SAGA Magazine lifetime subscription - compulsory shift to digital format

Doc_N

lincroft1710 said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:
it’s more than worth the very small outlay to take it to court, with the attendant publicity for a company that can’t keep its word.

Seems to me that some MCOL claims scattered around the country at various times are somewhat unlikely to receive the media circus coverage that Prince Harry's case gets - no doubt anyone succeeding with such a claim won't be slow to mention it on here and Trustpilot, etc, but not sure that it's a given that this would really constitute 'attendant publicity'?

Who knows? I'd hazard a guess that there are some very popular newspapers and websites that would be very interested in running stories about a very well known financial and travel company unilaterally deciding to break longstanding contracts.

And then getting taken to court by pensioners! Win or lose, that's not a good look for a finance and travel company. 

It has yet to be decided in court that this has actually happened

As I said, win or lose it's not a good look for any company - particularly one like Saga - to be seen to have cheated a load of pensioners out of the benefits they were promised when they handed over a substantial amount of cash for life memberships.

The AA have never tried it, National Trust have never tried it, English Heritage have never tried it........ad infinitum.  And they haven't tried it for very good reasons.

Doc_N

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:
it’s more than worth the very small outlay to take it to court, with the attendant publicity for a company that can’t keep its word.

Seems to me that some MCOL claims scattered around the country at various times are somewhat unlikely to receive the media circus coverage that Prince Harry's case gets - no doubt anyone succeeding with such a claim won't be slow to mention it on here and Trustpilot, etc, but not sure that it's a given that this would really constitute 'attendant publicity'?

Who knows? I'd hazard a guess that there are some very popular newspapers and websites that would be very interested in running stories about a very well known financial and travel company unilaterally deciding to break longstanding contracts.

And then getting taken to court by pensioners! Win or lose, that's not a good look for a finance and travel company. 

Yes, I get that successful claims could feed into an ongoing campaign of lobbying friendly journos like the Mail guy, but was just highlighting that in themselves MCOL claims are inherently low-profile, so it's not as if there'd be triumphant photocalls on the steps of the Old Bailey or anything like that, i.e. 'taking them to court' makes it sound rather more dramatic than pursuing an essentially mundane administrative task!

Absolutely, I agree with you on that point - these decisions are at one of the lowest possible levels of English justice, barring magistrates, and they're not reported. Neither are they binding on other County Courts. But in the hands of the right media they're compelling reading, and it sends out a very clear message about Saga - win or lose.  Don't trust it!

born_again

Aylesbury_Duck said: Perhaps SAGA looked at the business and concluded that catering for the very oldest in their customer base is a road to ruin?  What should they do if that's the case?  Run the business to an orderly close as the last of their older customers die, or change approach, modernise and capitalise on those coming behind them?  I can see why they're doing the latter.

I know a well known bank that realised such a problem, that their customer base was reaching a age where it would soon be a big issue.
So had to have a major change of policy to try & attract a younger customer.

born_again

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:
it’s more than worth the very small outlay to take it to court, with the attendant publicity for a company that can’t keep its word.

Seems to me that some MCOL claims scattered around the country at various times are somewhat unlikely to receive the media circus coverage that Prince Harry's case gets - no doubt anyone succeeding with such a claim won't be slow to mention it on here and Trustpilot, etc, but not sure that it's a given that this would really constitute 'attendant publicity'?

Who knows? I'd hazard a guess that there are some very popular newspapers and websites that would be very interested in running stories about a very well known financial and travel company unilaterally deciding to break longstanding contracts.

And then getting taken to court by pensioners! Win or lose, that's not a good look for a finance and travel company. 

Remember watchdog, the consumer program?

Remember how the same companies turned up on a regular basis & nothing ever changed...

Far too few people stand by their principles where £££ is concerned.

lincroft1710

Doc_N said:

lincroft1710 said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:
it’s more than worth the very small outlay to take it to court, with the attendant publicity for a company that can’t keep its word.

Seems to me that some MCOL claims scattered around the country at various times are somewhat unlikely to receive the media circus coverage that Prince Harry's case gets - no doubt anyone succeeding with such a claim won't be slow to mention it on here and Trustpilot, etc, but not sure that it's a given that this would really constitute 'attendant publicity'?

Who knows? I'd hazard a guess that there are some very popular newspapers and websites that would be very interested in running stories about a very well known financial and travel company unilaterally deciding to break longstanding contracts.

And then getting taken to court by pensioners! Win or lose, that's not a good look for a finance and travel company. 

It has yet to be decided in court that this has actually happened

As I said, win or lose it's not a good look for any company - particularly one like Saga - to be seen to have cheated a load of pensioners out of the benefits they were promised when they handed over a substantial amount of cash for life memberships.

The AA have never tried it, National Trust have never tried it, English Heritage have never tried it........ad infinitum.  And they haven't tried it for very good reasons.

There you go again, prejudging. It has not been proved that Saga have cheated anyone. They are still providing the benefits albeit in a different format.

Aylesbury_Duck

Doc_N said:

lincroft1710 said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:
it’s more than worth the very small outlay to take it to court, with the attendant publicity for a company that can’t keep its word.

Seems to me that some MCOL claims scattered around the country at various times are somewhat unlikely to receive the media circus coverage that Prince Harry's case gets - no doubt anyone succeeding with such a claim won't be slow to mention it on here and Trustpilot, etc, but not sure that it's a given that this would really constitute 'attendant publicity'?

Who knows? I'd hazard a guess that there are some very popular newspapers and websites that would be very interested in running stories about a very well known financial and travel company unilaterally deciding to break longstanding contracts.

And then getting taken to court by pensioners! Win or lose, that's not a good look for a finance and travel company. 

It has yet to be decided in court that this has actually happened

As I said, win or lose it's not a good look for any company - particularly one like Saga - to be seen to have cheated a load of pensioners out of the benefits they were promised when they handed over a substantial amount of cash for life memberships.

The AA have never tried it, National Trust have never tried it, English Heritage have never tried it........ad infinitum.  And they haven't tried it for very good reasons.

Context: People handed over £70-£90 in the 1990s.  

Doc_N

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Doc_N said:

lincroft1710 said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:
it’s more than worth the very small outlay to take it to court, with the attendant publicity for a company that can’t keep its word.

Seems to me that some MCOL claims scattered around the country at various times are somewhat unlikely to receive the media circus coverage that Prince Harry's case gets - no doubt anyone succeeding with such a claim won't be slow to mention it on here and Trustpilot, etc, but not sure that it's a given that this would really constitute 'attendant publicity'?

Who knows? I'd hazard a guess that there are some very popular newspapers and websites that would be very interested in running stories about a very well known financial and travel company unilaterally deciding to break longstanding contracts.

And then getting taken to court by pensioners! Win or lose, that's not a good look for a finance and travel company. 

It has yet to be decided in court that this has actually happened

As I said, win or lose it's not a good look for any company - particularly one like Saga - to be seen to have cheated a load of pensioners out of the benefits they were promised when they handed over a substantial amount of cash for life memberships.

The AA have never tried it, National Trust have never tried it, English Heritage have never tried it........ad infinitum.  And they haven't tried it for very good reasons.

Context: People handed over £70-£90 in the 1990s.  

Context:  £90 in 1990 (assuming the figures and dates you quote to be correct) is equivalent to £284 today.  For a magazine subscription.

eskbanker

Doc_N said:

Context:  £90 in 1990 (assuming the figures and dates you quote to be correct) is equivalent to £284 today.  For a magazine subscription.

33 years worth of a magazine so far, i.e. about 23p/copy at 1990 prices or 72p/copy at today's!

I'd certainly side with those equating 'lifetime' with 'subscriber's lifetime', but if the value for money argument was to be deemed relevant then a 1990 subscriber has already had plenty of that, so that 'substantial amount of cash' has already delivered a correspondingly substantial amount of benefit....

powerful_Rogue

km1500 said:

Luckily, a public outcry is not a precondition for going to court and asking for redress for a broken contract.

But as far as it seems, no contract has been broken and there certainly hasn't been a public outcry.

Doc_N

born_again said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:
it’s more than worth the very small outlay to take it to court, with the attendant publicity for a company that can’t keep its word.

Seems to me that some MCOL claims scattered around the country at various times are somewhat unlikely to receive the media circus coverage that Prince Harry's case gets - no doubt anyone succeeding with such a claim won't be slow to mention it on here and Trustpilot, etc, but not sure that it's a given that this would really constitute 'attendant publicity'?

Who knows? I'd hazard a guess that there are some very popular newspapers and websites that would be very interested in running stories about a very well known financial and travel company unilaterally deciding to break longstanding contracts.

And then getting taken to court by pensioners! Win or lose, that's not a good look for a finance and travel company. 

Remember watchdog, the consumer program?

Remember how the same companies turned up on a regular basis & nothing ever changed...

Far too few people stand by their principles where £££ is concerned.

I do remember Watchdog, and I think it’s still running within another programme. And I also remember how many companies it quite rightly put out of business. Can’t see this being Watchdog material - but you never know!