Hopefully, because I don’t see how not having sort codes for a very low proportion of potential transactions is a big selling point, especially when sort codes are hardly a big inconvenience.
Monzo does have some unique features that they should be advertising. This isn’t one of them.
As someone who has transferred money without using sort codes (and had money transferred not me without needing to give any sort codes), you’re rather arguing with the wrong person there.
If you’ll excuse me, I must be heading back to my unlikely future.
Given it’s social media advertising, not unlikely it’s based on an assessment of how many other Monzo users or likely Monzo users are in this persons network. Targeting is a thing!
I think we’re going around in circles on this topic. Shall we leave the discussion here?
Sorry was just watching bake off from the other night. It just looks like some kid was asked to come up with something for a school project, it looks dated, rather simplistic in design and really isn’t memorable. Not eye catching enough when you’re scrolling through an insta feed.
Aren’t we all?
Totally unbiased opinion here!
I think it’s a fantastic ad! 
“Hot Chip”
Ah, memories.
When enough of my friends have monzo that we now use the term “sure ill monzo you that now” then id call that a feature worth advertising.
Me and my friends use Monzo for transfers and it’s so simple for bill splitting and going to be a lot easier come holiday time in two weeks to request or send either way with minimal effort.
Neither of these ads are very good if that is all the adverts are. Monzo seems slightly better as at least they have something that is clearly their brand.
I like how the cards all have someone from marketing’s name on them.
Please oh please oh lord can we have one with ‘Rick Cully’ or ‘Jack Astley’ on it? I’ll literally send you cakes @jackcully
I got a video ad for monzo in my Instagram reels a few days ago.
Does social media marketing spend after years indicate they are now on the front foot financially?
The Telegraph must be trembling in their boots.
I think it’s probably more to do with the slowing growth in customer numbers. They probably need to prove rapid growth is still possible before another funding round.
Seriously doubt they are near profitability yet.
I think the only thing you could safely say it indicates is a change of staff or staff emphasis in the marketing department.
I don’t think it has anything to do with the spend - the TV marketing campaign would’ve cost a lot more, and the referral scheme (which I believe would have come out of the marketing budget) would’ve also not been cheap.
tl;dr, change of priorities/direction, not change of finances.
This is true although I think there was a broader link between marketing and finances. Not that they didn’t have the money for marketing spend, but that they didn’t have the money for the pace of growth. All those new support staff, all that infrastructure etc meant they would burn through capital too fast.
So I do think it was probably a result of finances that they scaled back hugely on growth and focused on monetising the current customer base, and I do think when they hit overall profitability growth will become an A-1 priority and we’ll see all the marketing taps turned up to max. Case in point - Starling 
You spend ages waiting for one and then two come along at once!
