Firefighters let house burn down

Why would they gain more subscriptions? If they had hosed the house even though the property owner did not pay, what incentive is that for other people to pay? I don't know about anyone else, but if I only had to pay for insurance when I absolutely needed it and got full benefits of doing so, I would never ever pay for insurance and only pay for it as I needed to. Sounds like a swell plan for me! No risk of me paying and receiving nothing.

Provided that the company (are they even a company) puts enough stress that this should be the one and only time it happens, they might.
Realistically, I also think they might take a hit by the paying people choosing to opt out of their subscriptions. But would you honestly do that, half suspecting their seriousness when they said there wouldn't be a next time?

I believe this Crankick guy was under the illusion that firefighters are compelled to fight fire, regardless the situations. Such an event as this will raise the awareness of the local population about their true policy. If the subscribers choose to discontinue their pay, it will be for a different reason than what Cranick had in mind; I'm thinking more of a "they'd save me right? They're humans after all" and not "Psh, why pay, they'll SURELY help me when the time of need comes".

I don't know about everyone else, but I wouldn't be taking chances on someone else's possible sympathy.