Sunglasses deal - what went wrong?

jamespir

Raffles99 wrote: »

No-one has mentioned that Quidco pays £5 cashback to anyone ordering a deal from MyCityDeal.

This is where MSE hits a conflict of interest. If MSE was 100% dedicated to saving you money, it would have recommended you use Quidco, taking the cost down to £12.50.

Instead, people will have used the MSE link which, presumably, pays MSE the £5 instead. Based on the 10,000 vouchers ordered - a large % of which will be from the MSE link - you can see this is not a bad days work.

it proabbly did not recommend quidco as quidco states you will lose cashback if you use any vouchers/discount codes that arent provided by quidco

Raffles99

jamespir wrote: »

it proabbly did not recommend quidco as quidco states you will lose cashback if you use any vouchers/discount codes that arent provided by quidco

I'm not talking about Quidco and the sunglass company, I'm talking about Quidco and MyCityDeal. You get £5 cashback on every MyCityDeal over £5 that you purchase if you go via Quidco to the MyCityDeal site.

(In fact, last time I bought a deal for £2.50 it still tracked as £5!)

1984ReturnsForReal_2

MSE_Martin wrote: »

As for the question about giving money to charity, this totally FREE site funds 30 full time members of staff, has enormous costs, both legal, technical and others related to this forum as well as countless projects for charities. A good chunk of what comes in automatically goes to charity see http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/mse-charity-fund. We do that by ethically using affiliate links on deals we editorially rate as being good see http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/funding – this was certainly one of those.


Martin

I understand that but I really don't think you get the point.

What you have done is use an affiliate link to get paid & mass marketed this "deal".

& like it or not you become part of the "deal", you know, money in your pocket for an additional PR person or an IT bod.

It funds your own personal lifestyle directly.

A little like MPs & their expenses. One got a duck house but probably never bothered to claim for a couple of stamps so it doesn't matter about the cost of the duck house. I bet he donated more than the cost of the duck house to charity. So that should exempt him.

Ethics Martin. Ethics.

jamespir

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I understand that but I really don't think you get the point.

What you have done is use an affiliate link to get paid & mass marketed this "deal".

& like it or not you become part of the "deal", you know, money in your pocket for an additional PR person or an IT bod.

It funds your own personal lifestyle directly.

A little like MPs & their expenses. One got a duck house but probably never bothered to claim for a couple of stamps so it doesn't matter about the cost of the duck house. I bet he donated more than the cost of the duck house to charity. So that should exempt him.

Ethics Martin. Ethics.

so would you prefer to pay to come to mse then

redux

hurdy wrote: »

+1 here. The incessant ranting is doing my swede in.

The continual splitting and movement of material between threads is pretty confusing too, as it will end up with posts replying to and containing quotes which aren't actually on the thread.

On the other hand, this thread has now been moved to a different board ...

For an example of one dilemma, if someone wants to take issue with the statement that it was and is again a cracking deal, as the prices have returned to what they were before, should they quote Martin or Archna saying this, and on which thread?

Right at the moment, this thread is said to be designated as the one for people who want to complain about the companies' conduct, while the other is supposed to be about monitoring the progress of refunds and repairing the situation.

Martin's post (i.e. Martin's post on the other thread, now that he has a post on this) has been edited several times by now, including the partly contradictory insert recently by Archna that this (i.e that) thread is about monitoring whether people are being treated fairly, but if they want to complain, in other words if they think they aren't being treated fairly, then don't post on this (i.e. that) but the other (i.e. this) thread.

And the first thread was locked, to start up a new one which has now split into this/that and that/this threads ... will that still be the way things are a bit later on, or will the threads have been reshuffled again with replies to out of context or invisible posts?

Anyway, back to subject, it is not true that all the prices went back to how they were before. One I was looking at more than doubled, and with the gearing effect of the voucher the increase would have been nearly fourfold.

autopilot

haynick wrote: »

My City Deals - Grubby
Sunglasses-shop - Grubby
MSE - Grubby


A very grubby affair indeed.

Get a grip of reality and grow up. Seriously, the shrill knee-jerk over-reacting on these forums is truly breathtakingly pathetic. I know some people just live to moan, especially when in anonymous groups on-line, but its beyond a joke now. Please stop and go back to righting letters to the Daily Mail.

MSE have doing nothing wrong. MCD's have not really done anything wrong and Sunglasses Shop made an error, which no mater what really happened has now been rectified.

In fact i would like to say well done to all involved for good communication and sorting out the problems for us, which were no where near as bad as the old fish wives on here keep making out.

I'm going to take a long holiday from these forums, the muppet force is too strong.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

jamespir wrote: »

so would you prefer to pay to come to mse then

Without the free website Martin wouldn't be where he is now.

Well done to him but what a silly thing to say.

photome

redux wrote: »

The continual splitting and movement of material between threads is pretty confusing too, as it will end up with posts replying to and containing quotes which aren't actually on the thread.

On the other hand, this thread has now been moved to a different board ...

For an example of one dilemma, if someone wants to take issue with the statement that it was and is again a cracking deal, as the prices have returned to what they were before, should they quote Martin or Archna saying this, and on which thread?

Right at the moment, this thread is said to be designated as the one for people who want to complain about the companies' conduct, while the other is supposed to be about monitoring the progress of refunds and repairing the situation.

Martin's post (i.e. Martin's post on the other thread, now that he has a post on this) has been edited several times by now, including the partly contradictory insert recently by Archna that this (i.e that) thread is about monitoring whether people are being treated fairly, but if they want to complain, in other words if they think they aren't being treated fairly, then don't post on this (i.e. that) but the other (i.e. this) thread.

And the first thread was locked, to start up a new one which has now split into this/that and that/this threads ... will that still be the way things are a bit later on, or will the threads have been reshuffled again with replies to out of context or invisible posts?

Anyway, back to subject, it is not true that all the prices went back to how they were before. One I was looking at more than doubled, and with the gearing effect of the voucher the increase would have been nearly fourfold.

I agree about the closing, deleting and then the splitting of threads. Makes it very difficult to follow.

I also dont think prices went back to exactly what they were although may only be a few pence difference, on the ones i was looking out which incidentally are now Out of stock. Lookslike I will have to get my money back.

I asume an email to mycitydeals will suffice?

WestHamDaz

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I understand that but I really don't think you get the point. - methinks it is you who is missing the point

What you have done is use an affiliate link to get paid & mass marketed this "deal".
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/moneysavingexpert-finance#revenue - and your point is???

& like it or not you become part of the "deal", you know, money in your pocket for an additional PR person or an IT bod. - does a forum of this size work itself? Web developers dont come for free you know

It funds your own personal lifestyle directly. - so people work for free now do they?

A little like MPs & their expenses. One got a duck house but probably never bothered to claim for a couple of stamps so it doesn't matter about the cost of the duck house. I bet he donated more than the cost of the duck house to charity. So that should exempt him. - nothing like the MP's expenses scandal

Ethics Martin. Ethics.

couldnt give a toss if the owners of this site made a few quid off this deal, as it has been mentioned many times over the last 24 hours, everyone that ordered their shades will get them at the price they were advertised. So why the witch hunt?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

WestHamDaz wrote: »

couldnt give a toss if the owners of this site made a few quid off this deal, as it has been mentioned many times over the last 24 hours, everyone that ordered their shades will get them at the price they were advertised. So why the witch hunt?

Nice. You don't give a toss.

Why the defense?

Got a personal motive we should all know about?

Thought so......

& whilst we are on the subject, it is not a witch hunt.