Update (March 31, 2015): It now appears this subscription solicitation was likely a scam. An AOL news story published today says 5 state attorneys general have “filed lawsuits intended to shut down a massive alleged newspaper and magazine subscription scam that solicited millions of consumers nationwide.” The various publications (including, in my case, the Seattle Times) in whose names phony subscriptions were marketed had nothing to do with it, and also were victims. Based on this new information, the article below is retracted.
Original posting (Nov. 23, 2014): I like newspapers. My father was a reporter for 40 years. I graduated from a journalism school and worked as a reporter before I became a lawyer and judge. I read newspapers, including the Seattle Times, and sometimes I’ll buy a copy of the Seattle Times from a newsstand, box, or in a store. But I’ll never subscribe to the Seattle Times.
This has nothing to do with the journalists working for the Seattle Times, or the rightwing editorials. I like reporters. I don’t think much of their editorials, most of the time, but let’s face it — they shill for the Republican Party, and we have philosophical differences. No big deal, that’s not it at all.
No. It’s how they market subscriptions. Years ago, before the “Do Not Call” law, I was harassed by a telemarketer trying to coerce me into buying a Seattle Times subscription. When I say “coerce,” that’s exactly what I mean. They called several times a week, sometimes daily, for months. They wouldn’t stop pestering me, no matter how many times we said “no.” This type of marketing consists of harassing the mark until he gives in and buys the product or service just to get the telemarketer off his back. It’s very similar to a Mafia protection racket.
I resorted to some coercion of my own: A complaint to the state attorney general’s consumer protection division. That stopped the Seattle Times telemarketing calls for a time. Eventually, the “Do Not Call” law stopped them for good.
Okay, you say, that was then; this is now. Well, okay, I hold grudges, but what’s wrong with that? When someone behaves like a gangster to force you to give them your money, isn’t that a good enough reason to hold a grudge? Why would you ever want to do business with someone like that? But grudges aside … they’re still at it.
Yesterday I received a letter (addressed to my kid who doesn’t live here anymore) that looks like a typical billing statement of the sort you’d get from a utility or medical provider. My primitive computer skills won’t enable me to show you a picture of it, but I can describe it. In the top left corner it says in black ink, “Readers Payment Service.” In the top right corner it says in red ink, “Notice of Renewal/New Order.” The blurb (in very small type) says, “Your subscription to SEATTLE TIMES is automatic with receipt of your payment when you choose to renew or order a new subscription …” blah blah. (Fortunately, I’m so nearsighted that I can actually read this tiny type.) At the bottom left, in slightly larger red type it says, “Renewal Offer, Not A Bill.”
Okay, so they tell you it’s not a bill, but they obviously want you to think it is and return it with payment, without thinking about it (although the $499.95 price tag might deter a lot of people). I wouldn’t call this marketing ploy coercive, but I’d certainly call it deceptive.
How eager are you to do business with a company you believe to be dishonest? I’m not eager at all. I appreciate the fact that newspapers are struggling because circulation is declining (why pay $500 a year — if that’s how long the subscription is for; this letter doesn’t tell you — when you can get news for free on the internet?) and internet companies have poached a large chunk of newspapers’ traditional advertising revenue? (Who buys a classified ad to sell something anmore?) I get that newsrooms aren’t cheap, and the business office has to figure out a way to pay the salaries of the editors and reporters, not to mention the expenses of the printing plant and delivery truck fleet. But whether I buy a subscription should be a matter of my free choice. I don’t take kindly to being coerced or deceived into signing up for a subscription.
And there’s that honesty thing. When a company behaves dishonestly, I’ll refuse to do business with them. It’s not more complicated than that.
Postscript: I don’t know if anyone at the Seattle Times reads this blog. Maybe they do. They might even print out this article and send it to their lawyers. That’s fine, I have no problem with that, I’m a lawyer myself and I know as well as they do that truth is a complete defense to a libel claim. Also, they know as well as I do they’re a public figure and would have to prove I wrote this out of malice. But I have no malice toward the Seattle Times, I’m merely complaining about their reprehensible marketing practices.
Or maybe they’ll say “sorry” and offer me a limited-time free subscription as compensation; if they do, I won’t accept it, because that won’t solve the problem. If they do read this, my advice to them is, instead of taking offense at what I wrote or trying to paper over the problem with a bandaid, they should clean up their act. That will solve the problem as far I’m concerned.