Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

Doug Mattison just wanted to cancel his gym membership.The 59-year-old could no longer afford the monthly fee, so a year after he signed up, he went back to the gym's website to cancel it. But it didn't have an option for members to cancel online, so he called the gym and was told he had to come in person. So he went to the gym, but even then he couldn't cancel — he recalls the employees telling him that they didn't "have the ability to stop it or do anything on it" because only his gym's parent company was authorized to cancel his membership. "In the meantime," he says, "they're still charging my account."Mattison, who lives in Ohio, said the whole reason he chose this gym was that it didn't have a binding contract — he assumed that when he no longer wanted to pay for a membership, he'd be able to get out of it. After the parent company's customer-service reps told him they couldn't assist him online or over the phone and did not offer him an alternate route, Mattison reached out to his bank, which ultimately canceled the card he'd used to pay for the membership and told him plenty of customers had trouble getting out of similar services."The bank even said that they see this happening a lot," Mattison said, referring to customers having trouble with cancellations. "They said the good news was that I only gave them a card number instead of my actual account number. Then it's a lot more hassle."While Mattison was glad to have found a solution, it took three months to get free. He described it as "the worst experience I've ever had with any type of membership." And he's not alone — companies have gotten increasingly savvy at trapping customers in what are known as "dark patterns," drawing them in with a shiny new product or discounted subscription that ends up being burdensome to get out of. The tactics companies use to keep people on the treadmill of recurring charges can range from slick, attractive product design to deceptive fraud. And in a world where people seldom read the fine print, consumers don't have much recourse when they find they can't cancel something they no longer want. In a 2022 survey from C+R Research, respondents estimated they spent an average of $86 a month on subscriptions, but when they were asked to individually break down their monthly payments based on their bank statements, they were, in reality, spending an average of $219. Additionally, 42% of respondents indicated they'd forgotten they were continuing to pay for products they no longer used.In an attempt to combat these practices, the Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday finalized a rule known as "Click-to-Cancel" that addresses the issue. The rule, which goes into effect in 180 days, would require most businesses to make the cancellation of subscriptions just as easy as the sign-up process, as well as protect customers from other dark pattern tactics.While the new rule is a strong stab at solving the issue, companies have spent years perfecting their methods of roping in new customers. Florencia Marotta-Wurgler, a consumer-law professor at New York University, told me that most people, no matter how smart they think they are, are vulnerable to traps such as hidden fees, misleading website layouts, or confusing terms and conditions."There's lots of biases that consumers have," Marotta-Wurgler said. "They care more about the immediate rewards than the cost, and a lot of these services are created or designed to exploit these biases to really dangle the shiny object that they want and then just to hide the cost later or when consumers might forget."It isn't an accident that people who want to cancel a subscription often have to navigate a web of bureaucracy and confusion. Erin Witte, the director of consumer protection at the Consumer Federation of America, says companies have spent years honing dark-pattern tactics to maximize recurring revenue."This is all by design. This is a way that companies can make a lot of money," Witte said. "These automatically recurring subscription plans and free-trial conversions, they basically capitalize on people not consenting actively to something over and over again. When you've forgotten that you signed up for it, it's a lot easier to just keep charging and charging and charging."These dark patterns usually involve two steps. First, the company makes it easy or desirable to opt for the recurring charge. Marotta-Wurgler pointed to Amazon's "subscribe and save" feature, in which the online retail giant offers a discount for agreeing to have a certain product delivered monthly. The website makes the subscription the default option during checkout, causing many consumers to enroll without realizing it. Second, the company keeps people subscribed using "negative options," or contracts in which it interprets a consumer's silence or failure to act as an agreement to continue purchasing the product. These frequently take the form of subscriptions that automatically renew unless the consumer cancels, and it's a primary way people find themselves paying for a service they didn't realize they were still being billed for.Some consumers have submitted public comments to the Federal Trade Commission about their frustrations with subscription cancellations. "I and many others have continuously been charged without consent for renewal of products," one person wrote. "The charging should be abundantly clear from the start, as ultimately whether or not the consumer wants to pay should be the consumers choice and not the business."The prevalence of these tactics and of consumer anger prompted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to issue guidance last year saying that companies were at risk of violating federal law should they fail to clearly disclose the terms of a negative-option service or make consumers jump through hoops to cancel a subscription. A CFPB official told me that the agency had seen "a lot of problems" with vague disclosures and rage-inducing cancellation processes in which consumers have to repeatedly speak with customer-service representatives for unreasonably long periods, preventing them from articulating their intent to cancel a subscription because they oftentimes cannot remain on hold long enough to do so.In some cases, these issues have led to litigation — the bureau sued TransUnion in 2022 over allegations that the credit-reporting agency "used an array of dark patterns to trick people into recurring payments and to make it difficult to cancel them." These tactics, the bureau alleged, included crafting a website with misleading buttons to give consumers the impression that they could access a credit score for free; instead, clicking the button would sign them up for recurring monthly charges using credit-card information they'd provided to verify their identity. TransUnion said at the time that the bureau's claims were "meritless and in no way reflect the consumer-first approach we take to managing all our businesses." A decision on the case is pending.Consumers are lured into subscriptions across all industries — and Marotta-Wurgler said that without enhanced regulation, such as a requirement to disclose terms of a subscription upfront rather than conceal it in the fine print, companies have few incentives to change their ways."When we're talking about consumer protection, the burden is always on the consumer," she said. "So the consumer needs to make the choice, and it's on the consumer to know what they're signing up for."Some business leaders oppose stricter regulations like the FTC's new Click-To-Cancel rule because they're concerned that making it easier to get out of subscriptions could cause consumers to accidentally miss out on products they still might want. The Association of National Advertisers argued in a public comment to the Federal Trade Commission that "if sellers are required to enable cancellation through a single click or action by the consumer, accidental cancellations will become much more common, as consumers will not reasonably expect to remove their recurring goods or services with just one click." The association added that accidental cancellations could cause customers to miss out on essential items, like food, and it would be burdensome for the customer to once again have to go through the sign-up process to renew their subscriptions. Witte dismissed this sort of thinking as short-sighted, arguing that companies could benefit from making their interfaces more consumer-friendly. "Actual affirmative consent from a consumer," Witte said, would establish trust between the consumer and the company, boosting loyalty. The FTC's new rule would make this sort of assent a reality: companies now have to adjust their sign-up processes so consumers explicitly confirm they want a subscription that automatically renews and understand the terms before they are charged, and companies have to be able to prove that consumers knew what they agreed to before they signed up."The FTC really wants to make sure, with this rule, that consumers are getting what they want and what they understand and what they agree to, and that businesses are serving consumers that want their product, not people who have just forgotten about a subscription or have had too much trouble getting out of it," Witte told me.While free trials and confusing websites can be a money-sucking headache for consumers, many of the methods of keeping people on the hook are legal. In some cases, however, the tactics used by subscription services can tip into outright fraud. Celebrity endorsements are a go-to method to convince consumers to put down their credit-card information, but sometimes the celebrity doesn't even know the company is using their likeness to boost a product. Mark Cuban can attest to this — the "Shark Tank" star told me he'd been featured "thousands of times" in ads for a keto-gummies subscription service. The ads make it appear as if Cuban endorsed the product, which promises health benefits and weight loss, but the endorsement is fake, and Cuban said he hadn't even heard of the product.While there are federal laws designed to prevent companies from lying in their advertising, Cuban argued that it would be "a waste of time" to take any legal action against the company, like sending them cease-and-desist orders, because the companies frequently close and open different legal entities to stay ahead of these claims. Some customers who were deceived by the ads have emailed Cuban asking for help getting out of the subscription. He forwarded me examples of a few of the emails he received: One customer said the gummy ad claimed that all "Shark Tank" investors had endorsed the product, but she ended up being charged an additional $200 for a product the company added alongside the 30-day supply, prompting her to immediately email the company to cancel the order. "This higher transaction will cause my checking account to be over and will cause my rent and utilities to bounce," she wrote. Cuban recommended everyone who signed up for the service to call their bank to cancel the charges.When dark patterns tip into outright scams and fraudulent subscription practices, the experience of being deceived can take a toll on consumers financially and mentally. Witte said consumers often feel like these situations are their fault. In retrospect, customers think they should have noticed red flags or read the fine print before entering their credit-card information. But companies have sophisticated technology to prevent you from looking into any red flags such as subscription pop-up windows that advertise the perks of a product but do not disclose the fine print."It's easy for consumers to look back and use their hindsight and say, 'Man, I really wish I had seen that or looked more carefully at this,'" Witte said. "But it's not always just about consumer awareness, and I think it really is much more about the product of manipulative design process."Rachel VonSiebenhoven, 52, signed up for a membership at her local massage parlor in Colorado in 2012 to treat herself. She said that she initially paid $55 a month but that the price gradually increased while the quality of the service declined. After the pandemic hit, she decided she was no longer getting her money's worth and began the process of canceling her membership in 2023. However, VonSiebenhoven said it took months of back-and-forth with the parlor to discuss refund options because the terms were murky on whether she could get money back after canceling her membership, all while she was charged for services she wasn't using. As of September, she was still trying to get her money back and didn't reach a resolution with the parlor on whether canceling her membership would cause her to forfeit any potential refund."It's just been a constant battle," she told me. "I'm working full time, I'm going to school for my MBA, so I have no time. So I'm hoping they just canceled it because if not, I'm just paying for something and still not able to get anything out of it."There could be some relief on the horizon — the Click-to-Cancel rule is a key step that could result in tangible benefits for consumers, Witte said — but she noted that it does not include a requirement for companies to send consumers annual notices about their subscriptions and provide them with an opportunity to cancel, which would have been an effective safeguard. The FTC is likely being as cautious as possible to avoid lawsuits against the rule, she said.Marotta-Wurgler described the initiative as a step in the right direction. "Companies have been able to get away with this because we've been playing Whac-A-Mole for a very long time," she said. Marotta-Wurgler argued that requiring structural changes in business practices, like implementing a bolstered federal standard for disclosing terms, would help prevent consumers from being lured into dark patterns. More attention at the state and federal levels would also help. Along with litigation from the CFPB, state attorneys general have pursued legal action against big companies over hard-to-cancel subscriptions. Last year, Letitia James, New York's attorney general, sued SiriusXM over claims that the radio company trapped customers in subscriptions and maintained a complicated and burdensome cancellation process. SiriusXM called the allegations "meritless" and asked for the case to be dismissed. The case is still pending.Industries have mastered techniques to maximize their profits by crafting their business models in confusing ways that can lure customers into a subscription without realizing it. With government attention, there's potential for change — but in the meantime, the burden is on the consumer to be vigilant or risk losing money."It can be really time-intensive and confusing and burdensome, and that's frustrating to people. So it's not just about losing money, but it's also wasting a lot of time," Witte said. "That doesn't have to be that way."<a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/author/ayelet-sheffey">Ayelet Sheffey</a> is a senior economic policy reporter on Business Insider's economy team.

America is trapped in a nightmare of never-ending subscriptions

Singapore Airlines will make an additional investment of Rs 3,194.5 crore in Tata Group-owned Air India post-merger of Vistara in November. The merger, announced on November 29, 2022, and set to be completed on November 11, 2024, will result in Singapore Airlines having a 25.1% stake in the enlarged Air India. Full-service carrier Vistara, which started flying on January 9, 2015, is a joint venture between Tatas and Singapore Airlines, where the latter holds a 49% shareholding. Vistara's last flight will take off tomorrow i.e. November 11, 2024. Singapore Airlines (SIA) Group on Friday said its consideration for the merger comprises the 49% interest in Vistara and Rs 20,585 million (Rs 2,058.5 crore) in cash in exchange for a 25.1% equity interest in the enlarged Air India. Post-merger, SIA expects to recognize a non-cash accounting gain of around 1.1 billion Singapore dollars and also start equity accounting for its share of Air India's financial results. According to a release on Friday, the merger includes an agreement for SIA to contribute its share of any funding previously provided by Tata prior to the completion of the merger, together with relevant funding costs up to Rs 5,020 crore that would allow it to maintain a 25.1% stake in Air India. "SIA's additional capital injection is expected to be Rs 31,945 million (equivalent to SGD 498 million), based on Tata's funding to Air India to date. This will occur after the completion of the merger and within November 2024 through subscription to new Air India shares. "Future capital injections will be considered based on Air India's requirements and available funding options," according to the release issued while announcing the airline's financial performance for the six months ended September 2024. The merger of Vistara with Air India will mark a major consolidation in the fast-growing Indian aviation space. SIA said the merged entity will have a significant presence across all key Indian air travel segments, including domestic, international, full-service, and low-cost operations. "This will strengthen SIA's multi-hub strategy, allowing it to continue participating directly in India's large and fast-growing aviation market," it added. Recently, Air India and SIA agreed to significantly expand their codeshare agreement, adding 11 Indian cities and another 40 international destinations to their network.

Singapore Airlines to invest additional Rs 3,195 cr in Air India post-Vistara merger

Amid the growing Twitter-Meta fight over Threads app, Chinese short-video-making app <keyword id="6762469" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="tiktok" source="Orion">TikTok</keyword> has launched a subscription-based music streaming service to take on market leaders <keyword id="6354427" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="apple" source="Orion">Apple</keyword> and <keyword id="685487" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="spotify" source="Orion">Spotify</keyword>. The subscription-only music streaming service called "TikTok Music" has been launched first in Brazil and Indonesia. The service replaces ByteDance's existing streaming service, Resso (which is available in India too), which will shut down on September 5 in Brazil and Indonesia. Existing Resso users can transfer their accounts to the new app "with the click of a button". "We are pleased to introduce TikTok Music, a new kind of service that combines the power of music discovery on TikTok with a best-in-class streaming service. TikTok Music will make it easy for people in Indonesia and Brazil to save, download and share their favourite viral tracks from TikTok," Ole Obermann, global head of Music Business Development at TikTok, said in a statement. TikTok Music lets users sync the service to their existing TikTok accounts and listen, download and share songs, reports TechCrunch.The service includes the catalogs of major record companies, including Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music. A TikTok Music subscription costs $3.49 a month in Brazil, and $3.25 for iOS users in Indonesia. Android users in Indonesia need to pay $2.96 a month for the first year, then $3.25 afterwards. TikTok Music doesn't include a free membership option, but offers a one-month free trial. TikTok Music lets you play full versions of viral TikTok songs, discover personalised music recommendations, access lyrics in real time, create collaborative playlists with friends, import your music library and find songs via lyrics search, said the report.--IANS na/

China's TikTok to take on Spotify, Apple with new subscription-based music service

A glimpse at your smartphone today will tell you just how many subscription-based services have pervaded our lives. Be it booking a cab, shopping, ordering food or <keyword id="15646244" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="booking-a-table" source="Orion">booking a table</keyword> at a restaurant, there’s always an app for that. But at some point subscription fatigue has to become a real phenomenon right? This is where <keyword id="7391793" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="times-prime" source="Orion">Times Prime</keyword>, the super App from Times Internet, comes into play. Rapidly rising as one of the most preferred <keyword id="15482" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="lifestyle" source="Orion">lifestyle</keyword> super-apps, Times Prime, offers an extensive range of benefits on a single platform, from shopping to entertainment and lifestyle, brands like Starbucks, Myntra, Uber, Disney+ Hotstar, SonyLIV, Google One, and many more. The idea is simple — instead of paying for different subscription services, pay for one -- and you can access all of these at once. Celebrating Times Prime’s success In line with digital transaction industry trends, about 70% of the Times Prime app's MAUs are male users, while the rest are female. <div type="image" title="The Gourmet Table Mumbai" msid="95846724" hostid="261" sizebytes="1711755"></div>Times Prime members can access multiple apps and services with just one subscription thus delivering great ROI for members, without compromising on their experiences – precisely the reason why Times Prime has witnessed an exponential growth of 300% over the last 3 years.. According to Harshita Singh, Business Head, Times Prime, over 20,000 brand benefits are unlocked on the app daily with weekends seeing further spikes. The member base spans 18 Indian cities, with UPI (48%) being the primary mode of payment followed by credit cards (21%) and then wallets. “To sustain this growth momentum, we will continue to launch exciting benefits and experiences that are valued by the transacting digital natives in the country. We also want to continually upgrade the app experience to better showcase the new categories and to enable discovery of the range of benefits” Singh told Business Insider India in an interview. She added that while Times Prime’s users come primarily from metro cities in India, the app has been seeing increasing demand from all regions. Over-the-top (OTT) and news content are consumed often, along with services like booking cabs, restaurants, grooming and events. “When we were initially trying to get brands to buy into this concept it was hard! But there is a flywheel that exists in bundles- good brands attract more good brands. We also deliver immense value to our partners - scale, user quality, transactions, and that's why they choose to be a part of Times Prime year on year,” she said. New categories, special benefits The company is also planning to introduce new categories and add special benefits for subscribers, including top restaurants in India. A number of other OTT brands are also expected to be added, along with kids' brands, fashion, lifestyle, travel and other services. Singh said that the app was originally created with digital natives in mind, but has since progressed to high frequency use cases, even if they aren’t digital. “Currently we have a strong presence in the Online-To-Offline (OTO) space as some of Times Prime benefits and experience can only be enjoyed offline. One good example can be our Grooming &amp; Wellbeing benefits. Similar to this, our members book curated Times Prime experiences &amp; events like Purple Carpet, The Gourmet Table, History &amp; Food Walks, Photography walks, offers on tea &amp; coffee and mixology sessions on the platform to enjoy them at some of the top venues with other members. We are seeing a strong demand for this category and have a number of exclusive properties in the pipeline,” she added. The subscription business isn’t the company’s only revenue model either. “The beauty of a subscription offering is that people pay you for their own loyalty. As a platform that gives us a lot of leverage to be a launchpad for new subscriptions, D2C offerings, ticketed events, thus resulting in monetisation opportunities beyond the subscription paywall,” said Singh. Further, Singh noted that with performance marketing getting more expensive to scale now, brands can take advantage of platforms like Times Prime. Super apps like these can deliver access to a larger audience at the same time, increasing short term returns on investment and widen the reach. Disclaimer: Times Prime is part of Times Internet Limited and Business Insider is a part of Times Bridge, a company of Times Internet Limited.

Times Prime: A new gamut of elevating lifestyle for India’s youth

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A proposed bill would add an extra $4 to $10 a month to streaming music fees.</li><li>Making streaming music work better for artists — especially non-famous ones — is a real problem.</li></ul>Lots of consumers like streaming music. Lots of musicians complain about streaming — they say it doesn't generate nearly as much revenue for them as they deserve and need.So here's a proposal to help fix that: a tax that would increase American consumers' music streaming bills by 50% — meaning you'd pay an extra $4 to $10 a month for services like Spotify or Apple Music.[Record scratch.] What?That proposal comes from the <a target="_blank" href="https://d12t4t5x3vyizu.cloudfront.net/tlaib.house.gov/uploads/2024/03/Living-Wage-for-Musicians-Act_Final-Text.pdf">Living Wage for Musicians Act</a>, sponsored by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York).And this one is obviously not going anywhere. I don't believe there was ever a time that Americans supported a 50% tax hike on anything, for any reason. But it's clearly not going to happen when lots of them are still trying to figure out how to afford houses or <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/consumer-confidence-economy-stock-market-gas-prices-eggs-vibes-recession-2024-1">eggs</a> after a big inflation spike.You can also tell Tlaib and the bill's supporters don't really think this tax is going anywhere, either.That's presumably why Tlaib's office doesn't spell out the cost of the tax in the <a target="_blank" href="https://tlaib.house.gov/posts/tlaib-introduces-living-wage-for-musicians-act">announcement</a> promoting the bill — it refers to it only as a "small fee."The same goes for the <a target="_blank" href="https://weareumaw.org/make-streaming-pay">United Musicians and Allied Workers</a>, the group that helped create the bill. And the same goes for this <a target="_blank" href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/28/new-law-how-musicians-make-money-streaming">op-ed from Damon Krukowski</a>, a musician and UMAW member. None of them spell out what would happen to consumers' monthly bills if this went through.Which, frankly, made me think that Krukowski and his colleagues are trying to accomplish something else with this proposal. Though I'm not sure what that would be.But when we got on the phone to discuss the bill this month, he said it's supposed to be taken literally and seriously."This is meant to be a workable solution," he told me.Leaving aside the non-starter of a tax, Krukowski has plenty of good points to make about how difficult it is for most musicians to make any kind of money from streaming. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/music-royalties-artist-revenue-compared-spotify-apple-music-pandora-2019-12">Many of which you've heard before</a>.One good bit of nuance Krukowski adds that you likely haven't heard: In some cases, the US government already has a role in distributing revenue to musicians (or, at least, people who own the rights to songs musicians write and perform). But that doesn't apply to much of the revenue on-demand music streamers collect.And while lots of musicians take issue with deals big music labels strike with the likes of Spotify and how little of that comes back to artists, Krukowski says the bill is explicitly not trying to meddle with those deals. This is just supposed to add an additional revenue source, which would be distributed directly to artists.But back to that fee, which the bill spells out as "an additional fee in an amount equal to 50 percent of the subscription fee charged by the service provider, except that such additional fee shall not be an amount less than $4 or more than $10."So for a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.spotify.com/us/premium/">Spotify premium subscriber, paying a list price of $11 a month</a>, that would be an additional $5.50 a month. (That theoretical money would get collected and distributed by a nonprofit fund; the money would be divvied up based on usage, which would also be capped so that mega-popular artists like Taylor Swift wouldn't soak up all the new revenue.)Again: Who's going to go for that?And here, I'll note that anyone who spends any time looking at their bill for things like cell service, cable TV, a meal out, or a hotel stay is likely to find all kinds of extra taxes and surcharges on top of the original fee, you thought you were paying. And those fees can be both meaningful — the average "resort fee" at a hotel now reportedly averages $30 a night — and immovable: If you don't want to pay that fee, <a target="_blank" href="https://affiliate.insider.com?h=fb8474cea643c492f233c89e8702ae336d7381c32641c4246e883ba25544cc99&amp;postID=6605bd139c303b96ab8219d4&amp;postSlug=spotify-cost-increase-bill-adds-tax-apple-music-streaming-2024-3&amp;site=bi&amp;u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kayak.com%2Fnews%2Fwhat-is-a-resort-fee%2F%23avoid-resort-fees">your options are pretty darn limited</a>.While I'm at it, I can also note I often voluntarily — or at least somewhat voluntarily — will throw an extra dollar in a real or digital tip jar when I buy a cup of coffee.And that, if I think about it, I'm probably spending north of $4 a month for extra fees on coffee purchases alone. And that while I wish the people making my coffee or delivering my food or cleaning my hotel room got paid more by their employers or gig arrangers, I'm willing to accept that <a target="_blank" href="https://www.vox.com/money/23978458/tipping-culture-tablet-tipflation-doordash-square-toast-tips">it's kind of on me to help people make a living</a>. So I [usually/sometimes] do it.And, maybe, if my Spotify family subscription offered a digital tip jar — and I truly thought that money would go directly to musicians — I might be tempted to throw in a few bucks here and there, too.But that's a whole lot different than a government-imposed levy, no matter how well-intentioned it is. Even if I was OK with it, it's hard to imagine a less popular proposal.Anyone got a better idea?

Anyone want to pay an extra 50% for their Spotify subscription? This bill would make it mandatory.

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Netflix told advertising executives that its new ad-based plan has 5 million active users.</li><li>The ads subscriber base has "more than doubled" since early this year, the company said Wednesday.</li></ul><a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/nflx-stock">Netflix stock</a> leapt Thursday morning after the streaming service reported promising metrics from its recently debuted ad-supported plan. Shares jumped as much as 10%, hitting their highest level since March 2022.Launched <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ads-are-coming-to-netflix-heres-everything-you-need-to-know">six months</a> ago, Netflix's new tier offers subscriptions at a cheaper price, but includes ad breaks during streaming.On Wednesday, the company presented advertising executives at the industry's so-called upfronts with the first insights into the new tier, disclosing that it had 5 million monthly active users.That suggests considerable growth in a short-span of time. In March, <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-touts-nearly-5m-monthly-222423057.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bloomberg</a> reported that the $7-per-month ad option had 1 million monthly active users after its first two months.For its part, Netflix's upfront presentation also said that its base of ad subscribers had "more than doubled" since 2023's start.Still, the company didn't disclose actual subscriber figures or revenue from the new tier. Because monthly active users can include several people using the same subscription, analysts at Evercore estimated that the 5 million MAUs Netflix reported translates to 2 million-3 million subscription accounts.The platform ended the first quarter with 232.5 million global subscribers overall. Despite earlier fears that the ad-tier would prompt users to downgrade, Netflix's presentation indicated a quarter of new sign ups chose the ad-tier offer.Meanwhile, Netflix's future performance will be under heightened scrutiny in the second quarter, when the platform plans to roll out its <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/youve-got-less-than-10-weeks-continue-sharing-netflix-login-2023-1">password sharing crackdown</a>. The firm said it would expect some near-term subscriber loss, but expects users who used to borrow accounts boost subscriptions in the long run.

Netflix stock jumps 10% on signs that its new ad-based subscription plan is booming

Popular social media platform <keyword id="6358096" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="snapchat" source="Orion">Snapchat</keyword> is working on paid subscriptions for users as it struggles to make money after <keyword id="6354427" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="apple" source="Orion">Apple</keyword> introduced tough iOS privacy changes. Called <keyword id="14216225" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="snapchat-plus" source="Orion">Snapchat Plus</keyword>, the paid subscription service is currently in "early internal testing," reports The Verge. "We're doing early internal testing of Snapchat Plus, a new subscription service for Snapchatters," a company spokesperson was quoted as saying in the report late on Thursday. "We're excited about the potential to share exclusive, experimental, and pre-release features with our subscribers, and learn more about how we can best serve our community," the spokesperson added. According to app researcher Alessandro Paluzzi, Snapchat Plus will also allow you to pin one of your friends as your "#1 BFF". The price for Snapchat Plus is currently listed as $4.84 a month and $48.50 a year, tweeted Paluzzi. Not just Snapchat but several other popular apps have started paid subscription service after Apple's introduced a privacy feature with iOS 14.5, allowing users to turn off ad tracking for apps. Instant messaging platform Telegram's founder and CEO Pavel Durov this month confirmed that a subscription-based offering called 'Telegram Premium' will be coming later this month. "After giving it some thought, we realised that the only way to let our most demanding fans get more while keeping our existing features free is to make those raised limits a paid option," Durov said in a blogpost. "That's why we will introduce Telegram Premium, a subscription plan that allows anyone to acquire additional features, speed and resources," he added. Twitter last year rolled out its first-ever paid subscription offering called Twitter Blue, that will give users a 30-second Undo Tweet option to erase any typo, along with other premium features. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/how-to/how-to-transfer-whatsapp-chats-and-data-from-an-android-phone-to-iphone/articleshow/92224121.cms">How to transfer WhatsApp chats and data from an Android phone to iPhone</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/how-to-record-a-whatsapp-call/articleshow/92253557.cms">How to record a WhatsApp call</a>

You Searched For "subscription based services" and got 7 results

America is trapped in a nightmare of never-ending subscriptions

Ayelet Sheffey

Singapore Airlines to invest additional Rs 3,195 cr in Air India post-Vistara merger

PTI

China's TikTok to take on Spotify, Apple with new subscription-based music service

IANS

Times Prime: A new gamut of elevating lifestyle for India’s youth

BI India Partner

Anyone want to pay an extra 50% for their Spotify subscription? This bill would make it mandatory.

Peter Kafka

Netflix stock jumps 10% on signs that its new ad-based subscription plan is booming

Filip De Mott

Snapchat is reportedly working on a paid subscription service

IANS

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides