I get the NY Times on Fri-Sat-Sun ("the Weekender" subscription). When the carrier misses a delivery, I only get credited a fraction of what I paid for it. Can you tell me if their explanation makes sense?

Here is the question I emailed to their subscription office:

"Why is the credit for a missed delivery only $1.85? I should be reimbursed the newsstand price of $3.00. I pay $49.00 for four weeks, one dollar more than the newsstand price. (Fri. $3. Sat. $3, Sun. $6 -- multiplied by 4 weeks equals $48)."

And here is the relevant portion of their reply:

"I see you are contacting us about the difference in the price of your credit for missed papers, and the news stand copy price. When missed deliveries are reported, our system issues a credit for it automatically. The rate at the newsstand is a distributors rate. It is a higher rate than what you are charged for The New York Times Home Delivery subscription.

We at The New York Times wish to maintain your goodwill and loyalty. We are crediting your account an additional $2.50 for the difference you stated in your email, as a courtesy."

So it seems they credited me something extra on a one-time basis. I had two missed Friday papers, value $6.00. Their newsstand rate is NOT higher than I am charged.

Not sure I understand what they're saying. They may be factoring in a delivery service fee of some sort in the subscription price?

My answer would have been:

"I pay $49 every four weeks to have my papers delivered. I paid for my subscription and fulfilled my side of our contract.

You failed to honor your commitment to deliver my paper. I had to pay $3 when I bought a paper at the newsstand to replace a missing paper.

That happened twice; you owe me $6."

I wonder if their pricing is not really for 4 weeks in a month, because not all months have 4 weeks, and none have 4 weeks perfectly square.

What I'm saying is that their pricing model is based on 52 weeks per year, and they divide that by 12 to get a monthly subscription fee. I'm guessing (just guessing) that they have some sort of averaged price on top of that for the same reason: not every month has 4 Sundays, some have 5, February might have 3.

This logic brought to you by someone who is learning our Byzantine payroll system...

That said, I do think if they want your good will they should reimburse you at the newsstand/replacement price, unless they're willing to deliver it late.

Sounds to me like you are communicating with a bot, RP. Pretty sure their subscription dept has real people - ones who can be contacted by phone however much of a nuisance that can be.

I may be unduly influenced by frustration in such things (i.e., beyond the any real economic gain I may get), but if I were you I'd call them, if only to vent.

I don't give a rat's Xss about their (phoney) pro-rated reimbursement model and I'd say so, pointing out your actual loss (for example, at having to purchase two replacement copies at the newstand, not counting the nuisance of the errands and of having to defend your rights verbally, in writing and by phone.)

I have gotten the message dealing with them, that:

1) they ARE very troubled by their losses incurred from digital news replacing newsprint editions. (D'uh!)

2)They DO need to maintain their subscriber base (unsure which subscriber population is most lucrative - daily digital or newsprint. etc.) and thence their good will. However, if they're resorting to bots to save $, it probably means they hope it will discourage live griping and mean legitimate complaints get off cheap when complainers give up.

I.e., that they respond better to people who go to the trouble to complain live (so far not Filipinos!). Is it really worth it? I don't know, but it DOES get results more than email or "chat bots".

If you DO call, I'd be sure to add that by not giving me my fair reimbursement (with an apology! Do they exist anymore?), they have very much failed to maintain my goodwill and moreover that if they cared to do so, they'd not only pay me back penny for penny my out of pocket costs, they'd add a "sorry" Good Will extra for my considerable inconvenience. (Many corporations have such compensations built-in if you ask. Speaking to supervisors helps too.)

I've loved and respected the NYTimes but however much I fear the very thought of their being endangered in our wacko society, I don't want to see their survival occur at the expense of loyal, paying subscribers.

Let them hire not only journalists but better coders and algorithm designers who work with social scientists to advise them about what motivates people to subscribe. For instance, REAL "Good Will" gestures.

To digress, I suspect they are now losing money on physical deliveries - also on all real people interfaces - hence bots. Bad enough that their news presentation is already so influenced by the market that their contents have been altered for people pleasing including VOX shorthand style (example: "Less youth sex? Here's why"), and even experiments with clickbait headlines. By which I mean, ones that consist of half announcements which leave you hanging.

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
Not sure I understand what they're saying. They may be factoring in a delivery service fee of some sort in the subscription price?

My answer would have been:

"I pay $49 every four weeks to have my papers delivered. I paid for my subscription and fulfilled my side of our contract.

You failed to honor your commitment to deliver my paper. I had to pay $3 when I bought a paper at the newsstand to replace a missing paper.

That happened twice; you owe me $6."

Your analysis is a "damages" analysis; how much was I harmed?

Their analysis is a percentage-of-what-was-paid analysis.

Any bets whether this is covered by their terms of service?

Oh, I know. It's all a game, at least for me. And I only play if enough money is involved.

Typically these front line customer service reps have their talking points designed to get most people to give up and go away and yet preserving a level of customer satisfaction.

This one got to the step where they caved just a little bit, hopefully enough to get RP to go away a happy camper. "We usually don't do this, but we'll give you a little more."

Often if you derail them from their talking points they become vulnerable. My strategy is to politely push a little harder to see if I can get more. The polite part usually throws them for a loop; most callers are angry/aggravated. I kill 'em with kindness and logic.

My next step in this scenario would be to say something like "I'm guessing you aren't able to authorize my request. Could I speak to your supervisor, please?"

I'm remarkably successful with this technique. I get free stuff/money back all the time.

in my universe, they should be adding an extra month to your subscription for free. to thank you for being a subscriber, to create good will, and to apologize for their screwup.

Oh, well, they do give me a free unlimited digital subscription along with the physical paper, so there's that. And I can also give free digital subscriptions to two friends.

I do want to support the Times. I get the physical version because it's more relaxing for me to read it than staring at a screen even more than usual.

I haven't yet figured out their magic master figure on which they base their reimbursement. But I'm working on it.

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
Oh, I know. It's all a game, at least for me. And I only play if enough money is involved.

...My next step in this scenario would be to say something like "I'm guessing you aren't able to authorize my request. Could I speak to your supervisor, please?"

I'm remarkably successful with this technique. I get free stuff/money back all the time.

Exactly, except as I said, it sounds to me like RP began with an email BOT. That's an exercise in futility.

$1.85 x 30 = $55.50.

So they are reimbursing you more than one thirtieth of your monthly rate.

You didn’t contract with them at $30 x $3, so why should they reimburse that much?

Think of it this way. You would be made whole if they extended your subscription by two days, right? Well, those two days at your contracted rate is not $6.

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
Oh, I know. It's all a game, at least for me. And I only play if enough money is involved.

This. Think of the couple bucks as the convenience of having it delivered. You are getting aggravated over a cup of coffee.