MSE Discussion: MoneySavingExpert.com to join the MoneySupermarket.com group

KG

For those of you asking what's in it for Money Supermarket - I have worked as a web analyst for major financial institutions. It's not always a straightforward 'this willl make us £xx' equation.

The 'brand value' of a financial institution is very important. We trust them / their advice with our money and they would give their right arm to get us to see them as trustworthy and on our side (especially right now).

MS are already independent but being associated with the MSE brand reinforces that stance and sets them apart from other major players. Plus they get to benefit from MSEs good reputation, bith with us and with their own investors.

Probably the biggest thing they get out of this is that it is MS that is associated with such a well-regarded a consumer-focussed site, and their competitors aren't.

scotty1971

SeduLOUs wrote: »

And how exactly would those forum members have helped you if the forum didn't exist?!

Yes, forum posts are a big big part of the site, but he created that and brought us all here with his hard work in making a useful and interesting website...

Bored of reading all the whiners now, instead of threatening to leave just !!!!!! off and leave the normal people to continue enjoying the site.

you make him sound like some of god "created that and brought us here"!!

KevinG

Lokolo wrote: »

Currently the rules of the forum stop people advertising their companies and business, which I agree with. Are you honestly saying that this will continue with MSM incharge?

Of course it will, why on earth wouldn't it?

Skeenfleent

"Q. Why did you choose MoneySupermarket? I chose MoneySupermarket to work with as I know and trust it and it's not owned by any product providers."

So, it's not the fact that it generates ~59% of your current income, then?
Why not put it in raw figures, if you're going to continue your objectivity as part of the new 'editorial code'?
Money is power and power dictates, not voluntary, or grey-area 'codes'. Look at the banking codes for an immediate and long-discussed-on-this-site example.

I guess money is what everyone wants, right? Wrong. People prefer integrity, I think, whilst money is a means to an end. There was no need to do this deal, Martin, there were plenty of other ways to give yourself more time - like paying someone else to do the job whilst keeping the millions that this site already generates for yourself (or whoever the cut is split between currently). No NEED. So why do it in reality? Greed? Only you know, I'm just speculating based on what most people faced with "take the millions, set for life and walk away" choose to do.

IrishGypsy

bargepole wrote: »

The biggest downside I can see for us forumites is that, with a big corporate entity owning the site, any controversial postings that may be slightly detrimental to a particular company, will probably get removed as the new owners will be more likely to resond to "take it down or we sue" demands.

This is another point people have forgotten about, the number of times he's said that users (who post for free) have gotten MSE into trouble and that they've always paid the legal fees to fight back instead of removing posts or 'handing the poster over'. That's a cost to them for the actions of users who don't pay to use the site. I too doubt the new owners will be as generous in protecting the users and their comments...

BLUEWKD

Good Luck to Martin. Anyone in his position would do the same. He is looking after himself and his family and I hope enjoys the money.

Yes a lot of people have contributed towards the site to make it what it is, but we wouldn't have been able to if he hadn't set it up.

We have all saved money thanks to the site and if we don't like what happens to it then we can just leave.

I don't think Martin spent much time on the site in the last couple of years as he has been busy on tv so nothing will change as far as the editorial stuff. I think he just signs his name to the weekly newsletter, doesn't actually contribute, his team do that.

GlynD

mlewis3179 wrote: »

I clearly see a power trip here, your post was uncalled for directed to the other user. You have a responsibility to set an example if you are a moderator of a board.

Thank you for your advice. I clearly see that you need more experience in posting here however and I suggest you read the rules and etiquette of the forum.

I do not wish to get drawn into an argument about this so I shall leave you too your flawed reasoning.

Thank you. Don't let the door hit you on the @rse on the way out.

KevinG

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Isn't giving £1m to charity a rather nice way of reducing the overall tax bill?

Oh for goodness' sake! You sound like one of those trying to defend the cap on tax relief for charitable giving which, thankfully, has been abandoned. And it's 10 million anyway. £10m that Martin would have had but now won't have. The tax relief just means he'll be £6m worse off rather than £10m.

Edit: actually I got that wrong, I assume the £10m is the actual sum being given, not grossed up, so he will lose a lot more than £6m, more like £8m.

Plushchris

IrishGypsy wrote: »

Just one additional point, people keep saying that the users won't ever benefit from this, but I have zero doubts there'll be a fair few users going to the CAB asking for free debt advice, advice that can still be given thanks to his £1m donation. Sure, 25% of the reason to give it was likely to 'sofetn the public perception' of the deal (and the other £9m will go to other charity(ies).

In my experience of using the CAB, they need the money to buy more computers to google the information you need.

I've been to the CAB 3 times and each time waited over half an hour (and taken an afternoon off work) for someone to basically google the information that I needed, something which I could have done at home. I wont be going a forth time...

I dont blame Martin for selling up at all, especially with the news a baby is due, that would be my number one priority in his shoes. He has set his family up for the future with this deal and that is something nobody can criticise him for.

But to say this is anything other than a financial decision is quite frankly insulting our intelligence.

Does anybody really think this site is going to remain completely independant?

Can you imagine Tesco running a site that announces "Our top pick of the Supermarkets is Sainsburys, due to customer feedback and pricing"

No, I dont think they would, I cant see Moneysupermarket wanting another comparison site to be "top pick" either..

foundationsmcr

k-man wrote: »

Shocking

Deleting myself from the forum as soon as I work out how to do it

I'm sure the site will miss your 50 posts in 5 years.

Strange attitude to have without waiting to see what the impact is (if any). For any business, to stand still is to commit suicide. Progress might be painful, but I think Einstein summed it up best,

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

This site has achieved incredible things, not least becoming one of themost influential financial advice sites on the internet. To continue to compete with commercial operations it will have to change, this is just an inevitable step.

Good luck in the new venture.