WSJ: Must call to cancel subscription

I paid for a trial subscription of the Wall Street Journal. It's a good paper, and has some really good reporting on the 1MDB issue, but I didn't feel that I would read it enough to justify paying a regular monthly subscription for it. As such I decided to cancel the subscription way in advance of the trial deadline. I sent them an e-mail requesting cancellation and I received the following reply:

WSJ's e-mail reply to me

I read the first paragraph, which contains the words "We're sorry to hear of your decision to discontinue your membership."

I mistakenly thought that this means my subscription had been cancelled as per my request. I neglected to read the following paragraph which said I had to call an international number to cancel my account by phone.

Yes, it's my mistake for not reading that (and therefore not making the call). I only realized this when I saw a bill for RM119.54 for this month's billing cycle.

I went to their website to look for a customer service number, called it to complain and was told that cancellation only happens when you call in. "But I sent an e-mail requesting cancellation," I said. "I'm sorry but it's company policy that you have to call in to cancel," the customer service representative said.

Wouldn't it be more convenient if there was just a button you can press or an e-mail you can send to say you want to cancel subscription? Of course. But these companies don't want to make it convenient for you, the consumer, to cancel.

I'm pretty pissed off about this but not as much as I am about FT, which not only auto-charged me without any notice, it charged me the most expensive premium option they had (without asking me what I preferred) AND they charged me for the print version which I never received. Isn't that amazing? Good case study on how to not only lose a customer but have someone pissed off at your brand.

When subscription cancellation is not cancellation

Over the past year, I've been testing different types of e-book software. All of these are cloud based solutions. One of the services I tried out was something called Designrr, which was an okay software. I managed to create some sample e-books with it but I didn't feel it really suited my needs. It didn't have the features I was looking for. So, I wrote in to them in February, well in advance of the autopay renewal deadline.

Initially I was told that what I should do is to wait until the deadline was near and then request to cancel the autopay because if I cancelled early, I would not be able to use the software anymore. I thought this was kind of ridiculous since I had already paid a subscription for the whole year. Just because I cancel the autopay months in advance I would suddenly not be allowed to use the remainder of my subscription? Well, that seemed to be the policy.

I thought about it and I decided to cancel straight away, even if it meant I could no longer have access to a service I had paid for. I did this for two reasons. Firstly, I wasn't planning to use it much anyway since I had already concluded it didn't have some key features that I needed. Secondly, I didn't want to run the risk of missing the autopay deadline and finding out only after the fact that my credit card had been billed for another year. Generally, many online services tend not to give advance notice that they are about to auto-charge you. They just do it and give you the receipt.

So, I told them to cancel my subscription. To my surprise I was told that I was actually still able to have access until the expiry date. So that was fair enough. I wonder why I was told otherwise earlier.

Anyway, I promptly forgot about Designrr until I received an e-mail the other day saying I had been charged an annual subscription (due to autopay). I checked my e-mail archives and found the correspondence which confirmed that I had already cancelled. So, I immediately wrote to them and to their credit they acknowledged the mistake and said they would refund the amount charged. That's decent of them.

I would say their autopay policy is nowhere nearly as a bad as FT's policy, which is the worst I've ever come across. But it certainly could be improved. They should make it easier to cancel the autopay (I had to write an e-mail to someone to request this. It should have been as easy as pressing a button). They also should inform customers when the autopay is about to happen so that the customer can consider whether to continue or to cancel. If you have confidence in your product why do you have to worry about the customer cancelling? Just let the customer know you are about to charge them for a year and you want to make sure this is okay with them.

FT has the worst subscription policy

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.

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.