Talk:Quidco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

My only gripe with quidco is a slightly technical one. Quidco openly calls its' self a cash back co-operative. However, this is simply untrue. It is registered as a Limited company and not under the Industrial & Provident Societies Act 1965. A bone fide co-op should always be registered as an IPS, open to membership through the purchase of shares. Also were it a co-op it would be able to use the .coop domain.

This is a valid point and the information would be welcome on the article if properly cited. Offhand I agree withy you. I think they chose to use the co-operative name and be a limited copany to avoid becoming something like www.themutual.co.uk Supposed 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this quidco entry read more like an advert than a balanced article?

I have removed the deletion entry and below I will try and explain why.
  • Firstly this is not self promotion, I have created and submitted content to several Reward websites articles and it has been said that I am "self promoting" all of them, yet I would have to have a stake in all these companies if this were the case and that's unlikely.
  • Second quidco and rpoints are very notable, an article by Martin Lewis in The Guardian was dedicated to them but I am having problems finding the actual article and can only find references to it. I will try and use my uni newspaper subscription to find it.
  • Note that Paypal is a company, is highly notable in part because it's owned by ebay. Epinions is also owned by ebay, so forfills the same criteria. I also don't see why these websites should be any more notable than the alternatives offered above that are less popular at the moment because they don't have the weight of a large corporation behind them. I believe wikipedia is used to inform people in an unbiased manner
  • There is contraversy surrounding the way these businesses operate and there is little information about this on the web, certainly very little in an unbiased form.

Supposed 12:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is an advert, simple as. If it wasn't blatant advertising, you would no problem with removing your external link. But I bet you dont. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Griffinsbridge (talk • contribs) .

  • This is blatent SPAM...I notice on their website (Quidco.com) they have an anti-spam policy yet Quidco obviously have no morals themselves when it comes to spamming other websites like this. Wikipedia is a brilliant site and it's companies like this that ruin it for the majority. Take your SPAM elsewhere Quidco. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.193.16.66 (talk • contribs) .

One way to balance the article would be to include criticism from reliable sources. Does anyone know of any newspaper articles (or other reports) that have criticized them? FreplySpang 01:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The poster has a point. This article is trash. I've done what I can with it, but the author is difficult. I've got a few related points started, but this article is NOT on my priority list. If someone would like to spend some time with the author, it could be much improved. I'm unlikely to. --meatclerk 08:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed 'only cashback co-operative' from the first sentence. That term seems to be a way they try to set themselves apart from other cashback sites and although it's true they have a slightly different model - giving back 100% and charging an admin fee rather than charging a percentage - they are essentially the same type of site. Besides, by their own definition they are not the only one any longer, Cashback Junction seems to doing the same deal now (unless I'm missing the difference) Identz 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Serious NPOV issues in the follwing edit. Needs copy editing

Quidco is a UK Cashback website that provides cashback links to over 1000 UK retailers. The site earns commission on users' online purchases via affiliate networks, and passes that commission back to users in the form of rebates.

[edit] History

The site was founded in May 2005 by University of Sheffield student, Paul Nikkel, his wife and his friend.[1][2] Although Nikkel claims to have had no previous commercial experience he was heavily involved in the running of UK deal site HotUKDeals. There is an account in their own words of 'The Quidco Story' on the official site.

The original site was revamped later that year with a different look and new features. Over the next year the minimum rebate level of £20 was abolished and a number of other additions were made including a blog (Quidblog) and the option to be paid by BACS rather than PayPal.

[edit] Popularity

According to Alexa rankings, since at least the start of 2007 Quidco could be the most popular cashback site in the UK and is certainly one of the top three along with Rpoints and GreasyPalm.[3] Nikkel stated in December 2006 that over £26 million had been spent through the site that year.[1]

The site was recommended by Martin Lewis in The Guardian as "the choice for cashback kings."[4]

[edit] Original features

Quidco is similar to many other cashback sites but there have been some significant differences in approach.

[edit] Rates

Quidco was the first site claiming to pass all commission to its members except for a fixed annual membership fee of £5, which is taken out of the first money 'earned' by the user each year. The result of this is cashback rates that are normally double those of other sites. Because of this approach, Quidco describes itself as a 'cashback cooperative.'

This model has since been adopted by a few other sites including Top CashBack, BigHair (defunct) and Caskback Junction but none have yet seen the same success.

UK cashback sites typically work by passing a percentage (usually 50%) of commission to their members.

[edit] Bonuses

Unlike most other cashback sites, Quidco does not offer incentives for registering or referring new members. Quidco claims that this is because referral bonuses encourage spam as unscrupulous users try to increase their referral earnings.

However, Quidco has been known to distribute unexpected commission bonuses amongst its members when they have been received from companies.

[edit] Simplicity

The workings and design of the site are notably simple compared to its competition. Not only are there no bonus schemes but the site is largely text based with limited use of colour and graphics.

The site also lacks the forums and user reviews that many other sites include although there is a blog where users can leave comments. There is also much discussion about the site on the forums of MoneySavingExpert.com and HotUKDeals.

[edit] Transparency

Many cashback sites refer to the companies they list as 'partners' that they have 'negotiated' special deals with. Quidco has been quite open about how it is normally the affiliate networks that negotiate programmes that can be simply applied for.

Quidco also started publishing performance statistics for each merchant showing how long commissions take to be reported and paid and how reliable their tracking has been. A number of other sites now include similar statistics.

[edit] Issues

[edit] Tracking reliability

Quidco claims that 'the vast majority of transactions are tracked successfully,' acknowledging that the tracking is not 100% reliable. Untracked transactions are chased up by Quidco but retailers can take many months to respond.

[edit] Account closures

Quidco has warned members and/or closed their accounts when they have deemed abuse has taken place. This has not been popular with those affected and has led to some retaliation including claims that accounts are closed in order to make money. Supposed 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I accept there are areas of this with serious NPOV issues. I tried to be a little bold but as neutral as I could but I have clearly failed. I think the main problems lie in the 'Original features' section, especially the last two subsections but if there's anything else I'd like to know.

I hope the other sections aren't complete garbage and can be reinstated in some form. Burstblues 00:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

I have received a complaint that the opening paragraph of this article reads like an advertisement, and needs some serious cleaning up. I agree completely. The opening is unbalanced, and reads like marketing for the site. There is no need to list the praises received until the body of the article, and even then, it seems to be unbalanced to cite only the positives. A contributor to this article should move the laudatory parts of the intro down, and ensure they are balanced appropriately by criticism. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will move them down. A couple of points however. Firstly, there can only be criticism where criticism exists, you're welcome to add criticms to the article from notable commentators, however if this doesn't exist I don't think it should have any bearing on whether the article itself exists. Secondly, the 'list of praises' were originally added to the article to meet wikipedia notability criteria, if notable criticism existed at the time it would have been added immediately. I understand it may seem to read like an advertisement but I do take slight offense to the suggestion that I may have intended this in how I structured the article. I dont' think there are any wikipedia rules regarding where those references should go? Supposed (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)