[nadermx]

The irony with all this, is if a company makes it difficult to cancel their subscription, it's probably not a good product. Antidotically, I've found that making it easy for users to not only cancel, but refund, has given me eye opening things to fix in some products that made it so less people cancelled or refunded. So I try to always err on best user experience.

[pixel_popping]

I doubt so, I think a large amount of serious companies do it as well because it's a very simple way to earn much more money (and strangely improve the service), many businesses (even "good") often rely solely on this, Gym businesses is the typical example of this and many gyms will just not be able to make money at all if people actually used their membership correctly, literally space-wise, it can't fit, many businesses are entirely based on "failure", however, we can acknowledge that some Gyms are exceptional in quality, but will still bank on the fact that the user will just stop going, ideally as soon as possible.

I'm not saying it's right, but the reality is that probably half the gyms would close immediately if this is enforced.

[IncreasePosts]

NYT made it difficult, and they are a pretty good product. If you didn't live in california and wanted to cancel your subscription, you were required to talk to a service rep who would try to get you stay by giving you some free period before normal subscription billing resumed

[lostlogin]

I know of 4 NYT subscriptions that have not been made due to the difficulty in cancelling.

I’m sure they know the exact stats, and are getting more cash as a result of their BS.

Good site, trash business practices.

[plagiarist]

You are interested in providing something worth paying for. Other people are interested in maximizing ROI for ad spend.

[jonahx]

> Antidotically,

Anecdotally

[lostlogin]

The practice being discussed is poison, so it sort of works.