (Gabel & Guhl, 2022).
The current programs put different values on the same krone
Trumf makes bonus a separate line in the account
Trumf advertises a standard 1% bonus on eligible groceries and 3% on designated Triple Trumf Thursdays. It excludes categories such as bottle deposits, gambling and gift cards. Customers can register eligible transactions with a membership scan, a registered payment method or Trumf Pay. Among the ways to use accumulated bonus are payment in participating stores and a transfer to a bank account. A shopper who transfers the balance can treat the money as realized cash savings in their records (Trumf, n.d.-a, n.d.-c).
Rates at individual banners need their own labels. For example, KIWI’s September 2026 guidance lists a total fresh fruit and vegetable bonus of 15% through KIWI PLUSS on ordinary days and 17% on Triple Trumf Thursdays. Those totals already include the underlying Trumf component. KIWI also says eligible payment via Trumf Pay adds one percentage point under the published terms. The larger produce rate applies to the qualifying category. The amount earned on an entire shop therefore depends on what the household buys and how it registers and pays for the trip (KIWI, 2026).
Coop combines cooperative ownership with promotions
Coop advertises a minimum 1% purchase dividend on registered purchases, with rates that can vary by cooperative. The dividend becomes available the following year. Members pay a refundable NOK 300 ownership contribution, which stays with the cooperative while they belong. A physical membership card or the app can register purchases. Personalized coupons follow a separate process and must be activated in the app before shopping (Coop, n.d.-a, n.d.-b, n.d.-e).
For a household comparing this week’s cash outlay, the ownership contribution ties up money and the annual dividend arrives later. For a household already enrolled and regularly shopping at Coop, a dividend collected on purchases it planned anyway can deliver real value. These are different budget questions. One concerns cash available now. The other concerns total returns over a longer period. Treating the refundable contribution as an annual fee would distort the comparison in the opposite direction.
REMA separates checkout cuts from future spending power
REMA’s current app advertises a 10% deferred bonus on fresh fruit and vegetables and individualized price cuts of 10–30% on selected items. The latter lower the checkout price when applied. Earned bonus can be activated for use on a later purchase. Ordinary unused bonus expires after three years under the terms, and the retailer says deletion of the account forfeits it. REMA also offers a physical card that can register bonus and supports personalized offers through SMS, although enrollment still requires a registered account and people without access to the app may need help setting it up. Since June 2026, customers have been able to opt into conversion to Spenn, a separate rewards currency with participating partners (Reitan Retail, 2026; REMA 1000, n.d.-a, 2025, 2026).
A coupon, a cooperative dividend and a balance redeemable in the future all affect a shopper’s effective price, but they do so at different times and under different conditions. An immediate NOK 10 cut leaves NOK 10 in the bank today. A NOK 10 balance delivers its nominal value when the customer uses it toward spending they would have made anyway. Someone who rarely revisits the store, forgets to activate the balance or purchases an extra item to use it has a different outcome. Any comparison that treats all three mechanisms as instant discounts erases those differences.
Three ways to test whether a saving holds up
A larger percentage can leave a higher price
Consider two hypothetical offers for the same quantity and quality of fresh produce. Store A charges NOK 50 with a 15% deferred bonus. Store B charges NOK 46 with a 10% deferred bonus. Assuming full redemption, A costs NOK 42.50 and B costs NOK 41.40. At checkout, B also requires NOK 4 less cash. If neither reward is redeemed, the effective prices are simply NOK 50 and NOK 46. The two offers are hypothetical and illustrate how to compare percentage bonuses.
The calculation gets more informative when the products differ in pack size. A NOK 30 half-kilo pack costs NOK 60 per kilogram. A NOK 50 kilogram pack costs NOK 50 per kilogram, but if the household will eat only half before the rest spoils, the larger pack costs NOK 50 for the amount it uses. Unit prices normalize the quantity offered. Comparing the quantity likely to be eaten accounts for what the household needs. Where the extra quantity can be frozen and substitutes for a later purchase, the larger pack can earn its place in the basket.
A cheaper basket can lose its edge on a second trip
Imagine a planned basket that costs NOK 800 at one convenient store, with no reward on that purchase. Shopping across two stores cuts the checkout total to NOK 767, and the household later redeems NOK 10 of rewards. If the additional trip costs NOK 22 in transport, the combined cost is NOK 779, a saving of NOK 21. If the second store is on an existing route and costs nothing extra to reach, the saving is NOK 43. If it instead adds NOK 50 in transport, the basket costs NOK 807 after rewards, even before anyone considers the extra time. These are illustrative figures. The right comparison changes with the route, who makes the trip and which expenses genuinely arise because of it.
The household can record time in minutes alongside kroner and decide whether an extra stop is worthwhile. For one shopper, fifteen minutes on an existing errand may be easy to absorb. For another, the same stop could mean missing a bus or paying for childcare. There is no need to assign the same monetary value to both situations. The aim is to make the trade-off visible, particularly when a headline saving is small enough that one forgotten redemption or extra journey changes the result.
A genuine discount can still lose to another store’s usual price
The UK Competition and Markets Authority provides an observed comparison. In a review of about 50,000 grocery promotions at five retailers, it found that for 92% of the assessed promotions the nonmember price during the promotion was the same as or lower than the price charged to all shoppers in the preceding 28 days. That pattern supports the conclusion that most of the discounts in its review were genuine relative to the retailer’s usual price. Yet 61 of the 429 products in its cross-retailer analysis were available for less elsewhere. The two results are compatible because one looks at a store’s price history and the other looks at competing prices available at the same time (CMA, 2024).
A Norwegian comparison reproduced in the second SIFO report shows why even a snapshot of a few stores can be informative. The test examined 66 items across KIWI, Extra and REMA 1000. Shelf prices differed on 23 items, and all but two of those differences were under NOK 10. One cheese item varied by NOK 47.40 per kilogram. The report treats the exercise as illustrative. It captures selected shelf prices and shows where a large difference can sit inside an otherwise close comparison. It provides no basis for choosing a permanent winner among the chains or estimating savings after personalized offers (Nortvedt et al., 2026).
Why the stakes are higher in a concentrated, expensive market
Norwegian households have faced sustained pressure on food budgets. Statistics Norway’s January release put average prices for food and nonalcoholic beverages 5.7% higher in 2025 than in 2024, compared with a 3.1% increase in the overall consumer price index. In September 2026, food and nonalcoholic beverage prices were 2.4% higher than a year earlier, against 3.4% for the overall index. The annual-average and monthly year-over-year comparisons cover different periods. Both indicate higher prices against their respective benchmarks. A slower increase leaves households paying the accumulated increases of earlier years (Hauge, 2026; Økland, 2026).
Price levels offer a different comparison. Preliminary 2025 purchasing-power data put Norway’s food and nonalcoholic beverage price-level index at 133.1, with the EU average set at 100. Sweden stood at 109.9 and Denmark at 120.5 on the same measure. The index compares price levels across places. Assessing affordability would also require comparing incomes and other expenses. And no national index tells a household how much its own basket has risen. A family buying mostly staple foods and a household whose basket includes more coffee, meat or fresh fruit can face different changes in practice (Statistics Norway, 2026).
Retail ownership matters because a choice among storefronts can be narrower than it appears. The Norwegian Competition Authority attributes 43.5% of physical grocery-store turnover in 2025 to NorgesGruppen, 29.2% to Coop and 24.0% to REMA 1000. Bunnpris accounted for 3.4%, with the reported shares subject to rounding. The figures concern turnover in physical grocery stores and exclude online-only sellers and convenience trade from that measure. Roughly 97% of that turnover went to the three groups behind the major loyalty programs. Local alternatives still vary. Two people with the same app can have very different bargaining power if one lives near several stores and the other has one practical option (Norwegian Competition Authority, 2026).
These statistics explain why small changes to the price of a routine shop attract attention and why loyalty terms matter at scale. They do not isolate what drives food inflation or prove that any particular offer weakens competition. A program could stimulate rivalry by giving a retailer a way to win shoppers with better offers. It could also make rivalry harder to evaluate if people see different coupons and have to reconstruct prices after delayed rewards. Which effect dominates is a question about actual shopping and pricing behavior, including the alternatives available locally.
A shopping method that measures money kept
Start with the meals or supplies the household needs for a reasonably typical week. Choose a feasible baseline, such as the store you normally visit and the pack sizes and substitutes you would actually buy. Compare the planned basket at another store or under a different offer before making changes to the list. Compare the same amount where possible, allow substitutions only where the household finds them acceptable, and account for stock and any conditions on the offer. Otherwise a cheap out-of-stock staple or an unacceptable substitute can make an apparently rigorous total meaningless.
Keep the checkout total and the eventual cost in separate columns. In a cash record, count the money paid each time and note when a reward was redeemed or transferred. In a comparison of planned trips, start with prices after immediate cuts but before applying loyalty balances, then subtract only the expected value of rewards earned by those purchases and used on spending the household would otherwise incur. Use either accounting approach consistently across the comparison. Subtracting the same credit when earned and when redeemed overstates savings. Old rewards spent today matter to today’s cash position, while newly earned rewards belong to the decision about the current basket. Add incremental delivery or travel costs and record additional time if it affects the choice.
Review an entire shopping cycle. Suppose a household normally buys two packs of coffee over four weeks for NOK 140 in total. If a promotion lets the household buy both for NOK 110 and it skips the later purchase, the saving is NOK 30. If it buys a third pack because of the promotion and that extra pack raises total spending to NOK 165, the outlay increases by NOK 25. Both examples are hypothetical. The third pack can still be useful if it replaces a later purchase, but the ledger must follow it far enough to see whether that happened. For a perishable multibuy, record what is discarded so that the comparison reflects what the household got for its money. The basket already includes the amount paid for wasted food, so counting it again as a cash expense would inflate the loss.
Threshold rewards deserve particular scrutiny. An invitation to spend another NOK 60 to earn NOK 25 is attractive if the extra NOK 60 buys supplies already on the list and the reward is easy to redeem. If the purchase has no value to the household, the same move costs NOK 35 after the reward. The app’s progress indicator can influence how that decision feels. In a field experiment on car-wash reward cards, Nunes and Drèze (2006) found greater completion when customers started with apparent progress, even though both groups had the same number of purchases left to make. That experiment illustrates a mechanism worth testing in grocery apps. It gives no estimate of what Norwegian customers spend because of a progress bar.
A workable routine can be modest. Check prices on a few frequently bought or high-cost items, look up only coupons that match the list, and compare totals across several trips. A spreadsheet can help, but a paper list and receipts suffice. A household can also decide that predictable access and a single trip are worth more than a small and uncertain saving. That decision reflects real constraints that a price comparison should preserve.
Price claims and data use raise different legal questions
The reference price depends on the claim being made
Norway’s price-information regulation generally requires a prior price when a good is marketed as reduced. Section 9a bases it on the lowest price the trader used during at least the preceding 30 days, including prices offered to larger groups of loyalty members. The requirement concerns how a retailer presents a reduction. The Marketing Control Act separately prohibits misleading practices, including misleading information about price advantages and material omissions. European Commission guidance distinguishes broadly available member campaigns from ongoing points schemes and genuinely individualized offers. A shelf label announcing a sale, a standing member benefit and a birthday voucher can consequently raise different questions about which requirements apply (European Commission, 2021; Forskrift om prisopplysninger, 2012, § 9a; Markedsføringsloven, 2009, §§ 6–8).
A lawful reference price tells a shopper something about the seller’s own price history. It leaves open whether another store offers a lower price today, whether the shopper qualifies and whether the sale product meets the household’s needs. For a comparison service, those distinctions suggest reporting separate fields for the displayed regular price, the immediate member price and the bonus, with clear conditions and dates. A single figure labeled “your price” invites readers to infer that all three kinds of benefit have already been applied and realized.
Registering a purchase and building a customer profile are distinct uses
Norway gives the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) effect through the Personal Data Act. The GDPR requires a lawful basis, purpose limitation and data minimization. The Norwegian Data Protection Authority explains that a loyalty program can process information necessary to administer a benefit, such as the information needed to credit a purchase. Analyzing behavior to send personalized marketing normally calls for consent, although the authority’s guidance allows legitimate interests for some limited forms of targeting depending on the circumstances. In the SIFO survey, 61% agreed that sharing data about shopping habits for better prices was acceptable and 32% disagreed. Those answers express attitudes. Valid consent depends on what a person is told and asked to agree to for a particular use (Datatilsynet, 2024, 2026; General Data Protection Regulation, 2016, arts. 5–7; Nortvedt et al., 2026; Personopplysningsloven, 2018).
Published notices show the range of purposes at issue. Trumf says a registered purchase can be linked to information including products, amount, time and store. Its notice distinguishes simpler personalization, for which it asserts legitimate interests and offers an opt-out, from analytical-model personalization based on consent. Coop separates dividend administration from consent-based purchase analysis. REMA says its consent-based profiling can draw on shopping history, app use and information from other sources. These are descriptions from the companies. Measuring what the systems actually infer, how often models change offers and what customers understand would require evidence beyond the notices (Coop, n.d.-d; REMA 1000, n.d.-b; Trumf, n.d.-b).
The detail of a grocery record matters. An itemized history linked to a location and a date can expose household routines or, in some circumstances, reveal information about health or religion. In 2022, Datatilsynet issued a NOK 5 million penalty decision against Trumf after finding that a person could register someone else’s bank account number and see that person’s itemized grocery history. The authority said the verification gap had been fixed by the time it announced the decision. Trumf’s current terms require BankID for account registration and explain that linking a joint account can affect who sees digital receipts. The case illustrates how much information can become visible when a loyalty identifier and a payment account are linked (Datatilsynet, 2022, 2026; Trumf, n.d.-a).
Under the GDPR, people can request access to their personal data and object to direct marketing, including profiling related to it. Consent can be withdrawn, while deletion rights have exceptions, including when the law requires retention. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards. Whether it applies depends on how the decision is made and what it does. The appearance of a recommended coupon alone gives too little information to make that determination (General Data Protection Regulation, 2016, arts. 7, 15, 17, 21–22).
What better measurement and design could change
The next question for grocery apps is how far targeting will go. A member price offered to everyone who registers differs from a coupon selected because a customer buys a product frequently. A change based on time or remaining stock can occur independently of who is shopping. Individualized pricing based on inferred willingness to pay would use a profile to decide what price a person sees. The documented Norwegian examples show membership eligibility and personalized promotions. Whether any retailer adjusts ordinary base prices using such inferences would require separate evidence. Interim U.S. Federal Trade Commission staff findings show that pricing intermediaries have tools that can use granular information such as browsing or location data to shape prices, discounts or product presentation. Those findings describe capabilities and practices investigated in the United States (Federal Trade Commission, 2025).
One way to improve comparison is to separate the price layers at the point of decision. The shopper could see what will come off the bill now, what will become available later and which actions are required. An app-free enrollment or redemption route would also need to be usable in practice. A physical card can reduce some barriers, yet a customer who requires help to register or cannot activate a coupon in the same way may still have fewer choices. The UK CMA identified similar access questions for people without smartphones and for younger shoppers. Norway’s own survey and focus groups make it worth measuring who actually receives and redeems offers, rather than using overall membership to infer equal access (CMA, 2024; Nortvedt et al., 2026).
Public price comparison presents a further design problem. A study of Israel’s policy requiring grocery-chain prices to be posted online estimated lower prices and less dispersion after implementation. The result makes a case for testing transparency, while the Norwegian market and the structure of a data feed would influence any local effect. In 2018, the Norwegian government reported ending work on a public comparison tool after considering the risk that detailed price access would make it easier for rivals to monitor each other. The second SIFO report discusses a portal without recommending one. A trial could compare standard baskets or time-delayed data with other designs, measuring shopper search time and price dispersion as well as whether competitors start responding more quickly to each other’s changes (Ater & Rigbi, 2023; Nortvedt et al., 2026; Norwegian Ministry of Finance, 2018).
A better evidence base would follow households over multiple months, with consent, recording purchases across retailers, immediate discounts, accrued and redeemed balances, trips and waste. It would compare households facing similar store access and distinguish a purchase made earlier from extra spending over the whole period. A trial of clearer price labels or an easier redemption route could test how a specific feature affects spending and participation. Official statistics raise a related measurement question. Statistics Norway uses scanner data, including transaction prices and quantities, to measure food-price changes. SIFO points out that allocating delayed rewards to the underlying purchases remains difficult. Better research would show when those rewards change the effective price enough to matter for measurement (Nortvedt et al., 2026; Nygaard, 2022).
Conclusion
Grocery loyalty programs can reward households for buying what they already need. They can also change the quantities, timing and places of purchase that make up a household’s real bill. In Norway’s SIFO survey, shoppers reported meaningful benefits and still struggled to decide where it pays to shop (Nortvedt et al., 2026). A useful household comparison follows the planned basket through checkout, redemption and use, then compares its cost with a trip that was genuinely available to the shopper.
For retailers and regulators, the open question is who can routinely obtain those benefits and on what terms. The most informative evidence would connect the conditions visible before purchase to the prices households ultimately pay, while measuring the effort and data disclosure required. Until then, a receipt can show that a discount was applied. A comparison across realistic baskets and shopping cycles shows whether the household kept the money.
References
Alfnes, F., Ansteensen, A.-K., Borgen, S. O., & Schjøll, A. (2026). Kunnskapsgrunnlag om kundeprogrammene i dagligvaremarkedet. Del 1: Appanalyse og litteraturgjennomgang [Evidence base on grocery customer programs. Part 1: App analysis and literature review] (SIFO Report No. 1-2026). Forbruksforskningsinstituttet SIFO, OsloMet. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/5350262
Ater, I., & Rigbi, O. (2023). Price transparency, media, and informative advertising. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 15(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20200337
Competition and Markets Authority. (2024, November 27). Review of loyalty pricing in the groceries sector: Executive summary. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-loyalty-pricing-in-the-groceries-sector/executive-summary
Coop. (n.d.-a). Bli medlem i dag! [Become a member today]. Retrieved November 9, 2026, from https://www.coop.no/medlem/bli-medlem
Coop. (n.d.-b). Kjøpeutbytte – penger tilbake hver gang du handler [Purchase dividend: Money back every time you shop]. Retrieved November 9, 2026, from https://www.coop.no/medlem/kjopeutbytte
Coop. (n.d.-c). Over 150 år med delingsøkonomi [Over 150 years of the sharing economy]. https://www.coop.no/om-coop/historie/over-150-aar-med-delingsokonomi
Coop. (n.d.-d). Personvernerklæring for Coop Norge SA og Samvirkelag [Privacy notice for Coop Norge SA and member cooperatives]. Retrieved November 9, 2026, from https://www.coop.no/personvern
Coop. (n.d.-e). Spar penger som medlem [Save money as a member]. Retrieved November 9, 2026, from https://www.coop.no/medlem/spar-penger-som-medlem
Datatilsynet. (2022, June 24). Gebyr til Trumf [Fine imposed on Trumf]. https://www.datatilsynet.no/regelverk-og-verktoy/lover-og-regler/avgjorelser-fra-datatilsynet/2022/gebyr-til-trumf/
Datatilsynet. (2024, November 4). Bruk av personopplysninger til målrettet markedsføring [Using personal data for targeted marketing]. https://www.datatilsynet.no/personvern-pa-ulike-omrader/kundehandtering-handel-og-medlemskap/digitale-tjenester-og-forbrukeres-personopplysninger/bruk-av-personopplysninger-til-malrettet-markedsforing/
Datatilsynet. (2026, June 4). Kundeklubber og personvern [Loyalty programs and privacy]. https://www.datatilsynet.no/personvern-pa-ulike-omrader/kundehandtering-handel-og-medlemskap/kundeklubber-og-personvern/
Dulsrud, A., & Alfnes, F. (2017). Når stordata blir Big Business [When big data becomes big business] (Oppdragsrapport No. 10-2017). Forbruksforskningsinstituttet SIFO, Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12199/5344
European Commission. (2021, December 29). Commission notice: Guidance on the interpretation and application of Article 6a of Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of consumers in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (2021/C 526/02). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021XC1229%2806%29
Federal Trade Commission. (2025, January 17). FTC surveillance pricing study indicates wide range of personal data used to set individualized consumer prices. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-surveillance-pricing-study-indicates-wide-range-personal-data-used-set-individualized-consumer
Forskrift om prisopplysninger mv. for varer og tjenester [Price Information Regulation], FOR-2012-11-14-1066, § 9a (2012, as amended). https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2012-11-14-1066/%C2%A79a
Gabel, S., & Guhl, D. (2022). Comparing the effectiveness of rewards and individually targeted coupons in loyalty programs. Journal of Retailing, 98(3), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2021.08.001
General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
Hauge, S. S. (2026, October 9). CPI up 3.4 per cent last 12 months. Statistics Norway. https://www.ssb.no/en/priser-og-prisindekser/konsumpriser/statistikk/konsumprisindeksen/artikler/cpi-up-3.4-per-cent-last-12-months-0926
KIWI. (2026, September 14). Slik får du maks Trumf-bonus med KIWI PLUSS og Trumf Pay [How to maximize Trumf bonus with KIWI PLUSS and Trumf Pay]. https://kiwi.no/fordeler/trumf-pay
Leenheer, J., van Heerde, H. J., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Smidts, A. (2007). Do loyalty programs really enhance behavioral loyalty? An empirical analysis accounting for self-selecting members. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.10.005
Markedsføringsloven [Marketing Control Act], LOV-2009-01-09-2 (2009, as amended). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2009-01-09-2
NorgesGruppen. (2015, October 22). Stadig flere blir Trumf-medlemmer [More people are becoming Trumf members]. https://www.norgesgruppen.no/om-oss/om-oss-hjem/artikler/stadig-flere-blir-trumf-medlemmer/
Nortvedt, T., Alfnes, F., Ansteensen, A.-K., Schjøll, A., & Stampe, P. L. (2026). Kunnskapsgrunnlag om kundeprogrammene i dagligvaremarkedet. Del 2: Empirisk studie og anbefalinger [Evidence base on grocery customer programs. Part 2: Empirical study and recommendations] (SIFO Report No. 5-2026). Forbruksforskningsinstituttet SIFO, OsloMet. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/kunnskapsgrunnlag-om-kundeprogrammene-i-dagligvaremarkedet2/id3155244/
Norwegian Competition Authority. (2026, April 29). Dagligvarerapport 2025 [Grocery report 2025]. https://konkurransetilsynet.no/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Dagligvarerapport-2025.pdf
Norwegian Ministry of Finance. (2018). Tilleggsbevilgninger og omprioriteringer i statsbudsjettet 2018 [Supplementary appropriations and reallocations in the 2018 national budget] (Prop. 85 S [2017–2018], chap. 2). https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/prop.-85-s-20172018/id2601312/?ch=2
Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2006). The endowed progress effect: How artificial advancement increases effort. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 504–512. https://doi.org/10.1086/500480
Nygaard, R. (2022, September 8). Slik beregner SSB prisutviklingen på matvarer [How Statistics Norway measures food price trends]. Statistics Norway. https://www.ssb.no/priser-og-prisindekser/konsumpriser/artikler/slik-beregner-ssb-prisutviklingen-pa-matvarer
Økland, T. K. (2026, January 9). Dyrere tjenester preget prisveksten i 2025 [More expensive services shaped price growth in 2025]. Statistics Norway. https://www.ssb.no/priser-og-prisindekser/konsumpriser/statistikk/konsumprisindeksen/artikler/dyrere-tjenester-preget-prisveksten-i-2025
Personopplysningsloven [Personal Data Act], LOV-2018-06-15-38 (2018, as amended). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2018-06-15-38
Reitan Retail. (2026, June 8). Nå kommer Spenn til REMA 1000 [Spenn arrives at REMA 1000]. https://www.reitanretail.no/pressemeldinger/na-kommer-spenn-til-rema-1000
REMA 1000. (n.d.-a). Personvern [Privacy and terms]. Retrieved November 9, 2026, from https://www.rema.no/om-rema/personvern/
REMA 1000. (n.d.-b). Personvernerklæring for REMA 1000 [Privacy notice for REMA 1000]. Retrieved November 9, 2026, from https://www.rema.no/om-rema/personvern/personvernerklaering-for-rema-1000/
REMA 1000. (2018). REMA 1000 årsrapport 2017 [REMA 1000 annual report 2017]. https://www.rema.no/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/17-REMA-1000-A%CC%8Arsrapport-2017.pdf
REMA 1000. (2025, December 29). REMA-kort [REMA card]. https://www.rema.no/rema-appen/rema-kort/
REMA 1000. (2026, June 8). REMA-appen [The REMA app]. https://www.rema.no/rema-appen/
Statistics Norway. (2026, June 19). Comparison of price levels in Europe. https://www.ssb.no/en/priser-og-prisindekser/konsumpriser/statistikk/sammenlikning-av-prisniva-i-europa
Trumf. (n.d.-a). Medlemsvilkår [Membership terms]. Retrieved November 9, 2026, from https://www.trumf.no/personvern?filter=Medlemsvilk%C3%A5r
Trumf. (n.d.-b). Personvernerklæring [Privacy notice]. Retrieved November 9, 2026, from https://www.trumf.no/personvern?filter=Personvernerkl%C3%A6ring
Trumf. (n.d.-c). Verv venner og familie til Trumf [Refer friends and family to Trumf]. Retrieved November 9, 2026, from https://www.trumf.no/verving