By Darius
In today's commercial landscape, prepayment systems have become thoroughly commonplace. From restaurant membership cards to gym annual memberships, merchants employ a "pay now, receive services later" approach to essentially "lock in" customers. This model guarantees long-term patronage for businesses while providing them with substantial upfront capital. In return, customers receive discounts below standard prices.
Typically, only businesses with strong operational confidence and financial backing, such as major brands, high-end restaurants, and chain gyms, can successfully implement such marketing strategies. Given these enterprises' high credibility, robust risk management capabilities, and ability to deliver quality products/services, many consumers opt for prepayment to enjoy the price advantages.
Logically speaking, the probability of losing one's prepayment should be minimal. But some things in this world defy logic -- what I call "toxic prepayments." Recently, the sudden closure of the long-established bakery chain Taipan Bread & Cakes left numerous consumers stunned, including me. While I never prepaid at Tai Pan, their renowned snow-skin mooncakes and extensive operations made their abrupt disappearance unimaginable. Many customers now hold unusable vouchers, uncertain if they can recover these unexpected losses.
Experts suggest Taipan's closure may shift consumer behavior toward short-term transactions rather than long-term commitments. In my view, prepayment constitutes a form of "credit-based consumption" - when trust erodes, entire industries can be affected. I recall how, between 2017-2022, numerous mainland gyms collected annual membership fees (often exceeding thousands of yuan) before disappearing overnight. These near-fraudulent practices severely damaged the gym industry's reputation. Consequently, large gym chains declined while smaller establishments offering monthly/weekly memberships or walk-in options proliferated, as fewer consumers could afford - or trust - annual commitments.
Moreover, even regular prepayment inherently limits consumer flexibility. How many gym members maintain regular workouts throughout their annual membership? Even university students struggle with consistency - campus gyms overflow at semester start but empty out progressively. Some might attribute this to workout fatigue, but consider restaurants: after prepaying at one establishment, my visitation frequency increased significantly. The restaurant effectively "locked me in" as a customer, and my total spending rose accordingly. Ironically, without prepayment, I likely wouldn't have visited so frequently. The restaurant further incentivized visits with time-limited coupons in my account, creating additional pressure to spend. If I didn't go, my prepayment would be wasted; if I did, I would spend more overall.
Does this make prepayment inherently problematic? Not necessarily. I view it as a form of micro risk investment - trading risk assessment for greater discounts. There is, indeed, a possibility to be poisoned, but to navigate this "investment," consumers should at least: 1) calculate potential risks; 2) prepare for contingencies; 3) maximize benefits within reason; and 4) resist blindly following merchant strategies, always prioritizing personal needs.
That said, despite my complaints about that restaurant's prepayment system, I maintain my membership for one simple reason: the food is genuinely good.
Related News:
Taipan Bread & Cakes announces closure: Union reports over 100 employees owed wages
Comment