While Saga, the champion of the over-50s, may think it’s staved off a revolt from musty old readers of its monthly, I’m not so sure.
Last month I reported on Saga’s decision to honor a promise to provide free monthly copies of the awesome magazine to people who paid a one-time fee for a lifetime subscription in the 1990s.
Saga now says that while the magazine is still free to read via a mobile app, lifetime subscribers will have to pay an annual fee (£29.95) if they want to continue receiving it by post.
Understandably, many subscribers aren’t thrilled with Saga, especially those who don’t have online access or struggle to read material online – or for that matter just prefer to read a magazine over reading articles on a computer screen or phone.
Baroness Altmann was director general of Saga from 2010 to 2013 and has been irked by her former employer’s decision to violate the terms of the lifetime agreement.
Sailing into the Sunset: Saga now says that while the magazine is still free to read via a mobile app, lifetime subscribers will have to pay if they want to continue receiving it in the mail
At best, she believes Saga’s move is “immoral.” At worst, it could violate the Equality Act: 2010 which prohibits age discrimination against adults in the provision of services. “It all seems so wrong,” she told me on Friday, “especially since it affects some of Saga’s oldest customers.”
Most lifetime subscribers are now in their late 70s or 80s.
It would be interesting to know what Saga founder Sidney De Haan would have thought of the decision. Unfortunately he passed away 21 years ago. As for his son Roger, it seems he’s on board: he’s currently the chairman of the company.
On Friday, Saga stressed that most lifetime subscribers “understood” his decision — and were comfortable reading the magazine digitally. For those who think otherwise and believe Saga has broken a contract with them, they can voice their concern by signing a petition set up by lifelong subscriber Graeme Forsyth.
Graeme, a 78-year-old retired senior manager of a multinational company, has written to Saga twice demanding that it honor the terms of its deal. He was knocked out both times.
Frustrated, he has now launched a petition on website change.org urging Saga to honor his contract to provide copies of the magazine to lifetime subscribers. It can be signed at: https://chng.it/2cMFrWk4
My message to Saga is simple: your move to overwhelm many loyal customers is short-sighted and will bite you where it hurts.
Leave it.
M&S comes up and smells like roses…
Marks & Spencer is an iconic retail brand that we can be proud of. While I’m not a huge fan of his clothing, I often stop by to buy emergency socks if I forgot to take them to work in my running backpack. I also like the food and could easily get by on a diet of smoked salmon and mackerel.
Still, I always think the ultimate test for a consumer brand is how it reacts when something goes wrong. A few days ago I used the M&S online store to pay for some flowers to be shipped to a friend – Sandra – who just moved. They were meant to come with a card addressed to me, wishing her all the best in her new abode. But it looks like something went wrong at the shipping depot because when the flowers arrived there wasn’t a note from me, but one from Stephie. Dear Sarah, Jacob, Hannah & Martha. I’m thinking of you all. Sending lots of love Stephie Xxxx.”
To say I was not very pleased is an understatement. But after negotiating M&S’s heavily automated telephone helpline, I finally managed to reach someone (sitting in a noisy office on the other side of the world) who apologized for the confusion.
As a result, Sandra has now received a second bunch of flowers, but this time with a note from me, not from Stephie. Two bouquets for the price of one.
The penny drops… savers deserve a better deal
For the past 18 months, The Mail on Sunday and Money Mail have campaigned to get savers a better deal at major banks. Most of the time it felt like proverbial heads being repeatedly smashed against brick walls.
Still, the campaign now seems to be gaining momentum. Last week, Treasury Secretary Jeremy Hunt said the banks could face regulatory action if they don’t start passing higher interest rates on to depositors.
Making a point: LBC radio show host Nick Ferrari waves a copy of Money Mail in front of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Indeed, on Wednesday, LBC radio show host Nick Ferrari waved a copy of that day’s Money Mail – the Financial section of the Daily Mail – in front of guest Mel Stride (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) and demanded to know what the government planned to do now to help savers get a better deal from the banks.
The article contrasted the pathetic interest rates offered to bank savers (with instant access accounts) with a base rate of five percent. The supporting headline couldn’t have been more powerful: ‘Just stop insulting savers!’
Stride said the issue was high on the chancellor’s to-do list. I really hope so. Savers deserve a much better deal. Our campaign deserves to end in a victory for savers.
Sit back and relax? Not with premiums like this
IF I had a pound for every letter I’ve received this year about skyrocketing insurance costs, I’d be a rich person by now. Whether it’s pet, auto, or home insurance, premiums are rising faster than inflation.
One of the last messages from readers was a copy of an extension notice submitted by Barbara Penhallow of Croydon, Surrey. The retired bookkeeper lives in a three-bedroom house and paid £178 last year for house cover from Swiftcover, a trading name of financial services company Axa.
Late last month, she received an email telling her to “sit back and relax” — her coverage was set to auto-renew on the 17th of this month. She was also told “great news”: her renewal price would be the same or even better than if she came to Swiftcover as a new client. This ‘great news’ was not of Axa’s making – it was the result of new rules requiring insurers to stop pursuing profit by charging loyal policyholders higher premiums than new customers.
“Sit back and relax?” Unlikely. Barbara’s renewal premium left her speechless – £542.50, three times the previous year’s premium. Last week, Barbara confirmed that nothing had happened to justify the increase. “We look forward to insuring your home for another year,” said the email, signed by Claudio Gienal, chief executive officer for Axa UK and Ireland.
Not on this occasion, Mr Gienal. Barbara canceled her policy and found identical cover for around £242. Now she can relax.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on it, we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money and use it for free. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to compromise our editorial independence.