silver6054 wrote:Right, which is why I use "abuse" in quotes.
However, it has two clear possible technical meanings:
1) Usage that incurs more cost for the vendor than the vendor expected. But more crucially:
2) Someone who uses the card to get more rewards than I do!
hahaha I love number 2 there! Good one!
About number 1 I still don't see how they wouldn't have done the "worst case scenario" math and anticipated that might happen. Assume you are going to pay 5% rewards and do the math on that basis. In the end you wll do better than this in the real world I'm sure, but how could they not have done that? And if it isn't sustainable, why do it because you will royally hack off your customers when you nerf the hell out of it and lose business and be worse off than if you'd just set things up to be sustainable in the first place.
I actually interviewed at US Bank last spring for a contract IT job. They seemed nice and like a good group, but a little random at times too I kind of sensed. Better I suppose than the stodgy ones like Citi, but they should have realized 5% billpay was a BIG THING and to nerf that is going to do a lot of damage to their image.