Using Bing can cost you money!

The key is to still do your homework. Don't just shop at a store because it has high cashback. Look at other stores and see what they are selling at and see if its less than the amount after cashback.

Other ways to get around this:
1) Clear your cookies then visit the store again. Cookies are client side.
2) Run 2 different browsers. Cookies are browser specific so go through bing cashback in IE then also look at the site in Firefox to see if there are price differences.
 
Of course using Bing can cost you money, most people wouldn't be buying things they don't really need if they didn't see the high cashback % :D.
 
Yeah, old news. I never go though bing the first time around. I find what I want at the lowest price and then see if I can get bing cashback for that site. If the 2nd cheapest site becomes the cheapest when you factor in cashback then I might go that way. Basically, I don't rely on bing making something a deal. If it's already a deal, great, bing is just icing on the cake.
 
is called being a smart consumer and shopping around, if it costs you money, you got what you had coming to you, it is like in Toronto with boxing day sales, some people did some checking and compared before Xmas prices and boxing day and surprisingly on most TV it was cheaper before Xmas and the price was jacked up for Boxing day, because people have this conception everything is cheaper on boxing day, and the same applies for cash back - the companies got to get something out of it after all.
 
boxing day?

Listen laddies CB is a scam, I like how if CB on Ebay is 10% all of the vendors jack up their prices by 11%!!!!
 
Update from Article

Update: After being pointed to this post by a writer over at InformationWeek, a Microsoft spokesperson said, “With more than 1,000 retailers and 17 million product offers, the Bing cashback program aims to ensure Bing customers get the best available deal on the Web. Within the cashback program, each retailer sets the allocation of products and pricing of those products, which are delivered to Microsoft through a realtime data feed. We have tools that will catch discrepancies, and in this particular case, there was an error in the information delivered to us. When we notice an inconsistency or one is reported to Microsoft, we work with the merchant to correct the issue immediately. Overall, this case is an isolated instance within the larger Bing cashback and we are working with Butterfly Photo to resolve this specific issue as soon as possible.” At the time of this update, it appears the price of this camcorder at Butterfly Photo via Bing is the same as if you were to go to the site directly; however, the price being shown on Bing from the “realtime data feed” is still what we show in the screenshots.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe not quite in the same vein, but I was ready to order the Intel SS4200-E at $149 on newegg, but since the cashback has become 10% it jumped up to $169, and as such I won't be ordering it (I was waiting on cashback to place the order).
 
Don't know what you guys are talking about. As long as you shop smart and take an extra 30 sec to cross compare stuff through google Bing should end up saving you money.

It does for me, not a lot but $10 here and $5 there adds up fast.
 
Cashback always costs you money anyway. It's called the Time Value of Money. You can't receive your cash for x number of days so you have to calculate the present value of your current savings by discounting the future amount with the known interest rate.
 
You're right it's smart to consider time value or opportunity cost but your conclusion is wrong - it certainly doesn't 'always' cost you money. If you get 5% cashback in 60 days that's the equivalent of putting the cashback money in to a ~30% APR return investment. If you know of an investment that's guaranteed 30% please let me know :p

What you could have said is the 'real' cashback value is (Casback% - interest for X months before withdrawal.) It's actually less if you buy on a CC (assuming you pay off your CC each month) because a CC purchase is an unsecured loan that doesn't need to be paid until the next billing cycle. Depending upon the timing you can get almost 60 days before needing to pay for a CC purchase. (Buy right at the beginning of a new billing cycle and then don't pay it until the due date.)
 
Madman0 said:
What you could have said is the 'real' cashback value is (Casback% - interest for X months before withdrawal.)
Click to expand...

That's what I meant. You're not receiving the actual face value of your cash back (i.e. 5%, 10%, etc) but a lower amount due to TVM.
 
PC_User said:
That's what I meant. You're not receiving the actual face value of your cash back (i.e. 5%, 10%, etc) but a lower amount due to TVM.
Click to expand...
However, if you just pay full price for the item without using cash back, then you are out the money period.

Full value - 0 > Full value - (Cashback * TVM)

This entire argument is based on being able to get the item instantly at the after cashback price.

Sale Price < Full price - (Cashback * TVM)

So if you can get something for $100 - 5% (after 90 days) or something for just $95, you are much better off just paying $95. However, this is almost never the case.
 
Given how piss low interest rates on short-term liquid savings&investments are right now I think it would be pretty rare to have Bing CB actually cost you money in any case - that's the part I disagree with. Interest rates, which are typically stated in APR, would have to be insanely high to overcome cashback so it would be pretty unusual at any time I'd say. And if interest rates were high enough to overcome Bing CB we'd have bigger things to worry about than this topic :p

So yes there's an opportunity cost but it's net negative - you're actually worse off with any kind of interest you're likely to get; the cashback is pretty much certain to be better.

In the end just buy stuff you would have anyway and consider the CB a sale or discount, buying for the sake of a deal is always dumb especially in technology where prices almost always go down over time.
 
http://bountii.com/blog/2009/11/23/negative-cashback-from-bing-cashback/

Now why would MS want someone to take down an article about cashback!


In a recent post that Microsoft made me take down, I wrote about some security holes in Bing Cashback. While technical flaws are somewhat interesting to me, most Bountii users don&#8217;t really care about them. Starting today, I&#8217;ll write about some non-technical flaws in Bing Cashback.

My biggest problem with Bing Cashback is a hidden &#8220;feature&#8221; that I&#8217;m calling &#8220;negative cashback.&#8221; Here&#8217;s a quick demo:
Click to expand...
 
Madman0 said:
So yes there's an opportunity cost but it's net negative - you're actually worse off with any kind of interest you're likely to get; the cashback is pretty much certain to be better.
Click to expand...

If some people add up all of their Bing cashbacks (which then sit in the account for a month or two), it can turn out to be a significant amount.
 
The only way what you're saying makes sense is *if no purchase is made or money spent whatsoever* which really goes without saying and is not very relevant to whether you 'lose money' with cashback. Besides the simple and obvious 'cashback > no cashback' as already mentioned the fact remains that you'd have to get an insane interest rate to be better off than even 5% cashback. In other words if I 'invest' $100 in Bing CB and get $5 after two months in order to match that return in a traditoinal investment I would need a 30% APR. Obviously the difference is no principal remaining in the Bing 'investment' but that goes back to the first sentence I wrote and people being smart enough not to buy shit for the hell of it. Now if you're saying that 'instant discount/cashback' is better then yeah, no shit sherlock.

A thought experiment would go like this: If I buy today and get 5% back in two months, or save the money for two months and then buy with no discount, which way is better? The former will always be better with any kind of realistic interest rates. There's a theoretical opportunity cost but it's stupid to go on about it so much since presumably people are buying things to use not for the sake of the cashback. Not to mention other things like the chance that it's even less than two months to get the cashback from the time you use actual cash to pay the non-cashback total making it comparable to an even higher APR.

If you're trying to say that you can make up for a net negative interest rate (since cashback > interest) on volume then...*facepalm*...you must be a fan of 'selling at a loss and making up for it on volume.' I'm not even sure what the point of this sidetrack is other than to show you're kind of smart in a theoretical Econ 101 way but stupid in a realworld way even if it started somewhat interesting with thinking outside the box. The 'using bing can cost you money' in the original thread topic is totally different than your interesting but misplaced idea.
 
Madman0 said:
If you're trying to say that you can make up for a net negative interest rate (since cashback > interest) on volume then...*facepalm*...you must be a fan of 'selling at a loss and making up for it on volume.' I'm not even sure what the point of this sidetrack is other than to show you're kind of smart in a theoretical Econ 101 way but stupid in a realworld way even if it started somewhat interesting with thinking outside the box. The 'using bing can cost you money' in the original thread topic is totally different than your interesting but misplaced idea.
Click to expand...

You entirely misunderstood everything I said. I was simply alluding to the fact that you receive (in the end) less than the face value of your savings. Thus, when accounting for the time value of money and bringing future cash flows to the present, your 5% cashback is really equivalent to about 4% in today's terms. That all. Never once did I mention that using Bing cashback will cost you in excess of the cashback amount. You're simply receiving less in today's terms. It's so easy even a caveman can do it.

Way to make a fool of yourself. :)
 
Why the partial quote? The fact remains that unless you get a completely unrealistic interest rate there is no actual net opportunity cost, or rather the opportunity cost turns out to be in favor of cashback. In order for there to be a negative (bad) opportunity cost the alternative has to have a better return, or to put it another way the concept of opportunity cost is designed to help figure out which option is more valuable...whichever one is net higher is better and in the case of cashback the cashback percentage is far better than any short-term reliable liquid investment. Yes you're receiving less than the cashback percent but you net more with cashback than any realworld interest rate. Any rational analysis of cashback accounting for opportunity cost using realworld returns shows this, looking at it in the way you did isn't wrong but you kept on going after your point was clarified for you with this
If some people add up all of their Bing cashbacks (which then sit in the account for a month or two), it can turn out to be a significant amount.
Click to expand...
Significant? Maybe, but less significant than the cashback amount; ie - the cashback amount is the better option in an opportuniy cost analysis which is the point you keep failing to recognize.

Your first post was poorly worded if that's what you meant, you only said so later after your supposed point was clarified for you. You keep backtracking to decrease the wrongness of what you said but that's OK I guess.
 
Last edited:
MrGuvernment said:
http://bountii.com/blog/2009/11/23/negative-cashback-from-bing-cashback/

In a recent post that Microsoft made me take down, I wrote about some security holes in Bing Cashback. While technical flaws are somewhat interesting to me, most Bountii users don’t really care about them. Starting today, I’ll write about some non-technical flaws in Bing Cashback.

My biggest problem with Bing Cashback is a hidden “feature” that I’m calling “negative cashback.” Here’s a quick demo:
Click to expand...

LOL... the blog poster sounds like an immature fool... and one that thinks it's OK to post security holes! What a great guy :rolleyes: .
 
The point is that you cannot receive/access your money today. That's an opportunity cost, even if there is a minimal interest rate associate with it. There doesn't even have to be any interest rate, in reality. The fact that you can't spend it today means you're discounting already, whether it be the opportunity cost of buying something else today for the cashback amount or buying an asset that will appreciate in value. It's simple finance.

It seems to me that my first post was not poorly worded, but was rather poorly read. Any hot deals on lessons in reading comprehension?
 
PC_User said:
Cashback always costs you money anyway. It's called the Time Value of Money. You can't receive your cash for x number of days so you have to calculate the present value of your current savings by discounting the future amount with the known interest rate.
Click to expand...

Underlined :D Not much of a point in discussing it further really, you're again saying that you'd be better off having an instant discount rather than a delayed discount and you won't find any disagreement from anyone on that I don't think. But a 60 day later discount versus no discount (which I read between as implied in some of your posts) because of the opportuniy cost of some interest? That's where you will find disagrement. Also applying idealized discounted cashflow principles to realworld situations without taking in to account the realworld numbers or situation is fine as an academic excercise but doesn't always give the 'right' realworld answer.

Happy Thanksgiving and Holidays all.
 
Last edited:
The point stands: the implicit cost is the time value of money: bringing the future cashback that you receive into today's nominal amount. Whether that amount is negligible or not is besides the point. The point is that there is an implicit cost, even though it's not a direct cost out of your pocket.

Thus, $100 received in 2 months does not equal $100 received today. That was simply my point. Certainly, $100 received in 2 months is better than nothing today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top