As many of you know, I subscribe to First Things. I read every word of every issue and quote some of its authors in this blog. Guess what? I’ve canceled my subscription. Let me explain why, for it sheds light on a bad (perhaps a fraudulent) business practice. When I subscribed, I was promised one year’s worth of issues. The card said, in parentheses, “12.” It then added, “Plus two free issues.” That’s 14, right? 12 + 2 = 14. At about the time my 12th issue arrived, I got a notice saying that it was my final issue. I wrote back (via e-mail) saying that I had two more issues to go. One of the interns wrote that he was passing my e-mail on to the appropriate person. A day or so later, a woman wrote to me to say that I had misunderstood the offer. There are, she said, only 10 issues per year. When added to the two free issues, therefore, I was to receive 12, not 14. I protested that the offer was, at best, ambiguous, and made it clear that if I don’t receive two more issues, I’m canceling my subscription. I never heard from her again.

Let’s think this through. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the offer was ambiguous, even though it was not. (I’m a lawyer and a philosopher. I’m hypersensitive to meanings.) You would think that First Things would give me the two issues I expected to receive, in order to keep me as a subscriber. After all, I’m not responsible for the ambiguity. I acted in good faith. Now assume, again for the sake of argument, that I’m in the wrong—that the offer clearly and unambiguously indicated that I would receive only 12 issues. Wouldn’t it still be in the interest of First Things to give me the two issues, since not to do so would be to lose me as a subscriber? Can a business this unfriendly (or stupid) survive? Maybe not. I see today that First Things is begging for money. Deal with this publication at your peril.