SAGA Magazine lifetime subscription - compulsory shift to digital format

Doc_N

lincroft1710 said:

born_again said:

lincroft1710 said:

Anyone offering any odds that within 5 years there will be mo hardcopy SAGA magazines?

TBH. That would have been the best way they could have dealt with this.

With a simple, this product has reached the end of it's lifetime 🤷‍♀️

Time that "Lifetime" unless actually defined in the T/C was deeded by the ASA as mis advertising.

Some of these "lifetime memberships" backfire on the organisation. When I was still at school, over 55 years ago, the Old Boys Club was appealing to the more senior lifetime members to consider making a donation or take out an annual subscription as the cost of sending them the school magazine had exceeded what they had paid for the lifetime membership!

They do indeed. I know a certain Law Faculty which made life membership of a ‘Club’ more or less obligatory. It entitled members to copies of publications for life.

Then it was quietly withdrawn and replaced with annual memberships. I think loyalty would have prevented any serious complaints.

mr_stripey

I remember this thread from last year. It is nice to see if still going strong. Needed a laugh this afternoon!

Alderbank

Back in June 2023 one disgruntled lifetime subscriber was moved to start an on-line petition calling for Saga Publications to do the 'decent thing' and restore the 12 printed copies annually to legacy subscribers.

https://www.change.org/p/saga-honour-our-contract-for-monthly-delivery-of-your-magazine

The petitioner says that there are more than 500,000 subscribers to the magazine. Signing the petition is free, commits to no further involvement and is open to all, not just subscribers. To date the petition has been signed by 1,626 people.

Even if they were all subscribers that would be only 0.33% of subscribers supporting the petition, so Saga Publications might feel confident that there are no signs of a mass revolt by the membership.

Doc_N

Alderbank said:

Back in June 2023 one disgruntled lifetime subscriber was moved to start an on-line petition calling for Saga Publications to do the 'decent thing' and restore the 12 printed copies annually to legacy subscribers.

https://www.change.org/p/saga-honour-our-contract-for-monthly-delivery-of-your-magazine

The petitioner says that there are more than 500,000 subscribers to the magazine. Signing the petition is free, commits to no further involvement and is open to all, not just subscribers. To date the petition has been signed by 1,626 people.

Even if they were all subscribers that would be only 0.33% of subscribers supporting the petition, so Saga Publications might feel confident that there are no signs of a mass revolt by the membership.

Nobody in their right mind signs petitions and expects any outcome. It’s the lazy option, and those on the receiving end know it!

eskbanker

Alderbank said:

To date the petition has been signed by 1,626 people.

Of whom at least 1,500 had done so by last November, just to give an indication of the loss of momentum....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80414790/#Comment_80414790

Aylesbury_Duck

Maybe 200,000 others signed the petition but then removed their names as part of the deal to get their magazines reinstated?

eskbanker

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Maybe 200,000 others signed the petition but then removed their names as part of the deal to get their magazines reinstated?

The first rule of Fight SAGA Club is not to talk about Fight SAGA Club....

Aylesbury_Duck

Doc_N said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Doc_N said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

It’s perfectly possible to pursue Saga through the courts without using lawyers, and at quite small cost - or indeed with the help of a pro bono solicitor.

There may indeed be ongoing or settled cases, complete with non-disclosure agreements.

My recollection is that in this thread's previous life last year, there were several punters (you may have been one?) who were going to launch court claims via the likes of MCOL, but I don't remember any outcomes being shared - I've never used MCOL myself but wasn't aware that NDAs could be part of settlements there, and would be surprised if someone accepted an out of court settlement on that basis, given the desire for public shaming!

NDAs are no part of formal settlements in court. They're used in pre-court settlements in which the parties agree terms, but also agree that those terms are not to be published.

It's entirely possible that individual settlements have been made between aggrieved purchasers of life memberships and Saga under which the purchaser regains the benefit of the contract in return for agreeing not to disclose the settlement.  It's a classic win/win situation - the complainant gets exactly what he wanted, and Saga is able to restrict the costs arising to a very small number of cases because disclosure in forums such as this is prevented. It would be a very foolish individual who chose to ignore the NDA just for a bit of 'glory' here or anywhere else.

OK then, keeping it sufficiently vague:

1. Did you take SAGA to court? Yes/no
2. If so, was the matter resolved to your satisfaction? Yes/no
3. Do you have any reason to believe that multiple claimants have reached resolution and that all are prevented from posting on here about it? Yes/no

Aylesbury_Duck said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

It’s perfectly possible to pursue Saga through the courts without using lawyers, and at quite small cost - or indeed with the help of a pro bono solicitor.

There may indeed be ongoing or settled cases, complete with non-disclosure agreements.

My recollection is that in this thread's previous life last year, there were several punters (you may have been one?) who were going to launch court claims via the likes of MCOL, but I don't remember any outcomes being shared - I've never used MCOL myself but wasn't aware that NDAs could be part of settlements there, and would be surprised if someone accepted an out of court settlement on that basis, given the desire for public shaming!

NDAs are no part of formal settlements in court. They're used in pre-court settlements in which the parties agree terms, but also agree that those terms are not to be published.

It's entirely possible that individual settlements have been made between aggrieved purchasers of life memberships and Saga under which the purchaser regains the benefit of the contract in return for agreeing not to disclose the settlement.  It's a classic win/win situation - the complainant gets exactly what he wanted, and Saga is able to restrict the costs arising to a very small number of cases because disclosure in forums such as this is prevented. It would be a very foolish individual who chose to ignore the NDA just for a bit of 'glory' here or anywhere else.

OK then, keeping it sufficiently vague:

1. Did you take SAGA to court? Yes/no
2. If so, was the matter resolved to your satisfaction? Yes/no
3. Do you have any reason to believe that multiple claimants have reached resolution and that all are prevented from posting on here about it? Yes/no

They said they were going to, back in June last year, and that if necessary, they'd escalate to the County Court, so presumably the answer to the first question is yes. 

The fact they "hope [Madir33 will] be able to share the outcome here in due course" suggests the answer to your third question is no.  If multiple successful complainants must remain silent under the threat of not receiving their magazines, why would a new succesful complainant be granted freedom to tell everyone about it? It could blow the whole grand scheme wide open.

 I'm afraid you'll have to reach your own conclusions. 

I have, which is why I'm interested to hear if there's any reason I've reached the wrong one.

It would be disappointing to learn that all those who were so angered by Saga they were going to take legal action to shame them publicly and force them to back down, would then meekly accept their own continued supply of physical magazines on the condition that they remain silent about it to prevent others benefitting from their apparently principled stance.

We’ll just have to guess, won’t we? 

Yes, ambiguity is a very convenient outcome for those who were confidently predicting this was going to end in disaster for Saga over a year ago.  And of course, "secret deals" that might have been done prevent other lifetime subscribers getting advice on how they might obtain what they paid for.  Only you know the outcome of your own legal action, but you're not prepared to share it here.  All in it together, eh?  What a principled stance.

There’s an awful lot of conjecture there. Neither you nor I know what’s been going on behind the scenes, but I would correct you on one point - NDAs prevent nobody from taking their own advice, or indeed their own actions. Best you confine yourself to facts - always the best legal approach.

Quite.  Which is what I and someone else was trying to establish, but you preferred to be evasive, leaving us to guess what action you took, and the outcome.

And you're also correct that NDAs prevent no one from taking their own actions, and that's precisely the point I was making.  You seem to be suggesting that it's up to each individual to sort themselves out, which makes threads like this one rather useless.  You either took no action, took action that amounted to nothing, or were successful but you're not prepared to assist others achieve the same outcome.  Whichever of those three occurred, it would help other people decide whether it worth their time to act, and if so, how best to do so to secure a positive outcome.

RefluentBeans

Doc_N said:

Alderbank said:

Back in June 2023 one disgruntled lifetime subscriber was moved to start an on-line petition calling for Saga Publications to do the 'decent thing' and restore the 12 printed copies annually to legacy subscribers.

https://www.change.org/p/saga-honour-our-contract-for-monthly-delivery-of-your-magazine

The petitioner says that there are more than 500,000 subscribers to the magazine. Signing the petition is free, commits to no further involvement and is open to all, not just subscribers. To date the petition has been signed by 1,626 people.

Even if they were all subscribers that would be only 0.33% of subscribers supporting the petition, so Saga Publications might feel confident that there are no signs of a mass revolt by the membership.

Nobody in their right mind signs petitions and expects any outcome. It’s the lazy option, and those on the receiving end know it!

One would think expect the real lazy option is to troll a consumer rights board. But best stick to the facts, as you say, which you have provided little of other than straw man arguments, and what aboutisms and conjecture. Keep with the pearl clutching though, and hope that the pensioner who was above hasn’t taken the expensive route because they’ve believed the conjecture that has been said on this post.

It’s important to remember that some people may actually take your advice. And if they aren’t in a financially good position - it could do some damage to real people. 

Ergates

Doc_N said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Doc_N said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

It’s perfectly possible to pursue Saga through the courts without using lawyers, and at quite small cost - or indeed with the help of a pro bono solicitor.

There may indeed be ongoing or settled cases, complete with non-disclosure agreements.

My recollection is that in this thread's previous life last year, there were several punters (you may have been one?) who were going to launch court claims via the likes of MCOL, but I don't remember any outcomes being shared - I've never used MCOL myself but wasn't aware that NDAs could be part of settlements there, and would be surprised if someone accepted an out of court settlement on that basis, given the desire for public shaming!

NDAs are no part of formal settlements in court. They're used in pre-court settlements in which the parties agree terms, but also agree that those terms are not to be published.

It's entirely possible that individual settlements have been made between aggrieved purchasers of life memberships and Saga under which the purchaser regains the benefit of the contract in return for agreeing not to disclose the settlement.  It's a classic win/win situation - the complainant gets exactly what he wanted, and Saga is able to restrict the costs arising to a very small number of cases because disclosure in forums such as this is prevented. It would be a very foolish individual who chose to ignore the NDA just for a bit of 'glory' here or anywhere else.

OK then, keeping it sufficiently vague:

1. Did you take SAGA to court? Yes/no
2. If so, was the matter resolved to your satisfaction? Yes/no
3. Do you have any reason to believe that multiple claimants have reached resolution and that all are prevented from posting on here about it? Yes/no

Aylesbury_Duck said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

It’s perfectly possible to pursue Saga through the courts without using lawyers, and at quite small cost - or indeed with the help of a pro bono solicitor.

There may indeed be ongoing or settled cases, complete with non-disclosure agreements.

My recollection is that in this thread's previous life last year, there were several punters (you may have been one?) who were going to launch court claims via the likes of MCOL, but I don't remember any outcomes being shared - I've never used MCOL myself but wasn't aware that NDAs could be part of settlements there, and would be surprised if someone accepted an out of court settlement on that basis, given the desire for public shaming!

NDAs are no part of formal settlements in court. They're used in pre-court settlements in which the parties agree terms, but also agree that those terms are not to be published.

It's entirely possible that individual settlements have been made between aggrieved purchasers of life memberships and Saga under which the purchaser regains the benefit of the contract in return for agreeing not to disclose the settlement.  It's a classic win/win situation - the complainant gets exactly what he wanted, and Saga is able to restrict the costs arising to a very small number of cases because disclosure in forums such as this is prevented. It would be a very foolish individual who chose to ignore the NDA just for a bit of 'glory' here or anywhere else.

OK then, keeping it sufficiently vague:

1. Did you take SAGA to court? Yes/no
2. If so, was the matter resolved to your satisfaction? Yes/no
3. Do you have any reason to believe that multiple claimants have reached resolution and that all are prevented from posting on here about it? Yes/no

They said they were going to, back in June last year, and that if necessary, they'd escalate to the County Court, so presumably the answer to the first question is yes. 

The fact they "hope [Madir33 will] be able to share the outcome here in due course" suggests the answer to your third question is no.  If multiple successful complainants must remain silent under the threat of not receiving their magazines, why would a new succesful complainant be granted freedom to tell everyone about it? It could blow the whole grand scheme wide open.

 I'm afraid you'll have to reach your own conclusions. 

I have, which is why I'm interested to hear if there's any reason I've reached the wrong one.

It would be disappointing to learn that all those who were so angered by Saga they were going to take legal action to shame them publicly and force them to back down, would then meekly accept their own continued supply of physical magazines on the condition that they remain silent about it to prevent others benefitting from their apparently principled stance.

We’ll just have to guess, won’t we? 

Yes, ambiguity is a very convenient outcome for those who were confidently predicting this was going to end in disaster for Saga over a year ago.  And of course, "secret deals" that might have been done prevent other lifetime subscribers getting advice on how they might obtain what they paid for.  Only you know the outcome of your own legal action, but you're not prepared to share it here.  All in it together, eh?  What a principled stance.

There’s an awful lot of conjecture there. Neither you nor I know what’s been going on behind the scenes, but I would correct you on one point - NDAs prevent nobody from taking their own advice, or indeed their own actions. Best you confine yourself to facts - always the best legal approach.

The available facts are:
Not one of the multiple people who claimed they were going to take SAGA to court has come back and reported *anything* about how their cases went.  There have been no press reports about SAGA being successfully sued in court over this matter.  There is, therefore, absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the suggestion that people have successfully sued SAGA.

So, either:   Everyone who successfully sued* SAGA is bound by an NDA is is sticking to it, OR, they either didn't sue or didn't win.

Occam's Razor states: "if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one".

The simpler explanation is the latter.

* I'm using "sued" here as a shorthand for any of the routes of legal action a person might have taken.