Glad to see they’ve removed this.
Hope some lessons have been learned
Glad to see they’ve removed this.
Are there any plans to be more transparent around how these experiments are run, more generally? An experiments section of the “Transparency Dashboard” that detailed:
- what is being experimented with
- what the goals of the experiment are
- how many people are part of the experiment
- what the outcome of the experiment is
would be great. I think a lot of the anger/confusion/emotion that arises from these threads (i.e., those where an experiment participant posts a screenshot of a previously unknown feature) is that the scale and intentions of the experiment aren’t clear.
Why not ask some opinions before engineering these “experiments”
Yes, I believe Monzo should definitely consult the “experts” on this community before doing anything. That sounds like the best way to get things done. /s
Don’t suppose you are related to super sam?
I think that there are good reasons for that. The set of people that say they’ll sign-up for a product is different to the set that actually would. Further, people that give their opinions are a self-selecting minority: this forum, for example, represents a tiny minority of Monzo’s customer base.
You end up compromising the experiment and data to an extent - as much as the forum is a great place for feedback - the numbers will be just as important
Monzo should use Testflight properly. They should use Monzo Labs properly.
These things being tested could be placed into those two parts, depending on the type of product. If you have access to testflight you should expect things like this. If you don’t then it shouldn’t be allowed without labs being checked.
And now you have explained it it kinda makes sense however this was poorly executed.
If you ‘value our opinion’ then you could have come on here and said look guys this is what we are planning to do via testflight/labs do you think it is a good iea and how would you like to see this proposed to you if at all.
This now just falls in to the locked pots mess.
I feel like this is a lot better!
Who’d have thought it… Monzo aren’t evil!
Some people were using some very strong adjectives when describing how upset they were with this. I’m glad it wasn’t as bad as some people speculated.
Hopefully Monzo aren’t too scared by this to try new things through fear of backlash, otherwise they will be forced down the safe “legacy banking” route which would be a real shame
Oh dear Monzo.
Seems to me you’re getting it wrong more than you’re getting it right, recently.
Hi @ellen thanks for the explanation, as someone who was on the receiving end of the experiment, I did feel it came across as predatory. As some people have suggested it may be better targeted if people had a target date set on the goal and the loan offered close (say a month from) to the target date with better wording along the lines of "we’ve noticed your saving for a holiday and based on your average savings of £x per month into this pot, we estimate you will be £y short of your target’ as part of the advert.
What slightly bothers me, and correct me if I’ve misunderstood but is that it seems your suggesting Monzo may introduce a target date feature into the pots purely to help target loans?
I think if a target date is introduced and loans offered then there should at the least be a calculation shown to tell you at a glance how much you need to save per month to reach that target, this would be a useful addition regardless of loans. Better to help people save first before offering any loan.
There should be a way to check eligibility - when is it being rolled out to more people?
I don’t agree with loans for a holiday in a lot of cases, but can see why some people would use them
It isn’t. See 1st paragraph:
Sadly. It seems that’s the case
@jackbailley but was the loan from Sainsbury’s @2.5 £150, lower amounts get charged at a higher rate,
If your loan from Sainsbury’s was for £7500 you will get better rates
I don’t think either of those mechanisms fit this scenario. Using TestFlight to test a banking product would be weird and I doubt it has the ‘audience’ coverage to make the sort of targeted advertising test being discussed work sensibly. Labs would go against the objective of the test completely and not give them the answers they were looking for.
Not saying I agree with the test, just pointing out that I don’t believe there was another way of achieving what they were looking for.
On the test itself, I’d personally never borrow to save(!) but as that wasn’t the aim, it’s a moot point. More relevant, I’d never borrow for a holiday. If you can’t afford it, don’t take it. The concept of paying ‘000s for a ‘well earned family holiday’ as someone said above is thus alien to me . (Plus, if I’d borrowed the money, it wouldn’t be well earned would it, it would be well borrowed )
In this case £150 is not a scary amount and if it means you get what you need eg securing your summer holiday deal before it sells out I have no issue with this type of marketing
If it was £5,000 I would not feel comfortable with it