3 ms·
It is not just ”altruistic”. The idea is clever: they loose <0.1% inactive users but will win new ones blocked now behind worry ”what if I will not really use i
by jaakl 6y ago
It is not just ”altruistic”. The idea is clever: they loose <0.1% inactive users but will win new ones blocked now behind worry ”what if I will not really use it”. Their bet is that the second group could be larger than first, and by order of magnitude. And if not, then it is still not so expensive marketing. I wish ’use only if you really use’ would become norm.
- sfj 6y ago> I wish ’use only if you really use’ would become norm. I wouldn't look at them as an shining beacon. They only cancel if you haven't watched it for a year, and none of your money is refunded, so it's not that great of safety net.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoIt is still pretty great. A lot of people would happily exchange one year of fees for having to unsubscribe. Think of the application for the deceased or incapacitated. Running down every subscription a deceased parent could have had is a huge pain.
- sfj 6y agoWhy not just cancel their cc?
- s1artibartfast 6y agosome things roll over to collections, which can also be difficult to unwind.