My perspective comes from the corporate world. On the one hand, it's nice to be acknowledged for work done. On the other... In my more recent full-time corpor

My perspective comes from the corporate world. On the one hand, it's nice to be acknowledged for work done. On the other... In my more recent full-time corporate gigs, I encountered various "reward" programs. For example, one was for 5 years' service. The "reward" consisted of an email notification containing a link to an external web site and some authentication method, along with so many "points" of credit based on the circumstance. I could pick any item whose point count did not exceed my allocation. I think I ended up with a toaster (that's what 5 years service is worth, apparently, and since my current toaster toasted unevenly, my choice was made). My point? This "acknowledgment" was outsourced to a firm that does this for a living. With rewards that are fairly cheesy and/or that have inflated "values" assigned to them. It felt more like an "anti-acknowledgement". My firm either sent a list (in Excel, perhaps -- hah!) of events and corresponding email addresses, or let the third party troll some HR database for same. I'm sure that they paid some fee based upon headcount and/or events. The third party sent your selection to fulfillment outfit (i.e. warehouse) that mailed you your selection. If your manager was not particularly paying attention, the whole thing could and did happen without their participation, at all. So... Google appears to be assigning somewhat larger "values" to some of these rewards, and to be doing them externally. And so, they are also actively reaching out to these external contacts. On the other hand, at a glance it has the same sort of feel. Assigning "values" (perhaps/likely at some set of pre-determined levels) in conjunction with some third party who's been contracted for fulfillment. And a typically bland and... "corporate" set of reward items. I agree with the other commenter here who suggested just sending them a phone (or tablet?). That would seem to be more "Googlish" to me and, for all that it might represent less "choice", might represent more value from the perspective of the recipient. For those who don't need it, we almost always have friends who could use one. Sort of in line with the "sharing" perspective under which many of the external contributions that aided Google were made, in the first time. TL;DR: I would suggest keeping the gifts more "Googlish" (branded random generic "stuff" doesn't count) and avoiding scenarios akin to my 5 year anniversary (and a few others I could mention). -- P.S. I'll add that I am a formally acknowledged (publicly listed) external contributor to Google, although I didn't receive anything for it. If someone had offered, and cash weren't on the table, a phone or tablet would have been nice. If I didn't need it, I would have had several family and friends to choose from in passing it on. And -- a "free" gift from Google (via me) would have been good marketing to them, as well. So, I'm just some random guy with his thoughts, here. But... again, stay "Google" and don't go all "corporate" (e.g. "corporate rewards and fulfillment).