That’s the question that’s been raised by some readers, understandably concerned that the Seattle Times is signing former Seattle Post-Intelligencer subscribers up for the Times whether they ask the company to or not.
Or, as the Times’s website puts it,
Will I be converted to The Seattle Times automatically?
Yes, your our subscription will be transferred to The Seattle Times without interruption in your service.
State law stipulates that giving someone an unsolicited good or service constitutes a gift, and that “the person has a right to accept the goods or services as a gift only, and is not bound to return the goods or services.” Moreover, “Goods or services are not considered to have been solicited unless the recipient specifically requested, in an affirmative manner, the receipt of the goods or services according to the terms under which they are being offered.” (There’s also a separate state law stipulating that a “newspaper mailed without authority is a gift, but that seems to pertain only to papers sent through the mail). Times spokeswoman Jill Mackie said she couldn’t speak to the specific issue of whether the “interruption-free” Times subscriptions constitute gifts.
Attorney David Osgood says that whether it’s a “gift” or not, switching P-I subscribers to the Times without their consent seems like a contract violation. “If I subscribe to the P-I, I signed up for the P-I, not the Times,” Osgood says. “There’s an implied and an expressed contract” when you subscribe to a particular paper.
Mackie says she’s looking into the contract issue. However, she says former P-I subscribers “are all customers of the Seattle Times Company, because we managed circulation for the Seattle P-I. All those people called into our system to begin their [P-I] subscriptions.” She says “by far the majority of people prefer” getting the Times automatically as a replacement. “We’ve heard from many print subscribers saying, ‘I hope you plan to transfer my subscription,” Mackie says. And she says anyone who wants to cancel their subscription is free to do so. However, while you can subscribe online, to unsubscribe, you have to call the Seattle Times at (206) 464-2121 or email customerservice@seattletimes.com.
Wow, some people really do want to see the Times go down sooner rather than later.
David Osgood talked to you?
I think the Seattle Times is just as deserving of these “subscriptions” as the AIG execs were of their “retention bonus” payments.
As in … not at all.
I’m not sure why this is such a big deal … Obviously, anyone has the right to discontinue their subscription and not pay for unsolicited newspapers. So, who cares?
Even if half the people who get transferred over ultimately cancel and don’t pay, it will still be a boon for the Times, and they can easily write-off the cost of the uncompensated papers as a loss.
Additionally, they’ve got the entire subscriber database and possible legal cover from the JOA. From a business standpoint, they would’ve been foolish to do it any other way.
Who cares if they distributed the P-I? If I ask for coke, I’d be pretty pissed if my server started bringing me diet coke if they run out of regular without asking me first.
Your ad revenue is down 40%, you’re out 49.5% of potential operating revenue, you cannot possibly cut anymore staff and too many people own your actual physical operating facilities for you to borrow against it. What are you going to do? Throw your paper at your former rival’s subscribers and pray like hell that they accept it and bolster your readership enough that you can actually start selling ads again!
Unless they made it a contractual point that P-I subscribers were also Times subscribers, they had better change their P-I switchover policy before the law-types drag this out and shake it like a ragdoll.
Mark my words: come September when ad revenue peters out in advance of holiday ad buys, we will more than likely be hearing about doomsday scenarios and the possible shutdown of the Times. This time, however, they haven’t got an online model to fall back on.
So just cancel it if you don’t want it.
#5, EVERYBODY’s a shoplifter.
You must have missed this entire day’s series of posts.
So it’s okay. Since everybody does it.
Bandwagon fallacy.
Going further, it’s likely you may have stolen at least ONE thing in your life. Sure, maybe you were just a kid, but that doesn’t matter. You, too, are a thief, and thus can’t accuse anyone else.
“Tu quoque” fallacy (sp?)
Ergo, anything further you may have to say on this topic makes you a mere “troll”
Ad hominem fallacy
It’s all perfectly logical. Move on.
hehe, phallusy.
Why the muckraking? The Times gets the subscribers, the Stranger gets the SoundOffs. Seems fair to me.
Just a wild stab in the dark here, but I’ll bet your “contract” is actually with the company that was created as a result of the JOA, and not with the P-I. In which case they have every right to hold you to it. You might want to check on this.
Regardless, simply cancelling the subscription sounds like a lot less brain damage.
#12 is a liar.
He/she/it/shit has stolen hours of our valuable time.
Also, anyone who claims to have NEVER stolen ANYTHING, ever in their lives, is a liar, a fool or a saint. And saints aren’t real.
Ooh, ooh, delete this comment, too!
I want experience the mighty fist, too!
“However, while you can subscribe online, to unsubscribe, you have to call the Seattle Times at (206) 464-2121 or email customerservice@seattletimes.com.”
Holy shit that is so hard to do I’ll be picketing the times building see you later.
It’s time to have two categories of SLOG registered users.
Those who actually have real posts.
And those who just hate America like @12 and the other whiners.
I don’t think I’ll subscribe. I will probably just pick up the Seattle Times a couple days a week. You know, maybe at the QFC, for example, if I’m over there picking up some wine or something like that. They have a nice selection of very affordable reds.
please what are they going to write this loss off against?
@8 “Who cares if they distributed the P-I? If I ask for coke, I’d be pretty pissed if my server started bringing me diet coke if they run out of regular without asking me first.”
What if they brought you the diet coke and explained they were out of regular? You could then accept the diet coke or not. The alternative would be coming back to the table empty-handed, explaining the regular coke situation, and then making another trip to go get you a diet if you wanted one. In either case, you are under no obligation to take a diet coke, but you are far more likely to accept it if it’s already at the table.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but most of the angry talk about contract violations is speculation about whether PI readers are obligated to continue taking the Times until their PI subscription runs out. I say, there’s no way that the Times could make you take their paper. All they are doing is giving you the Times and hoping you continue to do so.
@22 – Their income? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
they are losing money – they have no income – all expenses are “written off” but it is never a good thing to have higher expenses.
Magazines do the same thing when they go out of production. Just cancel already.
State law also provides some definitions of theft, Erica. You might look into that.
@25 – Fair enough. But, as I said, if they retain even half of the PI subscribers, then they will come out way ahead (even if they are not profitable overall).
Hey Will in Seattle —
Didn’t you promise you’d stay off the Times’ comment boards? I SAW YOU over there today. C’mon, I know it’s hard to resist, but 210 — yes TWO HUNDRED TEN — fucking comments for a paper you despise so much?
Really?
Did Frank Blethen lay 210 turds at your house?
Get a grip, man.
Just say no.
What? Will in Seattle is full of shit?
Well, stop the fucking presses.
Ryan Blethen FTW.
Flash back to the newspaper strike of 2000. Many people wanted to cancel their subscriptions in solidarity with the unions. The papers kept coming anyway, and it was virtually impossible to get Subscription Customer Service on the phone.
Personally I don’t see what the fuss is all about. If you like getting a newspaper at your door in the morning, there’s only one local choice. If you don’t care for print editions, read what you want on line. Get over it, sheeesh.
#28 just a pet peeve of mine – hate when people say “they can just write it off,” it still is a loss – and yes, they may well be making a profitable decision.
At least ECB didn’t say “they can just write it off”.
MACKIE — WAKE THE HELL UP!
It’s not a matter of what “most people” want. Laws are intended to protect individuals! Unless and until someone explicitly requests a Seattle Times, you cannot infer/assume their preference for converting their subscription.
The Times was certainly calculating in this effort, (as the Wisconsin newspaper conversion made this case clear!), but you folks have guessed terribly, terribly wrong. Guess again.
Anyone — ANYONE — in public relations these days should know that any large corporation trying to slip something deceptive by the public is in for a SERIOUS ASS KICKING. (Bend over Frank!)
Before you clowns get sued (yep, it’s coming), and found in the wrong (a certainty), it might be a good time to say “We fucked up.” and come-up with a new, better plan.
Remember PR Rule #101: It’s always better to come-clean early, no matter how painful.
.
Ridiculously expensive class action suit coming in…
3…
2….
1….
.
what are they going to be sued for? the damages will be the cost to put the paper in recycling? when people say we never ordered the paper, that will be the end of it.
Foreseeable Deposition:
Plaintiff Attorney: “Was there ever any discussion about the legality this plan?
Times Exec: “Yes.”
Plaintiff Attorney: “And were the illegalities known to the Publisher at the time the decision was made? I will remind you that you are under oath.
Times Exec: “Yes”
Plaintiff Attorney: “But the Publisher was desperate and forced you to do it anyway.”
Times Exec: “Desperate…”
The ruling would be both a refund to all subscribers, plus, the cost of the papers, plus having to pay the carriers, plus having to re-state your circulation (costing you advertisers), plus your own + plaintiffs attorney’s fees, plus a whopping civil fine.
Might be a good time to re-think this plan.
I did NOT set up my P-I subscription via the Seattle Times, I did it with the P-I circulation department, long before the JOA put the Times in charge.
My unrequested Seattle Times this morning included a printed letter, purporting to be from my carrier but with no carrier name on it. This letter informs me that the “Seattle P-I has closed its doors and will no longer publish.” And goes on to tell me I’ve been converted over to the Times, which they hope I’ll enjoy reading “each and every day.”
In other words, don’t bother looking for the P-I anywhere else (e.g. the Web) because they are not publishing any more. This piece of shit obviously came from the Seattle Times customer service shop, which is referenced at the bottom.
They will get an earful from me tomorrow morning.
Accepting goods
Where the buyer makes an offer to buy a good from the seller and the seller ships the wrong goods in response and acceptance of the offer, the seller has accepted the buyers offer and is in breach of the contract for sending the wrong goods. However if the seller sends the wrong goods with an explanation saying he hopes that the alternative goods he has sent will suffice, this has the effect of rejecting the initial offer relating to the original good and instead it is considered to be a submittal of a counteroffer to sell the substitute goods. Thus if the buyer accepts the shipment he has accepted the new offer and if he rejects them he is simply rejecting the counteroffer and no one has committed a breach.
So if you don’t want to get the Seattle Times as a substitute for the P-I, just say so.
i barely noticed…
I was kind of thinking of letting them deliver to me for a while, at least until I get around to calling them up and telling them to credit the remainder of my account as a final tip to my carrier (who never bothered with the porch when the yard would do).
I mean, I kind of like having some newsprint to paw through while I’m eating my breakfast.
But then I read Bruce Ramsey. Thanks for making it easy, Bruce.
Restatement of Torts @ 38 — nailed it. Thank you. Sometimes black letter law comes in handy.
Except @41, for the very specific statute in Washington, specific to newspapers:
RCW 19.56.010
Whenever any person, company or corporation owning or controlling any newspaper or periodical of any kind, or whenever any editor or proprietor of any such newspaper or periodical shall mail or SEND (emphasis added) any such newspaper or periodical to any person or persons in this state without first receiving an order for said newspaper or periodical from such person or persons to whom said newspaper or periodical is mailed or SENT (emphasis added), it shall be deemed to be a gift, and no debt or obligation shall accrue against such person or persons, whether said newspaper or periodical is received by the person or persons to whom it is sent or not.
In short: This won’t take long for a ruling against The Blethens.
@29 – I said I wouldn’t give them money.
Man, you guys are so lame.
Here, I’ll make another promise – I won’t come to your funeral.
What’s The Times’ doing wrong?
If they were stealing subscriptions, I would agree.
Now that P-I’s gone, people SHOULD read Times.
Everyone needs to be informed.
This post seems like much ado about nothing.
How should they have dealt with this?
If people don’t want it, they’ll cancel.
ECB, you’ll never learn.
Forgive them, please.
although i lost the only 2 comics that i read in the P-I, i am at least getting my 2 crosswords, a sudoku and a word find. if that makes me vapid, whatever, that’s all i got from the paper. i get the rest of my news on SLOG.
If people prepaid then they are owed money by the PI – if they didn’t and the Times delivers to them, they don’t have to pay. If the Times turns them over to collections then there would be a problem but that’s never going to happen.
This is a marketing effort. The targeting couldn’t be better. Most people will cancel soon or agree to pay to keep getting a paper.
switching to the times s totally normal. Fuck my subscription to Radar recently was replaced with Star magazine. My subscription to Cracked was replaced with a shitty comic book about arab superheroes. The Times is a fair replacement for the P-I and most subscribers have pre-paid and are owed something. The Times isn’t going to go to collections for anyone who cancels. get real people
It states very clearly that if you don’t want the Times you call and cancel. You won’t have to pay a penny.
If you think this is the basis for a lawsuit you’re loopy.
newsfiend @48
I’m coming over to your house to crap in your yard.
If you don’t want me to crap in your yard, please take time out of your personal schedule to call me, and wait on hold.
Otherwise, we’re coming over to crap in your yard.
(I think that makes it clear?)
without first receiving an order for said newspaper or periodical from such person or persons to whom said newspaper or periodical is mailed or SENT
The statute for unsolicited goods including newspapers doesn’t apply here because the Seattle Times is agent for the P-I. The recipient did make an order (i.e. offer) to receive the P-I, and the P-I counteroffered to supply the Seattle Times. If you accept the counter offer, you must pay for the papers.
But the Seattle Times cannot act on its own and send you newspapers and expecting to be paid for them, that’s true. The argument that the Seattle Times is the principal here will fail because the P-I made the relationship clear.