Hang on now! Where you buy that pack of gum is WAYYY more important than said pack of gum itself in terms of particular card utilization!!😂😂😉😜
@Remedios wrote:
@Aim_High wrote:
@Remedios wrote:I'm not sure why $25.00 minimum redemption is being talked about as a negative.
If it's taking you months of uncategorized spend to reach it, there is a good chance you can do just fine without 2% card.
Possibly. For those with lower incomes and lower spends, that becomes less accurate. Higher income (and higher spend) makes it less of a big deal to meet thresholds and could make it harder for someone to understand why someone else cares about minimums.
For anyone who uses more travel points rewards than cash-back rewards, there's a different expectation. For points, someone may be used to letting them accrue to a large amount to make redemption worthwhile. Accrual is part of the game to get more value. For consumers who like cash-back cards, there is no incentive for letting the rewards pile up. Unless someone likes to use the cash-back as a defacto "savings account," most will cash in at lower values, often immediately. Even if you're using the cashback to save for a special vacation or other expense, you're better off pulling the money out and earning a little interest off of it until you need it.
For others of us, it is the principle of the issue and the loss of control of redemption at whatever amount I choose. Are they my rewards or not? I dislike the games some banks choose to play and I dislike some contractual gotcha's in the fine print of Terms and Conditions. And I actually take the time to read them, which I imagine many people do not.
Capital One Quicksilver, IIRC, was the first card that offered uncapped and uncategorized 1.5% cashback, before 2% cards even came along. And they've always had no minimum redemption. They don't even make you wait until statement posting. Cash back is available immediately once a transaction posts. To me, that is the gold standard in cash-back redemption. Even before Capital One, Discover card had no minimum redemption. I used the card; I earned my rewards. Don't play games and make me wait for them if I want to redeem them immediately. No minimum redemption puts the customer in control of managing his rewards, at whatever the amount.
I believe the redemption thresholds are there to serve the banks' interests, not the customers. They are just another tool and loophole that banks use to possibly not ever have to pay the full promised rewards payout or to delay having to do so. At the least, they are holding onto all those unclaimed rewards without having to pay any dividends so it's a win-win for them. If you take $24.99 and multiply it by the total cardholders, that's a lot of potential cash back they could be sitting on. It also uses negative reinforcement (no rewards for you!) if you fail to keep using their card. If I earn $20 in rewards and decide to concentrate my spending on other cards for awhile, that cashback is unavailable until I use their card. Or if I decide to close it (or if the bank closes my account), I just forfeited any accumulated rewards.
I was glad to see Bank of America among others change their redemption policy to no minimum. And the no-minimum redemption was one of many factors I love about my PenFed Power Cash Rewards. Another great example is the new AOD FCU Visa Signature. They automatically credit all your earned cashback in the previous month to your balance due. Simple. If a small credit union from Alabama can do it, why can't anyone else including much larger banks?
There's just no good reason to require minimum redemptions except that some banks want to complicate their programs.
There is a very good reason, to encourage use.
More you use it, faster you get there.
This is not an issue for a "normal" population that has 2-3 cards.
In a place where a pack of gum has a dedicated card, everything is an issue.
@Remedios wrote:
@Aim_High wrote: There's just no good reason to require minimum redemptions except that some banks want to complicate their programs.There is a very good reason, to encourage use.
More you use it, faster you get there.
This is not an issue for a "normal" population that has 2-3 cards.
In a place where a pack of gum has a dedicated card, everything is an issue.
Even if you ignore the rest of my points (which you did), in whose interest is it to encourage more use of the card? The banks, of course! If I have a choice between two cards, one with minimum redemption and one without, why would I choose to allow the bank to tie my hands on when I get my rewards money? Moreover, why should they need to? If I'm not using the card to their liking, by all means close it or decrease the credit line.
The stereotypical average consumer who has 2-3 credit cards probably either doesn't earn rewards at all or just picks a random card that doesn't really fit their spending. I imagine few people with only two cards have a card that pays 2% or more, unless they've already closed a dozen! Lol 
Besides that, you don't have to be a My Fico member with three dozen cards to have an objection to minimum redemption. I've always had a disdain for redemption rules that are unnecessarily complicated.
This isn't the "pack of gum every six months" issue we sometimes discuss nor is it about having spend divided too thinly over too many cards. And it's not so much about the $25 frickin' dollars.
This discussion is more about an arbitrary policy banks put in place to maximize profits and try to try control cardholders behavior. Blaming consumer's spending is besides the point and focusing on the wrong part of the complaint. It's the unnecessary complications and potential redemption pitfalls that banks lay out in their Terms and Conditons.
@Aim_High wrote:
@Remedios wrote:
@Aim_High wrote: There's just no good reason to require minimum redemptions except that some banks want to complicate their programs.There is a very good reason, to encourage use.
More you use it, faster you get there.
This is not an issue for a "normal" population that has 2-3 cards.
In a place where a pack of gum has a dedicated card, everything is an issue.
Even if you ignore the rest of my points (which you did), in whose interest is it to encourage more use of the card? The banks, of course! If I have a choice between two cards, one with minimum redemption and one without, why would I choose to allow the bank to tie my hands on when I get my rewards money? Moreover, why should they need to? If I'm not using the card to their liking, by all means close it or decrease the credit line.
The stereotypical average consumer who has 2-3 credit cards probably either doesn't earn rewards at all or just picks a random card that doesn't really fit their spending. I imagine few people with only two cards have a card that pays 2% or more, unless they've already closed a dozen! Lol
This isn't the "pack of gum every six months" issue we sometimes discuss nor is it about having spend divided too thinly over too many cards. And it's not so much about the $25 frickin' dollars.
This discussion is more about an arbitrary policy banks put in place to maximize profits and try to try control cardholders behavior. Blaming consumer's spending is besides the point and focusing on the wrong part of the complaint. It's the unnecessary complications and potential redemption pitfalls that banks lay out in their Terms and Conditons.
There is nothing I ignore. Everything registers.
@Remedios wrote:I'm not sure why $25.00 minimum redemption is being talked about as a negative.
If it's taking you months of uncategorized spend to reach it, there is a good chance you can do just fine without 2% card.
Some of us just dont make the kind of money that many here do where spending $1500 can be done without losing a wink of sleep. Having a 2% card is a physiological win for us . Its not necessarily a negative but why enjoy that threshold of $25 when i can redeem $3 if i want. Sad to say but $3 is huge for me right now so im definetly gonna use a 2% over a 1.5% even though its not much difference. Heck, same could be said on argument over 3% and 2% cards in whether the difference really is grand enough to use. Another topic lol but yeah, im in the boat redemption matters since it directly relates to my spend