Indeed. So we actually go one better than the other 2 sites in that respect, because we at least offer an estimated payment date as soon as a transaction tracks. But if we receive payment sooner, we award it straight away.
There are a small % of merchants where this doesn't happen, only because their reporting makes it difficult to ascertain when we've received payment for specific transactions.
This post was purely a comparison of top line revenues and overheads. For comparison with the "big 2" in other respects, see here
Richard is entitled to argue that some costs are fixed, or relatively fixed, so these bear down harder on start-up companies with lesser income stream and I'd agree with him.
Yes, I'd argue that strongly. Most of our time is taken up with managing offer details, making payments, marketing, development and dealing with claims and queries. Apart from claims and queries, all the other activities are largely fixed regardless of the number of members/transactions. As we grow we'll need to devote more resources to tech and marketing, but nowhere near as much as our competitors do.
But the point I'm making is that one can use statistics to 'prove' a point and then find exactly the same set of statistics used against one.
True. But some claims have more credibility than others