Nationwide's 'Fairer Share' £100 payment for eligible members

SonOfPearl

Section62 said:

Instead Nationwide are losing goodwill of a significant proportion of members, who individually have missed out on their 'Fairer share' of Nationwide profits. Lose-lose.

There are clearly a number of people on this thread who are unhappy with how this distribution of profits was managed. However, this Savings & Investment forum is not very representative of the wider public. Millions of Nationwide members will be very happy with their unexpected windfall, and far fewer members will be bothered about not getting it, with even less being so annoyed that they leave. 

Section62

SonOfPearl said:

Section62 said:

Instead Nationwide are losing goodwill of a significant proportion of members, who individually have missed out on their 'Fairer share' of Nationwide profits. Lose-lose.

There are clearly a number of people on this thread who are unhappy with how this distribution of profits was managed. However, this Savings & Investment forum is not very representative of the wider public. Millions of Nationwide members will be very happy with their unexpected windfall, and far fewer members will be bothered about not getting it, with even less being so annoyed that they leave. 

The BiB isn't based on the number of people complaining here or elsewhere.

It was based on approx 80% of members not getting it, only approx 20% getting it.

With around 3.4m members getting the payment there will be many who are 'very happy'.

But I'd be interested how you've assessed "far fewer members will be bothered about not getting it" when the cohort of people "not getting it" represents approx 80% of the membership.

That implies at least (circa) 9.5 million members among those who didn't get the payment have to be not bothered and won't adjust their perception of Nationwide in a negative sense.  I find that an unlikely scenario. Hence Nationwide are "losing goodwill of a significant proportion of members".

Albermarle

Section62 said:

SonOfPearl said:

Section62 said:

Instead Nationwide are losing goodwill of a significant proportion of members, who individually have missed out on their 'Fairer share' of Nationwide profits. Lose-lose.

There are clearly a number of people on this thread who are unhappy with how this distribution of profits was managed. However, this Savings & Investment forum is not very representative of the wider public. Millions of Nationwide members will be very happy with their unexpected windfall, and far fewer members will be bothered about not getting it, with even less being so annoyed that they leave. 

The BiB isn't based on the number of people complaining here or elsewhere.

It was based on approx 80% of members not getting it, only approx 20% getting it.

With around 3.4m members getting the payment there will be many who are 'very happy'.

But I'd be interested how you've assessed "far fewer members will be bothered about not getting it" when the cohort of people "not getting it" represents approx 80% of the membership.

That implies at least (circa) 9.5 million members among those who didn't get the payment have to be not bothered and won't adjust their perception of Nationwide in a negative sense.  I find that an unlikely scenario. Hence Nationwide are "losing goodwill of a significant proportion of members".

I would not be surprised if out of the 9.5 Million, then at least 8 Million will be blissfully unaware of the existence of the 'Fair Share' . Most people are disengaged with anything concerning personal finance issues and many do not really look at any news beyond headlines or about Philip Schofield and football, if they look at the news at all.

boingy

Section62 said:

SonOfPearl said:

Section62 said:

Instead Nationwide are losing goodwill of a significant proportion of members, who individually have missed out on their 'Fairer share' of Nationwide profits. Lose-lose.

There are clearly a number of people on this thread who are unhappy with how this distribution of profits was managed. However, this Savings & Investment forum is not very representative of the wider public. Millions of Nationwide members will be very happy with their unexpected windfall, and far fewer members will be bothered about not getting it, with even less being so annoyed that they leave. 

The BiB isn't based on the number of people complaining here or elsewhere.

It was based on approx 80% of members not getting it, only approx 20% getting it.

With around 3.4m members getting the payment there will be many who are 'very happy'.

But I'd be interested how you've assessed "far fewer members will be bothered about not getting it" when the cohort of people "not getting it" represents approx 80% of the membership.

That implies at least (circa) 9.5 million members among those who didn't get the payment have to be not bothered and won't adjust their perception of Nationwide in a negative sense.  I find that an unlikely scenario. Hence Nationwide are "losing goodwill of a significant proportion of members".

I think that the vast majority of the members who do not qualify for the pay-out will never know about it unless there is suddenly a high profile press campaign or a social media campaign that goes viral. I only found out because a friend asked if I was getting the pay-out. Most people don't pay any real attention to their day-to-day banking and don't visit related forums or Facebook pages etc. So there will be a few who close their accounts in protest and maybe a small "rebellion vote" at the AGM but nothing very significant. Even if a campaign managed to gather enough momentum to make the CEO/Board uncomfortable they would just issue a bland statement about how they will listen and consult more in future. Then they'll shrug and carry on.

In summary, most members who miss out will never know about it and many of those that do know will not take any action. 

SonOfPearl

boingy said:

 I think that the vast majority of the members who do not qualify for the pay-out will never know about it unless there is suddenly a high profile press campaign or a social media campaign that goes viral. I only found out because a friend asked if I was getting the pay-out. Most people don't pay any real attention to their day-to-day banking and don't visit related forums or Facebook pages etc. So there will be a few who close their accounts in protest and maybe a small "rebellion vote" at the AGM but nothing very significant. Even if a campaign managed to gather enough momentum to make the CEO/Board uncomfortable they would just issue a bland statement about how they will listen and consult more in future. Then they'll shrug and carry on.

In summary, most members who miss out will never know about it and many of those that do know will not take any action. 

Exactly my point, thank you for putting it so clearly. 

Section62

boingy said:

Section62 said:

I think that the vast majority of the members who do not qualify for the pay-out will never know about it unless there is suddenly a high profile press campaign or a social media campaign that goes viral.

...

In summary, most members who miss out will never know about it and many of those that do know will not take any action. 

If that were true (and given the double-page press adverts, billboards, and banners on the Nationwide website I have my doubts) then doesn't it call into question the claims by many here that the people who missed out this year will be able to deepen their relationship and qualify next year?

If the vast majority of the members who didn't qualify this year will never know about it, then if (as suggested) Nationwide do the same thing next year they stand a good chance of missing out again.  Did anyone mention "unfair" somewhere in the thread?

It seems fairly clear a significant component of Nationwide's strategy is to gain publicity for the building society by promoting this "fairer share".  If the idea that the vast majority of members will never know about it (let alone non-members) is true, then it must surely call into question whether this strategy makes sense.  Why do something for publicity if people outside the select few don't know anything about it?

2010

I know someone who has been a member for over 25 years, but has only kept £100 in NW as a throwback from the old days of carpet bagging, and the don`t qualify for the "fairer share".

I also know someone who opened a current account in March and also a triple access as a temporary measure to put their house sale money between moves.
They do qualify for the "fairer share".

boingy

Section62 said:

boingy said:

Section62 said:

I think that the vast majority of the members who do not qualify for the pay-out will never know about it unless there is suddenly a high profile press campaign or a social media campaign that goes viral.

...

In summary, most members who miss out will never know about it and many of those that do know will not take any action. 

If that were true (and given the double-page press adverts, billboards, and banners on the Nationwide website I have my doubts) then doesn't it call into question the claims by many here that the people who missed out this year will be able to deepen their relationship and qualify next year?

If the vast majority of the members who didn't qualify this year will never know about it, then if (as suggested) Nationwide do the same thing next year they stand a good chance of missing out again.  Did anyone mention "unfair" somewhere in the thread?

It seems fairly clear a significant component of Nationwide's strategy is to gain publicity for the building society by promoting this "fairer share".  If the idea that the vast majority of members will never know about it (let alone non-members) is true, then it must surely call into question whether this strategy makes sense.  Why do something for publicity if people outside the select few don't know anything about it?

Don't get me wrong. I agree that it is unfair and I wish they had found a better and fairer way to redistribute the money but I think you are massively overestimating the number of members who will actually pay enough attention and/or care about it. The only thing that could possibly change that is a viral internet campaign or someone like Martin Lewis focussing on it on prime time TV, and even then the natural reaction of "the masses" would not be to pick up their placards and picket Nationwide's HQ. That's just how we are as a nation.

Section62

boingy said:

Section62 said:

boingy said:

Section62 said:

I think that the vast majority of the members who do not qualify for the pay-out will never know about it unless there is suddenly a high profile press campaign or a social media campaign that goes viral.

...

In summary, most members who miss out will never know about it and many of those that do know will not take any action. 

If that were true (and given the double-page press adverts, billboards, and banners on the Nationwide website I have my doubts) then doesn't it call into question the claims by many here that the people who missed out this year will be able to deepen their relationship and qualify next year?

If the vast majority of the members who didn't qualify this year will never know about it, then if (as suggested) Nationwide do the same thing next year they stand a good chance of missing out again.  Did anyone mention "unfair" somewhere in the thread?

It seems fairly clear a significant component of Nationwide's strategy is to gain publicity for the building society by promoting this "fairer share".  If the idea that the vast majority of members will never know about it (let alone non-members) is true, then it must surely call into question whether this strategy makes sense.  Why do something for publicity if people outside the select few don't know anything about it?

Don't get me wrong. I agree that it is unfair and I wish they had found a better and fairer way to redistribute the money but I think you are massively overestimating the number of members who will actually pay enough attention and/or care about it. The only thing that could possibly change that is a viral internet campaign or someone like Martin Lewis focussing on it on prime time TV, and even then the natural reaction of "the masses" would not be to pick up their placards and picket Nationwide's HQ. That's just how we are as a nation.

I haven't "estimat[ed] the number of members who will actually pay enough attention and/or care about it", let alone "massively overestimated".

I picked my words "significant proportion of members" with due care, not to fall into the trap of making claims that cannot be substantiated on the basis of the information in the public domain.

E.g. In contrast the claim "...far fewer members will be bothered about not getting it..." can't be substantiated on the available information, and given the overall proportions (~20%/~80%) doesn't feel right.

I'm talking about the loss of goodwill.  Which is difficult to measure and goes well beyond the people publicly announcing they are closing all their accounts and/or moving their money elsewhere.  AFAIK Nationwide don't measure this, other than in their 'How are you feeling' type surveys which are probably too generalised to pick up something like this.  The effect may be subtle, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm talking about the chipping away of the sense of fairness which is fundamental to what makes for mutuality.

TheBanker

I agree that dissatisfaction amongst members who did not qualify will have almost no impact on Nationwide. Even amongst those who know about how the profit was generated and distributed, and who feel hard done to, only a small minority will take action.

My view is that, as a mortgage holder, I have been over-charged (or, the saver who provided the funds for my mortgage has been under-paid, or a combination of both). The evidence of overcharging comes from a mutual organisation, which is supposed to exist to enable saving and home ownership without generating dividends for shareholders making a profit. I am irritated that the profit has then been given to other members based on quite arbitrary criteria. Nothing anyone posts here will change my opinion.

I have therefore written to Nationwide to express my disappointment. I do not expect them to do anything but if we don't provide feedback they can't change their future policies. I will also use my AGM vote to make my feelings known, but I know it will get lost in the rounding up and make no difference.

And when my mortgage ends, I won't make the assumption that Nationwide is a good option based on being a mutual. I will assume that they will continue to generate excessive profits (just like a bank) - the only difference being they allocate those profits to a select group of current account holders rather equitably to all shareholders.