Recently Folded? Beware of Angry Subscribers

The bad news keeps rolling in for shuttered hip-hop magazine Vibe.

Less than a month after Vibe announced that it was going out of business, an angry subscriber this week filed a federal lawsuit claiming breach of contract. The reader, Enterprise, Alabama resident Kenneth Rogers, reportedly purchased a one-year subscription to Vibe three months before it folded.

Rogers is petitioning for all of the magazine’s subscribers to get a refund for the issues they won’t receive. According to the lawsuit, Vibe’s Web site “continued to contain links to advertisements enticing customers to purchase subscriptions to the magazine” even while the company was “quietly closing up the shop.”

The suit said Vibe Media Group, which is named as a defendant, should have notified subscribers of its intentions to close the magazine.

Whether publishers cough up refunds, or fulfill the remainder of a subscription with another title or by selling its list to another publisher, satisfying subscribers is a topic that has increasingly been discussed as more magazines have been forced to call it quits this year. Just look at the comments posted to FOLIO:’s story from February about the closing of Hallmark magazine. Subscribers don't appear to be happy.

Today, I spoke with professor and ethics columnist Jeffrey Seglin, who said that even when magazines fulfill their subscriptions with other titles, it can anger existing subscribers.

"An ethical response would be to be very clear with readers what you plan to do to fulfill the remainder of their subscription and then to make sure to follow through and do what you say you are going to do," Seglin said. "No communication with readers strikes me as an unacceptable approach."

RELATED LINKS

By Jason Fell --

Post Comment / Discuss This Blog - Info/Rules

Fulfilling Sub Liability after closing

Submitted by Greg Jones on Thu, 07/23/2009 - 14:28.

As a consultant to the publishing industry for more than 20 years, I have seen and worked with dozens of publishers who have closed titles and needed to find a home for their subscribers (to avoid paying out refunds). In most cases we have been able to find one or more titles willing to fulfill the sub liability - in fact, they are often willing to pay the closing publication to acquire their sub liability as it may be an efficient way for them to add paid circulation to their sub files, or in some cases, it is a defensive move so that their competition does not get to add a big chunk of paid circulation to their file. In any case, the whole process needs to managed professionally and ethically to minimize the type of complaints seen by Hallmark Magazine (which, by the way, has handled the complaints very well, but probably could have reduced them in the first place by doing a better job on the notification up-front). Some complaints are inevitable under these circumstances, but if it is handled well, the closing publication can often see some return on its "subscriber assets", and the acquiring title (or titles) can get a bump to their paid circulation at a very reasonable cost. One final note, acquired subs rarely convert well to the new title, so the usual reason to add them to your file is to shore up a ratebase and/or temporarily replace the circ you would have otherwise had to "purchase" via a marginal expensive source like direct mail. The analysis to determine if you should acquire a sub file is no different than the Source Evaluation you do on marginal direct mail - weighing the costs against the benefits over time, including the conversion and renewal values and replacement costs in future years. -Greg Jones, President, Granite Bay Media, Inc.

"Fulfilling" subscriptions of shuttered mags

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 07/24/2009 - 11:27.

***Unilaterally*** deciding that you've fulfulled your obligation to a subscriber by foisting off the sub on another mag (maybe even profiting from that; what chutzpah) is bull. It's the same as if I order Hershey bars to be delivered and the company then discovers they're out of Hershey bars so they process my order anyway and "fulfill" it with Nestle bars without asking first if that will satisfy me. Both parties to an agreement have to agree to a change in that agreement for the change to be valid. Because helloooo: Maybe I chose Hershey, not Nestle, for a reason, eh?

Anonymous is correct. Simply

Submitted by Christina Gonzalez on Fri, 07/24/2009 - 12:29.

Anonymous is correct. Simply replacing the sub without any input from the customer is bordering on unethical. At best, it can be slightly annoying. When one mag folded a few years ago, the replacement sent to me was a women's title seemingly geared to the over 40 mom set. At the time, I was about 23 and (I'm still) not a parent. I just gave the issues to my mother as they came, but I would have preferred a refund. The mags are not fulfilling their contract with the customer.

Substituting other titles

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 07/24/2009 - 12:55.

is just plain wrong! It's like the old "bait-and-switch." When 'Radar' folded, I wound up with 'Shape' magazine instead. Being someone who hates exercise, this title was totally inappropriate for me. They should at least give one a choice among 5-6 different titles; they have no way of knowing what an individual subscribers other interests are! At least 'Radar' attempted to make it right; 'Blender' not only did not refund, they also did not offer any alternate title to fill out the remaining sub liability!! 'Blender' also has not responded to any emails inquiring about such. Shame on them!! Unfortuately my 'Vibe' subscription ran out with their final issue published, so I am not eligible in this class action. I was on the verge of re-upping it when I saw the news they were folding; I was fortunate in that I hadn't already sent in my renewal check. They probably won't be giving any refunds, or any alternate title. I hope this guy wins his lawsuit. And if there is a judgment in this, I hope the court forces a CASH settlement, and not some bullshit offer like a few free issues of some magazine that no one really wants! That's what happened in a music club settlement--each participant was offered 3 free CD's but they were from a very limited list, none of which were of any interest to me. What crap!

Response to Comments

Submitted by Greg Jones on Fri, 07/24/2009 - 20:16.

Just to clarify - every file liquidation I have been involved with always offered the option of a refund instead of replacement. Many, if they could, also offered multiple choices for a replacement. I acknowledge that many people will not take the time or effort to contact the publisher to request a refund, which works in publisher's favor. Since the title is 'going out of business" anyway, unless it is owned by a larger company that still has resources, it is unlikely that they could even refund all the sub liability - so the transfer of liability at least assures that the consumer who does not request a refund gets something for their money.

One Vibe reader sues defunct magazine over remaining issues.

RELATED LINKS

Latest Featured Jobs

UPCOMING WEBINARS

RECENT WEBINARS