4 ms·

not exactly ethical, dipping into all these expired accounts. but what's that got to do with anything?

by variety 16y ago

dangrossman 16y ago
It'd be unethical if they were canceled subscriptions, but these are active subscriptions the customer never canceled... how is it unethical to continue billing the customer as promised? Do you want your utility company to keep track of your credit card expiration date and turn off your power when that date arrives even though you haven't called to ask them to? I think the common case is that when your card expires, you are issued another one with the same number and a later expiration date, there's not even anything to update with companies that stored your card for a subscription.
- variety 16y ago
  Well, basic utility service isn't such a good comparator: in fact it's on the opposite end of the spectrum from a magazine subscription (which is essentially a fluff purchase, in the vast majority of consumer cases). In fact with gas providers (or at least my own) are required to keep service running even in the presence of events which might normally trigger a cancel in other commercial contexts (customer in default for multiple months, not reachable or even apparently "dead" according to public records, etc). At least until the warm season starts. Magazine subscriptions are at least in grey area, as far as this goes.
midnightmonster 16y ago
They're not expired accounts--they're active subscriptions with valid payment information where the expiration date on the card used to subscribe has passed. Such cards are often still 'good'. Members can easily cancel the service any time, but they have to actually cancel. If we cancelled everyone with an old card we'd be hassling a lot more people than we'd be helping.
- variety 16y ago
  please see my collective response to these remarks: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1848152 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1848152
joshuacc 16y ago
I'm not exactly sure what is unethical about continuing to bill customers for a service they haven't chosen to cancel. Also, "expired cards" are not the same as "expired accounts."
- variety 16y ago
  please see my collective response to these remarks: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1848152 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1848152
variety 16y ago
Responding collectively to sibling responses here (to my post, above): I just think it's at least an ethical area, given that it seems not to be common knowledge that cards can continued to be billed even after the card expires; and given that consumer magazine subscriptions are, in the vast majority of cases, highly discretionary, i.e. fluff purchases (as opposed to things like utility service, medical prescriptions, etc, for which the exact opposite stance should apply, as far as this goes). BTW, a good barometer for the fact that it's at least a grey area issue is that (in the original case here) the company would readily refund that one customer who _took the trouble to complain_ about the post-expiration charges, indicating that on a very basic level, they understood well enough that that customer was being short-changed, or not dealt with in an above-board fashion. So if you're willing to recognize that a customer has been short-changed if they take the trouble to complain -- why not (other than the short-term profit motive) do so, proactively, for all customers who fall into that same "gotcha" situation? I just feel that in grey area cases, companies should err on, you know, "doing the right thing" as opposed to (short-term) profit maximization -- especially as doing the right thing has a way of paying greater, long-term dividends. So at the very least, they can at least _attempt_ to notify the customer that the card has expired, and that it is their policy to continue to keep billing for that subscription unless told otherwise.

not exactly ethical, dipping into all these expired accounts. but what's that got to do with anything?

by variety 16y ago

not exactly ethical, dipping into all these expired accounts. but what's that got to do with anything?

It'd be unethical if they were canceled subscriptions, but these are active subscriptions the customer never canceled... how is it unethical to continue billing the customer as promised? Do you want your utility company to keep track of your credit card expiration date and turn off your power when that date arrives even though you haven't called to ask them to? I think the common case is that when your card expires, you are issued another one with the same number and a later expiration date, there's not even anything to update with companies that stored your card for a subscription.

variety 16y ago
Well, basic utility service isn't such a good comparator: in fact it's on the opposite end of the spectrum from a magazine subscription (which is essentially a fluff purchase, in the vast majority of consumer cases). In fact with gas providers (or at least my own) are required to keep service running even in the presence of events which might normally trigger a cancel in other commercial contexts (customer in default for multiple months, not reachable or even apparently "dead" according to public records, etc). At least until the warm season starts. Magazine subscriptions are at least in grey area, as far as this goes.

midnightmonster 16y ago

They're not expired accounts--they're active subscriptions with valid payment information where the expiration date on the card used to subscribe has passed. Such cards are often still 'good'. Members can easily cancel the service any time, but they have to actually cancel. If we cancelled everyone with an old card we'd be hassling a lot more people than we'd be helping.

variety 16y ago
please see my collective response to these remarks: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1848152 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1848152

joshuacc 16y ago

I'm not exactly sure what is unethical about continuing to bill customers for a service they haven't chosen to cancel. Also, "expired cards" are not the same as "expired accounts."

variety 16y ago
please see my collective response to these remarks: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1848152 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1848152

variety 16y ago

Responding collectively to sibling responses here (to my post, above): I just think it's at least an ethical area, given that it seems not to be common knowledge that cards can continued to be billed even after the card expires; and given that consumer magazine subscriptions are, in the vast majority of cases, highly discretionary, i.e. fluff purchases (as opposed to things like utility service, medical prescriptions, etc, for which the exact opposite stance should apply, as far as this goes). BTW, a good barometer for the fact that it's at least a grey area issue is that (in the original case here) the company would readily refund that one customer who _took the trouble to complain_ about the post-expiration charges, indicating that on a very basic level, they understood well enough that that customer was being short-changed, or not dealt with in an above-board fashion. So if you're willing to recognize that a customer has been short-changed if they take the trouble to complain -- why not (other than the short-term profit motive) do so, proactively, for all customers who fall into that same "gotcha" situation? I just feel that in grey area cases, companies should err on, you know, "doing the right thing" as opposed to (short-term) profit maximization -- especially as doing the right thing has a way of paying greater, long-term dividends. So at the very least, they can at least _attempt_ to notify the customer that the card has expired, and that it is their policy to continue to keep billing for that subscription unless told otherwise.