Strong reciprocal relations between a company and its customers are important for both business success (Kumar & Shah, 2004; Rust, Moorman, & Bhalla, 2010) and customer satisfaction (Bloemer & Kasper, 1995). Customer loyalty programs are one of the most important and widespread tools for managing these relations (Meyer‐Waarden, 2008) and for gaining potentially precious knowledge about one’s customers (Berman, 2006; Kumar & Shah, 2004). In most service sectors, loyalty programs have already become the norm. Still, the loyalty management market is expected to grow at more than 20% annually over the next years (Pune, 2015). The current and prospective abundance of loyalty programs (e.g., it is estimated that an average household in the United States owns 29 loyalty cards; Colloquy, 2015) poses a fundamental challenge: attracting new members to a program. An increasing number of programs compete for customers who are growing more and more skeptical about loyalty programs in general (Colloquy, 2014; WorldPay, 2013). Consumer surveys point to the relevance of loyalty rewards as a key to overcoming this skepticism (Colloquy, 2014). Consequently, the design of a program and its rewards has been of primary importance (Keh & Lee, 2006; Yi & Jeon, 2003). This paper focuses on one major characteristic of programs and rewards: their monetarism (Furinto, Pawitra, & Balqiah, 2009), namely, the extent to which rewards are of a monetary or money‐like nature. Monetary incentives were shown to be a powerful motivator in different contexts (e.g., Hammermann & Mohnen, 2014; Pessiglione et al., 2007; Vohs, Mead, & Goode, 2006) including consumption (Lea & Webley, 2006). Yet, in the context of loyalty programs, there are voices suggesting that—given that loyalty programs are about relationships—nonmonetary rewards may be as successful (Johnson, 1999; White, 2003). What are prospective members attracted by the most? The primary aim of this paper is to systematically investigate the influence of reward monetarism among nonmembers. Specifically, we test what happens if prospective members are offered reward bundles that are composed of individual rewards that differ in terms of monetarism. By focusing on monetarism, the paper provides a simple lens that helps judging whether a reward program is likely to attract members. By focusing on nonmembers, the paper adds to a literature that has tended to focus on existing members (e.g., Eggert, Steinhoff, & Garnefeld, 2015; Keh & Lee, 2006; Suh & Yi, 2012), which may behave systematically different from nonmembers (Leenheer, van Heerde, Bijmolt, & Smidts, 2007). Prior literature suggests that any relationship identified may be malleable to the specific situation a customer is in. Therefore, another aim and contribution of this paper is to inquire into potential boundary conditions to the effectiveness of loyalty program monetarism in attracting customers. In particular, we ask whethe the type of consumption goal (hedonic vs. utilitarian) a person pursues can moderate the effect of specific rewards on consumer reactions (for evidence of such moderation in similar contexts, see, e.g., Chandon, Wansink, & Laurent, 2000; Büttner, Florack, & Göritz, 2015). A pilot study and five scenario‐based experiments critically evaluate the relation between reward monetarism and attractiveness. The studies were situated in different contexts (hospitality and beauty) and controlled for several potential confounds (monetary reward value, perceived program uniqueness, and involvement). Results across studies show a consistent and stable advantage for monetary rewards. Remarkably and despite some variation in effect sizes, this advantage appears to be largely insensitive to salient consumption goals. These insights help to foster our understanding of what appeals to prospective customers and of the limits of consumption goals. In addition, this paper adds to debates on what it is that makes monetarism so special.