51–60 of 183 posts
I feel like news is an example of something that actually did work better 30 years ago. Is that just because I was young and everything seemed better?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_U...
Specifically the "Cross ownership rules of 1975" were fantastic. The "Telecommunications Act 1996" started the downward trend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you prefer the movies you can rent were not there at all?
I'd prefer a higher subscription rate for the service. The sensation of paying for something, then paying on top of that thing is infuriating. It's like paying admission to enter a theme park, then having to pay a fee for each ride: either let me enter for free, and pay for each ride, or pay to enter, and ride for free. Assuming a higher subscription rate would be prohibitively expensive, then yes, I would prefer no…
Of course. Every time I signed up for a new publication it was to be able to read one article I cared about. I didn't need the subscription after that until the next article... Which doesn't happen often.
I feel like news is an example of something that actually did work better 30 years ago. Is that just because I was young and everything seemed better?
My sense is newspapers have been totally lost in the internet era for some reason, and never figured out the basic "provide these services in this way and be nice to customers." I think these problems then trickled back to some extent with the paper versions too.
There's entire content categories (local event calendars for instance) that have essentially vanished locally in the way they used to be there.
I think it's possible to run a news organization well and my guess is there are some out there being run well but I don't think it's just your age.
This is just lack of auto renew protections. Consumers are wise to this, and they’re not really canceling. I bet if you could turn off auto-renew they wouldn’t cancel. But, to nobody’s surprise, the MBAs don’t like options where the user doesn’t give away money by accident. Auto renew is one of those things that should be illegal to default users into.
The harder a service is to cancel, the more unlikely I am to ever re-subscribe. That's something they need to start studying in business/MBA school. That SOME customer churn reduction strategies directly lead to indefinite loss of customers. To give a specific anecdote: Ooma offers a very interesting service, hassle-free "landline" (VoIP) turn-key phone service, the price is reasonable, and they have multiple offerin…
Isn't that the stereotype? Join to juice some metric, jump ship while everything looks green, leave the mess to someone else
Some newspapers require subscribers to call a phone number to cancel their subscription. I refuse to subscribe to any service I can't unsubscribe from in a few clicks, regardless of the content.
Had that happen with the WSJ, will never subscribe to them again. Plus they had limited hours in one time zone.
E.g., suppose their phone system can handle 1000 people in queue + 20 live conversations. Companies keep the callers waiting, with no regard to the cost to the caller, so the company can minimize their customer-service costs.
So how about we even things up? Create company-specific automated services that call in using customer-oriented robots. Have logic that knows how to navigate each company's phone system to reach an appropriate real person. And once they reach a live customer service rep, play the message, "Thank you for your business. We value you as a vendor, and will connect you with your customer as soon as possible! Your expected wait time is...", and have them wait while this middle-man service gets your attention.
This is just lack of auto renew protections. Consumers are wise to this, and they’re not really canceling. I bet if you could turn off auto-renew they wouldn’t cancel. But, to nobody’s surprise, the MBAs don’t like options where the user doesn’t give away money by accident. Auto renew is one of those things that should be illegal to default users into.
The harder a service is to cancel, the more unlikely I am to ever re-subscribe. That's something they need to start studying in business/MBA school. That SOME customer churn reduction strategies directly lead to indefinite loss of customers. To give a specific anecdote: Ooma offers a very interesting service, hassle-free "landline" (VoIP) turn-key phone service, the price is reasonable, and they have multiple offerin…
Some newspapers require subscribers to call a phone number to cancel their subscription. I refuse to subscribe to any service I can't unsubscribe from in a few clicks, regardless of the content.
Links in German.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__312k.html
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/suche/faire-verbrauch...
https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/aktuelle-meldungen/vertra...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you replace MBAs with Growth Hackers I agree fully.
"Growth hackers" imply they're doing this for the long term, which I don't believe at all. All these strategies do is give the organization a short term bump in exchange for a negative long term reputation and customer loss. I've literally been warned not to sub to the New York Times by random people without prompting when the newspaper was mentioned in passing. Is that "growth hacking?" They've made having a subscri…