imutual.co.uk

richard@imutual wrote: ↑

Tue May 19 2020 4:40pm

planteria wrote: ↑

Tue May 19 2020 2:28pm

fwiw i think more from you in advance of the meeting would be helpful richard.

I've answered every question that's relevant to the EGM resolution. There are a small number of posters who periodically repeat similar comments about strategy, my "failings" etc. A trawl through past posts will show that I've devoted a significant amount of energy into answering these comments, but it doesn't stop them. I don't think I'm serving the interests of imutual shareholders by engaging further with them on this thread. I think the offer of a Google meet is quite generous - presumably they'll take it up?

Richard, I hope you realise we are all on the same side - all we want is for your original dream for iMutual to become reality!

I only have one question and that can be answered here: Will you give a commitment to establishing a well financed marketing campaign also involving yourself in no cost meetings/interviews with the financial press/media in an effort to raise the iMutual profile?

Boro Boy wrote: ↑

Tue May 19 2020 6:35pm

Richard, I hope you realise we are all on the same side - all we want is for your original dream for iMutual to become reality!

I didn't necessarily have you in mind And I'm not sure everyone does want that, bb

I only have one question and that can be answered here: Will you give a commitment to establishing a well financed marketing campaign also involving yourself in no cost meetings/interviews with the financial press/media in an effort to raise the iMutual profile?

I'm not sure what exactly you have in mind. Why do "no cost meetings/interviews" have to be "well financed"

richard@imutual wrote: ↑

Tue May 19 2020 6:50pm

Boro Boy wrote: ↑

Tue May 19 2020 6:35pm

Richard, I hope you realise we are all on the same side - all we want is for your original dream for iMutual to become reality!

I didn't necessarily have you in mind And I'm not sure everyone does want that, bb

I only have one question and that can be answered here: Will you give a commitment to establishing a well financed marketing campaign also involving yourself in no cost meetings/interviews with the financial press/media in an effort to raise the iMutual profile?

I'm not sure what exactly you have in mind. Why do "no cost meetings/interviews" have to be "well financed"

Bad layout I guess... Just trying to highlight a full campaign with financial backing is required but as part of that campaign it should include a commitment to the no cost interviews that appear to have been so successful for other financial websites.

Can you commit to financing a campaign?

There's no point inviting anyone here until this site is entirely overhauled and the offer is different / improved.

No mobile. An archaic front end that should be selling its brands and links but instead is littered with streams of text "offers" inputted by users. No social media presence? In 2020? Have a trawl through the facebook page - what is the point in it?

Compare:
https://www.facebook.com/imutual/
https://www.facebook.com/topcashback/

These things are not difficult to set up and automate. But there is no will. Instead we concentrate our admin time on adding obscure retailers that nobody is ever likely to use.

I'm sympathetic with Boro Boy's vote. He's voting for change, not to punish the site or to stick one up Richard. I agree with him - we're on Richard's side. There is one poster here who, perhaps, has a pop at Richard a bit more often than is necessary, but some of that is also justified - pointing out more competitive offers elsewhere is the same as pointing out why we are not attracting new users: the criticism might hurt, but it might also be right.

I'm still wavering. I'm not sure our votes will make a difference anyway, but I've seen nothing to convince me to support the amendment other than - as I said before - it seems petty to cost the company / Richard £6k when we don't need to. Most people here don't want to be petty. Most people here ARE on your side, Richard.

But the future looks much like the past. What do we do to effect change if we don't protest?

Just to add, I think the idea of 'shares' and mutuality is pretty much dead here. Putting it to bed may be no bad thing, I imagine "feedback" like this is not your favourite way to spend the evening.

So be up front. Drop it. Organise a graduated share buy-back paid in cashback over the next X transactions. Then, just give us the best cashback rates and you can keep the company and we'll still be loyal to you, as many / most of us where when rPoints went down.

parchedpeas wrote: ↑

Wed May 20 2020 1:40am

So be up front. Drop it. Organise a graduated share buy-back paid in cashback over the next X transactions. Then, just give us the best cashback rates and you can keep the company and we'll still be loyal to you, as many / most of us where when rPoints went down.

That's certainly an option which members can decide on in the future. For now, the pressing matter is to convert back to a private company, generating savings which help to keep other options open.

I've seen a couple of mentions of "protest" vote. It's a term often used when you know your vote has no chance of affecting the outcome. I would like to tell anyone holding a reasonable number of shares that your vote can very much affect the outcome. A 75% threshold is needed

By all means vote against the proposal if that's what you think is in imutual's best interests, but don't make the mistake of seeing it as just a "protest" vote.

richard@imutual wrote: ↑

Tue May 19 2020 4:40pm

planteria wrote: ↑

Tue May 19 2020 2:28pm

fwiw i think more from you in advance of the meeting would be helpful richard.

I've answered every question that's relevant to the EGM resolution. There are a small number of posters who periodically repeat similar comments about strategy, my "failings" etc. A trawl through past posts will show that I've devoted a significant amount of energy into answering these comments, but it doesn't stop them. I don't think I'm serving the interests of imutual shareholders by engaging further with them on this thread. I think the offer of a Google meet is quite generous - presumably they'll take it up?

understood. i've not been involved with, or followed, the politics - i've just been around the Finance & Property forum as you asked me to. however, though i understand that there is a specific EGM resolution to be considered and voted upon, you can see that this process has flagged up concerns re our strategy, and so i believe responding in this thread, in advance of the meetings, would have been helpful, as others would have then seen your responses who will probably not do so otherwise.

i think it's a shame if we are to take the route parchedpeas suggests, but i applaud the idea of a real way forward via a share buy back process. we need all options, including this one, to be properly considered and when a route forward is agreed, implemented successfully.

richard@imutual wrote: ↑

Wed May 20 2020 8:33am

... don't make the mistake of seeing it as just a "protest" vote.

parchedpeas wrote: ↑

Wed May 20 2020 1:37am

What do we do to effect change if we don't protest?

parchedpeas wrote: ↑

Wed May 20 2020 1:40am

Just to add, I think the idea of 'shares' and mutuality is pretty much dead here. Putting it to bed may be no bad thing, I imagine "feedback" like this is not your favourite way to spend the evening.

So be up front. Drop it. Organise a graduated share buy-back paid in cashback over the next X transactions. Then, just give us the best cashback rates and you can keep the company and we'll still be loyal to you, as many / most of us where when rPoints went down.

I think I am in agreement with most of what you have said but not this. Shares are our USP over the big two and should be maintained. The problem is not just the state of the site or the lack of marketing to attract new members but without these there is no real effort placed into the ultimate of giving the shares value and availability on the open market.

I recall Mutual.net and a lot of money was made there but it was not controlled and when the bubble burst so to did Mutual.net, but nonetheless this model could be made stable and is (as I see it) the ultimate route ahead - but is that Richards idea? I doubt it, my fear is it is just seen as (a dwindling) cash cow...

parchedpeas wrote: ↑

Wed May 20 2020 1:37am

There's no point inviting anyone here until this site is entirely overhauled and the offer is different / improved.

No mobile. An archaic front end that should be selling its brands and links but instead is littered with streams of text "offers" inputted by users. No social media presence? In 2020? Have a trawl through the facebook page - what is the point in it?

Compare:
https://www.facebook.com/imutual/
https://www.facebook.com/topcashback/

These things are not difficult to set up and automate. But there is no will. Instead we concentrate our admin time on adding obscure retailers that nobody is ever likely to use.

I'm sympathetic with Boro Boy's vote. He's voting for change, not to punish the site or to stick one up Richard. I agree with him - we're on Richard's side. There is one poster here who, perhaps, has a pop at Richard a bit more often than is necessary, but some of that is also justified - pointing out more competitive offers elsewhere is the same as pointing out why we are not attracting new users: the criticism might hurt, but it might also be right.

I'm still wavering. I'm not sure our votes will make a difference anyway, but I've seen nothing to convince me to support the amendment other than - as I said before - it seems petty to cost the company / Richard £6k when we don't need to. Most people here don't want to be petty. Most people here ARE on your side, Richard.

But the future looks much like the past. What do we do to effect change if we don't protest?

I agree with most you have written here. The real problem is the old fashioned website style and the lack of social interaction. It's not currently fit for purpose, which is why Richard quite rightly put that at the forefront of development effort, for which we have seen no physical result yet. That's not surprising given it is just Richard and this is quite a complex system with lots to be done re-writing probably almost the entire codebase. If it was just a quick dusting of a new interface it would be much more simple.

Indeed there is no point in a marketing plan at all right now until the website is in a state where it can be marketed as the offer going forward. It would do more damage to ask people to come and then wait for the new site - quite counterproductive on all fronts for a number of reasons.

parchedpeas wrote: ↑

Wed May 20 2020 1:40am

Just to add, I think the idea of 'shares' and mutuality is pretty much dead here. Putting it to bed may be no bad thing, I imagine "feedback" like this is not your favourite way to spend the evening.

Personally I think there is still potential for this but everything, including this, is hindered totally by the ball and chain of the website itself. The concept is still unique and that's a good thing but it is the method for how it benefits members, trying to introduce value to the shares and builds a large base of shareholders with collective power that is currently missing. I think some bright ideas need to come out and there really will have to be some additional heads to make something happen.

My worry is the business drops the current USP (even if it doesn't currently work in the way hoped), to then have no USP and have no reason for anyone on any of the big cashback sites to come here instead. That is when oblivion, as someone else mentioned, will actually come as there would be nothing that any investor would greatly fancy putting their money into. It is rare for investors to invest in clones.