.
Unlock the rest of this article with a 14 day trial
Already have an account?
Login here
.
Already have an account?
Login here
Interesting and thorough research that you've done here. (We expect nothing less from yourself).
So, in summary:
Spreadex are no saints, Plus500 are not either - both appear to attempt to (and appear to be successful at) influencing on-line reviews for their spreadbetting sites.
This is far from desirable but certainly not uncommon on many on-line review sites. I always wonder if the hotel reviews are written by the owners mate. You have to discount some of the reviews.
The AIM Prospector Editor may be completely oblivious to the lack of independence whilst being sponsored by Spreadex and writing negative reviews about their competitors. Maybe not.
Regardless, some interesting points are raised in the AIM Prospector article and you have put some interesting points that tar Spreadex with the same brush - but all it does is suggest that both parties employ some dubious methods. However, it is not uncommon for business competitors to employ underhand tactics in an attempt to gain competitive advantage.
You point out that both Spreadex and Plus500 are posting very good figures with similar EBITDA, both appear to be thriving growth businesses.
What we can't say is if these figures have been materially assisted by dishonest marketing.
Detractors say that the source of revenue for these type of companies is from 'mug punters' and that it could dry up - 'mug punters' have been around for a very long time betting on horses, boxing, football, cricket, greyhounds, and anything else that takes their fancy - I don't see any sudden wising up of the human race in the near future. Maybe 'mug punters' are easily swayed by on-line reviews too - would make it quite tempting to improve your ratings by fair means or foul. Their battle for market share will continue. In the meantime the figures look good.
In my assessment forexpeacearmy.com is not a legitimate review site whatsoever so I found it peculiar that the Editor included this in the article, creating the impression for any reader that it was to be trusted. As I stated I would encourage any reader that is interested to look on-line and form their own view - I could have put links to what I found but that may have been portrayed as being selective on my part. To be fair to "Matt H / Matt" at Spreadex he may have posted those reviews before he knew what sort of site it was (should do more due diligence next time). In any event, with a few simple searches The Editor could easily have concluded in next to no time that something was clearly not right about this particular site (certainly a lot less time than adding up all the words in the reviewcentre.com reviews).
There are numerous alleged forex / CFD review sites - having looked at many I can honestly say it is difficult to figure out which, if any, are particularly useful or what informational purpose they serve. Most seem designed to display advertising banners which presumably is where the site owners try to make some money. In general with such sites and the reviews it's often anyone's guess as to what the context of a review is and whether it is genuine. As for the negative reviews - might be genuine, might be someone who has traded poorly / lost money and wants to blame someone else, might be competitors, might be the web-site owner (forexpeacearmy.com)?
reviewcentre.com is more of a generalist review site - is this where potential new clients go when they are looking at CFD providers? With an affiliate program of over 5,000 partners it would seem to me that Plus500 has better ways to spend its time and energy than bumping up reviews on sites like this. In addition, if the review metrics on this site are apparently "out of line" with IG in some way then this is also the case for other firms, including Spreadex. Given the Editor's long relationship with that particular firm it seemed fair to point this out. It was also not made clear why IG was portrayed as the benchmark in this industry for on-line marketing strategies - their business model is very different.
If you google "Plus500 review", reviewcentre.com does not even appear on the first google page (it appears towards the bottom of the second page) . With Spreadex, IG, City Index, Capital Spreads, CMC Markets, in all instances reviewcentre.com appears on the first google page (often in the first few ranks). Appearing on the first page is generally seen as vital as this is where the majority of clicks take place (often in the first few ranks). If Plus500 were so focused on reviewcentre.com, and it was so important to them, why does it appear towards the bottom of the second page - they are after all experts in on-line marketing strategies.
Ouch heavily down this morning.
I can't read the full article, but can only assume its because of this (for some reason it came up on google news first thing this morning, but not anymore).
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/banking/article4213610.ece