Talk:Debt snowball method

Overview Section is redundant

The opening section already gives an overview, so there is no need for a separate "Overview" section. This is particularly true since the Overview section essentially paraphrases the abstract given in the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.192.75 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• The was removed, but not noted as done, here on the talk page.Telecine Guy (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Relevant Academic Research

The section below was added presumably by the study's author to this article under the heading "Relevant Academic Research". However, we don't include such sections as they would logically end up as a long list of related papers. As a result, I've removed the section to the talk page in hopes that various editors can parse it for inclusion within the body of the article (along with the relevant citation). I don't know if the cited journal is of any merit, but I'm happy to presume it is until someone can present evidence otherwise - my concern is simply one of article structure. Rklawton (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Decision-making research has revealed that the debt-snowball method is a very common approach to managing multiple debts, even when larger debts have larger interest rates. Amar, Ariely, Ayal, Cryder, and Rick (2011) observed this tendency in surveys of indebted consumers and in incentive-compatible laboratory experiments. Amar et al. (2011) found that restricting laboratory participants’ ability to completely pay off small debts actually helped them to reduce overall debt more quickly, by refocusing their attention on paying off high-interest debts. The natural tendency to pay off small debts first (which Amar et al. termed "debt account aversion") has been attributed to the appeal of achieving goals that are near completion and the tendency for multiple losses (e.g., debts) to be more distressing than a single loss of equivalent total value."

Reply: When assessing the potential benefits of the debt-snowball method, it is important for indebted consumers to hear not only from financial gurus operating largely on intuition, but also from academics who have conducted careful research into whether the method actually helps people get out of debt. The benefit of more informed decision-making seems to outweigh the cost of a potentially lengthy section on relevant academic research.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an author of the research summarized here. It has been peer-reviewed and will be published in the Journal of Marketing Research, a premier journal by any objective measure (see, e.g., the Financial Times’ list of top business journals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/FT_Top_40). The Editor of the journal asked us to update this Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottianrick (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• It looks as if this topic is completed. Telecine Guy (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Fundamentally incorrect

The "snowball debt-reduction method" is fundamentally different from what is described on this page. The real method (the differing views are discussed at [[1]]) is to first pay off debts with the highest interest rate, regardless of the total balance, while making minimum payments on other debts. Once the debt with the highest interest rate is paid, the debtor begins paying off the next-highest interest rate debt, and so on.

I have no interest in rewriting this entire article, but it must be noted that it is simply not correct.206.174.34.147 (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have anything to back up your assertion that that's the "real" method? --Taejo|대조 07:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

There are at least two ways to rank the priority of paying off debts. The specific phrase "the debt snowball" is very widely used to describe the "smallest balance first" method AS DISTINCT FROM the "highest interest first" method. This is heavily referenced in the article proper. A quick look at the top 30 Google results for "debt snowball" strongly supports this as well, as the vast majority either argue for snowball-method only, or compare/contrast it with the "highest interest first", which they call "debt avalanche". Of course this is controversial. It appears the link provided by '34.147 is arguing against snowball and toward avalanche, but is appropriating the snowball term to apply to both methods. It's hard to call it "flat wrong" when both terms are "fetch", i.e. made-up terms that a very small number of media personalities are trying to force into the vernacular. 174.62.112.176 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• The "first pay off debts with the highest interest rate" is a method, Debt Avalanche . But it is not the "Debt snowball method". Telecine Guy (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

How to

Can we get rid of the unreferenced "how to" type sections? This is an encyclopedia and not a textbook. Rklawton (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Refs added. Without the how to there is no method. A method is a how to. Telecine Guy (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request in Effectiveness Section

Dear Wikipedia moderators,

I would like to request an edit to this article. In the section discussing the effectiveness of the method, I propose adding the following sentence:

* Specific text to be added: "A survey conducted by Credello in 2022 found that roughly 9/10 people (88%) who tried debt snowball, found it very effective DIY debt payoff method. The survey also uncovered that none of the respondents who tried debt snowball found it ineffective."

* Reason for the change: To provide original insights from a survey to prove the effectiveness of this debt repayment method.

* References supporting change: https://www.credello.com/financial-resources/consumer-insights/millenials-and-gen-z-debt-payoff-methods-survey/

I believe this addition would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the survey's findings and strengthen the article's overall accuracy.

Thank you for your consideration.

Swapniil.A (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for declaring a conflict of interest honestly. I would recommend you also declare its nature and the affected topics or subject areas on your user page. If you are being paid or otherwise expect to receive compensation for editing on Wikipedia, you must declare that as well per WP:PAID.

Regarding your suggestion, where do you propose this be inserted into the article? I'm not sure it's an appropriate inclusion, especially in its current form; has there been any reporting in secondary sources on this survey? Actualcpscm (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your time and comments.

This is not a paid edit. The stats from the survey adds value for the readers and provide evidence of effectiveness of this method.

The following addition fits perfectly under the last paragraph of the 'Effectiveness' section of the article. Swapniil.A (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• The page looks to have a good balance on this topic. Does more need to be done?Telecine Guy (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)