Fee for saving more than £100 per month?

I agree, it took me ages trawling through the Ts & Cs before I found the charging information. I think the charges and any other changes that are going to
impact customers should be highlighted and their attention drawn to them which is what other financial organisations do if they change anything, in fact I think it’s a requirement.

I totally agree. I think any charges at all are unacceptable in my opinion. Yet I do of course understand the need for multiple revenue streams. Personally despite being an investor I currently have £1.12 in my Chip Savings! Why because I get a very good interest rate (especially given the times) which I store the bulk of my money. I have a monthly regular Saver as well paying 5%! So it’s a no brainier. Perhaps I have outgrown Chip and I think the cost of saving might actually save some people money because they wouldn’t normally save at all plus autosave is the main feature that is quite clever.
Given how difficult getting credit can be I think a lot are turning to savings and cutting costs, my hope is that doesn’t mean emptying their Chip savings or see Chip as a ‘cost’.

So as a user I see any charges as a big no no! Would put me off. But because I am not really a user but just affectively a backer I can be a bit more detached and think so long as I get a return some day I just hope that this doesn’t reduce user base and in turn referrals and usage. As a backer I want the quickest way to profit and largest returns like any savings or investments.

Santander bank charge for ‘perks’ on their current account offering larger rewards, and no charge for a ‘lesser’ current account. The choice for the customer is simple: choose to pay, or don’t . I choose to pay.

Onwards and upwards, Chip!

2 Likes

I really don’t think £1.00 is that big if a deal, people spend more money on a cup of coffee or something equally priced without bating an eyelid.

While I don’t think I save more than £100 a month, I am still tempted by the ChipX because of the branded stickers and merchandise (please tell me more) and the exclusive App icon (I’m easily won over)

Agree. Is this about convenience for penny savers or money generation for chip?

The USP of chip is was slipping to one side money that you wouldn’t miss and in time amassing a few hundred as a treat/surprise.

It was not a mechanism for churning cash for chip.

This is my money moving from my account to my account via chip. Like shifting money from my pocket to my wallet. I don’t expect to pay a fee for that.

I have nearly given up on nimbl because It went from convenient for me and daughter to making money from me while I moved my money around from my family to my family via a bank fee for doing so.

Open question. If you don’t like the fees/£1 per month for help via AI to save over £100 per month (to cover costs), what is your suggestion/solution?

Chip needs to cover expenses & start making money. Investors will want to make money, not lose or give it away. Chip has currency given away millions & needs to start bringing money in. Chip needs to protect Chip & investors.

4 Likes

Completely agree that Chip can’t go on giving away money. Isn’t that the problem ChipX is meant to be solving? So if the pricing structure of ChipX still doesn’t bring in enough revenue, change it - it’s not up to us to say how, we don’t have access to the data. There’s a cost to every transaction in vanilla Chip, so the £100 cut off is arbitrary. Unless those customers progress to ChipX (or Chip can make money off the masses of data we’re all handing over) all the Chip users cost the company money. I don’t think the solution to that is telling people you have a free offering which is only free if you monitor it and effectively break the AI. The compromise position would be to keep the pricing as it is planned to be but don’t let the app go over £100 without telling the user, so it is an active choice to spend that pound. Premium economy.

My immediate suggestion would be for Chip to put in place checks and restrictions for people to switch on to stop them incurring a charge if they dont want to, by halting their savings if it looked like it was goinng to breach the threshold (or any threshold the user desires actually). The threshold may move lower and the fee may increase above £1 in the future as that drive to make profit and satisfy shareholders and investors hits home… The way it is set up , or proposed to work at the moment, it looks like they hope people wont notice this “breach” and they’ll get the “accidental” fees people may incur… and hope it doesn’t change user behaviour. Not exactly a reliable income stream for them or a reasonable proposition, as the cost of a few extar saves per person per month for a subset of users i doubt would incur a sharp increase in costs to justify the fee. It smacks a little bit of desperation.

If the benefit of paying any fee outweighs that fee then it may be less of problem for some people. Some dont like to pay to save their own money though, those that dont mind should be directed to ChipX and get the extra benefits it brings, those that want a free savings process shouldn’t be caught out by an arbitary threshold, no matter how few people it might catch.As with Santander’s 1-2-3 we cant assume all those benefits will be around long term, they can be solowly eroded. Having a free basic tier for ever shouldn’t be abandoned as that seems contrary to all the PR about what Chip stood for.

I’d assume the money saved is being used by Chip elsewhere to generate some revenue and not just sititng in one bank account doing nothing. That’s a massive lost opprtunity if they aren’t.

If they can introduce functionality that means soemone can ensure they dont get charged a fee, without having to check each and every save every month and calculating if it takes them over a threshold, then it seems reasonable to have that fee for those who liek the convenience of those ongoing automated saves of as much as they can afford to save . But they way it’s outlined at the moment it seems all a bit underhand.

1 Like

It’s a tricky one for sure. What I don’t like is the “cliff” you hit at £100. At £99.99 no fee, at £100.01 fee. My proposal would be to make it more gradual e.g. All automatic saves free for all, All Manual saves 0.5%. 50p fee to shift the savings “aggression” level up one. £1 for highest level. Maybe a small fee to stop automatic saves.

1 Like

I understand that chip needs to make some money.
I don’t think £1 a month is not a big deal however that is my opinion others my differ.
So my challenge to all at chip is:
Can’t we offer the customers the option to choose from?

If they want the membership of £1 a month they want to pay monthly? They want to pay annually? Bi-annually etc etc?

If they want the % membership where a percentage of the monthly gains or annually gains are taken from?

I believe in make it a fluid of options where the customers choose from, and not set in stone where you have to choose take it or leave it.
I believe in all suggestions of all chipmunks are valid and you can take some on board to make all chipmunks and customers one way or the other happy.

Despite the options, despite the decision from the customer, the service given it must be the same and no lower level or higher level of service/interest should be given considering the membership taken.

This is for the option of paid membership but have in mind the customers that don’t want to pay for it make an option for them too.
Again try to maintain the service, your side must be exemplar and neutral, determine free by what the customers give to chip not by what chip give to customers. If I make sense.
Anyway feel free to contact me if you need any clarification as there’s allot of ideas in one reply all mixed up :wink:

I think however it works, customers want clear and upfront information on charges they will or might incur. My issue is the website and terms and conditions don’t do this and make things hidden or not transparent.

There seems to be 3 different products being offered.

  1. Autosave up to £100 a month - £ FREE
  2. Autosave more than £100 a month - £1 per month
  3. CHIP X - higher undefined rewards - £3.50 per month

What would be useful if for a tool to tell customers which package would be best for them in terms of returns.

There has to be statistics on what users think of paid apps e.g. Free apps get x downloads but if they add a paid tier to remove adverts x% of customers will buy this. I would be interested to understand if this research has been done as it could help predict what will happen if customers do get charged £1 per month to use larger Autosaves.

Making things too complicated will just scare people away. The beauty of chip was its simplicity. What will customers think? It is going to be interesting to see.

2 Likes

A solid write up from ChipperBen there I see

1 Like

I am gunna attach two pictures to put things in perspective here folks…

I fully appreciate chip has a difficult challenge of marketing this correctly… but this is a little bit of a moot point.

Here’s why:
Exhibit A - RBS charges… and I’m getting less than 0.55% with them on any of those. And you must have one of those before u can attach an ISA for greater interest rate… and note, the better the rate, the less it becomes “instant access”

Exhibit B: what I’m getting for Chip right now… in the real world… not theoretical. And is instant access, (except bank holiday weekends)

RBS world famous, leader of industry… offers £2 - Twice the price a month. For a worse product.

And for good measure … here’s keiko image

6 Likes

Come on, I’ve got that account. Not a fair comparison. You get charged £2 a month yes. But you get back £1 for just logging into the app once a month. And £4 for 4 direct debits. So they effectively pay you £3 a month to have a functioning current account. To get £3 a month off Chip you’d need hundreds in there if you have a sky high bonus rate but more likely thousands. Yes you could find other bank accounts that charge and offer a worse deal than NatWest/RBS but they’d be an exception and not likely to be attracting customers in their droves.

So what you’re saying is… if an account offers interesting perks… you’re willing to waive the fee?

It must just be a case of marketing the product correctly:
Chip has saving streaks… saving bonuses thrown in… all on top of market leading interest rates… i’m pretty sure they already have these features already thrown into the “free version”.

And remember, not everyone is even going to be affected by the £1 fee. And even if they are, it’s not to say that it will even occur more than once or twice a year depending on their unique circumstances.

If you are lucky enough to save £1200 a year, without intentionally doing anything… . and if the AI has truly done it’s job… and you didn’t notice… then i would strongly argue that £12 is fair. especially when it’s spread out across a whole year. Thankfully it’s not my job to market this, because i do truly appreciate that the knee jerk reaction from people about this…

I just feel word of mouth might be a stronger powerful tool… “hey moneybags, where’d you find the money to go on holiday this year?” …
“oh yeah? got this neat little app called Chip”
“how’z it work?”… “well i have a referral code” and the rest hopefully will be history…

If it genuinely works… then it works…and i guess we won’t be arguing about anything…

1 Like

You know i was giving this more thought.

You could actually have the example that you got a “bonus” from work… or a gift from a grandparent at christmas. So you put in £1150 into chip in January.
The rest of the year you have between £80 and £90 saved a month.

That would mean at the end of the year you would have used “free” chip… for a year… and saved at least £2030 for only £1 that you spent in January. So i guess it’s not about the “amount” you save. It’s how it’s used.
Which, the user does have control over through the use of payday-putaway and adjusting the slider for how much the AI takes from you.

Hi all!

Thank you so much for all the comments and thoughts. I can’t express enough how amazing this is to have feedback like this. I’ve written up a long “letter-kinda-thing” that I’ll post later today - would love all your thoughts on it too.

In other news (breaking forum etiquette of crossing topics, apologies!) Interest Account rollout begins today: https://community.getchip.uk/t/interest-accounts-the-roll-out-begins/3683

Alex

3 Likes

The introduction of a fee is really disappointing to hear. I know people use chip in different ways, but for me paying to save my own money is just a no go. I usually manually save around £100-£150 at the start of the month then use small autosaves to add a little bit extra to that. If I understand correctly I would be paying the fee for performing my own save as it is over the £100 threshold? I can do the same thing and move the money into a normal savings account and not pay anything.

There are lots of features I looked forward to when I first joined chip, such as multiple goals and especially shared goals with other people. Some of these features have been implemented but with considerable room for improvement, and others I never heard anything about again. It’s disappointing to say the least, especially as an investor I don’t feel like Chip is moving in the direction I originally believed it would. If the fee is introduced then I’m afraid I will unfortunately be leaving chip. Sad news.

1 Like

Hi Faye,

As I mentioned I’m posting a much longer article about this this afternoon - but just quickly manual saves are outside of your usage and completely free. The fee is only for use of the algorithm (and using it beyond the £100 in 28 days). If you imagine it as “if the algorithm can help you save an additional £100 on top of the £150 you’ve manually saved - then we hope you wouldn’t mind tipping it £1 in return.”

Watch this space.

Alex

Hi all,

please see an update here: https://community.getchip.uk/t/changes-on-the-3rd-june/3684

Cheers

Alex