Don't know where to post this, but Hotels.com is ripping off FatWallet users! They're listed under "Cash Back Shopping" as providing 4% Cash Back. However, when you book a room and go through the CashBack link, the prices for their "taxes and service fees" are strangely almost 4% of the room rate higher than if you just go to Hotels.com. In other words, they're charging fatwallet customers 4% more for rooms, and then giving that 4% back to them months later, instead of actually taking 4% off of their prices. I've NEVER seen a CashBack offer that was higher than a non-CashBack price before, and hope to never see it again.
Here's the actual numbers: $59.49 room at the Hillsborough NJ Days in without CashBack, $6.84 "Tax recovery & service charge" for a total price of $66.33 WITH CashBack, $8.68 "Tax recovery & service charge" for a total price of $68.17
The terms & conditions on the hotels.com cash back page explains: Tax recovery charges & service fees may be higher through Cash Back links, but likely not be as much higher as the Cash Back % offered.
makm
Happy Member
posted: Sep. 11, 2009 @ 5:38p
I don't see how that would excuse them, it's still a BS policy. Thanks for the warning OP. I guess we need to be extremely very careful when dealing with Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire and everything else that Expedia owns.
I think that borderlines dishonesty.... I mean they definitely give the illusion of a cheaper price through CashBack, but in reality they are not... I mean no disrespect by saying this (as I understand FW is a business also, and I am very grateful): but do I need to double check the prices from the FW link and regular link for all my shopping??? That would be a pretty big hassle... Is there a way to give us some type of heads up??? Maybe we can start a sticky like OP did....
makm
Happy Member
posted: Sep. 11, 2009 @ 7:40p
From many things I've read, Hotels_com and other companies that Ex pedia owns have a history of doing things that just gets under people's skins. I don't believe all companies FW partners with are like that, just ones owned by Ex pedia, especially Hotels._com. I bet it's their way of discouraging us to use FW and go directly through them and not have to pay FW commission. If you're someone who doesn't agree with Hotels_com's tactics, like many of us, don't give them your money. If you still want to use them for whatever reason, then go through FW's CashBack anyway. The reason is because it gives FW more leverage to negotiate and shove a fire hydrant up their *$$ and pull it out of their tear ducts. I've met the FW staff when they were in SF, they are on our side.
Unspeaked
Senior Member
posted: Sep. 11, 2009 @ 11:15p
I remember the same thing with a coupon Hotels.com offered a year or two back. You had to go through a special link to get to it (there was no coupon entry field, just the URL) and it raised prices by 10% then deducted them back to normal prices.
Solipsist said: The terms & conditions on the hotels.com cash back page explains: Tax recovery charges & service fees may be higher through Cash Back links, but likely not be as much higher as the Cash Back % offered.
I am a big fan, and multiple time daily user of FatWallet, but defending this practice is wrong. I have not used Hotels.com through Fatwallet, and now I will just go directly to the site until Fatwallet makes them change this policy. I do use it to compare, but have not found a deal worth taking yet, not saying that I wont though.
makm said: I've met the FW staff when they were in SF, they are on our side.
I don't think FatWallet should do business like this. I know they want their cut, but I count on them to give me a discount through their site, not an illusion of a discount.
I guarantee that if majority of CashBack links has these kind of clauses then fatwallet will be closed and no body will be using it. FW should just not support these kind of practice. Solipsist said: The terms & conditions on the hotels.com cash back page explains: Tax recovery charges & service fees may be higher through Cash Back links, but likely not be as much higher as the Cash Back % offered.
From my quick reading of this thread, it appears that this practice gives FW a profit (their cut of the deal), but gives the customer no savings -- and perhaps a loss (due to the loss of time -- waiting for 2 or 3 months to get the 4% back, instead of saving it immediately by not being charged 4% extra in the first place). Not to mention the time cost to the customer of hassling with the CashBack box, being careful to make the clicks in the right order, checking the CashBack account within the 30 day window to see if the CashBack was reported correctly by the company, etc.
Putting something unusual like this in the small print might be technically above-board, but practically, it is sneaky.
This is the kind of thing that results in a company's losing "goodwill" from loyal customers/members.
To set up a deal whereby one profits oneself as the middleman while knowing that the customer will not be profiting (whilst knowing full well that the customer *believes* that he will be profiting), to give with one hand and take with the other (or to look the other way while someone else is treating the customer like that) -- that feels cheap - unnecessary - questionable - short-term thinking. One's long-term reputation is more valuable than that.
There are so many CashBack sites and promo-code sorts of sites now - any behavior that could push some of one's loyal custom their way is risky.
Users of FW expect fairness, real savings, and clearly-explained deviations from the norm.
---- Even though I don't use Hotels.com, I'm glad to know about this CashBack practice - I guess that I will have to start checking prices both with and without the CashBack link, at least for purchases of some value. I'm not going to squint through each store's T&C - it would be easier to just check each purchase in real-time, and know what I'm dealing with. For purchases of lower value, like eBay 1%, I usually don't go through FW because of the CashBack hassle anyway.
--- By the way, hardly anyone reads the travel forum - most site users won't be reading this, unfortunately.
I've contacted the MOD's to see if there is better response then "read the TOC" to what value FW adds to this transaction if it is cheaper to go around FW.com. I have always know FW to stick up for its customers (us) and I faithfully expect it to answer these questions for us.
Okay, I just got off the phone with my supervisor, and I can definitely tell you this shouldn't be happening. There's a thread investigating similar problems with other problems with other travel merchants in the FatWallet forum. What we really need to do is to reproduce the problem. Can you guys provide some links to the Cash Back and non-Cash Back prices?
This might not be happening intentionally - or it may only be happening at certain times. Either way, we need to isolate and identify the problem if we're going to fix it.
Any help you guys can provide can go a long way to solving this.
Just like any deal, you need to know your bottom line and do your shopping to decide if the CashBack link is for you. It states clearly that the link may produce higher fees etc.... If its not the best deal for you then don't use it. There isn't anything wrong with FW providing this link, specials, or general offers to its member's.
The only downside is that it may keep you from using a different offer that is better for you, if you aren't paying attention. I agree its BS, but its up to you to use it.
Excalibur Hotel Casino, looked up directly at Hotels.com * Total Charges: $103.69 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 $41.00 Thursday, September 24, 2009 $51.00 Room Sub-total $92.00 Tax Recovery Charges & Service Fees $11.69
Same hotel through FW Cash Back 1. September 23, 2009 –– $41.00 USD 2. September 24, 2009 –– $51.00 USD Tax Recovery Charges and Service Fees $14.54 USD Total Charges $106.54 USD
Hotels.com charged $106.54-$103.69 = $2.85 for reservations made through the FW Cash Back. You are supposed to get 4% ($4.26 or $3.68 if it doesnt include the tax/fees) Cash Back, so in this case, you do still come out ahead.
i had exactly the same thing with ProFlowers.com 2 month ago. when going through FW CashBack my S&H charges went up from $10 to $12.99 I posted my case here in the forum and did not get any answer on that at all.
Discover Card has the same "dissappearing horizon" "deal" - i.e. they claim to give 5% for cruising with Carnival. But try do the clickthrough - they'd display prices a LOT higher than one could find through other means (directly through the cruiseline or other online site).
I do think FW has a huge pool of accumulated "goodwill" amongst its regular users/readers.
You are my first port of call for a variety of things, and that won't change.
I have gained a lot by frequenting this site for the past 2 years, a LOT. In knowledge, in savings, in free magazine subscriptions to the point where I think they've laid on an extra postal carrier just for my house (!), and in a pantry full of fancy scottish oatmeal bought for a pittance on Amazon last year....
CashBack and promo codes and all the rest of it have become so complex in the last year - even the non-techie person can tell that there's a lot of hidden stuff going on based on how one connects to a shopping site, which cookies the computer has, and so on.
There is also much more competition, and everyone understands that you do need to support yourselves through various means.
I think it's just the idea that this would be a kind of 'hidden' thing (in the terms and conditions) rather than plainly highlighted...
Sometimes we hold certain brands to a higher standard, and usually that means we respected them more to begin with -
...sort of like how I felt terribly let down by Sigg this week, once they admitted (3 years after they knew about it internally) that their metal bottles do, in fact, have the chemical BPA in the liners after all.
Another thing that I appreciate is the ability for folks to write about this on the forum, and not be censored.
==== Virgil27 said: Okay, I just got off the phone with my supervisor, and I can definitely tell you this shouldn't be happening. There's a thread investigating similar problems with other problems with other travel merchants in the FatWallet forum. What we really need to do is to reproduce the problem. Can you guys provide some links to the Cash Back and non-Cash Back prices?
This might not be happening intentionally - or it may only be happening at certain times. Either way, we need to isolate and identify the problem if we're going to fix it.
Any help you guys can provide can go a long way to solving this.
gl012127
Senior Member
posted: Sep. 14, 2009 @ 6:30a
nice call, maybe send this in to a reporter and have them write a piece about them
In the meantime, I'll make sure my supervisor as well as several other FW team members see the information gathered by pitflyer. Thanks again for all your help - I'll let you all know if I find out anything more.
I reported this exact same issue to the CashBack staff over 1 year back. They did some research and found the exact same descripency that you are reporting and added in the note to the effect that this may occur and were working with Hotels.com staff. Here is a cut and paste of the conversation (With my private email removed):
From: FatWallet Support
Hello XXXXXX
Our merchant relations representative who deals with Hotels.com has discussed this with them several times. They are aware this is happening, but our contact with Hotels.com does not have an eta on the resolution for this matter.
I'm sure you've noticed that we updated the Cash Back details to warn of this strange happening. I wish there was more we could do, but at this time our hands are frankly tied.
I'm sorry I don't have better news for you. Thank you very much for checking back with us!
Sincerely, Charlotte FatWallet.com
Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:05:39 -0500 From: To: FatWallet Support
Any update? thanks,
Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:58:47 -0500 To: FatWallet Support
Thanks so much, please let me know what you come up with. I just booked 3 rooms for 4 nights each through Hotels.com directly because of the fishy 'taxes' when using the CashBack link. Will switch the reservations over once things get 'fixed'!
Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:47:57 -0500 From: FatWallet Support
I wanted to let you know that you have not been ignored. Several members of the team that would handle this issue have been out of the office for various reasons over the last month.
I find this to be troubling just as you do. I've done some test bookings for various locations, including the Hard Rock in Vegas. Every property I've checked has shown higher "tax recovery charges & service fees" by booking through the FatWallet Hotels.com link than when I go directly to Hotels.com. I am unsure as to the reason this is happening.
I assure you, this is something I was not aware of. I am going to push to get an answer on this as soon as possible. I greatly appreciate you bringing this to our attention!
Sincerely, Charlotte Cash Back Supervisor FatWallet.com
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:57:50 -0500 From: FatWallet Support
Hi XXXXXX
Thanks for letting us know about the strange behavior.
I am forwarding your support request onto our affiliate team to follow up with the merchant. It may take a couple days to get a response, but we will be sure to pass on any information we receive to you.
In the meantime, feel free to contact me with additional questions, concerns, or comments, and I'll be glad to help!
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:23:21 -0500 From: To: FatWallet Support
From User: expoguide
Hotels.com is listed as having a 4% Cash Back, however, when booking through the link on the Cash Back page they add an additional 3% in "taxes/fees" to the booking total - I verfied this when attempting to book the hard rock hotel in vegas for 9/11-9/14 directly through Hotels.com and through the Cash Back link - this 3% additional "tax/fee" makes the total rebate to fatwallet customers 1% not 4%.
When we first became aware that Hotels.com was charging more through the links we must use for tracking Cash Back, we contacted them with our disappointment & concern. Although this practice has been brought up with them on more than one occasion, they obviously still have not changed it. This is why we do indeed include the warning.
You may also have noticed that going through the affiliate link on FatWallet, there is no option to use a coupon at checkout. As such, if you have a Hotels.com coupon, you will need to visit them directly.
Our merchant relations specialist for Hotels.com will be meeting with them face to face this week, and I'm sure this will be a topic of discussion.
In each test we have run, we have found that the charges are not higher than the Cash Back amount, so a small overall savings is still possible (again, in each of those test cases).
So, why do we still have them listed? Simply because several members do still want to use them, even knowing that the fees will be higher. We believe knowledge is power, thus the warning in the Cash Back details. As you all know, FW consumers are intelligent, and make the choice that best fits their personal situation. For some, it will be going directly for less initial out of pocket. For others, it will be paying a bit more oop in the beginning, but having a small bit of savings overall. Thus far, the theory has been that if we remove them from FatWallet, we remove that choice for consumers.
While we have been aware of the Hotels.com issue for a while, we always appreciate members bringing forth issues like this that they find. Needless to say, your input and insight has always been valuable!
You really need to make that disclaimer MUCH, MUCH larger on that page.
Some suggested copy:
"Hotels.com might be pulling a fast one on you. We suggest you use another hotel booking site not affiliated with this company."
dookie1949
Member
posted: Sep. 14, 2009 @ 10:45a
hawpi said: When we first became aware that Hotels.com was charging more through the links we must use for tracking Cash Back, we contacted them with our disappointment & concern. Although this practice has been brought up with them on more than one occasion, they obviously still have not changed it. This is why we do indeed include the warning.
You may also have noticed that going through the affiliate link on FatWallet, there is no option to use a coupon at checkout. As such, if you have a Hotels.com coupon, you will need to visit them directly.
Our merchant relations specialist for Hotels.com will be meeting with them face to face this week, and I'm sure this will be a topic of discussion.
In each test we have run, we have found that the charges are not higher than the Cash Back amount, so a small overall savings is still possible (again, in each of those test cases).
So, why do we still have them listed? Simply because several members do still want to use them, even knowing that the fees will be higher. We believe knowledge is power, thus the warning in the Cash Back details. As you all know, FW consumers are intelligent, and make the choice that best fits their personal situation. For some, it will be going directly for less initial out of pocket. For others, it will be paying a bit more oop in the beginning, but having a small bit of savings overall. Thus far, the theory has been that if we remove them from FatWallet, we remove that choice for consumers.
While we have been aware of the Hotels.com issue for a while, we always appreciate members bringing forth issues like this that they find. Needless to say, your input and insight has always been valuable!
- Charlotte
Charlotte:
Thanks for your response, but I think you're missing one point with your observation that you continue to list Hotels.com because "several members do still want to use them". You at Fatwallet enjoy, at least to me, a PRESUMPTION of goodwill and implicit honesty. By contrast, it appears that just because Hotels.com is not lying, they think it is the same as telling the truth. There is a difference.
Do you really want to be tainted by their business ethics such that the first "port of call" when searching for deals on the net is not Fatwallet because you have lost the presumption of integrity? I think not, you've worked too hard for too long.
Who wants to have that choice? I don't want. And I won't mind all other similar sites which have different pricing through FW removed as well. I am almost sure members who are using hotel.com link are not aware of this issue. Another suggestion: How about have a diferent "CashBack shopping section" for those merchants? OR mentioning this issue in every link that says "x% Cash Back available."
edit based on comment below: I won't be surprised if some members are using it unknowingly. I will probably also find issue if i book with Hotels.com but most likely not because of T&C but because i anyway first search for hotels by other mean and when i find what i want then I go through FW. I would definatly like this practice to be greatly discouraged by some mean. It is for FW good also because if all merchants follow this then FW would be far less attractive for us.
In my experience, whether offered by FW or Bing or another site, ca$hback has a variety of restrictions that apply, and I am always very careful to read the terms and comparison-shop before simply "clicking-through". I booked using Hotels.com a couple of months back and also thought it was a little shady that they charge different prices depending on the referrer, but I was well aware of the fact thanks to FW's disclaimer and was able to make my decision accordingly.
That said, I would like to see FW disallow this practice for a merchant to continue participating in the ca$hback program. Hotels.com can then decide whether to lower the percentage or leave. Either way, they need to decide how important it is to their business to be represented on this site.
TtownLarry
Member
posted: Sep. 14, 2009 @ 11:54a
Maybe Fatwallet needs to change its name to nickel&dimeyou.com The fact Hotels.com and the likes are still accessible after that is UNACCEPTABLE! A 2 week ban or something. Is anything held accountable for unscrupulous behavior anymore!!????
While there may be some saving grace that the Cash Back savings covers the extra fees that Hotels.com charges, I also think there needs to be a MUCH larger disclaimer on these sites -- the ones that are obviously charging more for the FatWallet affiliate link. Something like 'Warning: Your initial purchase total may be higher by using this affiliate link.' That should be linked to a more detailed page where it can explain that the Cash Back might recover the price difference and then some...
I understand FatWallet is in a little bit of a bind here as they are a business and they need to make money on affiliate links, but as a site for consumers I think you do owe it to us to be up front when you know about this practice (such as with Hotels.com). I imagine that some other sites may do this too, and if it gets reported, they should get the same black mark. It may mean less referral credit for FatWallet but its just the 'right thing to do'. My $.02
dookie1949
Member
posted: Sep. 14, 2009 @ 8:07p
hawpi said: dookie1949 - I definitely hear the points, and understand them clearly.
I simply wanted to offer the information that I have.
I am optimistic that there will be better information from our rep after she has had a chance to meet with them this week!
edit to add: Please try to keep in mind, I'm just the messenger!
Au contraire, mon ami, to us out here in cyberspace, YOU ARE FATWALLET!!! (and while you're lookin' kind of cute, that's irrelevant to this discussion...)
I think my point stands, but I'm reminded of the story of the blind guy on the corner who asks the guy next to him if a car is coming?
"No."
The fellow steps out and is creamed by an oncoming bus.
Did the respondent lie? Yes, because he knew what the real question was and by choosing to withhold the real information that was requested, damaged the blind fellow.
Have you associate think about it when she talks to the offender(s).
jomarrod said: FW should remove this merchant form the site.Well at a minimum (if this Delta in price is consistant), they shouldn't be allow to advertise a 4% CashBack.
If the room costs $100 when going directly to the site, but it come to a net of $98 after getting CashBack, that's a 2% CashBack in my way of thinking.
Skipping 127 Messages...
Magicland
Senior Member
posted: Jan. 8, 2010 @ 10:44a
Hey guys, thanks for looking into this (for those who might not realize after 6 pages of posts, I'm the original poster). I could give a rat's @ss about the $2 or so that Hotels.com were trying to screw me out of, it was the principle of advertising one cash-back rate and delivering a completely different one that had me concerned. I've been a member here long before there ever was any such thing as Cash Back (heck, there might not have even been a "staff" other than Tim), and Tim and fatwallet.com has built up an enormous amount of goodwill amongst its users over the years. It only takes a few shady deals like Hotels.com was pulling to erode that goodwill, and drive members to other sites, and I'd hate to have seen that happen.
My main point in making the post was to warn other Fatwallet.com users of the practice, so that they could make an informed decision on whether or not to use that merchant. I'm amazed (but pleased) at the amount of responses and outrage it generated, and glad to see that Fatwallet.com addressed the issue. Thanks to all of you.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
