Question specifically for Quidco Company Representative

Guys_Dad

mobilejunkie wrote: »

I didn't realise you aren't too experienced with cashback sites.

No. I was persuaded about 18 months ago to try Quidco and have done only 3 or 4 transactions for myself and a couple for my other half. Seemed like money for nothing so nothing really to lose and it's a bit like winning the office Grand National sweepstake.

But, as you have more experience in this, I am a little confused about why Quidco don't seem to give a toss about claims not being paid. It seems to me - perhaps naively - that both Quidco and their members' interests are as one in getting commission paid from both merchant and affiliate.

Does their business not depend upon them getting commission from the merchants? That must be their source of income as they only took my £5 membership fee from the first deal I did.

Now if merchants don't pay or if the affiliates are hanging on to the money, then where is Quidco's income coming form to pay their staff, let alone any business costs?

The only other explanation I could find was that Quidco have, indeed, got the commission through and are not paying cashback to members. That, clearly, would be fraud.

So if you can come up with any suggestions as to why Quidco are not chasing their own income and continuing to promote merchants who themselves or whose affiliates don't settle, I would be most interested to read it.

Rogerb_2

I have used Quidco for five years, and until this last year have had very few problems, and everything had been paid eventually, but probably won't renew.

This year affiliate network DGM went into administration and left members with losses of £200,000. In normal circumstances I would just put it down to bad luck on timing etc. but Quidco's handling of the whole process is hardly the best. Given they messed up, and all but admit to doing so, they really ought to compensate its members for the loss. It appears however their profit margins seem far more important to them, even though other cashback sites like Topcashback did the honourable thing and paid out.

Guys_Dad

Rogerb wrote: »

This year affiliate network DGM went into administration and left members with losses of £200,000. In normal circumstances I would just put it down to bad luck on timing etc. but Quidco's handling of the whole process is hardly the best. Given they messed up, and all but admit to doing so, they really ought to compensate its members for the loss. It appears however their profit margins seem far more important to them, even though other cashback sites like Topcashback did the honourable thing and paid out.

I understand that. But if DGM went bust holding the commissions from the merchants that should have been paid over to Quidco, then did Quidco not lose out too? If they paid out to members - and I believe that some were paid in expectation of DGM settling - then Quidco would have been down.

This is why I am trying to get to the bottom of who actually set up and employs this affiliate network and why they exist at all.

Now if a merchant says "We will pay you referral sites, but we will pay you using this affiliate network only", then in my view it is the merchants that owe Quidco and, eventually, they owe us, if an affiliate goes down the pan. I am still trying to get to the bottom of why affiliate networks are there in the first place, taking more money out of the same pot.

Put DGM to one side for the time being as that is gone. I can actually see why Quidco, having been let down by their merchants' affiliates and did not receive their commission, did not then decide to take a direct loss on their own books.

The Quidco Account Holder Agreement is very clear about when they are liable to pay you.

"Cashback
After an Account Holder successfully completes a Qualifying Transaction, and once we have received the resulting Cashback for that Qualifying Transaction, we pass that Cashback on to the Account Holder through his/her Cashback Receipt Method.". That is their t&c and we all accepted them.

Until they got the money in their hands, I believe it is the merchants who should make good. That is, of course, unless the affiliates were Quidco employed agents.

What I want to know is why Quidco are content to sit back and still promote merchants whose affiliate networks seem to be unable to cope with the relatively simple task of getting money from merchant A, passing it to Quidco who, in turn, take their cut and pass the cashback on to their members.

If I was Quidco, I would say "Look, we are suspending you as a merchant until you pay us what you owe and put in sufficient systems to ensure that we, and our members, do get paid". I just can not understand this complacency on either Quidco's part or the merchants, but particularly Quidco.

maxtweenie

Knowing first hand the unprofessional way Quidco work lately, my money's on their representative totally ignoring the valid comments you've made on this thread.

mobilejunkie

Absolutely - that too is spot on, unfortunately.

GD; Quidco (they say - and I assume they have at least that much semblance of honesty) do NOT take a slice of the cashback. They make their money from the £5 per member per year - and since they now boast (as if it matters to US) that they have over 1 million members but few actual staff they are making £5 million by doing absolutely NOTHING. They have moved completely from their "co-operative" roots to become a typical marketing organisation. Their customers are now the merchants (who can therefore simply refuse to pay, since the money comes from the unimportant members and now ffrom Quidco). Members are now merely the people who pay £5 a year to Quidco. Unless members vote en-masse with their feet there is no reason for such a thoroughly uncaring organisation to DO anything about merchants who don't pay. As with any business - and that is what they now are, despite their "altruistic" claims - they continue to promote offers knowing that what they promote deosn't materialise, since it simply attracts lots of new people to join THINKING that Quidco is going to do well by them. Quicdo only (nowadays) does well by itelf.

Bad organisations (as Quidco certainly now is) don't do anything until economics forces them to - the lesson they repeatedly fail to learn is that by the time they ARE forced, it's too late.

Guys_Dad

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Absolutely - that too is spot on, unfortunately.

GD; Quidco (they say - and I assume they have at least that much semblance of honesty) do NOT take a slice of the cashback. They make their money from the £5 per member per year .

That explains everything, then. I am completely surprised that they don't make anything out of transactions - to my mind that would be perfectly equitable and I would prefer that they did, so that they had a mutual interest in seeing that transactions were being honoured.

Grateful for the explanation and I learn something every day. :beer:

Guys_Dad

maxtweenie wrote: »

Knowing first hand the unprofessional way Quidco work lately, my money's on their representative totally ignoring the valid comments you've made on this thread.

To be fair to them, I posted on the Referrers' board and Jules, their rep, said that she only replied on that sub-forum.

Rogerb_2

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I understand that. But if DGM went bust holding the commissions from the merchants that should have been paid over to Quidco, then did Quidco not lose out too? If they paid out to members - and I believe that some were paid in expectation of DGM settling - then Quidco would have been down.

There was a total administration loss of £400,000 of which Quidco paid £200,000 to members even though they hadn't received it, and then when public on the problem and washed their hands of the other £200,000, which the members will have to swallow.

To pay half the members and not the others is obviously not equitable, but is consistent with how badly the whole thing has been handled. Quidco allowed debt levels to get out of control, and I believe they had a duty of care to members who pay £5 a year.

By allowing DGM to continue operating despite mounting debt, and effectively hiding the problem by paying out in anticipation of settlement, it meant more members used the affected merchants oblivious to mounting risks of losses.

mobilejunkie

Interesting that they take over £5 million every year now from their members yet "can't afford" (won't actually) reimburse members they actively encouraged to enter into purchases to the grand sum of a whole £200,000.

Stuart_W

mobilejunkie wrote: »

They have moved completely from their "co-operative" roots to become a typical marketing organisation.

They should never have been allowed to call themselves a cashback co-operative.

They are not a co-operative.
I have never been invited to attend any board meetings.
I have never been invited to join the board or vote for board members.
I have certainly never received a dividend based on the profits of the company.

It is not democatically controlled by members, it is a privately owned company. I wonder if they have been forced to withdraw to use of the word "co-operative" from their website. I do hope so.