SAGA Magazine lifetime subscription - compulsory shift to digital format

Doc_N

eskbanker said:

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....

That’s not the point though, is it. The point about life memberships is that the price is set in the knowledge that some will last as little as a few days. And the company gets the money to invest, instead of having to borrow it.

Alderbank

Instead of struggling to make a MCOL claim, why don't you get together to protest outside SAGA's Annual General Meeting at 11.00 a.m. on  20 June?

It should be a nice day for a trip to the seaside, you could tell the shareholders what you think and your picket line might get on to the media (probably not the national media but maybe a mention on Radio Folkestone)

eskbanker

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

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....

That’s not the point though, is it. The point about life memberships is that the price is set in the knowledge that some will last as little as a few days. And the company gets the money to invest, instead of having to borrow it.

I agree that it's unlikely to be the point, but it was just following on from your reference to a 'substantial amount of cash' and apparently dismissive implication that it's just a magazine subscription.

I neither know nor care if expressing such views makes me a 'hater' or 'troll' in your eyes but to me it's perfectly valid to debate and challenge lines of argument rather than threads like this simply being echo chambers of those personally affected nodding along about how awful it is - it is a discussion forum after all.  For the record, I remain sympathetic to those who are likely to be short-changed (and said so on page 1) but that doesn't mean that it's invalid to challenge some of the more outlandish assertions that can detract from, rather than add to, the strength of the case....

Aylesbury_Duck

Doc_N said:

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.

I took them directly from the article you quoted yourself, so I'll let you decide if they're correct.

Taking the midpoint of the band as £80, and 1993 as the offer year (I think that was when the deal was first offered), it's actually about £210 in today's money.  That's not really a "substantial amount of cash", especially as it's discretionary expenditure and has already yielded 360 issues of a magazine for anyone old enough to still receive them.  Less than 25p per issue has been a bargain, and the price keeps dropping.  You can see why it's unsustainable.  SAGA miscalculated 30 years ago.

IvanOpinion

Well I will be the first to congratulate Saga on moving towards a greener more environmentally friendly distribution of its content.

diinozzo

Doc_N said:

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!

How many did they put out of business? Name me three.

Successfullion

My mother got a reply to her complaint regarding their stance on Lifetime Members having to pay extra for printed. The letter is a sorry but not sorry but we are offering a printed subscription at a reasonable cost type letter. Mum has decided not to subscribe and when our insurances etc are due for renewal we will be looking for alternative providers.

born_again

Successfullion said:

 Mum has decided not to subscribe and when our insurances etc are due for renewal we will be looking for alternative providers.

Given that is a MSE must. Should be doing it for all insurance every year 👍

Westguru

The letter of 16th May 2023 from Euan Sutherland does refer to 'if you would like to keep your print subscription' - thus perhaps  acknowledging that lifetime subscriptions are regarded by Saga as being for for printed copies?

Incidentally I see ITV News 26th October 2021 reported 

 “The boss of insurance to holiday group Saga has admitted the company lost its way in how it engaged with older customers.”

“He hopes to address the issues with the rebrand under which the company wants to see older generations as “experienced” rather than just “old”.

The company also wants to tap into the huge extra wealth gained by retirees who saved the most cash during the pandemic as the economy shut down.”

So “experienced” and “wealthy” as he believes we are perhaps more thought should have been given by Saga to withdrawing from us, not a freebie but a product we paid for, and which itself I have always regarded as a largely marketing tool for Saga.

(Although looking at the digital version it seems to have no adverts. )

 

Be_Happy

If the digital one has no adverts, I wonder if the advertisers have asked for a discount due to reduced circulation.

Saga printed magazine comes with more loose leaf adverts included than any other magazine I get.