logo
Feeling oversubscribed? Why Americans are considering cutting their subscriptions

Feeling oversubscribed? Why Americans are considering cutting their subscriptions

USA Today12 hours ago

As cost-conscious Americans tighten their belts in an uncertain economy, they are starting to notice how quickly monthly subscription charges add up.
Feeling oversubscribed? You are not alone.
Most things these days – food delivery, ride hailing, TV and music streaming, fitness classes, digital storage apps – seem to come with a monthly payment.
Few people have a system to manage the steady stream of autopilot charges on their credit cards or to track price hikes. What's more, they underestimate how much they spend each month on subscriptions.
But as cost-conscious Americans tighten their belts in an uncertain economy, they are noticing how quickly these monthly charges can add up. Some 6 in 10 U.S. adults are considering breaking up with some of their paid subscriptions, according to a recent CNET survey.
'When people's budgets are tighter, they start asking themselves: Do I need to be paying over time for this?' asked Marco Bertini, a marketing professor at Esade, a university in Barcelona, who was not affiliated with the CNET survey. 'It just feels like a heavier burden.'
What is the average amount of money spent on subscriptions?
Cassandra Navarro of Scottsdale, Arizona, canceled her Hulu, Amazon and DoorDash subscriptions earlier this year.
Streaming services have been too quick to drop titles and raise rates, she said, and she'd rather shop in person at Walmart or pick up a takeout order directly than deal with the extra costs associated with delivering goods directly to her doorstep.
Navarro and her husband aim to cut out more music and movie streaming services after they move into their new home and have more space to collect CDs and DVDs.
'It just all adds up so much,' Navarro, 30, told USA TODAY. 'We don't mind having one or two subscriptions, but when you have so many subscriptions at once, you start to feel like you don't have control of your life anymore. … You can't keep track of your own finances.'
The average American spends over $1,000 a year on subscriptions – $200 of it on unnecessary or unused subscriptions, according to the CNET survey.
Why is the subscription model so popular?
Nearly 75% of companies that sell directly to customers offer some sort of subscription, according to an industry and background note coauthored by Harvard Business School marketing professor Elie Ofek.
The model makes sense in certain industries and can help consumers access big-ticket items, according to Bertini. But companies 'cannot and should not fit subscriptions to everything.'
"There are some places where it makes sense, and some places where it doesn't," Bertini said, adding some bank on consumers simply forgetting the recurring charge.
Those companies risk losing customers, especially as Americans tighten their purse strings. Retail sales were down 0.9% from the previous month in May, following a 0.1% dip in April, according to the Commerce Department.
"Disposable income, during tough times, is a little more uncertain. It may be higher one month, lower another, then maybe I'm unemployed. Do I want to have a recurring expense when my disposable income is a bit fluctuating?' Bertini asked.
McCarthy said the biggest risk to subscription companies is a lack of new subscribers, rather than a drop in the current subscription base. And that drop off will hit certain industries harder than others.
"If you're a utility like a telecom provider, (the risk is) probably pretty low," he said. "If you start moving toward streaming services, I think the risk goes up. When you move toward a box subscription, the risk becomes pretty high.'
Is the 'click to cancel' rule in effect?
While subscription companies aren't immune to the effects of increasingly cost-conscious consumers, McCarthy says subscription-based companies are expected to weather economic turmoil better than purely transactional businesses.
'It takes effort to cancel, where it takes no effort to not purchase,' he said, adding that subscription companies fared well during the Great Recession. Netflix, for instance, closed the fourth quarter of 2008 with a 26% year-over-year leap in subscribers, and another 31% increase in the fourth quarter of 2009. Software company Salesforce also saw a jump in revenue and its customer base between 2008 and 2009.
But a new rule from the Federal Trade Commission could make it much easier for consumers to click "unsubscribe."
The agency's "click to cancel" rule, adopted last year under former Democratic Chair Lina Khan, requires businesses to make it as easy to cancel a service as it was to sign up. In other words, if a company allows you to sign up in two clicks, canceling should take no more than two clicks.
Originally set to go into effect in May, the rule has faced legal and political challenges. Business associations have sued to block it, arguing it places too many burdens on businesses. Andrew Ferguson, the current Republican FTC chair, said he voted against 'click to cancel' because it came during the lame-duck period.
The FTC has delayed enforcing the rule until July to give companies more time to comply.
"I really hope that sticks, because this is hurting people," Khan said during an appearance on the 'Pablo Torre Finds Out' podcast in June. "Nobody should be stuck paying for a subscription that they either never signed up for or want to cancel."
Will 'click to cancel' get canceled? New FTC rule faces legal, political challenges
How to cancel an unwanted subscription
Looking to trim monthly expenses? Here's how to break up with paid subscriptions.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Could Strait of Hormuz Closure Impact Americans?
How Could Strait of Hormuz Closure Impact Americans?

Newsweek

time12 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

How Could Strait of Hormuz Closure Impact Americans?

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Iranian lawmakers have voted to support closing the Strait of Hormuz—a vital route for global oil and gas shipments—in response to U.S. airstrikes on three of the country's nuclear sites on Saturday, a move that if agreed upon by the Supreme Leader, could disrupt energy markets and drive up prices worldwide and stateside. Why It Matters Following U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, Isfahan, Fordow, and Natanz, the world waits as Iran considers its response. The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow, yet incredibly strategic waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, the strait is about 21 miles wide, with two shipping lanes that are 2 miles wide in each direction. Around 20 percent of global oil trade passes through the Strait, with any closure likely to spike global prices. What To Know In the first fiscal quarter of 2025, the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) noted that just under 15 million barrels of crude oil and condensate, and about 8 million barrels of petroleum products were transported through the Strait. There are very few alternative routes for the large volume of oil that passes through the chokepoint. The average 20 million barrels of oil products that pass through make up around 20 percent of the global consumption. The price of Brent crude oil was already climbing ahead of the U.S. strikes, increasing from $69 per barrel on June 12 to $74 per barrel on June 13. While the EIA estimates that a large majority, around 80 percent, of the oil-based product moving through the Strait go to Asian markets, around 2 million barrels a day end up in the U.S. Stena Impero being seized and detained between July 19 and July 21, 2019 in Bandar Abbas, Iran as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital regional shipping channel. Stena Impero being seized and detained between July 19 and July 21, 2019 in Bandar Abbas, Iran as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital regional shipping channel. Tasnim/Getty Images If the Iranian government following the lead of the parliament, decides to close the Strait, Asian markets are expected to be most hit, but American markets will be too. Despite influence over the Strait, Iran doesn't supply the most oil that transports through it, Saudi Arabia does. Some experts have said that if Iran were to cut off access to the Strait, it could spike oil prices by 30 to 50 percent immediately, with gas prices likewise rising. "Oil prices would likely double, to well above $100. The extent to which that price shock would be sustainable is unclear," Marko Papic, chief strategist at BCA Research, told Newsweek in an email Sunday. He also noted that due to the overwhelming pressure campaign the country would face over its closure "the price shock would be of limited duration." "However," he continued, "it could impact confidence domestically, impact capex [capital expenditure] intentions by corporates, and thus trickle into the animal spirits [psychological factors that influence economic behavior] that affects not just stocks, but also the labor market." Fears that Iran could attack U.S. oil infrastructure in the region and levy its power over the Straits of Hormuz could "combine to make prices and speculation rise about the security and dependability of supply," Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London, previously told Newsweek. "Lack of clarity of how long this condition will last will also lead to hoarding or preemptive purchasing by other nations, so there are competition supply fears that will drive up prices," he added. Iran has been reluctant to close to Strait, even during times of intense conflict during the heat of the Iran-Iraq war. Infographic with map of the Gulf showing maritime tanker traffic in September 2024 through the Strait of Hormuz. Infographic with map of the Gulf showing maritime tanker traffic in September 2024 through the Strait of Hormuz. NALINI LEPETIT-CHELLA,OMAR KAMAL/AFP via Getty Images) What People Are Saying Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London, told Newsweek: "This is not an act that just stays in the Gulf region, it has wider global strategic ripples." Spencer Hakimian, founder of Tolou Capital Management, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday: "There are close to 50 large oil tankers scrambling to leave the Strait of Hormuz right now. Looks like the oil industry is expecting the Strait to be blockaded in the coming days." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday evening: "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES." Brian Krassenstein, who has over 900,000 followers on X wrote on Sunday if the Strait is closed, people can expect: "U.S. Gas Prices likely Skyrocket. Potential $5–$7/gallon range depending on duration. Military Escalation Risk. U.S. Navy and allies likely to respond. Tanker delays affect oil, LNG, and related goods." What Happens Next? Any final decision on Iran's response, whether negotiation or closing the Strait or other, however, will largely rest with the country's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The parliament vote to close the Strait merely advises him of the option to pursue.

Trump's Iran strike could boost — or ruin — his troubled presidency
Trump's Iran strike could boost — or ruin — his troubled presidency

Miami Herald

time19 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Trump's Iran strike could boost — or ruin — his troubled presidency

President Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites is a high-stakes gamble that could either breathe new life into or irreparably damage his troubled second term in the White House. Yet for the world at large, it may well prove to be a welcome development. Before we get into why Trump's decision aligns with the consensus among the world's biggest democracies — that Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons — let's remember that Trump's popularity was falling fast before the strike. Only 42% of Americans approve of Trump's job performance, while 54% disapprove of it, according to a large-sample Reuters-IPSOS poll conducted June 11-16. Most Americans view Trump negatively, not only on the economy, which was once his strong point, but also on immigration, according to polls. The U.S. economy has slowed dramatically since Trump took office and launched his erratic tariff wars. According to the latest World Bank projections, the U.S. economy will only grow by 1.4% this year, which would be half of its 2.8% growth last year, in part because of the uncertainty created by Trump's on-and-off threats to impose huge import taxes on foreign goods. Likewise, many Trump voters in states with large immigrant communities, like Florida, are disappointed by Trump's decision to deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants without criminal records, including more than 350,000 Venezuelan Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders who entered the country legally. During the 2024 campaign, Republicans claimed that Trump would focus on deporting violent criminals. Before his Iran strike, Trump was also haunted by his growing image as a wavering leader. His repeated reversals of his own tariff ultimatums — first vowing to impose 145% tariffs on China, then reducing them to 30% — made him an object of mockery in European capitals and among U.S. critics. A Financial Times columnist popularized the acronym TACO — Trump Always Chickens out — to describe the U.S. president's trade strategy. Trump got visibly upset when he was asked about the TACO reference at a recent press conference. His fear of being perceived as an indecisive leader may have pushed him — after weeks of reportedly telling Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he would not get dragged into the conflict — to join Israel's military offensive against Iran's nuclear sites. But if Trump's Iran gamble turns out well and Iran's theocratic dictatorship either crumbles or gives up its uranium enrichment program through diplomatic negotiations — a big if — Trump will be credited with having done something four previous presidents contemplated but ultimately failed to do. Internationally, virtually all major Western democracies agrees that Iran is a threat to Israel, and to the world. In a statement at the end of the June 16 summit of the G-7 group of Western democracies in Alberta, Canada, the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada said that 'We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.' The G-7 bloc's statement added that 'Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror in the Middle East,' and that 'We affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself.' Days earlier, on June 12, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the first time in 20 years issued a statement warning that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation agreements. Translation: Iran was enriching uranium at levels only justified to build nuclear weapons. Skeptics who don't follow Iran's political history may ask themselves why the world doesn't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons like India, Pakistan and other countries. The answer is simple: Unlike other countries, Iran has a state policy of trying to 'eliminate' a nearby sovereign country — Israel— that has been recognized by the United Nations since 1948. This is not about Western countries being against Iran's Jurassic theocracy for imprisoning women for failing to cover their heads with a hijab, or for executing gays, or any of its other abhorrent internal policies. The reason is that if we allow a country that calls for the destruction of another nation to have a nuclear bomb, it will set a precedent that makes the world even more dangerous. In Iran's case, it's not just Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's crazy rhetoric, but his actions. Iran has long provided financial aid to terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran's proxies have carried out terrorist attacks as far away as Argentina, where Hezbollah was found responsible for the bombing that killed 85 people and wounded hundreds at the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994. There are many ways in which Trump's political gamble may go wrong, especially if Iran moved some of its enriched uranium into a secret location outside Fordo, or if it unifies Iranians behind their decrepit regime. But if Iran's regime falls, or agrees to a serious international nuclear monitoring agreement, Trump's faltering second term will get a second wind. Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog:

Sierra Leone's President Bio to be the next ECOWAS chairman with region in turmoil
Sierra Leone's President Bio to be the next ECOWAS chairman with region in turmoil

San Francisco Chronicle​

time41 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Sierra Leone's President Bio to be the next ECOWAS chairman with region in turmoil

ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) — Sierra Leone's President Julius Maada Bio was chosen on Sunday to be the next chairman of the West African economic bloc, ECOWAS. The Economic Community of West African States, known as ECOWAS, was founded in 1975, and is facing challenges due to rising violence, member departures and economic disturbances. In a statement following Sunday's announcement, Bio promised to prioritize democracy, security cooperation, economic integration and institutional credibility. 'We are still confronting insecurity in the Sahel and coastal states, terrorism, political instability, illicit arms flow and transnational organized crimes continue to test the resilience of our nations and the effectiveness of our institutions,' he said. Bio is currently serving his second term as president after a contested election two years ago in the coastal West African country. He was president when ECOWAS imposed severe sanctions on Niger following a coup two years ago. Niger cited the sanctions as one of the reasons for leaving the bloc. Sierra Leone was one of the countries that supported a military intervention in the country in 2023. At home, Bio is facing an ongoing synthetic drug crisis and a stagnating economy. Bio's new position comes as the region faces its most severe crisis in decades with jihadist forces controlling vast swaths of the Sahel, a semi-arid region south of the Sahara. In the past few years, ECOWAS has struggled with the departure of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger which have all faced military coups. All three juntas left the bloc, and created their own security partnership, the Alliance of Sahel States. They have cut ties with the traditional Western allies, ousting French and American military forces, and instead sought new security ties with Russia. The three countries have been the hardest hit by jihadist violence in recent years.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store