The Wrap on Wraps

It all started with Spotify.

For a few glorious days every December, social feeds fill with people proudly sharing their Spotify Wrapped, showcasing their top artists, most-played songs, and slightly embarrassing listening habits. It’s fun, it’s personal, and it makes people feel good about all that time they spent with the product. 

Now, every company seems to think it needs a "Year in Review" too.

And that’s definitely not the case.

Late last year, I received eleven different “wraps” from various brands and programs I use. 

Some were genuinely motivating. Some were fine. Others were a complete waste of time or, worse, made me question why I was using the product or service at all.

The following are my candid reviews of the "wraps" I received to wrap up my 2025, which I hope companies reading this might use to consider whether it's really worth their while to create their own "wraps" at the end of the year.

---

Duolingo: celebrating my effort

Duolingo’s 2025 Wrapped is a strong example of why a wrap can work so well. 

From the outset, it positioned me as a "learning legend" and told me I was in the top 1% of global learners. That’s not just a statistic: that’s motivation to keep up with my lessons… and to keep subscribing to Duolingo.

The email walked me through specific, concrete achievements: 1,500 French lessons completed, a French score of 44, 12,660 “XP” points earned in Chess, and 107,111 total XP points earned, which it told me was more than 99% of learners. It reminded me that I was in the 98th percentile for minutes spent learning (4,708 minutes), kept a 642‑day streak (top 3%), and competed in the Diamond League for 47 weeks. 

At every step within the "wrap", Duolingo made a simple but powerful point: all that time I spent on the app was time well spent.

That’s the key. This wrap celebrated my accomplishments and made me feel good about my behaviour. If you’re looking for a model of "this is why we should do a wrap," Duolingo is it.

---

Goodreads: putting behaviour into context

Goodreads took a similar, and similarly effective, approach. It told me I read six books and 3,008 pages, showed the covers of those books, and displayed the month in which I read each one: one in March, one in June, two in October, one in November, and one in December. Most of those were for my quarterly book club, but it was nice to see I squeezed in a couple of non‑book‑club picks too.

Where Goodreads really shone was in how it contextualized the numbers. It didn’t just say "3,008 pages"; it translated that into "enough pages to take a stroll across Central Park with pages to spare."

It surfaced my top genres (non‑fiction, memoir/biography, and then science fiction), highlighted the books I rated five stars (Project Hail Mary, King Sorrow, and Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity), and pointed out which of my reads were nominated for the Goodreads Choice Awards. Then it pulled everything together into a clean one‑pager that made my year of reading feel substantial and satisfying.

Again, this worked because people feel good about the time they spend reading. Emphasizing "look what you accomplished" is exactly what a wrap should do.

---

LinkedIn: lots of data, little meaning

LinkedIn’s "Year In Review" should serve as a cautionary tale.

(And not just for its terrible design aesthetic. Like, seriously, take a look at the screenshot below: could you possibly be any more uninspiring?)

LinkedIn's year-in-review opened with a "let’s hit rewind on your 2025," reminded me I joined back in 2006, and called me a “seasoned pro.”

Okay, so I've been with LinkedIn for a long time. So what?

Then it hit me with a curious statistic: I spent 344 days on LinkedIn, putting me in the top 5% of LinkedIn members. The problem is that I honestly don’t know if that’s something I should be proud of or concerned about: it’s highlighting how much time I spend on the website without giving me any clear sense of whether that time was worthwhile.

The rest of the recap followed the same pattern.

My “peak times” on LinkedIn were between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m., but that’s a nine‑hour window so broad it’s essentially meaningless.

I earned three certificates and added three skills, but there was no context about whether that’s impressive or not. (How many certificates and skills does the average LinkedIn user add? Who knows?) I gained 175 new connections, but it didn’t tell me whether that number of new connections is average, above-average, or below average; numbers without context are generally meaningless.

It told me 497 of my connections were “on the move” and name‑dropped RBC, Scotiabank, and Google, which felt more like generic flexing than useful information.

As a premium member, I was told I "stood out and stayed curious," with over 10,000 profile views and 1,074 searches completed. But none of that was connected to actual outcomes. It felt more like a sales pitch for Premium than evidence of tangible value. I was labelled a "catalyst" because my posts earned reactions and comments, but I know from LinkedIn itself that "catalyst" is basically a default label many people get. And that makes it meaningless.

The wrap closed by highlighting the person I engaged with most all year (a friend and loyalty expert), but again, without any real insight attached.

Overall, LinkedIn’s review didn’t make me feel good about the time I spent on the platform, didn’t quantify my results, and didn’t help me understand why that time was worthwhile. It’s a wrap full of metrics without meaning.

---

Nintendo: account behaviour vs. personal behaviour

Nintendo’s 2025 year-in-review was nice but not particularly insightful.

It told me I played nine games for 35 hours, listed my top titles (EA Sports FC 24, Super Mario 3D World, Mario Kart Deluxe), and showed my dominant game style (89% soccer, then small percentages for action, adventure, party, racing, and fighting).

The primary issue here is the same one that often impacts the Spotify Wraps: attribution. My kids often play games using my account, so all of the stats presented reflect “account behaviour,” not my own. That’s a fundamental challenge for any wrap based solely on account‑level usage: is this actually my year in review, or just my profile’s?

There was one genuinely smart element, though. Nintendo asked me to pick my favourite game from a scrollable list of titles I’d played. That’s not just a vanity feature: it’s actionable data. If large numbers of people choose the same title as their favourite, that’s a strong signal for what deserves a sequel or more investment.

Overall, the Nintendo wrap was a fun look back on my year in games, but it didn’t give me much to feel good about or learn from. And it didn’t help me justify the time spent or offer any useful insights, which is where it fell short.

---

New York Times Games: close, but not quite

The New York Times Games year in review was interesting, but imperfect.

It started with a big collective stat ("more than 10.5 billion puzzles solved this year"), which obviously isn’t my personal total but serves as social proof. ("Don’t feel bad about how often you play NYT Games.. Everybody is doing it!")

On the individual side, it told me I solved puzzles on 320 days, mostly in the mornings, and called out my "best Wordle" (a January 2 puzzle I solved in two guesses). It gave me my average Wordle guess count (4.01) and noted that my most common starting word was "stale," adding an observation from Wordle Bot that "slate" is the most efficient starting word, although the broader community most often used the word "adieu".

It also summarized my broader gameplay: 230 puzzles solved across multiple games, 112 perfect Connections puzzles, 106 Strands sessions with 29 "spanograms" solved first, and a 79‑day Strands streak. The Year-in-Review also sprinkled in some Spelling Bee statistics, but those weren’t personally relevant because I rarely play that game. So I have to ask, why bother?​

The pattern should feel familiar by now: lots of activity stats, but not much help in answering, "Was that time well spent? Do I feel more connected to this product because of it?" For me, the answer was "not really." It was an interesting recap, but it didn’t make me more endeared to NYT Games or make my usage feel particularly meaningful.

---

GoodLife: high potential, not enough data (yet)

GoodLife’s 2025 year in review is a special case because I only joined the gym at the very end of the year. As a result, the data was sparse: nine check‑ins, a longest streak of four weeks, and not much else. Taken on its own, this specific recap wasn’t especially useful.

But the potential here is huge. A gym wrap is a perfect opportunity to make people feel good about their healthy behaviour: longest streaks, time‑of‑day patterns, favourite classes, training milestones, maybe even the people they most often check in with. Those are all the kinds of things that could make someone think, "Wow, I really did something good for myself this year."

This is a category where the concept of a wrap is excellent; the limiting factor was simply that I hadn’t been a member long enough for it to shine.

---

Sephora: the risk of reminding people what they spend

Sephora’s wrap is another "interesting, but…" example.

Like GoodLife, I only joined at the very end of the year, largely to see if I could get a free birthday gift. (I could, and I did! My teenage daughter claimed it on my behalf, though.)

The email thanked me for being a member, then offered several generic promotions, which is about all it could reasonably do given how little information it had about me or my buying habits.

The bigger point here is strategic: if I were Sephora, I’d be very cautious about how I use "wraps". Many Sephora customers spend a lot of money there, and the last thing you want to do is send a beautifully designed reminder of just how much they’ve spent.

I believe Starbucks may have learned this lesson the hard way. I didn’t receive a Starbucks wrap this year, and it wouldn’t surprise me that it was because they realized that last year’s "year in review" highlighted how often I visited Starbucks stores and how much I spent while I was there, making me question my patronage.

In categories where people already suspect they’re overspending, a wrap that highlights that fact can easily backfire.

---

Scene+ (loyalty): selling, not celebrating

My Scene+ wrap was, unfortunately, not great. 

It told me I earned 10,521 points and redeemed 10,364 points, which basically highlighted that I’m earning and burning without bothering to accumulate anything. From a loyalty perspective, that’s not exactly a win. It labelled me a "sky‑high achiever," but given the modest points total, that title didn’t feel particularly credible.

The recap broke down where I earned and where I redeemed: 6,353 points earned at Cineplex and 10,364 points redeemed overall. Clearly, I enjoy my movies, but again, the story here is more "you churn points quickly" than "look at the deep value you’re getting".

From there, the wrap devolved into generic selling: try more partners, get a credit card, here’s an "exclusive" offer that didn’t feel especially compelling. It didn’t help me understand the value of the program or feel good about my engagement. It felt like a missed opportunity to showcase why Scene+ is worth my attention.

---

Google Photos: pure emotional value

My Google Photos "playback" was a great example of how a wrap can be powerful even when it doesn’t include hard metrics.

The recap stitched together a video of my key memories from the year. There were no facts and figures provided about how much time I spent taking photos, how much storage I used, or how many pictures and videos I uploaded. It was just a beautiful video montage of photos I took throughout the year that made me feel nostalgic and reminded me of how useful Google Photos is to me.

I don’t pay for Google Photos directly, so there’s no risk in reminding me how often I use it. But I do pay Google for cloud storage (which includes the space I need to store all of those photos and videos I take), so there’s a lot of value in a “year in review” that anchors the product to my priceless memories.

---

AppSumo: value for the company and for me

AppSumo’s wrap did something clever: it created one "year in review" for the company and then another for me as a customer.

On the corporate side, it highlighted 534 deals launched, over $58 million saved by "Sumolings," and over $19 million paid to partners. That simple GIF serves as a "wrap" on the value AppSumo created as a business.

Then it shifted to my personal experience: the one tool I bought, the category it fell into (media, which is a popular category), and my "favourite data shop."

The personal stats weren’t life‑changing, but the dual focus was interesting: "Here’s what we did for everyone," and "here’s what we did for you".

That’s a smart framework for B2B or marketplace platforms to consider.

---

WeWork: all sizzle, no steak

WeWork’s "wrap" was a giant, generic brand flex: "Look at us! We welcomed 19 million visitors, hosted almost 52,000 in‑person events, and served 22.9 million cups of coffee!"

Those numbers are big, but they don’t tell me anything useful. They’re not personalized, they don’t help an existing member feel valued, and they don’t give a non‑member a compelling reason to join. It’s more self‑promotional than anything else.

Your company's "wrap" should serve a greater purpose than to say, "look how big we are!"

(Note: I found this "wrap" when someone I know posted it on LinkedIn; I'm not a WeWork member, and I can't say whether this would have been emailed to me if I were.)

---

Cineplex CineClub: best‑in‑class

Cineplex’s CineClub wrap might be the best example I’ve seen of how to do this well outside of Spotify.

First, it reminded me of the movies I saw in 2025 (complete with movie poster visuals): apparently, I watched nine films that added up to 1,239 minutes of screen time. 

Then, it delivered a series of facts and figures:

• I earned 2,753 Scene points and used 13 CineClub tickets. Translation: clearly, I’m making full use of my membership!

• I consumed “5,500 kernels of popcorn” and “13,000 millilitres of fountain drinks”... which seems like a lot, doesn't it?

• It identified my favourite movie day (Friday) and my go‑to theatre. 

But one fact really caught my attention: being a Cineclub member saved me $78.63 on tickets and treats. My annual Cineclub membership costs me only $110 (+ tax), which means the membership is almost paying for itself.

But that's not all. After the facts and figures, my Cineclub "wrap" did something really interesting: it introduced a badge system. 

I earned badges for using my welcome ticket, buying concessions, and seeing films in their first week. But this section also highlighted badges I didn’t earn: top 10% of moviegoers, seeing half of the biggest films of the year, and experiencing most of the theatre chain’s premium screens. Seeing the badges I didn’t earn was highly effective in creating a gamified nudge for next year, reinforced that idea with the note that only 542 members "are rocking all six badges" and included a not-so-subtle #2026goals hashtag. Point taken, Cineplex.

Next came a "CineClub Select" section indicating how many of the year's six biggest films I watched in Cineplex theatres...

... and a pie-chart breakdown of the types of screens I chose, which not only reflected my current screen habits but also subtly showcased other (more premium) viewing options available for future visits.

CineClub’s wrap works because it does two things brilliantly: it reminds me of the exact amount of value I realized from the program (savings, perks) and how many great experiences I had because of it, namely, movies I saw in the theatres. 

And that’s a perfect example of why companies should “wrap” in the first place.

---

How Should You Wrap?

After going through all of these, a few clear lessons emerge. If you’re thinking about launching your own “Year in Review” next year, use these as your checklist.

1. Start with the question: “Will this make people feel good about us?”

A wrap should celebrate the customer, not shame them.​

Good candidates:

• Behaviours people are proud of (learning a language, reading books, going to the gym).

• Emotional experiences (photos, movies, meaningful entertainment, community).

• Clear, positive value (money saved, perks earned, tangible benefits).

Risky candidates:

• High‑spend categories where people already feel guilty (beauty, coffee, impulse shopping).

• Time sinks where the main output is "you were here… a lot" (social media, some games, generic browsing).

If there's a risk that your year-in-review recap will prompt your consumers to think, "Wow, I waste a lot of time/money here," reconsider your "wrap" plans.

2. Don’t just show activity; show outcomes

Time spent, visits, and usage stats are table stakes; they only become meaningful if they connect to a result.

Bad:

• "You spent 344 days here." Now I’m wondering if I should find a new hobby.

• "You earned and redeemed 10,000 points." So what? What did that get me?​

Better:

• "You completed 1,500 lessons and are in the top 1% of learners." That tells a story of progress.

• "You saved $78.63 on tickets and treats on a $100 membership." That’s an ROI story.​

• "You read enough pages to walk across Central Park." That’s a contextual story your customer can brag about.​

  
  

If you can’t clearly link usage to outcomes (skills built, money saved, experiences enjoyed), your wrap will feel hollow.​

3. Make it personal, not just promotional

The weakest wraps are the generic ones that could be sent to anyone, with only the numbers swapped. The strongest ones feel like they could only have been sent to me.​

Ways to personalize:

• Highlight specific accomplishments (streaks, milestones, top genres, favourite games).​

• Reference particular experiences (movies watched, puzzles solved, books loved).​

• Use smart comparisons (percentiles, playful analogies) that help me interpret the data.​

Avoid using the wrap primarily as a sales vehicle: "Here are our partners, here’s a credit card, here’s an offer." You can weave in offers, but they should feel like a natural extension of the value you just demonstrated, not the main event.​

4. Use wraps to learn, not just to talk

Nintendo and AppSumo hinted at something powerful: a wrap as a research tool.

Examples:

• Ask customers to pick their favourite game, product, or experience from the year.

• Invite them to choose which benefit they valued most.

• Let them react to what they want more or less of next year.

Done well, your wrap can provide you with insights you can’t easily get from passive data alone. But you only earn the right to ask if you’ve already given them something genuinely interesting or affirming.

5. Be honest about whether you have enough data

Some brands simply didn’t have a long enough relationship with me for their wraps to land. In my case, GoodLife and Sephora weren’t "bad" so much as "premature." With only a few weeks of data, they were forced into generic messaging.

If your average customer tenure is short or your data is thin, you may want to:

• Wait a year before launching a wrap.

• Limit the wrap to a subset of customers with richer histories.

• Focus more on emotional storytelling (like Google Photos) than on granular stats.​

A wrap that says almost nothing specific about me isn’t worth the effort.

---

The Wrap on Wraps

Spotify started the wrap trend, but not every brand needs to follow its lead. 

The best wraps I saw this year (Duolingo, Goodreads, Google Photos, CineClub) all had one thing in common: they reminded me why my relationship with the product was worthwhile. They celebrated my accomplishments, highlighted my savings, or helped me relive great experiences.

The weakest ones threw a pile of numbers at me with little context, used the moment to sell instead of celebrate, or accidentally reminded me I might be spending too much time or money with them.​

If you’re thinking about your own “Year in Review” for next year, start with a simple test: after your customer finishes scrolling, do they feel proud, nostalgic, smarter, or more confident in the value they get from you? Or do they feel vaguely uneasy?

If it’s the latter, my advice is simple: don’t do a wrap.

---

P.S. Regular dpThoughts readers may have noticed this blog post is much longer and much more substantive than most of my usual posts. That's because I felt I needed to review a great number of "wrap" examples to make a sufficient case about the "dos and don'ts" of company year-in-reviews. But I struggled with how to write all of this... then I had an idea.

First, I collected all of my "wrapped" emails, manually capturing screenshots of all pertinent information presented. Next, I took an audio recording of myself "thinking aloud" about the specific pros and cons of each "year in review" featured in this post. And finally, I uploaded the twenty-minute audio file to my Perplexity browser and gave it the following prompt:

Perplexity then generated a very good framework for the article you just read, which I then edited (significantly) to ensure it would read like something I would normally write. I think the process worked well, but your feedback is always welcome and appreciated.