Parliamentary Motion Specifically To Support This Site

tigermatt

MSE_Andrea wrote:

Hi Tigermatt

Can you email what you've written to brokenlink(at)moneysavingexpert.com and we'll sort it out as soon as we can?

Thanks

Just about to now

tigermatt

All done, thanks Andrea.

I was reading the thread about the brokenlink address but completely forgot about it when I spotted the broken link :rolleyes: Now that I've used it I should hopefully remember it for next time

sra

The links in the first post no longer work.

the Early Day Motion can still be seen via web.archive.org

(scroll to #564)

Joalaneil

trafalgar wrote:

Good lord I have never bothered to read such things but I will from now on.................Mentioned in dispatches:D well done to yourself Martin and everyone who works to make the site great and more importantly useful .

I too am glad i have read this, what a fab site this is, i am sure i am going to find a lot of useful things here, congratulations Martin, incidently i enjoyed seeing you on Richard Hammonds' 5 o'clock show, infact the whole concept of that show is brilliant.

Bye for now Joalaneil :T

happenstance

MSE_Martin wrote:

That this House commends the activities of those persons and groups dedicated to assisting members of the public get value for money in purchases, insurance, overdrafts and mortgages; and recognises that money saving experts like Martin Lewis at http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/ provides, on a not-for-profit basis, an incentive for ordinary consumers to pressurise large providers and financial institutions to hold down prices to the general public. [/i]

That’s great and I hate to put a downer on this thread but is the site run on a 'not-for-profit basis'? I mean the newsletter is generally great but I did notice the commission junction recommending that carphone warehouse broadband service headlining the newsletter the other week. I don’t think it has been out long enough to have appropriate analysis in order offer a recommendation or not.

sra

happenstance wrote:

That’s great and I hate to put a downer on this thread but is the site run on a 'not-for-profit basis'? I mean the newsletter is generally great but I did notice the commission junction recommending that carphone warehouse broadband service headlining the newsletter the other week. I don’t think it has been out long enough to have appropriate analysis in order offer a recommendation or not.

Personally I think the pros and cons are detailed well in the UKs Cheapest Home Phone Calls article which was linked to from the email.

I also seem to rember Martin saying that it took a huge amount on time and effort to analyse and compare the new package to others

MSE_Martin

Actually the motion is wrong. This site is non-profit driven not non-profit. And in fact I've been wrestling on that phrasing recently.

The idea is simple, all recommendations are made without any relevance to the sites finances. However once they're made we see if we can make them pay.

E.g. the talk talk offer you discuss above, was written about and analysed, once it worked out to be good - then we got an affiliate link. As you'll see one of the four other product in there primus also has a link - yet that only started two weeks ago, for the four prior months it was there without a paid link - as it was the best - and the paid links never have any impact on recommendation.

For example take a look at the balance transfers article, all the 9 month 0% no fee credit cards listed don't pay this site anything. You also won't see them on other money sites, for just that reason - even though they are massive best buys. That's one non-profit driven means - anything on this site is there because its the best way to save money not the best way to make this site cash.

However I think this phrasing isn't as clear as it could be and have it on my list of things to do to clarify how the site makes revenue. I'm probably going to go with

Uncompromising financial stance instead as i think that helps people get the point more quickly.

However nothing changes - this site NEVER has anything on it because someone has offered money - the only things on here are those absolutely rated as top forc consumers.

martin

happenstance

sra wrote:

Personally I think the pros and cons are detailed well in the UKs Cheapest Home Phone Calls article which was linked to from the email.

I also seem to rember Martin saying that it took a huge amount on time and effort to analyse and compare the new package to others

That article is quite detailed, however it doesn’t mention port throttling which is the worst thing about talk talk. As with any service (bus to internet) before recommending it you have to take into account the service that people receive, from transfer speeds to service availability. Still I'm not complaining - told my ISP I wanted to switch and they offered me a service that is better than the (on paper) talk talk service.

happenstance

MSE_Martin wrote:

Actually the motion is wrong. This site is non-profit driven not non-profit. And in fact I've been wrestling on that phrasing recently.

The idea is simple, all recommendations are made without any relevance to the sites finances. However once they're made we see if we can make them pay.

E.g. the talk talk offer you discuss above, was written about and analysed, once it worked out to be good - then we got an affiliate link. As you'll see one of the four other product in there primus also has a link - yet that only started two weeks ago, for the four prior months it was there without a paid link - as it was the best - and the paid links never have any impact on recommendation.

For example take a look at the balance transfers article, all the 9 month 0% no fee credit cards listed don't pay this site anything. You also won't see them on other money sites, for just that reason - even though they are massive best buys. That's one non-profit driven means - anything on this site is there because its the best way to save money not the best way to make this site cash.

However I think this phrasing isn't as clear as it could be and have it on my list of things to do to clarify how the site makes revenue. I'm probably going to go with

Uncompromising financial stance instead as i think that helps people get the point more quickly.

However nothing changes - this site NEVER has anything on it because someone has offered money - the only things on here are those absolutely rated as top forc consumers.

martin

I'm not questioning the impartialness of the site, just the content of the email that sometimes comes across skewered towards highlighting the tips with afflicted links. This is to be expected as you have to make a profit somehow. My main point was that if the site was non profit, although you've cleared that up, then it would tell people to sign up to talk talk using quidco.

puddings_2

I'm sure i saw Jack Straw MP getting an R&R in tesco the other day??!!