Nationwide 5% cashback on supermarket spending

Section62

TheBanker said:

I don't think they did take a lazy approach.

We will have to agree to disagree.

TheBanker said:

The only practical way to identify types of retailer is to use the merchant code. They provide a list of retailers on their website and B&M etc do not feature. I have a Natwest credit card which offers 1% cashback at supermarkets, it works in exactly the same way. As does the supermarket debit card cashback on Santander's Edge account. And, the other way around, Chase exclude certain merchants from generating cashback based on the merchant code. 

The list on the website is part of the problem.  It isn't definitive - it is a list of "Other stores where you could get cashback" (my bold).

And also "Some of the stores likely to qualify for cashback include" (my bold) which includes Co-op, which anecdotal evidence suggests depends on which specific Co-op store you shop in.

Nobody is claiming B&M are on the list.  The argument is more subtle - that B&M (as an example) should be on the list, because Nationwide should have taken a more intelligent approach to helping people with their monthly spend.

The inclusions and exclusions are not logical if the intent is to help people who are struggling - for example only paying cashback on debit card spend when many struggling people will be relying on their credit card to see them through.

You've focussed on how Nationwide should identify types of retailer, whereas I'm suggesting Nationwide should think how best to help members.

Ultimately, it is difficult to conclude this scheme is not about helping members, rather it is a promotion of Nationwide current accounts.  Which seems to be at the root of many of Nationwide's recent promotions.

TheBanker said:

How would you suggest they design it? Send researchers to every shop in the UK to check what goods they sell?

Bit of a strawman there?  Why on earth would you send researchers to every shop in the UK?

I would have simply given every member £6.13.  And left them to decide what to do with the money - but highlight (and provide an easy to use link) that members who didn't need the money could donate it to a charity, preferably related to helping people in need.

Nationwide is a mutual.  It ought to at least attempt to ensure that all members can benefit, with some kind of nod towards equality if possible.

TheBanker said:

NB - I said earlier, I don't think Nationwide are actually paying this cashback. I think Visa are funding it. Probably Visa trying to keep Nationwide as a client given they've lost a lot of business to Mastercard over the last few years.

You've said, but there appears to be no evidence to support this suggestion.

On the other hand, Nationwide are claiming they are paying this cashback as part of its "latest cost of living support for its members".  No mention of Visa funding it.  If I were Visa I'd be a bit miffed if Nationwide were claiming all the credit for something I was funding, and the lack of a public spat between the two - along with the legalities of Nationwide publishing misleading statements about their financial help to members - might suggest your theory is wrong.

wmb194

TL;DR; Dear oh dear. Most people buy their food at the main supermarkets. Most people's grocery spending will have been covered by this offer. Is this just another example of how you can never win? No good deed goes unpunished?

Nebulous2

wmb194 said:

TL;DR; Dear oh dear. Most people buy their food at the main supermarkets. Most people's grocery spending will have been covered by this offer. Is this just another example of how you can never win? No good deed goes unpunished?

I'm pleased with it. We've had about £38 we wouldn't have had otherwise, with another £18 or so to come, without any increase or alteration in our spending. 

A decent gesture from Nationwide. 

dealyboy

Just to provide my data as the conversation regarding B&M and Home Bargains cashback continues:

referring to my earlier post ...
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80019289/#Comment_80019289

February (1st - 28th) purchase transactions (from statements) ...
10th  Sainsbury's       18.00
11th  Sainsbury's         3.68
15th  Aldi                      3.74
15th  Sainsbury's         6.47
15th  Home Bargains 20.95
17th  Wilko                   0.75
17th  Sainsbury's         4.74
22nd Home Bargains   5.50
22nd B&M 616             5.96
22nd B&M 442             5.97
22nd B&M 616             6.99
22nd Lidl                    15.55
23rd Sainsbury's          2.52
23rd Wilko                   8.25
23rd Waitrose            17.00
24th Sainsbury's          2.23
28th Waitrose            17.00
------------------------------------
Total                        145.30

Wilko                           0.75-
Wilko                           8.25-
Waitrose (28th)         17.00-
------------------------------------
Total for cashback   119.30 (45.37 at B&M and Home Bargains)
------------------------------------
Cashback 5%             5.965
=====================
received                    £5.97
=====================

oldagetraveller1

"I'd call it a shambles."

I definitely wouldn't. £19 received in total for Feb. and March spending. On track for a further £10, April spend.

Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Why not just use one of the establishments they list for two or three months?

Section62

wmb194 said:

TL;DR; Dear oh dear. Most people buy their food at the main supermarkets. Most people's grocery spending will have been covered by this offer. Is this just another example of how you can never win? No good deed goes unpunished?

That's one of the key points - "most people" don't need the extra £30-£40.

I'm happy that people like us - who have the knowledge and cash to game the system to max their earnings - have been given some free money.

I'm not happy that Nationwide who claim to be "Building society nationwide" get to claim it "support[s] its members with the rising cost of living", when in reality that support was poorly targeted via a scheme which was confusing and in some respects misleading.

£100m is a lot of money to give away without knowing whether it will help the people you claim to want to help.

HonestJohn

I think the Nationwide are getting too much stick here. If you don't need the cash donate some of it to a local food bank or whatever.

Section62

oldagetraveller1 said:

Why not just use one of the establishments they list for two or three months?

All I needed to do was use my debit card instad of my credit card.  No big deal.

But I have enough awareness of the diversity of the population and the problems associated with low incomes that I understand not everyone has the ability to pick and chose where they shop.  Or perhaps more accurately, for some people the cost involved in switching spending to one of the establishments* could easily negate the benefit of the cashback.

(*an establishment being on the list was not sufficient to be sure of earning cashback of course)

Section62

HonestJohn said:

I think the Nationwide are getting too much stick here. If you don't need the cash donate some of it to a local food bank or whatever.

Whether someone needs the cash or not doesn't mean they can't have an opinion on whether or not the scheme was well designed.

As it happens I will be donating the equivalent of mine to a local debt advice charity.  I'm aware some of their clients are probably paying Nationwide 39.9% APR for their overdraft.  Those 39.9%s in turn will be helping to fund the £100m giveaway.

I guess some people will never see an issue with that, when Nationwide are claiming the moral high ground by "helping" members.

I'd prefer some honesty... like "We're giving £100m away to get more current account customers".

MACKEM99

wmb194 said:

TL;DR; Dear oh dear. Most people buy their food at the main supermarkets. Most people's grocery spending will have been covered by this offer. Is this just another example of how you can never win? No good deed goes unpunished?

Come and shop in my store ..You might get discount.  I would prefer a yes or no rather than might.