Archive for the ‘The Site’ Category

Consultation over the Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes board

Consultation over the Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes board

Consultation over the Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes board

The "Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes" board was originally set up to allow discussion on risk-free introductory loopholes.

E.g. "Free £20 to play at an online casino". So you put £9.50 on red, £9.50 on black, £1 on zero and then took your money out.

This soon evolved, firstly into the relatively simple area of matched betting. This followed strict rules against encouraging gambling itself. With a careful and accurate approach, it allowed users to make risk-free money by following a clearly-defined method. It was a typical MoneySaving loophole and many members supplemented their incomes with this.

Then companies began to wise up. They presented more hoops to jump through to achieve the same results. Undeterred, our forumites – being the canny operators that they are – adapted their methods and broadened their horizons to maximise profits.

It’s now so complex we have serious concerns

The systems are now incredibly complex and have strayed far from the original remit. My senior forum team members tell me:

When people report a supposed breach of the rules, it is incredibly difficult to understand – never mind assess – if it’s breaking our guidelines by not being risk-free." 

We also receive contradictory reports from our regular users, who live and breathe this sort of thing, about what is risky or not. 

Of course complexity is nothing new on MSE forums. But when this happens in other areas, my forum staff can ask my specialist editorial team to help.

Yet we don’t cover gambling, nor is gambling itself MoneySaving. The level of expertise now required to police this forum is causing us concern that we no longer have the ability to do so on a day-to-day basis. 

I’m not convinced we can risk keeping the board going

My biggest concern is that people could find incorrect info on there, and they’ll think that because it’s on MSE it must be OK – and may then damage their finances on the back of it.  

Of course we have the risk of that elsewhere. But gambling can be particularly predatory and is outside our main stable. One user may mistakenly suggest incorrect credit card info to another in our forum – that isn’t against our rules. Promoting risky gambling is, though – so the fact we are now struggling to differentiate between risky and risk-free is a concern.

This leaves me torn. I don’t want to take away a helpful discussion forum that people rely on, yet I don’t know how to keep it safe for people. I don’t want to risk the board damaging the work MSE does elsewhere.

My thoughts and options include:

  • A phased shutdown – giving a few months to allow people who want to discuss this to go elsewhere.
  • If we do shut the board down, we are left with the question of what to do with the existing content.
  • We could hide the board so only registered users can see it – although I’m concerned that wouldn’t help.

So it seemed logical to me to consult with those who know best about how people view this board and what we should do from here. I’m open to a wide range of suggestions – please let me know your thoughts below.

Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Sneaky preview of the new MSE masthead – what do you think of m’pic?

The green masthead’s on its last legs, we’re in the process of a gradual redesign and a big element of this is the new masthead. It’s prime real estate on the site as it’s on every single page, so before we go for it, I’d love your views…

Click here to see a clearer full size version

We’ve a few tweaks to make on exactly what goes where (the forum button needs to be more prominent), yet this is the overall look we’re going for.

There’s been much debate in MSE Towers about whether the picture with folded arms means business, or is defensive – overall, while I’m not so keen, the team think it’s a winner. We wanted to try something a bit different going for a very casual picture as the site is being smartened up and losing it’s done in a bedroom style – the aim of this pic is to keep something of the informality.

We’ve even had discussions about whether the colour of my shirt is right and whether it’s ironed enough (we can deal with the first in Photoshop, though this version is un-tweaked).

So I’d love your views. Do you like the overall image of the new masthead? Does the picture convey a friendly enough image – or would a closer up picture be better? Let me know what you think (be gentle).

Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

The difference between ‘free’ and free

The difference between 'free' and free

The difference between 'free' and free

When is a freebie not a freebie? When you have to pay for it! Sounds simple, but in the real world things aren’t that clear cut. So this week we’re introducing a new site convention – the difference between ‘free’ and free.

Our forums have always been clear – we have the freebies (no spend) required and freebies (low spend) boards. The latter is for when there’s a cost associated with getting the freebie eg, you need to send off for it (stamp cost), or pay for delivery. The first means absolutely no cost.

This is a convention we’ve struggled with in the weekly email where space is a premium so from now on it works like this:

  • When it’s free

    This is where there is absolutely no cost to you. Eg, you fill in an online form or web app to get the freebie. I’ve also decided that if you need to pick it up in store then that’s in this category (even though you could argue there are transport costs – but we need draw the line somewhere).

    Example from this week’s email:

    FREE £150 insulation for ALL – here there’s no cost to you whatsoever and provided you qualify it’s a total freebie.

  • When its ‘free’

    Here we are indicating that the company fairly refers to it as a freebie, but that there may be some costs associated. I know the difference is small, but the key is we will prominently tell you about the charge anyway – so see it as part of the whole package.

    Example from this week’s email:

    ‘FREE’ £8 personalised mug (pay £2 p&p) – there is a real cost associated, but it’s the standard delivery cost only.   

    Another use of this would be last week’s:  ’Free’ up to £32 tie if you buy a £2 newspaper. While the tie itself is free, you need to shell out for the paper – so if you weren’t planning to, it’ll cost you.

In general we’ll be following that convention in the email and all new things on the site. Though there may be editorially justified exceptions. An extreme example (sadly, made-up) will help: 

Imagine a company is giving away a £30,000 Mercedes to everyone who sends a stamped, addressed envelope – we’d probably just focus on the freebie as the cost is negligible in context.

Just because they call it a freebie, doesn’t mean we will

If any companies are reading this thinking that calling something ‘free’, but manipulating their pricing means we’ll follow – they’re very much mistaken.

Often this happens with package and postage charges – they’re inflated to cover the freebie. If the p&p is disproportionately high, we’ll simply phrase it differently (as we’ve done in the past).

Eg, suppose a spectacles company said it was giving £30 glasses for free, but the p&p was £10. Provided the deal was good and worth telling people about we’d phrase it as: Get £30 glasses for £10 even if their marketing called it a freebie. 

The only problem here is when people go for these deals, what we write doesn’t match up to what they see – so we tend to have to explain it out to help.

Thoughts welcome.

Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Fraud is being attempted, yet the police won’t act

Fraud is being attempted, yet the police won't act

Fraud is being attempted, yet the police won't act

There’s a spate of cold calling going on from some companies claiming to be MoneySavingExpert.com. Recently we reported one obvious scam to the police, yet we were told they wouldn’t do anything until someone lost money. But surely we should stop it BEFORE that happens?

In the past we’ve had companies trying to use our name to help their sales. This clearly infringes our trade mark so it’s easy to head off (see MSE wins battle over "Money Claiming Experts"). Yet the new range of scams seem to have taken a nastier turn.

We believe scammers are trying to get people to hand over cash up front for services that will never appear. They generally seem to be from overseas and mention issues such as bank charges, life insurance and other similar things.

We’ve had one case of a lady in Australia who has contacted us after losing money. There are also a growing number of people emailing our imposters@moneysavingexpert.com address who have told us that they have also received calls here in the UK. Having managed to get hold of one of the phone numbers, we called up and heard them describing themselves as "Money Saving Expert".  

Yet the frustration is, when the MSE lawyer spoke to the police, they told her they will not treat the calls as fraud unless or until someone has actually lost money (ie. not received the service for which they have paid) and in any event, our understanding is that it is the person who has lost the money who must report the fraud, not us.

We’re open to ideas via the two comment options below…

Related articles:

Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

It’s time to end the ‘always pay off your 0% balance transfer’ before it ends rule?

Is it time to end the ‘always pay off your 0% balance transfer’ before it ends rule?

Is it time to end the ‘always pay off your 0% balance transfer’ before it ends rule?

The cheapest way to shift your debts, is to shove it onto a 0% balance transfer deal and then repay before interest is charged. Yet, some new research we’ve done now shows that in many cases a 0% deal even beats the ‘lock-in for life’ offers that used to win if you took longer to pay off the debts.

This does cause me a little bit of a consternation. We always used to say: "only choose a 0% balance transfer card if you’ll either repay it in full or shift it again before the 0% period ends", otherwise it’s safer to go for a long term ‘for life’ card. Yet now that simply isn’t true in many cases, even over an extended period.

Though I still do think it’s a useful conceptual message, the financial mathematics behind it don’t quite add up.

What’s changed?

Our rethink is a result of four things:

  • 0% deals are getting longer. The longest is now 20 months 0%. In the past sixteen months was the longest-ever, but there are now many cards longer than that.
  • Long term deals aren’t improving. At one point you could lock-in at 3.9% for life, fees free, if you shifted to the right card. Now the best deal is 5.9% with a 1.5%.
  • One-off fees are now in place for both. Shift debt and there’s now almost always a fee, (even on long term cards which didn’t used to have them) which inhibits moving to an extent.
  • We’ve built a new calculator. The which card’s cheapest? tool shows you which card is cheapest assuming fixed repayments and we were very surprised at some of the results.

The extent of the changes

Take an example based on the current longest 0% deal and the cheapest ‘rate for life’ long term card.

£5,000 debt shifted to the card
Monthly repayment

Barclaycard: 0% for 20 months 3.2% fee (17.5% rep APR after)

MBNA rate for life:
5.9% plus 1.5% fee
£100 £1,110 interest repaid 62mths £830 interest repaid 59 mths
£130 £570 interest repaid 43 mths £630 interest repaid 44 mths
£150 £390 interest repaid 36 mths £550 interest repaid 38 mths

As can be seen from the table, (the tool shows far more iterations) even after 43 months the Barclaycard is still cheaper than the long term for life card (assuming consistent repayments and no spending on the card). So, for many people even if they don’t clear it in time, or don’t have a decent credit score for another card, it’s still the cheapest single transfer.

Why does it work this way?

The key is you clear so much debt in the early period when the debt is bigger and interest’s 0%, that the much higher APR afterwards doesn’t have as much of an impact.

Now, of course it would still be cheaper in the case above if, after the 20 months, you simply switch the debt again to another 0% card – that’s still the best option.

Though bizarrely there are now even a few extreme scenarios when it’s not cheaper to switch again. For example, if you only had a couple of months left to repay once the 0% has ended, the fee for switching would be bigger than the interest cost by the time the card is cleared.

Champagne Beats Bank Charges: Biggest Ever Day of the Site Part III

Cheap Champagne won the day!

Cheap Champagne won the day!

I seem to be writing this all the time recently (see over 1m visits in a day and over 900k visits in a day), but the site’s beaten its record traffic for the third time.

So to keep stats nuts happy here’s the latest stats and a shock ‘most popular page’

The Overall Stats: 1.13m visits

We SMASHED the old record, again it was on a Wednesday, the day of the email, but of course it was also the bank charges result day.

The exact stats are as follows (previous record in brackets). These are generated from our Google Analytics software which tracks every visit to the servers.

  • 1,127,474 visits (1,003,476)– ie different trips to the site
  • 896,660 unique visitors (811,122) – ie different people in the day
  • 4,057,623 page views (3,339,547) page views – the number of different pages people look at

Since we launched the new look of the weekly email traffic has been huge each week which is I suspect why we’re cracking records all the time – but I think yesterday was special.

The Top Ten Most Viewed

Interestingly though, it wasn’t bank charges that came out top, it was champagne – maybe there’s a social comment on the state of the nation there (though in truth if you add the views on all the bank charges articles together then it came top).

The top ten were as follows – most came from the email as usual…

  1. Cheap Champagne – Moet £14 and Bollinger £18
  2. Beauty Freebies – M&S bath set
  3. Bank Charges Q&A – full what to do now guide (combined result of earlier & later version)
  4. Discount Vouchers – New voucher search system
  5. The e-mail itself – the onsite version
  6. Restaurant Vouchers – Pizza Express & La Tasca
  7. Bank Charges Result – news as it broke
  8. EuroDisney Deal – £70 for a family
  9. Travelodge Sale – 50,000 £9 rooms
  10. Freebies, Freebies, Freebies – usual compendium of freebies.

Comment and Discuss