[somethingwitty1]

An opposite statement can be said with the same amount of authority though: There is a common perception that companies only create policies we don't like through accidents and unforeseeable outcomes, not by specifically crafting policies to benefit the company. But sometimes bad policies are malicious and designed to maximize profits, even at the expense of long-term profits and customer retention. Maybe call to unsubscribe is one of those policies.

As someone that has worked (briefly) for a company that operated in this fashion (and being a partial owner of one that the CEO tried to shift to this model...we got the board together and fired him), it is not an accidentally bad policy. It is actively discussed as a way to squeeze out an extra pay cycle (and often more) of payments. In recorded meetings or audited channels (such as email) or even PR releases, you are guided to discuss it as a "personal touch with the customer" and to help "lost customers" resolve the issues rather than cancel. You even try to convince your employees/engineers that is the reason. But when it is face-to-face conversations, the discussions are around the dollars and squeezing out as many pay cycles as you can. I know I was being a bit cheeky with my first paragraph, but this is definitely not one of those "whoops, we didn't think this through" kind of policies. If it were, the policy would have changed without the FTC or laws being needed.

[MathMonkeyMan]

There is a third option.

1. "Whoops, we didn't think this through."

2. This makes us more money in the end, that's why it's so pervasive.

3. It's difficult to correlate "making more money in the end" with our cancellation policy, so we make a measurement or otherwise tell ourselves a story consistent with (2), even though (2)'s conclusion doesn't truly follow.

This reminds me of topics in government policy, psychology, etc.

[jjoonathan]

The simplest bumbling incentive following often leads to exactly the same place as the most cynical machiavellian scheming.

[cma]

Also, a single rule about what monetizes best may not apply to all companies (pissing off high dollar investment clients over something like that?), so they may mostly all be optimizing it even if there are different choices.

[Cederfjard]

You’ve only really stated though that these policies are deliberate, which I think few people would have thought otherwise, not that they’re necessarily the best policies there can be. The question is if they’re actually better for the bottom line than the alternative (given the timeframe that the people who make and influence these decisions care about). Is ”squeezing out an extra pay cycle” or two possible missing the forest for the trees, if customers who were happy with the cancellation process are more likely to return, proselytize for you and so on? Not saying that’s the case, very open to being influenced either way if anyone has data to share.

[butwhywhyoh]

The OP was directly countering the point made by the GP:

"But sometimes bad policies are just bad, they benefit no one, and they exist for dumb reasons. Maybe call to unsubscribe is one of those policies"

No one stated anything about it being the "best policy it can be".

[Cederfjard]

OK, fair enough. I still read it in the context of the thread's original thesis, that frictionless cancellations increase customer satisfaction, and thus retention and profit in the long run. And I still don't see the comment they directly responded to saying that the policies aren't deliberate, only that they "exist for dumb reasons" and "benefit no one", which could still arguably be true if the alternative is both more profitable and serves people better.

But I hear you - taken more in isolation, and with better faith on my part, the comment makes sense. I'm still curious about actual data though.