(Please note questions are at the end, front part would always build context, establish facts, this question here and those before triggers off the whole saga but the critical thing is still to clear your doubt as to the crux of matter though reason and logic.)
When they decide to implement a $1 fee for every cheque deposits, what was the reason behind that decision? Is it because of the decision of the bank to charge 50cent per cheque? If so then why are they not implementing 50cent? There is a difference of 50cent between the bank’s fee and their fee. Why the margin exists between the amount banks charges them and the amount they charge you?
To pass on the bank’s fee of 50cent to their present consumer is fine; however to arbitrage on the situation by adding a 100% amount to it is not.
What was the consequence? Dissatisfied bloggers raised fundamental points such as why didn’t they give more notice, and what made them come up to that figure of $1. The fundamental question is should or should they not charge you 50cent more if they were indeed implementing the $1 because of the bank. If the 50cent extra was to cover operation cost then why was it implemented at this stage of the business, where in reality operational cost existed even before Nuffnang was launched which was in February.
When Ming and Timothy went onto blogs to explain the reason behind the logic behind the decision to put the figure at $1, more dissatisfaction were created among the blogging community as to the way they decides to defend what they did.
Which raises questions as to the $1, was it really implemented because of the bank’s fee? Even if there were a fee of 50 cent, have they thought of other ways to cut their running cost instead of passing it to consumers (or in this case arbitrage).
Even when the owners think they have the right to implement or update the TOS of their business, we must question.
If indeed it is necessary for Nuffnang to implement a $1 charge to cover their running cost, why did they choose this time to implement? And also use the reason of the bank’s decision to charge them?
Did Nuffnang really arbitrage on the situation by implementing fees to its publishers (not consumer in this case) unfairly?
----------------------
Original version:
Did Nuffnang arbitrage on the situation by adding 50cent to the 50cent the bank had charge then per cheque out and not being upfront about their intent and therefore raises the issue of high operational cost needing to be covered?
Discuss this post in the Asia's First Nuffnang Discussion Forum
If you find this site helpful, please leave your footprint on this site using the shoutbox on the right.
When they decide to implement a $1 fee for every cheque deposits, what was the reason behind that decision? Is it because of the decision of the bank to charge 50cent per cheque? If so then why are they not implementing 50cent? There is a difference of 50cent between the bank’s fee and their fee. Why the margin exists between the amount banks charges them and the amount they charge you?
To pass on the bank’s fee of 50cent to their present consumer is fine; however to arbitrage on the situation by adding a 100% amount to it is not.
What was the consequence? Dissatisfied bloggers raised fundamental points such as why didn’t they give more notice, and what made them come up to that figure of $1. The fundamental question is should or should they not charge you 50cent more if they were indeed implementing the $1 because of the bank. If the 50cent extra was to cover operation cost then why was it implemented at this stage of the business, where in reality operational cost existed even before Nuffnang was launched which was in February.
When Ming and Timothy went onto blogs to explain the reason behind the logic behind the decision to put the figure at $1, more dissatisfaction were created among the blogging community as to the way they decides to defend what they did.
Which raises questions as to the $1, was it really implemented because of the bank’s fee? Even if there were a fee of 50 cent, have they thought of other ways to cut their running cost instead of passing it to consumers (or in this case arbitrage).
Even when the owners think they have the right to implement or update the TOS of their business, we must question.
If indeed it is necessary for Nuffnang to implement a $1 charge to cover their running cost, why did they choose this time to implement? And also use the reason of the bank’s decision to charge them?
Being bloggers advertising for them, we are naturally concern about how honest they are in handling the public. If indeed they had indeed being honest, then should we being their publisher (not even a consumer in this case) get charged for added running cost? Why are they not passing on to their consumer which is the advertisers?
Did Nuffnang really arbitrage on the situation by implementing fees to its publishers (not consumer in this case) unfairly?
----------------------
Original version:
Did Nuffnang arbitrage on the situation by adding 50cent to the 50cent the bank had charge then per cheque out and not being upfront about their intent and therefore raises the issue of high operational cost needing to be covered?
Discuss this post in the Asia's First Nuffnang Discussion Forum
If you find this site helpful, please leave your footprint on this site using the shoutbox on the right.
No comments:
Post a Comment