401–410 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We can argue over the fine details, but you can't convince me that this is not shady. He's not trying to convince you, he's trying to convince himself.
He looks pretty convinced here. http://www.matrixpartners.com/team/josh-hannah/
That's weird. Is the idea to be sure if the brand works, one of these will be successful? Or just like the word "huddle"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't accept the word "misleading" -- I do not believe the page in any way misleads. It does not try to position it as anything other than a subscription, and the language is plain english. Could they put the subscription details in bold? Could they use a larger font than all the other text? Sure. It's a tradeoff, for sure, and every retailer has to optimize their site to perform. Could they pop up three boxes afte…
Oh come on man. This is some serious fucking mental gymnastics. At the very least there needs to be a checkbox a la "I would like to receive spam" or "I would like to give you $480 per year in addition to the $40 for this pair of boots I want." Maybe even include the monthly price in the cost lineup there, since it's, you know, a major cost? I don't often wish ill on companies, but I seriously hope that this company…
http://www.scambook.com/blog/2011/10/justfab-com-justfabulou...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dispute the charge with their credit card company. Who is their credit card company? I have not had a credit card complaint for years but I would probably ask my credit card issuer for a refund, in particular because I have an agreement with my credit card issuer but not with the vendor's credit card company.
Yes, that's what the parent says. When Bob has a problem with Ann's scummy business Bob should ask Bob's credit card company for a refund, which generates chargebacks for Ann's business.
I have just checked my credit card issuer's process for such cases, it seems pretty straight forward.
The down vote of my comment indicates a possible difference in other parts of the world …
I'm the Series A investor in this company. We in fact have done plenty of due diligence, and you will be pleased to know it is not a scam company. In fact, the company has very high customer satisfaction ratings, including an NPS that is in the ballpark of Amazon, and a very high customer retention rate. More than half of the people who subscribe to the service are still subscribers after two years, which is unusuall…
Due diligence cuts both ways. If you're looking to raise money for a startup, research the VCs you are talking to. Consider their other investments and the way they conduct business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pre-internet, or at least widespread internet, there was a similar scam with music tapes, perhaps records even before that. The first month's selections would be free but for shipping, after that they would send you a bunch every month if they didn't hear from you — and a hefty bill.
One major difference: JustFab doesn't send you anything, they give you "credits" which can be used for future purchase but most likely got un-noticed and un-used.
Also, at least back in the bad old days when I was at various times a "member" of various book clubs, you got sent a bill, the company didn't charge you and enjoy float (interest earned on bank balances) like this company does on their credits.
And those credits will evaporate if/when this company goes out of business.
JustFab is not a 'scam company' (in the sense that they may not be doing anything technically illegal), but they are using DARK DESIGN PATTERNS[1] to trick at least some people into doing things they don't want to do. The checkout page[2], in particular, seems designed specifically to trick people into signing up for recurring monthly charges. Any person who adds merchandise to the cart and then clicks the big 'Conti…
No, seriously, if your business model is based on tricking people into paying for something they don’t want and didn’t realize they’re getting charged for (no meeting of the minds), your company is a scam company. It’s simple as that.
It's straight up scam-tactics.
Paypal et al force this kind of agreement to be properly explained up-front. Paypal's monthly recurring thing is clumsy and half-broken, but it's not unclear and can't trick you.
Choose investors that match your ethics I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rule in my book is pretty simple: opt-in is perfectly fine, opt-out is shady at best, and morally wrong. This applies to every service and/or subscription, from mailing lists to purchases. This case is a clear "opt-out" case. If their offer is good enough, they could just explain why properly and people would opt-in. If they need to resort to this kind of tricks to get people enrolled, their offer is not so good…
So you consider Netflix to be a shady and immoral business?
Clearly indicated on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JustFab Obviously the VCs did diligence - however they must have considered the shady business as an acceptable risk factor. I think the answer to what you are asking is many businesses start in the grey zone. Recently many folks made huge bank with recurring billing with no notice. Ring tones and internet games both went that path. Justfab seems to be breaking into…