Why don’t people boycott rate hikes?

Mr. Ed

Mr. Ed

Be what you is not what you what you ain’t
Location
Central NY
Remember when people utilized their power by boycotting unfair rate hikes in buisnesses? Nowadays everything is digital and people don’t question or do anything about rising across the internet. Netflix, HULU , Amazon Prime Video and so on and so on don’t care about customers because no-one calls them out, we just accept it as part of the service. Have you noticed when one streaming service raise their rates, everyone follows? How much etra revenue are these services making compared to actual costs?
 

Rates were competitive until the suckers came into the market. The idjits who kept paying for cable TV, and now blindly subscribe to multiple streaming services. Suckers outnumber the prudent, so the companies know they can get away with price increases.
 
I have no way of knowing what a fair price is for many of the things in today’s world.

I look at the value to me and accept them or let them go.

In the case of television/entertainment, AirTV is a great value for me. 😉🤭😂

It’s interesting to me that so many unnecessary things have become necessary in my lifetime.

I’m sure that it has been the same with every generation since the beginning of time.
 

re: Boycotts of high prices:

I remember in the '70's a meat boycott started by a mid-west housewife outraged at beef prices. It took on. It was called 'Meatless Mondays'.....does anyone else remember this? It was a great success & prices did go down, showing the power we have when we work together for a goal. It was nation-wide.
 
I make every effort I possibly can to shake off the shackles of rate hikers and price gougers. I'll likely cancel my Netflix account as a protest of the upcoming rate hikes. I am always finding alternatives in retail and grocery shopping.
 
I don't think of myself as boycotting high prices, but I do stop buying when things get high and the item is unnecessary. On occasion, I'll quit buying when I feel like I'm getting gouged, even if its still affordable. It may be cause I think it's over priced, or because service has become unacceptable. OK, I guess I do boycott now that I read this. I think I said I didn't because I've never joined an organized boycott.
 
The problem for us is that young working adults are willing to pay the rising cost of Netflix, HULU, Amazon Prime, etc., and they far outnumber those who can't afford it.

Young working adults are comparing the cost of at-home streaming services to the cost of taking their kids out for dinner and a movie. The movie alone costs a family of 3 over $50.

That's for ONE movie. Add dinner and they could be shelling out well over $100 for 1 evening of entertainment.

But for around $25/mo, young families can select from hundreds of movies, TV shows, documentaries, and even concerts, and watch them anytime that's convenient for them.
 
Last edited:
I do boycott some, so to speak. My main TV streaming service is booting me from its lowest cost non-commercial service. Currently, I am binging several shows on it, because next month I will cancel the service. From now on I will use one streaming service at a time, plus OTA FREE TV, and DVDs from the local library.

I prefer calling it a buyer’s strike. ON STRIKE! Leave It On the Shelf.

Most of thows on the streaming services do not interest me anyway. I am the wrong demographic.
 
Last edited:
If gas prices go up, it's kind of hard to boycott it. Years ago, my trash bill was $28/month, now it's $53/month. Since there's only one trash company, what can I do, but pay. I think you can cut back on discretionary spending, unfortunately I think we're stuck with a higher bill.
 
Pepper said:
It was a great success & prices did go down
Click to expand...
Until, the layoffs in the meat industry, created an issue with supply, which drove prices right back up. Any boycott, has to be sustained by the entirety of a population. Hard to do, imho, when there will always be some that insist... it is their right.
 
fe8232d45889e448f65c98a8a1ef8db8.jpg

IMO the meat boycott in the 70s didn’t really bring down prices as much as it changed the way Americans eat.

The meals that I eat today bear little resemblance to the meals that I grew up with in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

I wouldn’t be able to feed a family today the way my mother did.
 
This summer there was an attempted one month boycott of the stores in the Canadian grocery store chain, Loblaws. It operates under various names based on size and location. If people didn’t follow the news, even though it was discussed often, they didn’t know about it. There were many reasons given in TV/news interviews by people still shopping there.

I don’t know if it was less busy, because I wasn’t there. It’s not my favourite chain, so it was no hardship.

Was it successful? No idea, because Loblaws didn’t publish any stats.
 
The ONLY digital anything service I subscribe to is Amazon Prime.
Considering the amount of things I buy from Amazon, the free Prime shipping is worth it ... for now.
Well, that and the Amazon Prime video makes it worth it ... for now.

Thing is though, it was a hella better deal back in the day when Amazon shopping was tax free, Prime was $99 a year and there were no commercials on Amazon Prime Video.

Like the dog that never notices the chain getting shorter by removing one link at a time ... Amazon has made changes incrementally.
And lately, often I've found better deals by going directly to a vendor or manufacturer site.
 
Pepper said:
re: Boycotts of high prices:

I remember in the '70's a meat boycott started by a mid-west housewife outraged at beef prices. It took on. It was called 'Meatless Mondays'.....does anyone else remember this? It was a great success & prices did go down, showing the power we have when we work together for a goal. It was nation-wide.
Click to expand...
I think I remember that @Pepper because it was in one of my mother's woman's magazines and they began to have meatless Monday in their recipe planning section every month.
 
I don't think those movements generally work. I don't sign petitions either for the same reason. I can chose not to buy or to buy on the merits as I see them. Example during these days one of the most inflated priced items is toilet paper. So when I look at that I see a bulky item of light weight but the fuel to transport it is just as expensive as the fuel required to transport heavy items. The market and supply chain will react as needed. That isn't going to keep me from having that item on the shelf.
 
Mr. Ed said:
Remember when people utilized their power by boycotting unfair rate hikes in buisnesses? Nowadays everything is digital and people don’t question or do anything about rising across the internet. Netflix, HULU , Amazon Prime Video and so on and so on don’t care about customers because no-one calls them out, we just accept it as part of the service. Have you noticed when one streaming service raise their rates, everyone follows? How much etra revenue are these services making compared to actual costs?
Click to expand...

Well, it could be because for many people a rise of a couple bucks isn't significant?

We're discussing a similar subject in another thread. The basic answer to this is that these businesses have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize income/profit. There is a point where the delicate balancing act goes in favor of the business, and then in the favor of the customer. These platforms must find that balance, so rates will change.

Let me give you a real world example of how competition works against consumers. Football (soccer in the US) is huge in the UK. Rights to show it on broadcasts went to Sky. Let's say, for the sake of argument, Sky charged £40 a month. After a few seasons, government woke up and decided that there was a lack of competition going on, and this was hurting the consumer. So they said that when the current contract was up, the governing body of the sport had to award bids to other broadcasters as well to generate competition.

In the end, Sky got some games, BT got some, and Amazon got some too. So now we have three providers, and competition - right?

No. Suddenly football fans found they had to pay Sky £40 a month, BT £30 a month, and Amazon a Prime membership. So essentially, a fans total cost went from £40 a month to £80 a month. So much for the benefits of "competition". You see, only one provider would broadcast a given game. In order to watch all your teams games throughout a season, you needed all three. Urgh.

Similar things have happened with music.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top