Opinions lie somewhere on a spectrum in daily life for just about any subject. For example, you’ll find people that tell you the best Mexican food restaurant is Taco Bell, and you’ll of course find plenty of other people with the (correct) opposite opinion. EDITOR’S NOTE: I tried to link to sources for the opposite opinion, but there were so many that it literally broke the internet so I had to revert the links.

In churning, a divisive range of opinions formed about how much sharing is good; all the way from “any sharing will kill any deal” to “everything should be shared so everyone can benefit” and everything in-between. I’ve seen counter examples to sharing absolutism on both ends and I think both viewpoints are wrong. A few examples:

  • “Any sharing will kill any deal”: Obviously this isn’t true. Buying money orders at Walmart has been around since the early 2010s, and buyer’s groups have been around even longer. Both are alive and well despite massive publicity and volume
  • “Everything should be shared so everyone can benefit”: Avianca LifeMiles learned about award chart soft-spots and cabotage through a travel blogger’s DOT complaint and killed plenty of its sweet spots right after; the same thing happened with Emirates redemption on Alaska after too much online press.

There’s a goldilocks zone with most subjective opinions where too much of something is bad, too little of the same thing is bad, but some is just right. What sharing size is right for churning? That depends on the audience’s size, composition, and the topic at hand. If you think I’m not in the goldilocks zone with this blog’s content, please let me know because I’m certain I can always improve.

Tying this back to where we started: While in general the goldilocks zone is somewhere in the middle, sometimes the absolutists on one side are correct: Taco Bell isn’t the best Mexican restaurant (don’t say you never learned valuable life lessons at MEAB).

Exhibit A: A Taco Bell Mexican pizza.