Claim appeal #68963: please vote

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: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

by RonFlorabud » Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:50 am

Seems as if there is something wrong with your (lobianco) settings. As two transactions failed to track (or were initially declined) something must be wrong. Could it be anything to do with 3rd party 'protection' software, ad blockers, firewalls, etc.
I have used many of the carphone warehouse group companies and never had any problem with their tracking and payments.

As Richard mentioned, there have been 6 previous transactions this year that have processed successfully, so I am not sure you can claim the merchant can't be trusted. It would be nice to know the stats for each merchant though.

As a new member to iMutual, I hope your claim gets awarded and that you continue to shop through our links.

It seems all to easy for merchants to fob-off payments by claiming to have paid another network.

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

by lobianco » Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:13 am

Thank you for all your comments, negative and positive. I did not get any cashback from the merchant through any other site or deal. I was not a former customer. I did exactly what I was supposed to do, in good faith, hoping to receive the promised cashback. I appreciate that this is not guaranteed in practice, but it should be morally. If that is what they promise, it is wrong of them to deny it afterwards. I don't expect IMutual to be out of pocket for paying me. I just wanted people to know that they cannot trust this merchant.

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

by richard@imutual » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:38 am

We do get the occasional transaction that doesn't have the correct reference (which enables us to automatically assign it to the right person). But this is usually just a technical error by the merchant relating to a transaction that is rightfully ours - and most of the time we can use other information to deduce which of our members it should be assigned to. I can't ever remember having a transaction that I had reason to believe should have been assigned to another site :?

The usual explanation is that, before using imutual's link, the member has used other websites to research their purchase and inadvertently triggered the other site's tracking cookie. Note that this doesn't necessarily involve clicking on that site's link; it could be requesting a quote through a comparison service or just having the merchant's banner displayed on the page they are viewing

Even though their subsequent click on imutual's link ought to override and previous cookies (known as the "last click wins" policy), this doesn't always happen; either due to a technical error or a deliberate decision by the merchant to give preference to the other website.

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

by kevinchess1 » Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:43 am

dorisisfurtheraway wrote: This seems to be a common explanation given by the affiliates. Out of curiousity has Imutual ever received payments which don't tie in to any member and/or clickthru? Would the site be able to pick up on it if this did happen?
yes I wonder this
If this is true then Rpoints/Imutual must get payments that aren't payable to anyone
Can Richards tell us if this happens

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

by dorisifa » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:15 pm

richard@imutual wrote:
** 16 Oct **
The merchant has rejected your enquiry, due to the sale being attributed to another website or marketing channel. For further explanation, please see http://www.imutual.co.uk/help/14/1086/
This seems to be a common explanation given by the affiliates. Out of curiousity has Imutual ever received payments which don't tie in to any member and/or clickthru? Would the site be able to pick up on it if this did happen?

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

by kevinchess1 » Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:51 pm

I agree with Drahcir
I don't think it's a waste of time atall
If you don't want to vote then don't
but I always vote an am glad of the opptunity todo so

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

by Richard Frost » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:58 pm

RogerLloyd wrote: Any ideas where the cashback has gone? topcashback?
Squire wrote:If TCB is again the mysterious "other merchant" then maybe start to wonder if Affiliate Link Hijacking is actually going on.
There is no suggestion in the opening post that TCB was involved and it would be wrong to infer they might have been without evidence.
Squire wrote:I am wondering if we as members should just say to Richard that if imutual management decide that the member has done no wrong, the merchant admits (lies) that they paid someone else, then if ANY disputed cashback is less than £50 say, and the number of such disputes if paid up out of imutual's profits is less than an agreed figure, say 1% of gross, nett, whatever, profit/revenue as decided, then we all agree to save everybody's time and authorise imutual to just cough up the dosh.
Surely the whole point of the exercise is for the shareholders to decide and to give imutual something no other site provides. ie: a clear open fair and honest decision making process. I would have thought that this was something to be welcomed and be positive about. I welcome it, would like it to continue.

I am sorry that you have decided to give up your vote and would hope that you would reconsider.

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

by zulu17 » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:21 pm

An observation

from a different thread
michelle@imutual wrote:
kevinchess1 wrote:Carphone warehouse
Seems to be on alot of other sights
(Not that I visit them :oops:
I will add this merchant as a non-reward merchant and If we get any commission through we will pass that on to you- historically we stopped promoting them due to unreliable tracking.
from:
http://www.mobiles.co.uk/about.html

Mobiles.co.uk was the UK’s first retail mobile phone website (launched in 1995) and is now the largest web-only mobile phone store in the UK, processing thousands of orders every month. Mobiles.co.uk is a trading division of the Carphone Warehouse Group.

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

by Squire » Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:44 pm

If TCB is again the mysterious "other merchant" then maybe start to wonder if Affiliate Link Hijacking is actually going on.

Or are all merchants that useless that they pay the wrong person so often?

As part of the Terms it is stated that cashback is not guaranteed (on most sites like this one) so if members are going to use a cashback site, they MUST accept that there is some element of gamble involved as to whether or not they will get all of the cashback all of the time.

When I do Populus surveys I sometimes spend 20 minutes, get to the end, it says it finishes OK and that I received payment, but it does not appear in my account.

I accept that as part of the hazards of trying to use Populus as one of the survey offers. If I can raise a ticket to claim missing cashback (from the merchant by forcing them to get their finger out and track a transaction properly) then I will.

But if it is one of the "we cannot raise missing cashback with this scammy merchant" types then I just write it off there and then.

Harsh as us Aspergers may appear to others, that is the rules I apply to myself and I expect others to accept that I judge most of these missing cashback claims by the same ciriteria.

Although Richard does make a good case for not automatically rejecting claims like this, where the member appears to have done nothing wrong, and it seems to be the Merchant's fault,

I am wondering if we as members should just say to Richard that if imutual management decide that the member has done no wrong, the merchant admits (lies) that they paid someone else, then if ANY disputed cashback is less than £50 say, and the number of such disputes if paid up out of imutual's profits is less than an agreed figure, say 1% of gross, nett, whatever, profit/revenue as decided, then we all agree to save everybody's time and authorise imutual to just cough up the dosh.

Possibly making a note in the forum that another missing cashback had to be paid for merchant "Scammy", so we can all see how the claims are trending and if we can spot any herberts taking advantage.

As such I think this is the last time I am going to vote for or against, we need a less man-hour (man-week?) intensive way to deal with the odd £26 ,here or there, decision.

The other thing I suggest is if a merchant is "bad" then remove them from the offers available, now that I would vote on if that was an option.

Just suggestions for the esteemed membership to cogitate on.

Re: Claim appeal #68963: please vote

by richard@imutual » Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:18 pm

RogerLloyd wrote:difficult to say imutual should pay if imutual haven't received any money
This comment is often made in such appeals, so I've created a separate topic here with some general thoughts on the matter

Top