Redlining newspaper subscriptions

Profiling has a negative connotation these days, but it's a tool some publishers use in search of the "right" subscribers to pitch their advertisers. Demographic information such as incomes, education, families with children, likelihood to make major purchases in the coming year, etc., are among the factors that attract advertisers to specific media, whether it's print, online, broadcast or billboards. 

Makes a lot of sense to fine-tune your product, right? Yes and no. Such profiling can be misused, such as when banks or health providers discriminate against people in areas home to higher percentages of minorities. Such discrimination is termed "redlining" (think of using a red marker to draw borders on a map).

Given that sensitivity, it's not often such profiling hits you in the face, as it did me recently. 

Over the past year, I have subscribed to the print and online editions of The Financial Times, a terrific six-day a week British newspaper that's a global competitor of The Wall Street Journal. I initially subscribed using frequent-flier miles, so avoided cash out of pocket for what is a relatively expensive annual subscription (rack rate is $545). When that subscription came due last month, I did not have the option of renewing with air miles so was faced with the prospect of renewing for a348 annually. While I really like Financial Times, I already was paying for the print-online WSJ and wasn't willing to pony up for something similar. 

As regular readers of this blog know, I have major problems with publications that lowball me to sign up, then ask for a huge increase in rate to renew. In this case, I wasn't really angry with FT since my initial subscription was with air miles. But I figured I'd wait them out, as I had with WSJ.

$99 per year offer that FT teased me with via emailSo, when I got an email from FT enticing me with a $99 subscription offer (and so soon after my inital subscription expired), I was ready to re-sign. 

I clicked on "Subscribe" button, landed on FT.com and started to fill out a subscription form. Life is good, I thought as I filled out the form. That's until I submitted my ZIP, at which point FT popped up a window reading, "Sorry, this offer is not currently available in your zip code." 

The message I got when I actually tried to buy the $99 per year offerIn other words, they had met their quota for subscribers in my particular ZIP, 93312.  Hmmm, let's try 93301, where I work. Also sold out, and conviently linking to the $348 offer. 

That, ladies and gentlemen, is redlining. FT, and other magazines, need minimum numbers in specific ZIPs in order to tell their advertisers, "We have strong penetration in the demographics you're trying to reach." And apparently I was no longer welcome in the club unless I was willing to pay full value. 

So again I'm at a standoff with a financial publication. I can't fault FT, so will stand idly by, waiting for some other fool to lose his place in line. Then I'll pounce, cheapass that I am. 

Comments

[charm Gucci jewelry]

I heart and miss u like crazy. -charm Gucci jewelryHurry back! I need you!