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

kaMelo

All these post from people now moving significant sums of money from Nationwide due to not meeting the Fairer Share criteria should be thanking Nationwide for giving them the impetus to seek a much better return on their money, probably greater than the £100 they didn't receive from Nationwide.

Section62

kaMelo said:

All these post from people now moving significant sums of money from Nationwide due to not meeting the Fairer Share criteria should be thanking Nationwide for giving them the impetus to seek a much better return on their money, probably greater than the £100 they didn't receive from Nationwide.

If Nationwide had avoided making this excess profit and instead had distributed it in the form of more attractive products then the members could have had a greater return without having to take their money elsewhere... and who knows, some might have opened products they hadn't considered before, thereby "deepening their relationship" with Nationwide.  Win-win.

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.

And it feels a bit like gaslighting.... 'Nationwide have done you a favour by treating you unfairly'.  I get your point, but doubt that Nationwide would feel proud to be seen to be doing that.

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.