100% cashback minus £45m

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:) :thumbup: :thumbdown: :D ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :clap: :crazy: :shh: :problem: :angel: :eh: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek: :shifty: :sick: :silent: :think: :wave: :wtf:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: 100% cashback minus £45m

Re: 100% cashback minus £45m

by Luke_PieStalker » Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:31 pm

wHEN i was helping Luke set up his account I asked 'What do you want as yer password?'

'Me-dic' he replied laughing
Type it in and said 'The computor says it not long enough :shock: '

'Lots of girls tell me that.' he said and started crying
Its not the size thats important, its what you do with it that counts...anyways IDSIS never complains. :thumbup:

Re: 100% cashback minus £45m

by AAAlphaThunder » Fri Oct 10, 2014 2:40 pm

He who dares wins.

Re: 100% cashback minus £45m

by AAAlphaThunder » Fri Oct 10, 2014 2:40 pm

myfyr wrote:I am surprised at the figures how small imutual still is after over 4 years!
Not written in stone that we stay so small. It can all change. I see no credible reason why we can't come from behind and get ahead.

Re: 100% cashback minus £45m

by kevinchess1 » Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:27 pm

cashbacklover wrote:
richard@imutual wrote:
That's what I'm hear for :)
Looks like K.C has hacked into that ID :lol:
Oh please
Richard has the easiest pasSword ever 'CASHBACKGOD1'

wHEN i was helping Luke set up his account I asked 'What do you want as yer password?'

'Me-dic' he replied laughing
Type it in and said 'The computor says it not long enough :shock: '

'Lots of girls tell me that.' he said and started crying :oops:

Re: 100% cashback minus £45m

by myfyr » Mon Oct 06, 2014 9:38 pm

rsturbolad wrote:I'm happy for them to pay large amounts of corp. tax, at the end of the day cashback is an added bonus for consumers so if the treasury gains a bit too then great.

But I have to say, of the 'other two' cashback places, tracked -> payout does seem quicker, atleast on my transactions; and when a few have had 'blips' I've emailed them and they've gladly released it manually (Quidco) - but granted, my six years with them has probably earned me the retention perks.
My opinion of Quidco is unprintable and I will never use them again. I am surprised at the figures how small imutual still is after over 4 years!

Re: 100% cashback minus £45m

by rsturbolad » Mon Oct 06, 2014 6:28 pm

I'm happy for them to pay large amounts of corp. tax, at the end of the day cashback is an added bonus for consumers so if the treasury gains a bit too then great.

But I have to say, of the 'other two' cashback places, tracked -> payout does seem quicker, atleast on my transactions; and when a few have had 'blips' I've emailed them and they've gladly released it manually (Quidco) - but granted, my six years with them has probably earned me the retention perks.

Re: 100% cashback minus £45m

by kevinchess1 » Mon Oct 06, 2014 5:00 pm

In answer to Q2 Any sales made though our Amazon link generate some income for IMutual

Re: 100% cashback minus £45m

by pabenny » Mon Oct 06, 2014 11:53 am

A few thoughts...

1 Presumably, ‘cashback paid’ actually means ‘cashback payable’ – that is allowance is made for cashback that has been awarded but not yet claimed by the member.

2 If all are indeed payout 100% of cashback, where does the surplus come from? Are there clicks that generate cashback that is not passed on (amazon?). Are there other payments – eg bonus for hitting earnings thresholds?

3 Are operating costs of IM sustainable? It doesn’t generate enough to pay Richard a decent salary – or reward all of his development work. They also aren’t enough to fund any kind of marketing or PR to grow IM.

Re: 100% cashback minus £45m

by hugginhill » Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:31 am

I think the problem may be with what you include under the heading "cash back paid". As I said in my original post I took the numbers you provided literally and without checking. The costs of running the sites I took to be reported under the heading of overheads. If "cash back paid" doesn't mean what it says then my interpretation may be wrong.

Top