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

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. 

TiVo_Lad

Section62 said:

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

I am a cynic so this post is in that context..., but I think Nationwide stopped acting as a mutual organisation a long time ago. They may use mutuality as a useful marketing tool, but it's no more than that.

I've been a Nationwide member for 34 years (with the Anglia Building Society before that which subsequently merged), only ever had mortgages with Nationwide, have had an original FlexAccount since launch, had personal loans, insurance and a credit card from Nationwide, yet that level of customer loyalty doesn't count. It's not about the £100, which I'm fortunate enough to not need, it's the principal that the depth and length of my loyalty is not being recognised. I didn't carpet bag my way into the Nationwide, I supported their (successful) attempt to remain mutual. That doesn't count either. But what it does do is drain away any last vestige of loyalty to them. If I stay as a member, I'll do so only because it directly benefits me, not them or what they purport to stand for.

Hugh_Isthis

TiVo_Lad said:

Section62 said:

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

I am a cynic so this post is in that context..., but I think Nationwide stopped acting as a mutual organisation a long time ago. They may use mutuality as a useful marketing tool, but it's no more than that.

I've been a Nationwide member for 34 years (with the Anglia Building Society before that which subsequently merged), only ever had mortgages with Nationwide, have had an original FlexAccount since launch, had personal loans, insurance and a credit card from Nationwide, yet that level of customer loyalty doesn't count. It's not about the £100, which I'm fortunate enough to not need, it's the principal that the depth and length of my loyalty is not being recognised. I didn't carpet bag my way into the Nationwide, I supported their (successful) attempt to remain mutual. That doesn't count either. But what it does do is drain away any last vestige of loyalty to them. If I stay as a member, I'll do so only because it directly benefits me, not them or what they purport to stand for.

I completely agree. Mutuality no longer applies. Banking seems to be their main concern now, this is clearly indicated by their "Fairer Share" requirement of £500 movement through current accounts for 2 months. Sad to say, but time to consider privatisation. There could well be a large proportion of the exluded 80% who'll vote for this.

Yorkie006

Personally, I have moved the bulk of my money out of NW. I have/had 1 current acc. (used regularly as they had good cashback deal for supermarket shopping until recently) and 2 regular savers - did not quality for the £100 'fair share' though.
One of my regular saving account matured a few weeks ago and the interest rates NW offered on instant access acc. was not great. YBS have much better 'loyalty' accounts (the 4.50% instant access flexible ISA, for example).
I only have a few £ left in my current acc. now and I'll keep the 2-year regular saver (only allowed to pay £50/month) but that's it. The bulk of my money is now with YBS, Virgin money and Barclays (all in easy access accounts as I'm planning to buy a house in the near-ish future).
Don't think I'll open any more accounts with NW anytime soon, unless they offer market-leading saving account (and even then my money will only stay there until a better deal comes along). I will not be loyal to a bank that doesn't reward my loyalty, plenty of other/better options out there...

xylophone

I will not be loyal to a bank 

https://www.nationwide.co.uk/

The Nationwide Fairer Share

We're a building society, not a bank, so we can do things a little differently. Like put our members before profits.

Which being interpreted

We're a bank in all but name so we can do things a little differently like not paying a dividend to all eligible shareholders but rather distributing a small portion of the profits belonging to all members only to those whom we deem worthy of such largesse.......

2010

Which being interpreted

This is the first time we have ever done this fairer share out and it`s highly likely to be the last.
It`s mainly due to the excess profits we made this year rather than having rate topping savings accounts.

wiseonesomeofthetime

2010 said:

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".

Surely that is not possible.

If the account was not opened until March, how did they meet the pay-in requirements to that current account in two of three months, Jan, Feb, Mar??

Ed-1

wiseonesomeofthetime said:

2010 said:

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".

Surely that is not possible.

If the account was not opened until March, how did they meet the pay-in requirements to that current account in two of three months, Jan, Feb, Mar??

They could've switched in which overrides those requirements.

p00hsticks

xylophone said:

I will not be loyal to a bank 

We're a bank in all but name so we can do things a little differently like not paying a dividend to all eligible shareholders but rather distributing a small portion of the profits belonging to all members only to those whom we deem worthy of such largesse.......

If they were a bank and doing as above, how many customers would also be shareholders ?
The large majority wouldn't be, and would be complaining that the profits generated by them go to the 'fat cat' shareholders....