Review Time
They're not a serious organisation, and publish and promote ill informed opinions at best, or more likely misinformation for cash.
Their take on Bitcoin, for example, is infantile. It demostrates no research, that they have an agenda, and they have no regard for disemminating science and facts to their readers.
It can, therefore, only be considered a scam.
They're not a serious organisation, and publish and promote ill informed opinions at best, or more likely misinformation for cash.Their take on Bitcoin, for example, is infantile. It demostrates no research, that they have an agenda, and they have no regard for disemminating science and facts to their readers.It can, therefore, only be considered a scam.
I thought I'd subscribe to New Scientist as I used to read the occasional copy in the early 2000's. I came on here to see if the mag had retained its high-quality and was shocked to find that it's now a subscription racket with poorly advertised prices and an intentionally opaque cancellation process. What's worse though is all their replies to the reviews are making it clear to everybody that this model of legalised theft is fully intentional and there's obviously no desire whatsoever from them to improve their practices and procedures to help stop people from inadvertently paying for things they didn't really want. It's scummy behaviour and so I've closed the checkout page and would encourage others to boycott until they begin to show some respect and integrity.
If you are thinking about subscribing to New Scientist - PLEASE DON'T DO IT! You WILL regret it!You will find it difficult to cancel your subscription. The worst part being that although they will bombard you with emails all year for offers etc you will not receive any notice at all that your subscription is due for renewal, and how much they will take from your bank account and when. The first you will know about it is when you look at your bank statement and see that money has been taken. I understand that this practice of rolling over subscription without providing written notice to the customer is now illegal. However New Scientist publications appear to be blatantly ignoring this requirement. I have been a loyal reader of the New Scientist for many, many years. Over that time I have felt that the editorial content that was once excellent is now simply just acceptable. In the last year I have also been aware that the advertising has certainly become more 'down market' and questionably at odds with the supposed scientific principles of the magazine.
There way of taking money is a 'subscription trap'. I intended to take the magazine for only year, as a present to my wife. At no point did I think I had a rolling subscription until they took £199 out of my bank account. I only became aware when my credit card statement arrived, by which time the 14 day cancellation period had expired. I'm feeling ripped off
Update: They did say below that they wanted to make this right. But they didn't. 1-year still means 350-days according to NS and they don't want to accept that a year has a very finite definition. Sad.Original: For such a trusted magazine I'm very disappointed. I bought a subscription as a present in early Dec. Haven't see a copy yet. I went on their website where they very easily allow you to select back copies that have been missed, only to be told that the "annual", "for 1-year" subscription is actually for 50 weeks, and they email they sent me showing the issue from Dec, telling me I was going to get the issue, is a mistake of some sort. I still have an enquiry in with them to confirm this, so I will update.
Claim your business profile now and gain access to all features and respond to customer reviews.
Science news and science articles from New Scientist
uprinting.com
prudenandsmith.com
goldridgefinancial.com
quickcompoundinterestcalculator.com
hippierunner.com
stakefunds.org
tradifipro.com
lmarket.fr
deweysmart.com
www.rockmyresume.com