In reply to a post by RobertoS:

No diatribe at all intended. I was offering what could be a simple explanation for it being declined.

...and today, after appealing, it was accepted. I suspect given how widespread this is, there is either something wrong in how PN are checking this, or a semi-intentional effort to try and avoid paying it where the deal is a bit too generous.

The whole concept of cashback sites stinks in my opinion.

Because?

Given PM would absolutely not have gained a customer without it, I'd say it works for the seller and buyer in this case.

Hard to say. I suppose they are more honest than many of the comparison ones.

My main objection is perhaps on the basis that no-one with any sense really goes to them until they've already decided. Maybe that's only because my experience in a fairly savvy area - people who are smart enough to come here for advice on a new ISP in the first place. So all they do is syphon off money that would be better retained and used better.

I think I found this site (the Main Site) after googling "ISP comparisons" LOL. My choice was hugely, in fact entirely, based on the Compare Tool here. That was in the days when there were over twenty ISPs on the page. I don't think ISPs needed to make introductory offers on their websites then.

So I probably agree with you, but somehow I don't. If it works tonthe benefit of both, how are any trackbacks ever in doubt? From either failed tracking or being declined? Cheaper and easier just to let everthing through.

its obvious

the business model depends on claims not been paid out to a certian % of people.

They probably get some % for people who forget or dont bother, and another % for those who dont push hard enough after they are mysteriously told the tracking broken after the product is live.

If they paid out to everyone then surely PN would give cash rebates to new customers directly, cutting out the cashback middle man. The cashback middle man serves as removing the seller from the responsibility of unpaid cashbacks.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 14-Mar-15 23:03:42)

My main objection is perhaps on the basis that no-one with any sense really goes to them until they've already decided

And then they complain when it doesn't track - despite the fact that by finding it outside of the site they have broken the Ts&Cs for getting the cash back. I would never use a cashback site to make the decision around something and therefore would consider myself deceitful to go to the cashback site after I have found the product I want. So, I don't use them...

In reply to a post by ian72:

despite the fact that by finding it outside of the site they have broken the Ts&Cs for getting the cash back.

Which Ts&Cs are those, do you have a link?

TopCashBack

If the merchant decides your transaction wasn't genuine for any reason, or if the merchant decides that your custom, (whether tracked or not), was deemed to have been provided by another website (such as but not limited to a comparison site or a search engine) then your transaction will not be applicable.

I understand fully about not using other comparison sites and that is easy enough to detect and enforce, but it is impossible to tell whether someone went to a cashback site after already having made the decision to buy. I do it whenever I remember and can't see what the problem is. Quidco even provides a browser add-on to alert you when cashback is available (although I don't use it). Sometimes I forget to check and kick myself when I find that I could have had cashback but, seriously, how many people actually use the cashback sites to decide where to buy? For example, I regularly buy from dabs.com. I know I can get a small amount of cashback through Quidco by going through that route, so I do. Is that unethical in some way?

Edited by kasg (Mon 16-Mar-15 09:35:31)

I fail to see the benefit to the supplier if people only use the cashback site AFTER they have found what they want to buy. The supplier is paying money out for absolutely no reason - it isn't a way to get advertising or more custom because the person has already made the decision.

Therefore the supplier is perfectly in their right to deny a cashback if they believe the person did not find them via the cashback site.

The problem I see with the sites is how suppliers can prove that someone didn't find them via the cashback site. Because of this I wonder how long they can maintain a model where people are effectively just using it to get discounts - and why then shouldn't everyone get discounts rather than having to go through the cashback sites? I really can't see the benefit of them to the industry with the way they are now used.