SAGA Magazine lifetime subscription - compulsory shift to digital format

Doc_N

Whether online works for individuals or not is irrelevant - Saga simply do not have the legal right to back out of a contract which very clearly stipulated that 12 copies of the paper magazine would be sent every year.

If you can't trust Saga to stick to its contract on this, how can you trust them to pay out an insurance claim or meet a holiday obligation?  

This is unlawful - and disreputable.

Robin9

Murphybear said:

Robin9 said:

I took out a lifetime subscription 20 years ago. Not had the letter yet - my experience of online versions of catalogues, magazines and newspapers really don't work.

I get Readly every month, roughly 6000 magazines online.  I look at them on my iPad, it works well for me.  

Have you tried on a Smart phone ??????

born_again

Doc_N said:

Whether online works for individuals or not is irrelevant - Saga simply do not have the legal right to back out of a contract which very clearly stipulated that 12 copies of the paper magazine would be sent every year.

If you can't trust Saga to stick to its contract on this, how can you trust them to pay out an insurance claim or meet a holiday obligation?  

This is unlawful - and disreputable.

Did it though?  Got a picture of this?
or did it say you would get 12 copies a year? Just at that time digital copies were not such a thing.

Wonder how many people getting the no more paper copies, still have any Saga products?

TadleyBaggie

I've never seen the point of Saga, their products don't appear to be competitively priced. I'm 70 this year and have yet to use Saga ever.

Doc_N

TadleyBaggie said:

I've never seen the point of Saga, their products don't appear to be competitively priced. I'm 70 this year and have yet to use Saga ever.

You're right about the pricing, though earlier this year, before prices started rocketing, Saga did - amazingly - come up with the best motor quote I could get, and it was price fixed for three years.  And with Topcashback too.

The magazine, though, is remarkably good, with some good writers such as Paul Lewis and Jeremy Paxman.  Hunter Davies too, though he's a bit marmite these days.  It used to be pretty rubbish, but over recent years they've improved it enormously.

Doc_N

born_again said:

Doc_N said:

Whether online works for individuals or not is irrelevant - Saga simply do not have the legal right to back out of a contract which very clearly stipulated that 12 copies of the paper magazine would be sent every year.

If you can't trust Saga to stick to its contract on this, how can you trust them to pay out an insurance claim or meet a holiday obligation?  

This is unlawful - and disreputable.

Did it though?  Got a picture of this?
or did it say you would get 12 copies a year? Just at that time digital copies were not such a thing.

Wonder how many people getting the no more paper copies, still have any Saga products?

Here's the exact wording:

"I have pleasure in enclosing your new Life Membership card.  Your new membership card entitles you to receive twelve copies of Saga per year for life. Don't forget that each issue of Saga contains exclusive members-only offers."

At the time of the letter the magazine wasn't published online - just hard copies.  No surprise, because we were all on dial-up with a maximum speed of 33.6KBps!

Any case taken against them in the County Court would be indefensible - and the damage done to the Saga name incalculable. 

One might reasonably reach the conclusion that Saga could plead poverty (which is the line it's taking with the magazine issue) and refuse to pay out on any of its contracts - holidays, financial or other.

GingerTim

Doc_N said:

born_again said:

Doc_N said:

Whether online works for individuals or not is irrelevant - Saga simply do not have the legal right to back out of a contract which very clearly stipulated that 12 copies of the paper magazine would be sent every year.

If you can't trust Saga to stick to its contract on this, how can you trust them to pay out an insurance claim or meet a holiday obligation?  

This is unlawful - and disreputable.

Did it though?  Got a picture of this?
or did it say you would get 12 copies a year? Just at that time digital copies were not such a thing.

Wonder how many people getting the no more paper copies, still have any Saga products?

Here's the exact wording:

"I have pleasure in enclosing your new Life Membership card.  Your new membership card entitles you to receive twelve copies of Saga per year for life. Don't forget that each issue of Saga contains exclusive members-only offers."

At the time of the letter the magazine wasn't published online - just hard copies.  No surprise, because we were all on dial-up with a maximum speed of 33.6KBps!

Any case taken against them in the County Court would be indefensible - and the damage done to the Saga name incalculable. 

One might reasonably reach the conclusion that Saga could plead poverty (which is the line it's taking with the magazine issue) and refuse to pay out on any of its contracts - holidays, financial or other.

'12 copies per year' ≠ 12 paper copies, though - they do have a defendable position.

Doc_N

GingerTim said:

Doc_N said:

born_again said:

Doc_N said:

Whether online works for individuals or not is irrelevant - Saga simply do not have the legal right to back out of a contract which very clearly stipulated that 12 copies of the paper magazine would be sent every year.

If you can't trust Saga to stick to its contract on this, how can you trust them to pay out an insurance claim or meet a holiday obligation?  

This is unlawful - and disreputable.

Did it though?  Got a picture of this?
or did it say you would get 12 copies a year? Just at that time digital copies were not such a thing.

Wonder how many people getting the no more paper copies, still have any Saga products?

Here's the exact wording:

"I have pleasure in enclosing your new Life Membership card.  Your new membership card entitles you to receive twelve copies of Saga per year for life. Don't forget that each issue of Saga contains exclusive members-only offers."

At the time of the letter the magazine wasn't published online - just hard copies.  No surprise, because we were all on dial-up with a maximum speed of 33.6KBps!

Any case taken against them in the County Court would be indefensible - and the damage done to the Saga name incalculable. 

One might reasonably reach the conclusion that Saga could plead poverty (which is the line it's taking with the magazine issue) and refuse to pay out on any of its contracts - holidays, financial or other.

'12 copies per year' ≠ 12 paper copies, though - they do have a defendable position.

And what other copies of the Saga magazine existed in the mid-1990s?  This can only mean a paper copy.

GingerTim

Doc_N said:

GingerTim said:

Doc_N said:

born_again said:

Doc_N said:

Whether online works for individuals or not is irrelevant - Saga simply do not have the legal right to back out of a contract which very clearly stipulated that 12 copies of the paper magazine would be sent every year.

If you can't trust Saga to stick to its contract on this, how can you trust them to pay out an insurance claim or meet a holiday obligation?  

This is unlawful - and disreputable.

Did it though?  Got a picture of this?
or did it say you would get 12 copies a year? Just at that time digital copies were not such a thing.

Wonder how many people getting the no more paper copies, still have any Saga products?

Here's the exact wording:

"I have pleasure in enclosing your new Life Membership card.  Your new membership card entitles you to receive twelve copies of Saga per year for life. Don't forget that each issue of Saga contains exclusive members-only offers."

At the time of the letter the magazine wasn't published online - just hard copies.  No surprise, because we were all on dial-up with a maximum speed of 33.6KBps!

Any case taken against them in the County Court would be indefensible - and the damage done to the Saga name incalculable. 

One might reasonably reach the conclusion that Saga could plead poverty (which is the line it's taking with the magazine issue) and refuse to pay out on any of its contracts - holidays, financial or other.

'12 copies per year' ≠ 12 paper copies, though - they do have a defendable position.

And what other copies of the Saga magazine existed in the mid-1990s?  This can only mean a paper copy.

I've been having a similar, though in a different context, discussion at work about a contract with a major press signed in the early '80s. It talks about the publisher keeping books in print or we can have the copyright back - unfortunately for us, the sides' respective lawyers have concluded that 'in print' also means digital versions of said books. Which is very annoying.

There was a reason why the press in the contract specified no particular format.

Plus: digital magazines, on CD-ROM, started to become A Thing in the mid-90s.

lincroft1710

Doc_N said:

GingerTim said:

Doc_N said:

born_again said:

Doc_N said:

Whether online works for individuals or not is irrelevant - Saga simply do not have the legal right to back out of a contract which very clearly stipulated that 12 copies of the paper magazine would be sent every year.

If you can't trust Saga to stick to its contract on this, how can you trust them to pay out an insurance claim or meet a holiday obligation?  

This is unlawful - and disreputable.

Did it though?  Got a picture of this?
or did it say you would get 12 copies a year? Just at that time digital copies were not such a thing.

Wonder how many people getting the no more paper copies, still have any Saga products?

Here's the exact wording:

"I have pleasure in enclosing your new Life Membership card.  Your new membership card entitles you to receive twelve copies of Saga per year for life. Don't forget that each issue of Saga contains exclusive members-only offers."

At the time of the letter the magazine wasn't published online - just hard copies.  No surprise, because we were all on dial-up with a maximum speed of 33.6KBps!

Any case taken against them in the County Court would be indefensible - and the damage done to the Saga name incalculable. 

One might reasonably reach the conclusion that Saga could plead poverty (which is the line it's taking with the magazine issue) and refuse to pay out on any of its contracts - holidays, financial or other.

'12 copies per year' ≠ 12 paper copies, though - they do have a defendable position.

And what other copies of the Saga magazine existed in the mid-1990s?  This can only mean a paper copy.

No it does not, it just says copy. You cannot assume that just because a certain format was in sole existence at the start of the contract, this will always be the case.