I see this as a good move simply as it moves us away from the big players. We look like a more robust company able to take the profits and the loses in our stride.Squire wrote:Too time consuming in my opinion and open to abuse by the voting system for and against, based on perceived popularity, or not, of the member.
I for one (and I speak for both of me!) would accept that some transactions will not pay up, such as the Shopzilla, here 4 days then vanished completely, and I very much doubt the merchant has alreasdy paid imutual for 4 days worth of clicks that earned it nothing, in the time it was here.
Affiliate networks never pay instantly, they wait until the merchant pays them and then hold on to it for a month or more or even longer until you get to their "payment threshold" before releasing the payment to you, so that then you can release it to us.
I, me, myself, personally, do not expect to get paid and would not want to be a drain on the site's finances and expect the payment to come out of imutual's operating profit.
At least, not for minor stuff like the pennies at a time like Shopzilla for example.
Maybe OK for when you buy a Mercedes Benz and the merchant reneges on several hundred pounds of commission.
Then I might change my tune.
But too many hundreds of pounds drain on the site's finances will not do the member's shares any good in terms of earnings per share or future IPO value.
But then again, those that will transact really large purchases are unlikely to worry about going through cashback sites in the first place.
Ask Justin Bieber, for example.
If you want to give it a go, OK, but if you want to report it ties up too much of the Management's time and you need to concentrate on getting other EARNING opportunities for us to do (like paid searches along the lines of Swagbucks, et al, then I for one would be happy when or if you announce that the "experiment" is over.
Without a lot of whinging.
Any road up, thanks for botheriing to try to make this site the best, it is appreciated.
Talking about Justin Bieber, if I recruited him for imutual for next time he buys another $10.5 million house for him and his Mum, would I get more than just 100 shares???
Just being cheeky!
Not sure I agree with that. Could actually work the other way. But it does appear to be a much more democratic process. On other sites the clarity is sometimes very under the table. Anything to steal a march on the competitors has to be a good thing. As Squire says it can always be changed/stopped in the future.kevinchess1 wrote: I still reckon it will work out cheeper in the long run because less rejected clams will be paid.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests