Radio Times Massive Hidden Subscription Increases

giraffe69

Doesn't resolve this problem but why does anyone subscribe to information they can get in any number of other ways from programme guides to newspapers to internet sites?

EssexExile

Moneyineptitude said:

EssexExile said:

If you were paying £24 a quarter you must've been on some special deal, it's been £26 a month for some time.

Surely that would make the weekly cost of what is essentially just a  listings magazine a whopping £6.50 for each issue!!!!

That can't be correct can it? 

The same listings are published in most weekend newspapers..

You're right of course, I was looking at the wrong subscription! It's £24 a quarter, which is £2 a week, as the OP said.

shaun_from_Africa

giraffe69 said:

Doesn't resolve this problem but why does anyone subscribe to information they can get in any number of other ways from programme guides to newspapers to internet sites?

Newspapers normally have to be paid for and I know that all modern TV's will show a programme guide but I'm sure that there are still a lot of people still prefer a paper version of some things rather than looking at the internet or a guide on their television set.

peterdodds

It's not a question of it being "nice to know" what you paid before but it is a question of not being up front with what you are really doing.  Look at your motor, house insurance renewals etc. They all tell you what you paid last year. Utilities companies all have to be open and quote what they are doing in comparative terms when they change tariffs etc. And why do they do this now?  Because it is what the public expects and various watchdogs have made them do.

[Deleted User]

peterdodds said:

Utilities companies all have to be open and quote what they are doing in comparative terms when they change tariffs etc. And why do they do this now?  Because it is what the public expects and various watchdogs have made them do.

There are of course no "watchdogs" for magazine subscriptions. As they are really not essential purchases they are not subject to the same degree of regulation as the bodies you mention. 

Sky, Virgin and BT, for example,  all regularly issue price increase letters which make no mention of the current amount you pay- only the amount of the increase. Again this is because they provide goods and services which are luxuries not essentials. 

Your expectation of this magazine seems to be coloured by nostalgia for a time when Radio Times was the official organ of the BBC. Those times, I'm afraid are long past and I fear your "official complaint" will have  only met with  amusement  from the recipients. Expect any reply, should you get one,  to be a curt rebuttal of any wrong-doing and your demand for a "apology" to be sent to all subscribers   will  certainly never be met. 

elsien

peterdodds said:

It's not a question of it being "nice to know" what you paid before but it is a question of not being up front with what you are really doing.  Look at your motor, house insurance renewals etc. They all tell you what you paid last year. Utilities companies all have to be open and quote what they are doing in comparative terms when they change tariffs etc. And why do they do this now?  Because it is what the public expects and various watchdogs have made them do.

Looking at your direct debits and bank statements showed you what you paid last year. Being elderly doesn't stop people from being able to do that. 
An £85 bill would make me and anyone else on a tight budget blink twice and ask "how much" even without the comparison of the previous 6 months. 

[Deleted User]

shaun_from_Africa said:

Newspapers normally have to be paid for and I know that all modern TV's will show a programme guide but I'm sure that there are still a lot of people still prefer a paper version of some things rather than looking at the internet or a guide on their television set.

The point is that the price of a newspaper is far less than this magazine and also includes far more wide ranging and up-to-date news and information. 

Many  of the weekend newspapers actually produce a TV  supplement  which equals (perhaps surpasses) what the listings magazines produce and it's no surprise that the circulation of these magazines now falls year-on-year. 

couriervanman

Moneyineptitude said:

peterdodds said: it is unacceptable behaviour from a former trusted stalwart of the entertainment industry.

You do realise that the BBC no longer owns nor runs the magazine?

 Since 2011, it hasn't been produced "in house" by the BBC and since 2017 has been wholly owned by the German media group Hubert Burda

The latest circulation figure (January 2018 – January 2019) for the Radio Times is 622,000, which is a far cry from the 8.8 million it sold during the 1950s.  

"The latest circulation figure (January 2018 – January 2019) for the Radio Times is 622,000, which is a far cry from the 8.8 million it sold during the 1950s. "......Not surprised with those prices 

Takmon

peterdodds said:

It's not a question of it being "nice to know" what you paid before but it is a question of not being up front with what you are really doing.  Look at your motor, house insurance renewals etc. They all tell you what you paid last year. Utilities companies all have to be open and quote what they are doing in comparative terms when they change tariffs etc. And why do they do this now?  Because it is what the public expects and various watchdogs have made them do.

The reason that those companies show information like that is because people are generally financially lazy/unorganised and don't keep track of what they are paying for things and this behaviour certainly shouldn't be encouraged because it doesn't help them at all. 
Only last week was i discussing energy bills with a friend and they were happy they were on a good tariff because their bills said that they were on the cheapest tariff the energy company offers. But this gave them a false sense of security and when i did a quick comparison i found an 18 month fixed tariff that was 25% cheaper than what they were currently paying. Similar happens with car and house insurance people see it was "only" £15 more this year so looks good but it could be hundreds more than if they switched.
It's all well and good providing this information but all it does is comfort the financially lazy into thinking the deal isn't too bad so they don't look around and people who are savvy will go looking and find all the information anyway so it's no help to them. 

If everyone followed the rule that you should always independently compare prices every time there is some kind of renewal then they would always get the best deal it's as simple as that. The more information about previous prices and comparisons that are provided in the renewal letter is more likely to make people not go elsewhere for information because they think they already have it all and they lose out.

Doc_N

Having been paying £30 per 6 months, mine's gone up to £69 per 6 months - and I'll be cancelling. 

Radio Times knows its audience - we tend to be older, probably comparatively affluent, and probably fairly easily conned by large increases like this that don't get noticed.  

They offer goodness knows how many different rates - whatever they can get away with, it's a business.  Their job is to maximise their profits, ours to find the lowest available price if we still want the product. It's a bit like renewing insurance now - get a quote from them and beat them down on price or cancel.