cashback list site

AndysDad

Reestit, your doing a great job...do you know which retailers haved signed up to the voluntary code.I did ask the question on the E2save forum if anyone knew if they were signing up,but no replies so far !.

Reestit_Mutton

Old_Gold wrote: »

Reestit I read your posts with great interest and am grateful for your input. There is a question in my mind though which I hope you dont mind my asking.

Of course not...fire away...

How can you support those sellers who are still issuing terms and conditions contrary to the voluntary code signed by the networks? And how comes that no one is really picking up on the fact that the networks are not reinforcing their own code?

An interesting question, and also a very difficult one to answer.

The truth of the matter is that there probably isn't a single third party retailer in the industry that doesn't use T&Cs which break the rules of the voluntary code - even the big boys (e.g. E2Save, OSPS and P4U) who have generally been considered more reasonable on the T&Cs front have succumbed to competing at the value end of the market by adopting much stricter terms for their cheapest deals.

Unfortunately, it's a bit like a school playground where, as long as one person is seen to be doing it, they will all try and justify their actions on this basis. In fact, I have been given this reason as justification on more than one occasion when I've tried to get retailers to justify their position.

I could quite easily raise the bar on my site but then I would almost certainly end up with an empty site. Equally, banning non-conformant retailers wouldn't have any discernible effect on the retailers themselves as I am really quite a small fish in a big pond.

I'm certainly pleased to see the voluntary code publicly adopted by all networks. However, I am in total agreement with you wrt the fact that the networks seem to be acting toothless over this. I think the best way forward is actually to petition the networks en-masse as consumers to make the retailers comply with the threat of a "do not deal" order being slapped on them if they don't. Afterall, the networks are only too aware of this problem and have acted in the past when their own reputations have been at stake.

Cashback related complaints in large volumes have had an effect in the past when there has been no code of conduct to point to so surely they will have a more significant effect now as the networks would have to justify their response in the context of the new code.

regards
Reestit Mutton

Reestit_Mutton

AndysDad wrote: »

Reestit, your doing a great job...do you know which retailers haved signed up to the voluntary code.I did ask the question on the E2save forum if anyone knew if they were signing up,but no replies so far !.

Alas, I don't think any have adopted the new code as of yet. I have a theory about this (and it is just a theory...as yet unproven):

Prices would have to rise as a result of the new code as retailers will have to price their deals on the basis of a much higher takeup of the cashback on offer. I believe that none of the retailers wants to be the first to break ranks on price. Alas, consumers in this country are all too often lead by price. Thus, if other retailers don't follow suit with similar price rises quickly enough, the first retailer to make the change could lose a significant amount of business - In some cases the drop in business could be enough to bankrupt them. Afterall, It's an open secret that the current business model of many a cashback retailer is, to a certain extent, dependent on using the commission earned from new sales to pay for the current set of cashback claims.

If we want to avoid a massive fallout from the new code of conduct affecting many thousands of current customers awaiting cashback I think it will be necessary to allow the retailers some time to slowly wind down their level of cashback to a more sustainable level which would be more compatible with the new code of conduct.

Alternatively, get the networks to enforce the new code in a stepwise fashion, changing one term at a time and forcing all retailers to make their changes in unison (by imposing a strict deadline for each change).

Just my two penn'orth

Reestit Mutton

Old_Gold

Reestit thanks for your reply. It does sometimes feel that for us to get the benefits it must be at the expense of others getting caught out. I think the important thing for the consumers is to complain to Trading Standards when things go wrong and not to be afraid to take legal action.
One suggestion for your site that might be helpful for us at the moment is to separate out price match deals with other cashback deals with companies such as E2Save.

Reestit_Mutton

Old_Gold wrote: »

Reestit thanks for your reply. It does sometimes feel that for us to get the benefits it must be at the expense of others getting caught out. I think the important thing for the consumers is to complain to Trading Standards when things go wrong and not to be afraid to take legal action.
One suggestion for your site that might be helpful for us at the moment is to separate out price match deals with other cashback deals with companies such as E2Save.

Absolutely.

I started down the redevelopment route just after E2Save and OSPS started advertising the pricematch deals, but before I had time to work out how to deal with them appropariately on my site (as it is currently set up to assume that a particular retailer uses a single set of t&cs). Soon after that, Phones4U followed suit with a similar set of deals.

Because I didn't want to misinform my readers by providing them with inaccurate information wrt the terms I chose not to put the new pricematch deals up on the site until I had come up with a solution to allow the correct terms to be attached to these deals.

As part of the redevelopment process I do intend to rework that side of things to cope with retailers running multiple types of deals wrt the terms. Of course, this will only work if these deals are distinguishable in the retailers' datafeeds. In the case of E2Save/OSPS I believe that they are.

On the subject of retailers which use terms that are consistent with the new code of conduct, I've just had a rather nifty idea that would take account of your concerns. Rather than simply barring all retailers until they conform it might be possible to use some kind of "kite mark" to identify those deals that do conform which would also be able to distinguish between multiple sets of deals from a single retailer where only some of their deals use conformant T&Cs. Without giving too much away, I think I know how I can implement this within my intended framework, although I dare say that this particular feature won't become apparent for some time as, for now, 100% of the deals probably won't conform.

regards
Reestit Mutton

mobilejunkie

Before you rush out and advise on E2Save's so-called "price-match" terms and conditions you should check out the ones they are ACTUALLY using for these rather than the ones they state in writing - perhaps more than half of those who start claiming in another month or so when the first claims are due will be told their claims are "late" and they have forfeited their whole cashback - despite complying with the written t&c.

Reestit_Mutton

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Before you rush out and advise on E2Save's so-called "price-match" terms and conditions you should check out the ones they are ACTUALLY using for these rather than the ones they state in writing - perhaps more than half of those who start claiming in another month or so when the first claims are due will be told their claims are "late" and they have forfeited their whole cashback - despite complying with the written t&c.

Rest assured, I am aware of the nuances here. For example, below is a sample text from my old site referring to the first claim point for the Virgin 6 month deals that were claimable in months 3 and 6:

Treating the month you were connected as month 1, send a copy of the top 2 sheets of the bill that is issued during month 3, along with a completed chequeback voucher, within 30 days of the date on the relevant bill. Photocopies and online bill printouts are acceptable."

Hovering over the relevant cashback amounts listed on the relevant detailed info page of my site would have displayed this text.

Certainly, extreme care will need to be taken when providing cashback claims information on my redeveloped site (when it's finally finished) as ambiguity in the t&cs is not uncommon in this industry.

HtH
Reestit Mutton

Maddie

Hi Reestit,

Thanks for you great website which I have used for several years now. One feature I would like to see is a search function for not a certain provider. The reason for this is that I switch to a new 12 month deal each year and can only transfer my number if I go to a new network provider.

Thanks again,

Maddie

mobilejunkie

Hi Reestit. It is good you understand the difference between what they say and what they do - most don't despite plenty of indications on here - and that you make it clear on your website. I would mention, however, that the differences are somewhat larger in this case. in fact, you could virtually ignore the written t&c. The company is pretending it sends the actual ones out in an email - which is totally untrue. In about a month's time all hell will break out as a large proportion of people's claims are rejected. I don't mind in a way (though I detest the dishonesty of it) since I have a few of these deals for myself and others and will ensure I cover all bases. After all, as always, if everyone was successful these deals couldn't exist. There is a line between (on one side) careless naivity which I don't condone and outright dishonesty (which I actively detest). E2Save have now fully crossed that line now, to join most of their competitors on the wrong side!

Reestit_Mutton

Maddie wrote: »

Hi Reestit,

Thanks for you great website which I have used for several years now. One feature I would like to see is a search function for not a certain provider. The reason for this is that I switch to a new 12 month deal each year and can only transfer my number if I go to a new network provider.

Thanks again,

Maddie

Hi Maddie,

Your request has been noted...truth be told, it's not the first time I have been asked for that feature (not just for choice of network either). The problem with negative filtering is that it can very easily clutter up the interface which is something I have tried very hard to keep as simple as possible.

Having thought about this in the past, the only way I believe I can solve this problem sensibly without a massive rethink on the user interface is to implement a user registration mechanism and allow users to set up default search settings in their preferences, thus removing the need to include the option on the main search page.

I'll give it some thought...no promises, mind you.

regards
Reestit Mutton