Blockbuster Total Access Unannounced Policy Change

NuclearCodeMonkey writes "Blockbuster Total Access has changed the terms of its user agreement without notice to users. Previously, users could return online (mailed) rentals in-store for free rentals. The next set of online rentals was immediately mailed out. Now, without notice, they have changed their policy so that the in-store free exchanges count against you, and no more online rentals are mailed out until the in-store rentals are returned. No wonder they are closing stores and losing to Netflix! Needless to say I am canceling my account in protest." Update - 3/15 at 11:55 by SS: NuclearCodeMonkey has sent new information about an email from Blockbuster which clarifies the situation. Read on for his follow-up. NuclearCodeMonkey writes
"A second email from Blockbuster Support admitted that a change in policy had taken place (the first didn't acknowledge it). And they stated I should have received a notice: 'We have updated your "Terms and Conditions" with regards to in-store exchanges. A week before March 2, 2009, notifications for this new policy was added as banners on the top of your queue page, announcements were also posted at your local Blockbuster store, and we have sent out emails to inform customers about the new change.' I did not see any of the aforementioned notices and I have double-checked and did not receive any email. At least one commenter did indicate he had received an email. So, maybe an announced change after all and I just got missed? I wouldn't want to mislead anyone."

Comments

It sounds reasonable to me.

[kalpol]

I never looked into the Blockbuster plan, but if you were able to exchange mailers for movies in the store AND get the next mailers, it kinda sounds like double-dipping. Someone probably overlooked that little detail when writing up the procedure.

Re:It sounds reasonable to me.

[MBCook]

It's not a loophole, it was calculated to get you into the store where they could sell new movies, used movies, new and used games, and consumer electronics (because that's never a desperate move to start selling CE stuff).

The fact that this didn't work out well enough is why they are stopping, but it wasn't a loophole. They used to advertise the fact.

Now the fact that Blockbuster has been dead for at lest 6 years and just doesn't realize it yet is kind of sad. But then again I lost what little respect I had left for them years ago, and they've only managed to baffle me with some of their stupid decisions since.

The ONLY reason I have left to go into BB is to rent games, but it's so expensive and such a pain, I only do it about once or twice a year max. With GameFly possibly opening RedBox style kiosks, I may never need to go in again.

Not that I've heard great things about GameFly. But soon digital distribution will make renting console games irrelevant anyway.

Re:It sounds reasonable to me.

[MBCook]

That's not a sign of a healthy business, it just means they are in the right place at the right time. Look at the last few years, they've been diving.

• Netflix, online video, and Pay-Per-View have been killing their main business.
• Game rentals are being killed by expense, digital distribution, and lower cost games (in the form of things like XBox Live Arcade games to entertain for a weekend).
• They jumped into consumer electronics to try to prop up profits, because it's worked so well for Borders in the last few years.
• They've been annoying their mail-in customers with raised rates, reduced service, and other service changes.
• They've got TONS of overhead in all those stores (land, inventory, employees, etc.).

Any failing business could raise profits by hiking prices. The problem is that it only works for a short while. Once customers notice and stop shopping, profits dive faster than before.

One quarter of growth doesn't mean they are in good shape.

Re:It sounds reasonable to me.

[NuclearCodeMonkey]

It is not an unreasonable change. My beef is that it was an unannounced change. I am sitting at home waiting for movies and they tell me I won't get any until I take the ones back from the store.

Re:It sounds reasonable to me.

[CronoCloud]

But soon digital distribution will make renting console games irrelevant anyway.

Oh? How big is your hard drive? BD-ROM's can hold 50GB, and even if they aren't full you aren't going to want to download and install too many of those suckers on your hard drive. You could also forget about having a large game library. In fact, if your ISP has a low bandwidth cap you simply wouldn't be able to download them. That's not to say that digital distribution doesn't have a place for "little games"

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full of CD's/DVD's/BD-ROM's

Re:It sounds reasonable to me.

[Aranykai]

Free in-store rentals are handled differently from in-store exchanges.

You get x number of free rentals per month from the store. You are able to return your mailed movies for instant exchange, which does not count towards those free in-store rentals and they would immediately begin mailing your next movies. However, now they have changed that procedure somewhat, so that when you exchange your mailed dvd's you must return those before the next movies will be mailed to you. Its got nothing whatsoever to do with your free in-store rentals.

I am not a customer nor an employee, but my mother has the service and she enjoys it alot.

I am a bit confused

[cortesoft]

So before you would turn in an online rental and get a new in-store rental AND be sent a new online rental DVD as well? So lets say I had a 2 at a time plan... I turn in one, get an in-store rental and a new online one sent as well.. I then turn in my new online one and get another in-store rental and have a new online one sent.. so I now have 2 in-store rentals and 2 online.. rinse and repeat and I can have infinite in-store rentals?

This makes no sense. It also makes no sense to expect this. Please tell me I am missing something.

Re:I am a bit confused

[Anonymous Coward]

This is plain business.

If you pay for two at a time, then that is what you should get, regardless of the source. It is simple business and I am completely surprised that they allowed it in the first place.

Canceling your membership over this is just plain stupid. You must look at it from both sides and quit wining about it.

They don't want to be in business.

[straponego]

Long ago, I used to rent from maybe a couple times a month. One day a roommate grabbed my card and rented a couple movies with it. He returned them late; the late fee was something like $20. I wasn't aware of this, and obviously, they didn't check ID; fine, okay, whatever. The next time I went to rent from them, it was at a store in a different city; I'd moved. They wouldn't rent to me because I hadn't paid the fee. I told them I'd pay now. They said they couldn't take the payment for another store. I called the original store to pay with a credit card; no, they couldn't do that either. I had to physically pay, in cash, at the original store, for their mistake, or I couldn't rent from Blockbuster again. That was something like ten years ago, and I've never given them another dollar. Stupid companies like that can't survive in an open market. What do they think they are, a telco?

Not a Blockbuster (the Article, that is)

[macraig]

Why did this submission from an oh-the-world-owes-me-a-livin' whiner make it to the front page? The change in policy could be argued as perfectly reasonable - assuming it's even really a change in policy - whether this person happens to approve or not. Clearly he feels some sense of entitlement; whether he had a right to feel entitled is another matter. In any case he's doing the right thing by voting with his dollar, but why is this such a blockbuster that he has to shout about it?

Re:Not a Blockbuster (the Article, that is)

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how Netflix handles the in-store exchange?

Re:Not a Blockbuster (the Article, that is)

[Albanach]

The change in policy could be argued as perfectly reasonable - assuming it's even really a change in policy

They used to run TV adverts selling this as a primary feature of their subscription service.

To me that suggests it's not reasonable to change it without prior notice.

keep taking away

[bravo369]

I had blockbuster a year or 2 ago. It was great. then they knocked down my weekly free coupons to 2 per month. then they took them away completely. then they raise the price. i think i left at that point but since then I believe they started limiting how many in store exchanges you can do to 3 per month, raised prices yet again, and now returning to the store doesn't even send out the next movie. really...what good is blockbuster? why would anyone want it over netflix? if blockbuster's plan is to drive away all customers so they can declare bankruptcy then it's working. I'm no CEO but i would think you would try to build brand loyalty and bring in more customer rather than lose the ones you already have.

Netflix is not much better

[SupremoMan]

Netflix pulls it's own shenanigans all the time. It's gotten to a point that every few months I cancel my account and set up a new one using a different email. For some reason my movies are only mailed to me promptly if I am a new customer. Otherwise it could be that they get a movie back from me on Friday, but don't mail new one till Monday.

Re:One spoiled idiot from the crappiest generation

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude he's not pissed at the fact that now they have a no free lunches policy, he's pissed that he went to an all you can eat buffet that decided they were going to charge him for every plate after his 3rd one without even telling him. Not only that, they decided to implement this policy change while he was in the middle of enjoying his "all you can eat" buffet. Bad way to run a business.

Re:One spoiled idiot from the crappiest generation

[Achromatic1978]

he's pissed that he went to an all you can eat buffet that decided they were going to charge him for every plate after his 3rd one without even telling him

Where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him?

They did no such thing. They just said 'hey, slow down' as he was doing the equivalent of Homer just lifting out the serving bowls, rather than taking a plate at a time. No-one said he couldn't eat as much as he wanted, just off the plate, so other people could get more, not just wheelbarrowing the serving bowls straight from the buffet table.

There's no negative impact to his contract - he's not being charged more. He's just not being allowed to get away with things above and beyond what the contract entitled him to.

"Getting away with things above and beyond contract" also equals "bad way to run business".

Man, the entitlement mentality in this place is horrific.