imutual.co.uk

As we pride ourselves on having a very small % of "problem" transactions, and then dealing with any such claims efficiently, we regularly publish stats on how we're doing. But recently we also provided this report so that any member is able to check on our progress at any time

As you will see, we have a couple of claims overdue, which is disappointing. But we're chasing the network to get these resolved ASAP. Overall, I think we're doing quite well

Since imutual started, only 1.8% of "claimable" transactions (i.e. ignoring daily clicks etc) have had a problem that required the member to submit a claim.

Of those 274 claims, only 16 have been rejected. Or put it another way, in only 0.1% of cases did a member fail to get their promised cashback due to a merchant rejecting a claim.

But as I'm determined to establish imutual's reputation of the most trustworthy 100% cashback site, I want to provide even further reassurance. While we can't go as far as to guarantee ANY cashback (due to the fact that this makes us vulnerable to bogus claims), I do want to give people a further means of appeal when we decide to reject a claim due to a merchant's failure to pay up.

The idea is to have an appeals process where you, the shareholders, decide whether we should award a member's claim. The idea is that we make available all the facts regarding the claim (in a discussion topic), the member has the chance to put their case, and you lot make the decision. In making your decision, you have to take into account:
- whether the member appears to done what could reasonably be expected in order to earn the promised cashback
- what the merchant has stated
- the previous track record of both the merchant and member
- the monetary cost to imutual of honouring the claim
- the possible damage to imutual's reputation of not honouring the claim
- whether honouring the claim makes imutual vulnerable to bogus claims in the future

More information on this proposed "appeals" process can be found here

If a member has their claim rejected, we will make them aware of their 'right of appeal' and, if they choose to do so, we'll start a topic (and poll) about their claim so that you can debate and decide. I would hope and expect that there won't be a need for many such 'appeals'

I hope you'll agree this is something that helps us to stand out and gives a good impression of imutual to prospective new members who may have been frustrated when using other cashback sites

Let me have your thoughts and feedback!

It seems to me to be a very open and honest way of dealing with the process and an extension of the mutual process. I have no issues with it.

I think it's a V good idea and the sort of thing we should be doin.
I don't think there will bee a prob with 'Bogus' clams we will soon see if asomeone keeps comin up in the appeals.
I actually think it mite save us some money, at the mo we hav a situ where RY decide if a rejected claim is paid or not
Under the nude system he don't hav to worry just let the Share holders decide

Genius. As you state there have only be "16" rejected claims then I propose we make appeals retrospective which would put us into a league of our own. I take it would be awarded cashback and shares?

Excellent idea. Some companies have a bad reputation when it comes to paying cashback. Green Flag is one of them but as they are the cheapest I will be buying from them again.

I'm quiet xcited
I'm mlookin forward to castin me vote

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.

P.S.

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!

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.

P.S.

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!

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.

Some interestin arguse from Squire.
I still reckon it will work out cheeper in the long run because less rejected clams will be paid.
I sdon't think it will bee tim consuming, just set up a TenPlate with a 'If you want to appeel the clic here'
The emphasis will be on the claimant to make his case so no work for the staff
And RY says ther's only bean 16 rejects anyway since we started
I think it's a V good idea
If Squire is unhappy then he can start a pole

kevinchess1 wrote: I still reckon it will work out cheeper in the long run because less rejected clams will be paid.

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.