Hi all, I just wandered what other examples people had come across where it doesn't pay to be a loyal customer. I had been meaning to renew my National Geographic Membership for a while - they kept reminding me by post that I still had time, just and that it was only £29 for one year again. I happened to look up NG online and saw that if I subscribed to become a member all over again it would only cost me £15 so that's what I've done. What other things are out there that it's worth taking a small break from in order to start again and benefit from the offers designed to attract you in the first place?
Loyal Customer versus New Customer
- Thread starter Rachelle
- Start date
Businesses always reward new customers over current ones. Drives me crazy. Especially true of mobile phone companies.
Last edited:
....all communications companies, Sky, Virgin, the list goes on, it's marketing, if they offer discounts to everyone, their profits nosedive, if they don't entice new customers, someone else will.
Without doubt, insurance companies are the worst at this as I think they rely on lethargy on behalf of the customer when it comes to renewal time, we may see this change with all the comparison sites now bombarding us with TV adverts - simples
Without doubt, insurance companies are the worst at this as I think they rely on lethargy on behalf of the customer when it comes to renewal time, we may see this change with all the comparison sites now bombarding us with TV adverts - simples
I think most peoples' issues is that the customers who have already been with you for several years are the ones that should be focused on, as the company-customer model is in reality a relationship. It has been proven time and time again by business research that it takes more 'investment' - in money, time and resources - to convert a new customer into a loyal one than to maintain a loyal customer.
As someone who has been loyal it is grating to hear the words "that offer is only available for our new customers" or for a deal only to be 'matched' once you have had to be put through to the cancellation department. It's a smack in the face.
As someone who has been loyal it is grating to hear the words "that offer is only available for our new customers" or for a deal only to be 'matched' once you have had to be put through to the cancellation department. It's a smack in the face.
A few years ago I was a continuous overseas subscriber to an international magazine. Each few months there would be included in the posted magazine offers for new subscribers, which were about 60% of the cost of the normal subscription. I resented paying more unnecessarally.
After a couple of years I cancelled my subscription and subscribed in my company name - which I owned - thus receiving the same magazine at the discounted cost, as a new subscriber.
The next year, I subscribed in my wife's name; paying as a new subscriber.
After a few years of doing this, I called the subscription department, explaining that I was an interested reader and merely wanted to obtain the magazine at the cheapest cost possible. I would prefer not to keep changing my subscription name, it was obviously an increased cost to them to change the subscription listing, could I not just have the same deal offered to new subscribers? My big question was why they prefered to pay more and discount more to new subscribers than existing ones - it was just not correct economics. They said that it was company policy, and could not be varied.
I continued to become a new subscriber each year.
The magazine was the Economist, a part of the Financial Times organisation !!
After a couple of years I cancelled my subscription and subscribed in my company name - which I owned - thus receiving the same magazine at the discounted cost, as a new subscriber.
The next year, I subscribed in my wife's name; paying as a new subscriber.
After a few years of doing this, I called the subscription department, explaining that I was an interested reader and merely wanted to obtain the magazine at the cheapest cost possible. I would prefer not to keep changing my subscription name, it was obviously an increased cost to them to change the subscription listing, could I not just have the same deal offered to new subscribers? My big question was why they prefered to pay more and discount more to new subscribers than existing ones - it was just not correct economics. They said that it was company policy, and could not be varied.
I continued to become a new subscriber each year.
The magazine was the Economist, a part of the Financial Times organisation !!
I used to subscribe to the Tesco DVD rental service (basically LoveFilm with Tesco's name on it). I used to get so frustrated that every time we got new films through they would put in a leaflet for a friend to get something like 2 months free.... but no incentive/reward for you to do this.
What made it worse was that when we trialled the service (and then became customers) we only got one month free.
What made it worse was that when we trialled the service (and then became customers) we only got one month free.
It is down to us as consumers to change the attitude with our purchase power. Lots of people have Direct Debits running for services they no longer use etc. and firms know that once the DD is set up, people often forget about it, or don't 'get around to' changing their routine. We need to 'get around to' insisting on getting good deals or going elsewhere. Trouble is, I perceive the whole western world has lost touch with the concept of loyalty.
Love the idea of changing your name each year as a new subscriber - it could be quite amusing having an annual alter-ego! Trouble is, I perceive the whole western world has lost touch with the concept of loyalty.
Love the idea of changing your name each year as a new subscriber - it could be quite amusing having an annual alter-ego! Trouble is, I perceive the whole western world has lost touch with the concept of loyalty.
After a few times the challenge of using a name which was different but was mine became interesting. I became Managing Director; Director of:- finance, importing, marketing, etc. All true, but mainly because there was nobody else to do things.
I found it so ironic that it was the Economist Magazine that went to such lengths to spend more to provide discounts to new subscribers, when they virually discouraged their exising ones.
I found it so ironic that it was the Economist Magazine that went to such lengths to spend more to provide discounts to new subscribers, when they virually discouraged their exising ones.
Interestingly on topic, I today received a letter from the Tesco DVD service.
"Rediscover the magic of Tesco DVD rental and you could be £5,000 richer"
If I rejoin I could win £5,000. On the plus side, they also gave me a card that allows a friend two months of free usage. That's jolly nice!
"Rediscover the magic of Tesco DVD rental and you could be £5,000 richer"
If I rejoin I could win £5,000. On the plus side, they also gave me a card that allows a friend two months of free usage. That's jolly nice!
Reading all this it's obvious that I really should shop around then in order to get the best deals and that the monthly direct debits with the same old provider, etc etc is just a laziness and ease. In this age of e-communications I think what irriates me is not being able to cancel a direct debit at the click of a button but having instead to write a letter. (Although I realise that's probably terrible thinking like that!).
I have internet banking too but have tried to stop direct debits (I know it says cancel and gives you the option) but payments have carried on. Is there a difference between you setting up a direct debit and a supplier/provider setting up a direct debit with your details or is it one and the same thing? In other words, if I give my bank details over the phone to a supplier or provider in order for them to set up a direct debit on my behalf does that take away the power from me somehow?
As far as I know under the direct debit guarantee you have the right to stop it at any time (although obviously if you're in a contract you have the obligations of creating alternative ways of paying).
I would moan to your bank that their direct debit system doesn't work (bearing in mind that you need to cancel it in good time as the payment cycle may have already started). Mine is instantaneous - I delete it and it disappears, gone forever.
I would moan to your bank that their direct debit system doesn't work (bearing in mind that you need to cancel it in good time as the payment cycle may have already started). Mine is instantaneous - I delete it and it disappears, gone forever.
Yeah mine is the same, one click and it's cancelled so it looks like a bit of a bug in their software, perhaps you should consider being a new customer with another bank!!! especially as most of them seem to be giving money away these days - to new customers only of course!!!
I'm with FirstDirect and I can honestly say I haven't a single complaint with them, they are an excellent bank (wonder if they'll give me some money now?)
I'm with FirstDirect and I can honestly say I haven't a single complaint with them, they are an excellent bank (wonder if they'll give me some money now?)
I totally agree. The stupid thing is that keeping an existing, good client is so much cheaper to a company. Getting new clients are a higher cost. So, if a business can retain existing clients at a lower 'drop out rate' than replacing the same number of clients with new clients they will be much more profitable.
Realising this gives an existing client a bit of 'leaverage'.
Realising this gives an existing client a bit of 'leaverage'.