I recently had some sticker shocks with some online subscriptions. I wouldn't go as far as to say that these practices are unethical but they are at the very least "not consumer friendly". I have three experiences to share. Let me start with FT.
Financial Times offers an introductory of only US$1 for four weeks of access. Great deal right? I decided to give it a try and maybe if I liked it, I could opt for their least expensive plan, which is US$6.45 per week. That's still pretty expensive at $25.80 per month (or RM104) but this was something I could decide before the trial was over.
When they say it's US$1 for four weeks, they mean it literally (28 days). It's not a month like I mistakenly assumed. So imagine my shock when on the 28th day, I saw a bill on my credit card for RM254.27 for the next billing cycle. Now, if you look at the most expensive option (Premium Digital + Print), that's US$13.60 per week or US$54.40 per month (roughly). In Malaysian ringgit that would be roughly RM219, which is already ridiculously priced but I was charged even more. I was charged RM254.27! It's obvious that they charged me the MOST expensive option without notifying me ahead of time AND they did so with a conversion rate that was super expensive.
So, here's my beef with FT:
1. I was charged on the 28th day instead of one month (okay, maybe my fault for assuming 4 weeks is a month).
2. There was no notification or advance warning that my trial would be ending soon (that would be a consumer friendly thing to do).
3. I was not asked which paid option I would prefer. Instead, I was automatically charged the MOST expensive option.
4. The most expensive option included print. I NEVER received any printed copies.
I cancelled straight away (no refund given). I will NEVER subscribe to FT again in my life.
Was what they did unethical? Maybe not. Perhaps it's written somewhere in their terms and conditions that after four weeks, without notification they will automatically charge you the most expensive option. But what I can say is that their subscription strategy and policy is the most consumer unfriendly I have ever seen of any major publication. Shame on FT for this.
Financial Times offers an introductory of only US$1 for four weeks of access. Great deal right? I decided to give it a try and maybe if I liked it, I could opt for their least expensive plan, which is US$6.45 per week. That's still pretty expensive at $25.80 per month (or RM104) but this was something I could decide before the trial was over.
When they say it's US$1 for four weeks, they mean it literally (28 days). It's not a month like I mistakenly assumed. So imagine my shock when on the 28th day, I saw a bill on my credit card for RM254.27 for the next billing cycle. Now, if you look at the most expensive option (Premium Digital + Print), that's US$13.60 per week or US$54.40 per month (roughly). In Malaysian ringgit that would be roughly RM219, which is already ridiculously priced but I was charged even more. I was charged RM254.27! It's obvious that they charged me the MOST expensive option without notifying me ahead of time AND they did so with a conversion rate that was super expensive.
 |
| FT subscriptions |
So, here's my beef with FT:
1. I was charged on the 28th day instead of one month (okay, maybe my fault for assuming 4 weeks is a month).
2. There was no notification or advance warning that my trial would be ending soon (that would be a consumer friendly thing to do).
3. I was not asked which paid option I would prefer. Instead, I was automatically charged the MOST expensive option.
4. The most expensive option included print. I NEVER received any printed copies.
I cancelled straight away (no refund given). I will NEVER subscribe to FT again in my life.
Was what they did unethical? Maybe not. Perhaps it's written somewhere in their terms and conditions that after four weeks, without notification they will automatically charge you the most expensive option. But what I can say is that their subscription strategy and policy is the most consumer unfriendly I have ever seen of any major publication. Shame on FT for this.
No comments:
Post a Comment