In Reply to: Stereophile's dirty little secret posted by Bud on December 24, 2010 at 16:24:35:
>This practice is not unique to Stereophile, in the print media world, I am
>sure, but they are very flagrant violators.
I am not trying to duck responsibility here, but I must point out that
like almost all print magazines, Stereophile subcontracts the management of
its subscriptions to an independent company, in this case Florida-based
Palm Coast. I do find the tactics you describe unsavory, but I am afraid
there is nothing we can do about it. All I can suggest is that you keep
track of the expiration data on your mailing label, and not renew until you
have to.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Stereophile's dirty little secret - John Atkinson 12:52:26 12/26/10 (11)
- ducking responsibility! - Scottson 18:35:44 12/27/10 (0)
- RE: Stereophile's dirty little secret - drummerbil 09:24:22 12/27/10 (1)
- RE: Stereophile's dirty little secret - John Atkinson 10:40:15 12/27/10 (0)
- Nothing we can do about it? - budget fi 08:27:56 12/27/10 (2)
- RE: Nothing we can do about it? - John Atkinson 10:46:39 12/27/10 (1)
- RE: Nothing we can do about it? - kerr 04:38:07 12/28/10 (0)
- RE: Stereophile's dirty little secret - Sondek 17:29:16 12/26/10 (4)
- RE: Stereophile's dirty little secret - John Atkinson 11:11:32 12/27/10 (3)
- RE: Stereophile's dirty little secret - Tony Lauck 13:48:52 12/27/10 (2)
- RE: Stereophile's dirty little secret - John Atkinson 14:44:05 12/27/10 (1)
- RE: Stereophile's dirty little secret - Sondek 10:06:22 12/28/10 (0)