For the disoriented or reading-challenged:
Subscribers
2004 2,754,704
2007 2,692,080
2008 2,670,737
2009 2,525,611
2010 2,352,105
Exchanges
2004 2,112,006
2007 1,735,993
2008 1,526,995
2009 1,351,693
2010 1,211,892
To pre-answer the obvious, I tried to pick enough years to lessen the effect of switching to Points. The number of subscribers not reducing all that much suggest that is the case.
Carolinian's Chicken Little warnings of what (?), 10 years ago, that Weeks would be raped (or something close to that), appears to bear out.
It's interesting that the number of exchanges has fallen more dramatically than the number of subscribers, 43% v. 15%.
The number of exchanges per subscriber went from .77 to .52.
The value of the lost/reduced exchanges at today's exchange fee is over $170,000,000!
Anyone can conclude what anyone wants to conclude, and, for me, that is that those who have been saying that RCI has not been making subscriber-friendly decisions are not alone.
Subscribers
2004 2,754,704
2007 2,692,080
2008 2,670,737
2009 2,525,611
2010 2,352,105
Exchanges
2004 2,112,006
2007 1,735,993
2008 1,526,995
2009 1,351,693
2010 1,211,892
To pre-answer the obvious, I tried to pick enough years to lessen the effect of switching to Points. The number of subscribers not reducing all that much suggest that is the case.
Carolinian's Chicken Little warnings of what (?), 10 years ago, that Weeks would be raped (or something close to that), appears to bear out.
It's interesting that the number of exchanges has fallen more dramatically than the number of subscribers, 43% v. 15%.
The number of exchanges per subscriber went from .77 to .52.
The value of the lost/reduced exchanges at today's exchange fee is over $170,000,000!
Anyone can conclude what anyone wants to conclude, and, for me, that is that those who have been saying that RCI has not been making subscriber-friendly decisions are not alone.
Comment