I blogged a few weeks ago about how those sneaky swine at The Economist decided to renew my annual subscription without my say-so. I even did an on-line questionairre for them not long ago where I told them that I would not be renewing.
But they still went ahead and gouged $380 from my credit card. I got a refund about a week after I complained - of $379.99. I am thinking about demanding the return of that last cent, which will surely cost them a packet in processing fees. It's almost worth doing, just to cause them some heartache and pain.
I wonder whether they are doing this to other subscribers. The Economist has been very succesful in building its subscription base, and I'd imagine they'd be under a lot of pressure to at least hold onto those subscription numbers, or even build them further. Given how most dead tree newspapers are suffering from a decline in circulation, The Economist has done well to get the numbers up - but have they increased their numbers in an ethical, or even lawful manner? How on Earth did my sub get renewed without me approving it? Was this a one-off glitch, or a routine occurence?
Anyway, the reason for my cancellation was made clear to me this morning when I counted my pile of unread copies. I have 26 unopened Economists sitting on my desk - 6 months worth. I used to get through them every week when I caught the bus to work, but they've been piling up ever since I ditched that God-awful conveyance. Now I wonder if I'll ever manage to read them, or whether they'll go into the recycling untouched.