6 ms·

This whole thing was a net negative PR for Robinhood. The fact that they removed old tweets, blog post and started calling this cash management is downright fra

This whole thing was a net negative PR for Robinhood. The fact that they removed old tweets, blog post and started calling this cash management is downright fraud. It doesn't make sense even as a growth hack, because they already have millions of users, it's not like without this, they will not be able to acquire more users. My reaction was, "What were they thinking"?

imjk 8y ago
Their having to remove old tweets, blog posts, and marketing material likely had to do with pushback from regulators.
max76 8y ago
They were hoping to collect a different type of finical data, mainly how the ATM card was used. They thought issuing an ATM card was easier than it actually is.
gammateam 8y ago
> its not like without this, they would not be able to acquire more users The “personal financial independence” crowd avoids this stuff like the plague, although seemingly ironic, those crowds primarily cater to people that lack the most basic understanding of a bank account who need to repair and control horrible financial situations They are steered clear from capital markets, aside from managed ETFs and retirement plans But add .25% interest rate improvement in a bank account and these people will salivate over it Robinhood going above competitors, even at the expense of going above market rate, would have gotten there attention They would park their money in that account and have easy access to stocks and cryptocurrencies, allowing Robinhood to continue their big data/market sentiment/payment for order flow selling business with greater efficacy
mbesto 8y ago
Disagreed. You aren't the target market market here (highly analytical). They just want millennials who see "ohh 3% checking thats more than I'm getting". Very likely those people will forget that they signed up, but are now in the RH activation funnel ("Oh I guess I never really needed this but look at how easy it is to buy stocks! One button...vs 8 buttons on E-Trade")
- duxup 8y ago
  You mean signed up for the email? I guess maybe but if they sort of try to squeak by using signed up users who signed up in a period where there was bad data out there and don't go out of their way to correct what they told them.... I gotta think there is very real legal risk there.
  - mbesto 8y ago
    No one is denying there is a legal risk. However, they got an estimated 600k signups (probably more?). Even converting 10% of those (which a company of their "growth hacking sophistication" should be trivial to do) could provide a substantial amount of growth for the company. Since they don't charge for order execution (and are likely paying a 3rd party to do so), they're clearly going for volume to make up for it. As I've mentioned previously in another thread, this is clearly a gamble. When you're on the VC track to justify $4b+ valuations, taking gambles is par for the course.
    - duxup 8y ago
      I guess so as far as taking risks. I just see bringing those customers along after putting out information that could be seen as deceptive / was deleted and already called into question info a recipe for legal and regulator ... pounding. Silly social media stuff is one thing, but financial stuff where you rope in users with stuff that sounds like "bank" but isn't. Whole mess of folks out there with serious legal tools to come down on you, and a lot eager to do so. This just seems unusually risky.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      Do you really think it would be easy to convert 10% of the people who were excited by a product that it was illegal for them to announce? Almost all of that 600k is going to be darn angry about it. As a member of the 600k, I am WAY less inclined to give them my money than I ever was before.
scosman 8y ago
I was approximately number 601,000 on waiting list. Assuming typical financial product CACs (high) this was worth tens of millions at the minimum. Hard to see it not paying off even if it does have some negative repercussions with regulators.

imjk 8y ago

Their having to remove old tweets, blog posts, and marketing material likely had to do with pushback from regulators.

max76 8y ago

They were hoping to collect a different type of finical data, mainly how the ATM card was used. They thought issuing an ATM card was easier than it actually is.

gammateam 8y ago

> its not like without this, they would not be able to acquire more users The “personal financial independence” crowd avoids this stuff like the plague, although seemingly ironic, those crowds primarily cater to people that lack the most basic understanding of a bank account who need to repair and control horrible financial situations They are steered clear from capital markets, aside from managed ETFs and retirement plans But add .25% interest rate improvement in a bank account and these people will salivate over it Robinhood going above competitors, even at the expense of going above market rate, would have gotten there attention They would park their money in that account and have easy access to stocks and cryptocurrencies, allowing Robinhood to continue their big data/market sentiment/payment for order flow selling business with greater efficacy

mbesto 8y ago

Disagreed. You aren't the target market market here (highly analytical). They just want millennials who see "ohh 3% checking thats more than I'm getting". Very likely those people will forget that they signed up, but are now in the RH activation funnel ("Oh I guess I never really needed this but look at how easy it is to buy stocks! One button...vs 8 buttons on E-Trade")

duxup 8y ago
You mean signed up for the email? I guess maybe but if they sort of try to squeak by using signed up users who signed up in a period where there was bad data out there and don't go out of their way to correct what they told them.... I gotta think there is very real legal risk there.
- mbesto 8y ago
  No one is denying there is a legal risk. However, they got an estimated 600k signups (probably more?). Even converting 10% of those (which a company of their "growth hacking sophistication" should be trivial to do) could provide a substantial amount of growth for the company. Since they don't charge for order execution (and are likely paying a 3rd party to do so), they're clearly going for volume to make up for it. As I've mentioned previously in another thread, this is clearly a gamble. When you're on the VC track to justify $4b+ valuations, taking gambles is par for the course.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I guess so as far as taking risks. I just see bringing those customers along after putting out information that could be seen as deceptive / was deleted and already called into question info a recipe for legal and regulator ... pounding. Silly social media stuff is one thing, but financial stuff where you rope in users with stuff that sounds like "bank" but isn't. Whole mess of folks out there with serious legal tools to come down on you, and a lot eager to do so. This just seems unusually risky.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    Do you really think it would be easy to convert 10% of the people who were excited by a product that it was illegal for them to announce? Almost all of that 600k is going to be darn angry about it. As a member of the 600k, I am WAY less inclined to give them my money than I ever was before.

scosman 8y ago

I was approximately number 601,000 on waiting list. Assuming typical financial product CACs (high) this was worth tens of millions at the minimum. Hard to see it not paying off even if it does have some negative repercussions with regulators.