Spotify Should Compensate Users of the Premium Student Plan

[NL7738264]

The premium student plan has received a reduction in services rendered without an accompanying reduction in cost. This is wrong, we should not pay the same rate for less benefits. When I asked a representative about this, I was essentially told to be more grateful for the already low rate. I’ll just switch to Apple Music for the better UI if this isn’t rectified. It’s silly to me that the only perk I paid for Spotify to use is removed without any compensation. It’s corporate wrongdoing.

[user-removed]

NL7738264,

Check out the “Partner Services” section in the user agreement you didn’t read instead of bugging Spotify customer service.

You also were sent an email about this that you likely marked as spam and therefore didn’t read. See the screenshot, and before you send the response confidently purporting another injustice you suffered, consider that it’s not worth anyone’s time. 

If you’re going to school to study law, you should spend some time learning about how “implied value” isn’t going to get you what you want with a promotional offer containing free services, and that Spotify won’t get sued for how they’re communicating this promo subscription. Spotify has lawyers who know real things and they write this stuff you should have read. “Implied value” was a nice phrase though so kudos for attempting to sound smart. 

Hopefully after a few more failed attempts at rationalizing and pursuing a discount you don’t deserve, be it McDonald’s if they change a sauce on a sandwich that really impacted your implied value, or perhaps rent when your neighbor is loud and it impacts your sleep and you feel like they should shave a day from your agreement because you were victimized, you’ll accept that sometimes you’re going to have to buck up and carry on with life. Sounds like that means that this month you’re gonna have to reach deep and be brave and pay for that $4.99. Or just leave- I’m sure you’ll have a complaint for Apple in no time. 

Enjoy the free Hulu, by the way. 

 

[NL7738264]

I read the email. It's the only reason I began my chat, plus I don't mark things as spam. That's done automatically by my email service now and has been for years. 

Nice ad-hominem response, that'd absolutely fly in court! (Since you're intent on invoking my lack of legal experience?)

I read the email, it didn't satisfy me, and I went online to talk to a representative, asking how they could explain that SHOWTIME was only a free add-on and not a feature. 

Let me first address the pseudo-strawman comparisons you draw to my complaint. (I didn't realize this was a debate competition.)

1. When McDonald's changes its' prices, it's usually due to economic constraints generated by market conditions, which makes it different from this case. This is not the case with the removal of SHOWTIME. SHOWTIME and Spotify couldn't reach an agreement to continue the service they were offering me, nice false equivalency attempt though!

2. As for rent, see the above line of reasoning, but think long and hard about how it might extend to the real estate market. 

An important note here: you never really addressed my core argument, you just told me to stop whining or something along those lines. Their partner services agreement gives them the right to remove the service without changing the price, but that doesn't imply that I have to put up with it or refrain from questioning that decision.

It seemed at first obvious to me that they were legally able to remove the service without changing the price, (Why else would they have sent me that email?) and thanks to you I've now read their "Partner Services" section and understand totally that it's their right. I admit that invoking legal action as a response wasn't very smart, but take into consideration I was just trying to get a better deal, and I was having a chat on my phone with a representative, not making a sophisticated argument.

Now that all that irrelevant grandstanding you did is addressed, back to the issue at hand. I was simply raising concern about the ethics of removing a service and leaving a price the same. It's wrong, and TO CLARIFY: it's different than both straw-men of examples you gave. I should not (this is a normative statement) have to pay the same price for less.

You never really addressed that point, you just did the typical boomer dance and acted like my concern was invalid because I have the option to suck it up.

I'm glad that Spotify has such fierce (unpaid) defenders in its' community. You really got me here. 

P.S. Spotify could be sued for how this is communicated, remember a long time ago when that guy got a free jet from Pepsi because they didn't clarify that it wasn't a serious offer? Obviously, their terms and conditions are pretty tight, but I think a crafty lawyer could make an argument a jury would buy. (If it made it that far.)

[DCTG2422]

You were wrong, you’re not going to get what you want, and money buys you things so you should get some of it.

[NL7738264]

I’ve got money, I just choose to spend it where it’s actually well spent. It’s clear that both you and the removed user are just upset that someone would object to paying for Spotify when they feel they are being treated unjustly. “You were wrong.” Does not qualify as an argument and thus you’ve just made an empty claim. It’s telling that you have no rhetoric to back up such claims.

[DCTG2422]

Stop paying for Spotify then you impossible, pseudo-intellectual headache of a human being. You didn’t read the terms about partner services- like showtime- and how even though you like them they don’t belong to you. Maybe money well spent could be a helmet that you could put your ever-ballooning big head so only you could hear your ideas and complaints. 

[NL7738264]

You and that random guy are impossible lol. You both attacked me with non answers and insults as if you had the moral high ground. I’ll use the discussion board to discuss the platform. That’s what it’s for genius. 

As for my pseudo intellect and ego, I’d challenge you to come up with a real response rather than playing to the partner services agreement, which I’ve already acknowledged I didn’t read beforehand. I really did make a mistake by asserting “They can’t do this!” They can, but they shouldn’t, and that’s the big idea in my following posts, aside from whatever other points I had to make.

To your (badly made) point, I only insist that if I’m not offered what I paid for, I should pay less. I never asserted that I am currently owed showtime, just a price reduction. Their partner services agreement doesn’t invalidate that I’m owed something, it just determines that I won’t get it. (For context clues, think of a similar situation like a bank robber free from jail! He ought to be in prison, but he isn’t right now, and that should be changed.)

If decently owing something and being able to withhold it legally is beyond you, I’d suggest you discontinue your posting here.

I think at this point I’ve over explained myself to terminally online adults who also happen to be intensely reactionary. I seriously don’t understand your motivation to speak on behalf of the corporation as if they’ve helped you in some significant way.

BTW: The pseudo intellect you refer to seems mostly to be demonstrated by your lack of reading comprehension skills. I think I’ve made my point and then some, but I’d like to at least reply to someone so angry about my view.

[DCTG2422]

You’re a poor writer. You should work on that.