People Want Subscription Management from their Bank

https://www.finextra.com/blogposting/18671/people-want-subscription-management-from-their-bank

With #RoachMotel and other dark patterns used by service providers to snare consumers into #SubscriptionTrap, there’s no argument that there’s a compelling need for Subscription Management. But I’m not sure if banks have a play here or even want to have a play here.

To take my personal example, whenever I buy a subscription, I try to buy it from AppStore or PlayStore as far as possible because they support cancellation of a subscription anytime (even if the original service provider does not).

In the case of my WSJ subscription, I ordered the subscription directly from WSJ website without checking whether they were available on AppStore / PlayStore. Big mistake. I encountered the classic RoachMotel dark pattern and had a tough time cancelling it.

Now, the thing is, I paid for this WSJ subscription via my credit card. If my bank really wanted to have a play in Subscription Management, it should let me cancel my WSJ card-on-file mandate by contacting it. I didn’t try but it has been widely reported that banks do not accept cancelation requests or chargeback demands from consumers wanting to cancel or get refund for unauthorized subscriptions respectively.

Banks make money only when the subscription continues to run. Ergo they have a vested interest in NOT letting the consumer cancel the subscription or in getting into subscription management in any other manner that would benefit Consumers. Of course, this does not apply to banks, if any, that value CX over Revenue and banks who have delusionary thoughts of being able to charge fees for providing Subscription Management.