The examples used in the weekly report are needlessly not inclusive. The prominent usage of mcdonalds as an example is off putting not only to people that are against animal abuse (e.g. vegans) but also people that don’t like to junk food (e.g. people that care about their health).
Surely you can come up with some better examples that won’t put off a large number of people for no good reason?
Hey Jan 
Welcome to the Emma Community 
Thank you for this feedback. We’d be happy to review the comparisons in the weekly report.
We’d love to hear any examples you have!
“You spent X last week on Y, that is an equivalent to taking Z rides on the tube!”
“You spent X last week on Y, that is an equivalent to planting Z trees using https://moretrees.eco/” (I assume you’re happy promoting other companies if you’re promoting mcdonalds now).
I’ll post more if I think of any
Love the tree idea! 
And yes, please share any more ideas you have
Not all of us can relate to your suggestions either though. I’ve never ridden the tube or planted trees using the site you mentioned and therefore these comparisons mean absolutely nothing to me.
The comparisons should be relatable to a broad range of users and not just a niche group.
They were just examples.
The point is the examples shouldn’t be something that promotes industries that destroy our environment and are exploit and abuse billions of animals every year.
I feel like the weekly report could improve in general - “You haven’t spent at PLACE X in a week, well done” - well I’ve only been to PLACE X twice in the past year for example. So why highlight it? There must be more useful things to highlight.
@rebekah, I’m sure there have been posts about weekly / monthly reports before in community. Repeating comments is a bit tedious when we’re all tight on time (looking for cost savings).
I agree with comments like “…that’s equivalent to…”. Not necessarily the specifics mentioned above about offence (it usually cuts both ways). But they’re usually ridiculous in scale - I can but 10,000 gummy bears (no brand name) for that.
I think period to period comparisons are useful.
Especially cumulative spend comparisons - they get rid of most lumpy items that aren’t subs (petrol one week and not the next).
Those that make comparison to the population of users of Emma end up very out of context (or I’m exceptional in my spending) - I’m in the top 0.01% of users for a whole category - really?! These type of metrics need more context, as the distribution could be massively skewed. I might be in that top percentage and spend only 1p more than the next person down. Showing means, medians, modes, maximums would remain anonymous and be more insightful.
I really think reporting is a major draw to Emma (at least for me) and is currently a missed opportunity when some basic data analytics skills would cure it.
I know there has been major emphasis on enabling flow through services to generate income for Emma, but leaving insights behind risks losing your base.
I wouldn’t rule out including recurring/subscription spending either. Reporting helps focus attention on those too when you see the proportion of what you spend that’s recurring in some categories.
Maybe a switch to toggle recurring in and out?