[karterk]

Not the OP - but I did take a look at that page, and I do find it misleading.

The "checkout as a regular member" is in a small font on the sidebar, while the main CTA is big, bold and defaults to the VIP program.

The part where you're told about the monthly fee is in the last sentence of the sidebar. I had to practically hunt it to find it - for most people shopping online this will be oblivious.

By giving the screenshot - atleast to me, you have proved without doubt that the site is indeed misleading.

[Edit: grammar]

[nthitz]

Agreed. Only at the very end of the right column which most users will not read to is the mention of the charge. "Activating your VIP service" could easily be interpreted as being free given the purchase. Regardless of their numbers, it is definitely not obvious that there will be a monthly $40 charge. (The fact that they do give a credit for the charge makes things not 100% scummy I will say)

[paulftw]

Second that. Smallest font on the page, light grey while everything else is black, pushed to the bottom of the side column - certainly looks like fine print to me.

There's no option to opt out of VIP membership - if I haven't said I want it, and was not asked whether I want it, I shouldn't be paying for it, should I?

I think OP has a case here.

Do they ever try to remind customer about the upcoming charge?

[jdh]

I don't accept the word "misleading" -- I do not believe the page in any way misleads. It does not try to position it as anything other than a subscription, and the language is plain english.

Could they put the subscription details in bold? Could they use a larger font than all the other text? Sure. It's a tradeoff, for sure, and every retailer has to optimize their site to perform. Could they pop up three boxes after you click yes and say, "Are you sure?" "Are you really, really sure?" -- (yes, I know I'm being ridiculous) -- but yes, it is a tradeoff.

But with an NPS score in the 50's, nearing a million subscribers with very low churn rates -- happy users -- as investors we feel the business is healthy and being managed in an upfront way.

But, I can see how one might feel they would like it bolder or more prominent -- reasonable people could disagree on that.

I would submit that, when you come to view the site under the lens of clicking on a discussion about a fraud, and then go to it to decide if it is a fraud, and you (probably) aren't a likely customer and don't think "damn, that's a hot pair of boots for $40", you end up with a different lens.

[grey-area]

You shouldn't have been downvoted here, but the mob has been angered! I'd encourage you to ignore the insults and consider carefully the other feedback - there are some good points made here by people coming to the pages for the first time.

Re your point above, What they could do which is very simple is to change the button text to 'Subscribe'. If you'd be reluctant to do that, ask yourself why that is? Why can't you tell the truth here with the button text?

Is it because it would put people off? If so you (I'll use you for the site) need to explain to them what they're getting and make them want it, not try to hide what they're getting and make it seem like they're buying when really they're subscribing.

Someone thinking "damn, that's a hot pair of boots for $40", should also be aware that it's not really for $40, it's for $40 each month for x months, with the promise of more boots to come. If they want that, you should be able to tell them that right beside the Buy button.

Personally I'd give them a choice of high price to buy or lower price to subscribe, as I think that succinctly sums up your value proposition to customers, AND makes it clear what you are selling (you are not selling just a pair of boots). In fact I've just seen below in an image someone linked that is exactly what you do on the German site:

http://imgur.com/uIZ5JX3

[alan_cx]

If the German site is different because Germans have laws to protect consumers, it kinda give the scam away. All that regional sites could easily be the same, but there there are less or no laws, the scamming continues.

[digitalengineer]

I would not be surprised if German law forbids the buy-and-subscribe trick. I would LOVE to hear about the German profit's of this company.

[brazzy]

> I would not be surprised if German law forbids the buy-and-subscribe trick.

It doesn't, but it mandates actual costs to be displayed very clearly. This is relatively recent, though - probably as a result of the very successful Jamba/Jamster ringtone scam business that used exactly the same mechanism in the early 2000s.

[annnnd]

The German site is a nice example how it should be done! Kudos!

[zenbit]

The German site is definitely less misleading than the US site but I wouldn't say it's a nice example for how it should be done. I think the list in the VIP checkout column is missing information about the monthly charges (€39,95? - not sure that's what they are charging in Germany since, well, the site is unclear).

[tiatia]

They would never get away with the style of their English site in Germany. Honestly, I doubt they will get away in the US in the long run.

[ericd]

Oh come on man. This is some serious fucking mental gymnastics.

At the very least there needs to be a checkbox a la "I would like to receive spam" or "I would like to give you $480 per year in addition to the $40 for this pair of boots I want." Maybe even include the monthly price in the cost lineup there, since it's, you know, a major cost?

I don't often wish ill on companies, but I seriously hope that this company gets pummeled into the ground in a massive class action lawsuit, and that every investor that knowingly accepted and rationalized this fraud to themselves loses their investment. This is completely unacceptable behavior.

[aestra]

A class action lawsuit has been filed 2 years ago...

http://www.scambook.com/blog/2011/10/justfab-com-justfabulou...

[karterk]

It does not try to position it as anything other than a subscription, and the language is plain english.

Yup, plain english which is pretty loaded in the favor of subscription. Point me to one heading which says "VIP subscription costs only 39 USD per month".

every retailer has to optimize their site to perform

This is not the same thing. The typical shopping site constitutes of 1 time purchases. When I google for a product and end up on your site and try to purchase something, I am not going to think it's a crazy thing like monthly subscription whether I buy something or not. Given this scenario, choosing a default like that is not simply optimizing.

We can argue over the fine details, but you can't convince me that this is not shady.

[foobarbazqux]

> We can argue over the fine details, but you can't convince me that this is not shady.

He's not trying to convince you, he's trying to convince himself.

[bane]

He looks pretty convinced here.

http://www.matrixpartners.com/team/josh-hannah/

[trimbo]

Invested in "Huddle" and "Huddler"?

That's weird. Is the idea to be sure if the brand works, one of these will be successful? Or just like the word "huddle"?

[ivanca]

Screw you and your rationalization to mislead the users; thousands of studies show that the button people clicks is the big one: Like 95%; and in this case is "continue checkout" so you can save all your crap for the jury.

[weland]

> I don't accept the word "misleading" -- I do not believe the page in any way misleads.

How about:

* The important information (i.e. the monthly subscription) remains off-screen for anyone whose resolution is 1366x768 or below, coincidentally most of your target demographics, I presume. * The important information is styled like an ad, on the right side of the screen * The option to opt out of the program is not labeled "opt out of the program", but under the misleading "I don't want to save 50%"

In many European countries, like Germany, this is explicitly illegal and you can even go to jail for it.

This insulting type of rationalization is particularly useless on HN. Most of us like people with soft skills, but we passionately hate liars.

[arcatek]

> I would submit that, when you come to view the site under the lens of clicking on a discussion about a fraud, and then go to it to decide if it is a fraud, and you (probably) aren't a likely customer and don't think "damn, that's a hot pair of boots for $40", you end up with a different lens.

That's exactly the problem. We're aware that the website is trying to make us suscribe to a VIP program, and so we look for it on the screenshot you linked. A lambda user will never do it.

Frankly, I'm not a designer, but this screenshot is exactly what I would do if I wanted to make the block go unnoticed : did you notice that he is at the right, a place where usualy go ads?

[diydsp]

Yes, and I have a feeling that in a few hours, when the general internet is made aware of this, they, too, are going to go the website under the lens of >themselves< getting defrauded and the S will really H T F.

Thisgonebegood.gif

[mschaecher]

As someone who spent a lot of time optimizing conversions, it painfully obvious that they are optimizing to not be clear. If the subscription was so valuable, they'd message it as a top level value prop. But you're not dumb, their not dumb, so I don't have to tell you that.

I honestly can't believe they get away with, nor have the balls to even do it in the first place.

I actually wrote the ATD reporter who held their feet to the fire a little bit last week. He should've done far more.

While we're at it, let's take a look at above the fold of the how it works page on A BIG Apple monitor. http://d.pr/i/tCVH

So obvious it's a subscription there right?

How about the homepage? http://d.pr/i/1BVn

Clear as day right?!

I mean your rewards page makes it sound like you're telling a friend about personalized recommendations. Might as well be messaging those units at the end of an article "Selections recommended for you...."http://d.pr/i/YmIT

I can't even tell if your gift card page is signing up the person buying a gift card for a subscription or what is going on there.

And btw, might want to have legal look at this language at the bottom of your gift card page because I'm pretty sure it's a violation of California's gift card/certificate laws. http://d.pr/i/SDS

It's also funny that the phrasing "no obligation to buy" is all over the place.

When in fact obligation is legally defined in the civil sense as a contractual compelling promise for a course of action.

And that the word buy is also defined as the exchange of property from one part to another by way of an agreement.

And I'll talk slowly, property in that sense doesn't have to mean goods.....property can be money too.

So by purchasing on JustFab you are most certainly signing an agreement that compels you to exchange property with another party unless you cancel the agreement thereby removing your obligation.

So really, during a 5 day window at the beginning of every month you have no obligation to buy.

Miss that window and you don't even have a say in the matter!

It's also very telling that the FAQ section contains no section on "how do I cancel my VIP membership and stop getting billed every month?"

[enraged_camel]

The screenshot you provided is a prime example of a "dark pattern" where the process is designed to trick the user.

http://darkpatterns.org/

[annnnd]

Actually, this scam deserves to be there... Has anyone mailed it to them yet?

[cabalamat]

I have.

[ada1981]

This is a case of "just because you say something enough times, it doesn't make it true". Homie, I'm pretty certain that simply because people don't opt out, it may very well be because they don't realize they are paying for anything.. If the target demo is women who shop alot online, perhaps the charge gets lost in the bill (many people don't review their bills monthly). Is this smart? No. But it doesn't mean it's ok to exploit it. Trivializing the complaints to "they could make it bolder or add a triple pop-up"'is a real straw man attempt here... Of course, whenever we make a decision we will try to justify it - I'm sure you think you are a good guy and that so is your firm and so are your buddies.. so how COULD this be an unethical company? You say HN isn't the target demo - someone with a high buying temp for a good deal on shoes and not tech savvy -- and if hackers and developers and entrepreneurs are unclear on the offer, you think a 35 yr old mom buying shoes is going to "get" the offer more?

You want to prove the community wrong? Split test some traffic. Hell, put an exit popup that says "Before reading this, did you realize you just signed up for a monthly subscription site? Are you happy about that?" Do it with a 3rd party firm and track the results. Your personal reputation and your firms are on the line here, you may want to take it more seriously.

NOTE TO HN: greying out the down voted post in this context isn't useful - perhaps make it red or something? As this is the VC, his bs comments are actually interesting to read. Or maybe there is a setting to change that on my profile (hint, you could bury a $40 / month recurring charge inside changing my color prefs!)

[japhyr]

You can easily read the greyed-out comments by highlighting them with your mouse.

[ada1981]

Was on mobile when I commented I think..

[Livven]

It's easy. The price for that pair of boots is displayed very prominently, as you'd expect from a shopping cart page. So why is the price for the recurring monthly subscription only mentioned in the longest paragraph of text on that page and not highlighted in a similar way as the shopping cart price?

[belorn]

The frontpage talks about buying and what price of shoes are. In plain English, this is a sale, not a subscription.

In plain English, they could had enticed people to join a subscription, which in turn would give them special deals.

That would had been plain English, but they opted for the words "buy", "all styles is ...." and so on. Typical example of misleading.

[smsm42]

The language is plain english, but the most important and un-obvious fact about it - that it is a subscription deal and not an one-time sale deal - is mentioned only at the end of the wall of text and is not clearly and prominently featured. It's like advertising a car for $100 and then at the end of 10 page small-print document (in plain english) adding "plus 36 payments of $500".

I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are sincerely believe that it is a legitimate business that does not use any blackhat techniques to trick their users. But with each your comment it becomes harder and harder. It is very hard to believe that a smart man - like without a doubt you are - would not understand what is going on here. Pecunia non olet?

[mcv]

You may not accept the word misleading, but everyone who knows what that word means, does. The page definitely misleads. It does try to position it as something other than a subscription: it tries to position itself as a regular sale. The entire fact that it is a subscription is hidden at the bottom of the light-grey sidebar. The language may be in English, but it's still light grey at the bottom of the sidebar, and not anywhere near the actual purchase and pricing info that you're agreeing to.

"Are you sure?" popups don't provide any additional info. Explaining what you're signing up for does.

Those million subscribes with very low churn rates, are they actually ordering new shoes every month? Or are they people that haven't figured out they're still paying every month for that one pair of shoes that they liked? How do you know they're happy? Have you asked, or do you simply assume because they haven't sued you yet?

You're right that it's a tradeoff. It's a tradeoff between honesty and extra undeserved revenue.

[kubiiii]

By optimizing you talk about misleading a small part of the users so that they pay the VIP fee without even noticing they are charged? Answer this simple question : do people receive an email to remind them they will be charged $39 this month so they should hurry picking a pair of shoes?

No wonder why you get a very high customer retention rate if ppl are not even aware they are customers.

[brador]

Just a reminder folks, don't downvote just because you don't agree with what's being said.

Do downvote meaningless comments and clear spam.

[belorn]

http://jacquesmattheij.com/The+Unofficial+HN+FAQ#downvoted

being factually wrong in the face of this many comments will invite my downvote.

> "It does not try to position it as anything other than a subscription, and the language is plain english."

In my opinion, that is simply factually wrong.

[ImprovedSilence]

+1 for the link, but...

>> In my opinion, that is simply factually wrong

oh the irony in that sentence...

[diziet]

A fair question to ask would be how much revenue is coming from the subscriptions vs sales of the product, and how many credits per user are unredeemed?

[jamespo]

"It does not try to position it as anything other than a subscription, and the language is plain english."

Except the page you highlight doesn't use the word "subscription". I wonder why not?

[tripzilch]

> Could they put the subscription details in bold? Could they use a larger font than all the other text? Sure.

> Could they pop up three boxes after you click yes and say, "Are you sure?" "Are you really, really sure?" -- (yes, I know I'm being ridiculous) -- but yes, it is a tradeoff.

What? No these are NOT the issues why it's misleading.

You should put the terms of subscription in between the shopping cart and the checkout button, instead of way outside any natural reading order.

The misleading bit is that there is NOTHING suggesting a subscription model, or even mentioning "look to the sidebar for the terms of our subscription" in between the item list and the checkout button.

This means, literally, there is NO REASON for the user to read about the terms of subscription. Because the checkout button, which comes first, leads away from the page. There is no reason to even expect the rest of the page to contain any useful information after the checkout button.

Read that last paragraph again. Because that is not a matter of subjective opinion.

You speak of "plain English", the plain English conversation between the webpage and the user goes like this:

(in plain English reading order)

- webpage: "in your shopping cart are the following items at the following price: ####. Would you like to proceed to checkout? Y/N"

- user: "Yes"

- webpage: "by saying Yes you have agree to subscribe and pay 40 dollars every month"

Does this conversation make sense? No! So tell us again, how does the website make it clear that there's a subscription in "plain English", because I'm not seeing it.

[danielweber]

People, please don't downvote this guy so much that his comments disappear.

[aestra]

Should you bold the text? YES.

This is a very important action. You want to make it very clear to the user they are not just purchasing a pair of boots, but also subscribing to a service, since you are presenting yourself as a normal retailer!

Less scummy thing to do - include the subscription as a line item in the checkout. HOW HARD IS THAT?!!!??? Oh wait, that would make it clear what the user is actually purchasing. We can't have that.

[danielweber]

Do you think that the people subscribing to this are knowingly doing so? Do you think they have decided that $X/month is worth what they are getting?

[NickFitz]

You're full of crap, and you know it.

[just_appalled]

Hey -- You're awful!