Quidco - manipulating customer reviews?

Petethevet

Hi everyone,

I'm in the middle of a bizarre experience with Quidco.

I tried to submit a review to Quidco about Photobox. It was positive about the Photobox products - I really like them - but not so about the cashback, which has failed to track for me more often than not (usually I don't have a problem).

My review was intended as a warning to other Quidco users to be vigilant that their cashback tracks. But now....

Quidco have refused to publish my review. They claim this is because consumers can't tell the difference between opinions on the retailer (mine were positive) and on the cashback tracking. They say they don't publish reviews that feature comments on tracking for this reason - it would be unfair on the retailer.

Interestingly, in their Tips on what to write in a review, they ask for comments on the cashback process - just like in my review.

I've amended my review a couple of times to try to comply with their replies, but it has still not been published.

So, I'm a) confused and b) angry. Perhaps my faith in what Quidco stood for was misplaced!

Has anyone else had any similar experiences?

If this is widespread, I think Quidco could be reasonably accused of manipulating reviews in order to present itself in a better light.

Any thoughts on what I can do?

Thanks!

JReacher1

Many retailers have moderation rules that make it difficult to publish a negative review.

It's annoying but then again it's not good Pr for a company to host a negative review about itself

legalfreak22

I had exactly the same experience when I submitted a review on the appalling time it takes for Cafe Nero to cashback. I wasted time with Quidco's refusals to publish the review. I felt that they were disgracefully trying to manipulate the reviews. I was finally 'allowed' by Quidco to publish a sanitised review. Then today, lo and behold I see reviews up that slate Cafe Nero for their pathetic cashback times.

dacouch

legalfreak22 wrote: »

I had exactly the same experience when I submitted a review on the appalling time it takes for Cafe Nero to cashback. I wasted time with Quidco's refusals to publish the review. I felt that they were disgracefully trying to manipulate the reviews. I was finally 'allowed' by Quidco to publish a sanitised review. Then today, lo and behold I see reviews up that slate Cafe Nero for their pathetic cashback times.

That would be Cafe Nero who pay virtually zero corporation Tax in the UK due to complex ways of channeling their profits via low tax countries.

I would avoid Cafe Nero if I were you.

JReacher1

dacouch wrote: »

That would be Cafe Nero who pay virtually zero corporation Tax in the UK due to complex ways of channeling their profits via low tax countries.

I would avoid Cafe Nero if I were you.

It's not cafe Neros fault that the tax laws enable them to do this.

Only an idiot pays more tax than they legally have to

MarkBargain

JReacher1 wrote: »

It's not cafe Neros fault that the tax laws enable them to do this.

Only an idiot pays more tax than they legally have to

It's perfectly fair to avoid companies who do not pay their tax and to take custom to those who do, preferably smaller businesses. We need a government that tackles tax avoidance properly. If not, what is the alternative? A 10% cut to schools' budgets?

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/feb/02/conservatives-cut-school-funding-david-cameron-education-budget

As for Quidco, I am disappointed to read that as there is no integrity in any review system unless bad reviews are allowed.

Petethevet

Good point JReacher1. Although it seems their moderation rules are in direct contradiction to their tips on writing reviews.

It's interesting that there are plenty of bad reviews on Quidco - and why I am surprised that mine didn't make the cut. It's not even that negative - but the negative parts concern the cashback tracking, not Photobox.

People use Quidco in order to get cashback, therefore if you need to be vigilant that the cashback tracks, it is worth knowing about. But that would reflect badly on Qudico.

Looks like I'm just being naive in trusting Quidco!

dacouch

MarkBargain wrote: »

It's perfectly fair to avoid companies who do not pay their tax and to take custom to those who do, preferably smaller businesses. We need a government that tackles tax avoidance properly. If not, what is the alternative? A 10% cut to schools' budgets?

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/feb/02/conservatives-cut-school-funding-david-cameron-education-budget

As for Quidco, I am disappointed to read that as there is no integrity in any review system unless bad reviews are allowed.

I agree, if all companies in the UK used off shore companies to avoid paying UK corporation tax where would that leave the country.

I may not agree with everything my tax goes towards but without people paying tax the country would fall apart

Try googling Hot Uk Deals which is a Quidco sister company as they have form in removing reviews they're not happy with. The website is a community website to save money. They routinely remove links members pay which don't pay Hotukdeals affiliate commission and their are reports of frequent posters of these allegedly being banned.

I seem to remember reading Quidco's parent company also allegedly used offshore companies to reduce their tax burden.

JReacher1

MarkBargain wrote: »

It's perfectly fair to avoid companies who do not pay their tax and to take custom to those who do, preferably smaller businesses. We need a government that tackles tax avoidance properly. If not, what is the alternative? A 10% cut to schools' budgets?

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/feb/02/conservatives-cut-school-funding-david-cameron-education-budget

As for Quidco, I am disappointed to read that as there is no integrity in any review system unless bad reviews are allowed.

Boycotting just shows a lack of intelligence. These companies employ a large number of people who all pay tax. If everyone boycotts these companies then they would go bust, the staff would be out of work and would not be able to pay tax. Instead they would be claiming benefits.

It's smart business practices to reduce your tax bill by any legal means possible.

Thankfully only a small number of idiots boycott companies based on their tax bill!

MarkBargain

JReacher1 wrote: »

Boycotting just shows a lack of intelligence. These companies employ a large number of people who all pay tax. If everyone boycotts these companies then they would go bust, the staff would be out of work and would not be able to pay tax. Instead they would be claiming benefits.

It's smart business practices to reduce your tax bill by any legal means possible.

Thankfully only a small number of idiots boycott companies based on their tax bill!

Your argument does not work as customers simply shop elsewhere. If a big coffee chain went bust, the staff put out of work you mention would simply go and work for a rival coffee shop. People would still buy coffee the same as they do now. We do not need tax dodgers in the UK, and cannot afford them with the country being in deficit.

dacouch

JReacher1 wrote: »

Boycotting just shows a lack of intelligence. These companies employ a large number of people who all pay tax. If everyone boycotts these companies then they would go bust, the staff would be out of work and would not be able to pay tax. Instead they would be claiming benefits.

It's smart business practices to reduce your tax bill by any legal means possible.

Thankfully only a small number of idiots boycott companies based on their tax bill!

A sensible company that was being boycotted would take measures to protect their company rather than simply letting it go bankrupt. Starbucks have bowed to the pressure of a boycott and have started to pay some UK tax.

Saying a company will go bankrupt is ridiculous when they can take simple steps to avoid bankruptcy.

If every company in the UK followed your advice and based their tax affairs offshore to avoid UK corporation, how would you propose the UK would make up the tax shortfall?