Qantas Account: Notice of suspension

[cwphoto]

I as a shareholder certainly do blame Qantas for firstly not implementing the system correctly initially, and secondly for not actually fixing the issue with the system. It ultimately all effects the bottom line of the company.

And I as a shareholder am more pragmatic and do not share your view..

 

[cwphoto]

Well obviously Qantas are aware of it, hence the OP's post. You'd think fixing the system would be priority rather then suspending accounts (which if fraudulent they should still do).

What we don't know is whether the cost of 'fixing' the system exceeds the amount of fraud they may potentially mitigate.

Business 101..

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What we don't know is whether the cost of 'fixing' the system exceeds the amount of fraud they may potentially mitigate.

Business 101..

Exactly. And whether indeed QF has actually lost anything in this case. The on line shopping company pays QF for the points. And possibly quite handsomely if QF is prepared to be partners and promote the earning of points via endless newsletters and emails (QF ain't doing it for love only).

The on line company might be complaining to QF, the on line retailer might be losing some $ for the points it's bought. But is QF losing? I'd be surprised.

 

[rock86]

What we don't know is whether the cost of 'fixing' the system exceeds the amount of fraud they may potentially mitigate.

Business 101..

It's not just focusing on the fraud though, if there are people gaming a system then generally there are a whole lot more who are unknowingly gaining an advantage.

If points aren't being recouped from members who return items then for the QF Malls business model, returns are a significant part of that process for the issue not to be fixed.

 

[drron]

Well obviously Qantas are aware of it, hence the OP's post. You'd think fixing the system would be priority rather then suspending accounts (which if fraudulent they should still do).

If you read the Bankwest thread which the OP contributed to you will find several that exploited a loophole.Bankwest then closed accounts.Several people got wind and transferred points to QFF.A while later QF started closing accounts.It was quite obvious that Bankwest had notified QF as Bankwest would have paid for the points.
In this case it could be a merchant who has got sick of churning and paying for QFF points so they have notified QF.It could be in fact the merchants who have left open the loop hole by not notifying QF of the returns rather than the QF mall being hopeless.

 

[rock86]

Exactly. And whether indeed QF has actually lost anything in this case. The on line shopping company pays QF for the points. And possibly quite handsomely if QF is prepared to be partners and promote the earning of points via endless newsletters and emails (QF ain't doing it for love only).

The on line company might be complaining to QF, the on line retailer might be losing some $ for the points it's bought. But is QF losing? I'd be surprised.

If that is the actual business model used (there'd be a few viable alternatives as well), then you would presume the stores which advertise on the QF Mall aren't stupid enough to base the 'point purchase' purely on what sales are made with traffic directed through the portal. Surely their legal team isn't that silly to see that glaring problem of overpaying QFF for points.

 

[cwphoto]

It's not just focusing on the fraud though, if there are people gaming a system then generally there are a whole lot more who are unknowingly gaining an advantage.

If points aren't being recouped from members who return items then for the QF Malls business model, returns are a significant part of that process for the issue not to be fixed.

Without knowing the cost of fixing the process though the point is moot. Need something quantitative; 'significant' doesn't cut it..

 

[cwphoto]

If that is the actual business model used (there'd be a few viable alternatives as well), then you would presume the stores which advertise on the QF Mall aren't stupid enough to base the 'point purchase' purely on what sales are made with traffic directed through the portal. Surely their legal team isn't that silly to see that glaring problem of overpaying QFF for points.

Stranger things have happened..

 

[Ansett]

Things like National Safety Council rings a Bell then companies like Enron. How many in the legal or Accounts department saw that and how many other potential opportunities for fraud or slippage gets missed by big and small companies.

The issue at the end of the day is down to each persons morals and ethics.

Making public what may or may not be considered fraudulent, as is being suggested by some here, would be nothing short of stupidity.

 

[sjk]

That is my assesment

Thank you, Judge juddles.

 

[rock86]

Stranger things have happened..

If you were any of those companies CFO/CEO would you sign off on that deal, I certainly wouldn't be...

 

[moa999]

Would you be happy to wait 6 months for points though, just to ensure you don't return the item (and spend the points before QF notified)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If that is the actual business model used (there'd be a few viable alternatives as well), then you would presume the stores which advertise on the QF Mall aren't stupid enough to base the 'point purchase' purely on what sales are made with traffic directed through the portal. Surely their legal team isn't that silly to see that glaring problem of overpaying QFF for points.

Either the company is paying for the points, or QF is taking a percentage of the sale price in lieu of the points? Either way, QF loyalty is making actual cash for the points that are ending up in people's accounts.

But if the merchants are complaining here... what's next? Credit card churning?

 

[oz_mark]

Either the company is paying for the points, or QF is taking a percentage of the sale price in lieu of the points? Either way, QF loyalty is making actual cash for the points that are ending up in people's accounts.

But if the merchants are complaining here... what's next? Credit card churning?

I don't know how the affiliate agreements are set up with Qantas, but I'd almost guarantee that they will be reporting returns to Qantas, and probably adjusting the Qantas cut.

I don't know about 'complaining', but certainly 'reporting'.

 

[cwphoto]

If you were any of those companies CFO/CEO would you sign off on that deal, I certainly wouldn't be...

Me neither, but I can't speak for the other 6B people on the planet..

 

[dajop]

The way I'd look at it:

1) The risk of returns is well known. Easy to gather data on what proportion of goods are returned and at what time they are returned.
2) Therefore introduce a time lag to account for this between purchase and points crediting (IIRC, 4-5 weeks, which gives plenty of time for people to return unless they are absent or there are delivery delays).
3) Factor in some "breakage" where goods are returned after the points are credited, but allow for this. Again data on time of goods return could be used to factor this in
4) Set up flags for "unusual" transactions, ie. set up some parameters that would flag people with high proportions of returns (outside certain std deviations) after points have been credited, and flag these for further investigation.

I can't see, other than delay crediting for a few more months, another way of dealing with this. I suspect QF's system are working - not failing them - if they flag potentially systematic deliberate refunding after points are credited. The absence of wide spread reporting of this same type of issue (suspension of accounts) by other AFF members (after all, most on here are quite obsessed with accruing points) and the reluctance of the OP to engage us with further details on the proportion of returns and size of transactions, would suggest QF's flagging system is working exactly as intended.

 

[rock86]

Either the company is paying for the points, or QF is taking a percentage of the sale price in lieu of the points? Either way, QF loyalty is making actual cash for the points that are ending up in people's accounts.

But if the merchants are complaining here... what's next? Credit card churning?

I don't know how the affiliate agreements are set up with Qantas, but I'd almost guarantee that they will be reporting returns to Qantas, and probably adjusting the Qantas cut.

Agreed, the affiliates are almost certainly reducing Qantas cut by any returns received.

Me neither, but I can't speak for the other 6B people on the planet..

Fair enough, I'm glad at least we're both in agreement it'd be a pretty coughpy deal.

The way I'd look at it:

1) The risk of returns is well known. Easy to gather data on what proportion of goods are returned and at what time they are returned.
2) Therefore introduce a time lag to account for this between purchase and points crediting (IIRC, 4-5 weeks, which gives plenty of time for people to return unless they are absent or there are delivery delays).
3) Factor in some "breakage" where goods are returned after the points are credited, but allow for this. Again data on time of goods return could be used to factor this in
4) Set up flags for "unusual" transactions, ie. set up some parameters that would flag people with high proportions of returns (outside certain std deviations) after points have been credited, and flag these for further investigation.

I can't see, other than delay crediting for a few more months, another way of dealing with this. I suspect QF's system are working - not failing them - if they flag potentially systematic deliberate refunding after points are credited. The absence of wide spread reporting of this same type of issue (suspension of accounts) by other AFF members (after all, most on here are quite obsessed with accruing points) and the reluctance of the OP to engage us with further details on the proportion of returns and size of transactions, would suggest QF's flagging system is working exactly as intended.

That process makes sense. I suppose I was taking issue because a few years ago (probably about a year after they 'opened' the QF Mall) where I returned an item within a few weeks (due to it being faulty) and the points were never recouped back from QFF. Looking at it I've probably wrongly assumed that it is a widespread issue based purely on my experience & the OP's post.

 

[muppet]

I've made plenty of purchases where no points ever arrived - so frankly swings and roundabouts.

In one case David Jones didn't have the exact product so they substituted something almost the same, that meant I got zero points.

Returns are common and essential in online purchases, we shouldn't have the threat of accout closure for giving Qantas business. PricePal and Cashrewards don't close my account with Commbank when I return something!!

And before I get told about cookies or browsers blah blah. I've had purchases gain points with the exact settings/browser etc.

 

[Pushka]

I think I’d like to know the amounts we are talking about before declaring fraud. While we know the number of transactions the actual $$$ has been left out. Meaning we are drawing our own conclusions. Nature abhors a vacuum and all that.

 

[RichardMEL]

I've read the last few pages of back and forth, theories, quotes and the rest

The more I think about it I think this is a case of QF (or the merchant perhaps?) assessing *intent*

For example, the poster with the bag issue that returned it perfectly reasonable, and I do not think QF would worry about those points for a one off, or even over the course of time several returns being "normal" behaviour.

However when patterns and trends form and becomes more than the occasional instance which one could reasonably put down to "situation normal" then flags obviously have popped up and they've taken action.

In essence it seems that the OP's behaviour as probably failed the "pub test"

Given the OP has not provided any concrete detail (and by the way I am not saying there is ANY obligation or requirement to do so, so a lot of this is going on some assumptions being made based on vague comments or alusions) then it's hard to assess (and the post right above regarding a measure of the amounts of $$$ and merch here are probably relevant) but clearly QF, as poor as they are in many respects, have detected a pattern that is more than a simple case of buying stuff and returning sizes that don't fit or whatever.

That's their call.

Now, the OP may indeed just be doing this, and one would hope that QF would allow for them to present their "side" of the situation to defend their actions, or prove it somehow to be fair.

However remember who "owns" the QFF points and the program and operate it at their discretion? QF.. not us.

Reminds me a bit of incidents a year or two ago where VA accused various parties of ausing the VFF system (something to do with family pooling IIRC) and summarily closing their accounts without much recorse. That's really tough but it happened to several people I know of.

And I could possibly mention the words "loophole" and "fight club" in the same breath.....

many of us "play" the system to max advantage when we can. That's more or less human nature. Where is the line between playing within the rules and *spiriti* and entering the world of fraudulent activity? That's a very murky area.