cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/35308060

Misleading pricing:

Using the billing period as the header and showing the price for the billing period… except for monthly—which shows 1/4 the price and says “every week” in smaller, gray text.

Punishing non-subscription payments:

Adding a $6.50 (1400%) surcharge for wanting a weekly one-time payment instead of a recurring subscription.

Charging more for longer periods:

Monthly billing, once you remove the dark pattern and convert it to its actual price, is $2. There are 12 months in a year, meaning it would cost $24 to maintain that subscription for a year.

Why is the yearly subscription $29, then?

If you want to verify this for yourself, you’re going to need to clear your cookies and reload an article a lot. They do A/B tests and show different subscription requied modals. This one was the worst.

    • Susaga@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      4·
      4 days ago

      Just because the other options are secretly worse does NOT make charging 14 times the price for one week GOOD.

        • Susaga@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          4 days ago

          They decide what the price is. If that price is so high that they can give away an extra product while still turning a profit (which they are, or they wouldn’t offer the deal to begin with), then the discounted price is the only price even close to fair. The regular price is them overcharging you. This does not make the discount good.

          Now, imagine how much they’re overcharging you if they give you a “buy 1, get 13 free” offer. That’s what this is.

          • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            4 days ago

            If they’re overcharging you then don’t buy. If they set a price and nobody buys it then they’ll lower it.

            No one’s forcing you to subscribe to the Wapo.

            • Susaga@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              2·
              4 days ago

              Why would they lower it? That might hurt short-term profits, which might scare shareholders, which might mean the CEO gets a lower bonus, or even gets replaced. Nah, they’ll just maximise profit from their remaining customers by adding in advertising, harvesting data, or even raising the price.

              Which is irrelevant to the main point that, no, paying $7 for something worth 50 cents is not good. I save a LOT of money by seeing scummy marketing tricks for the tricks they are.

              • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                4 days ago

                If no one’s buying it then they’re not maximizing profit. Profit is maximized at the market-clearing price.

                And no, it’s not “worth 50 cents.” That’s a temporary price for the first year. The price goes up after that. At 50 cents per week they’re almost certainly losing money. The goal is to lose money the first year and make money the next year when the price goes up. It could backfire and people just cancel after the first year. But that’s still more money than not getting the 50 cents per week.

                • Susaga@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  1·
                  4 days ago

                  Execs know you make profit by raising income and cutting costs, and think no further than that. They will not lower income by lowering the price. You are naive if you think differently.

                  The difference between 50 cents a week and $29 a year is $5 a year, or 6 cents a week. Is the lack of that $5 losing them money? Even with the data harvesting and advertising? And since the higher price is 56 cents, then it’s STILL not worth $7.

                  Plus, this is Jeff Bezos. He makes 2 cents per second. He is not in a position where he needs the money, nor your defence of his pricing policies.

                  • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    4 days ago

                    Yes I know Bezos owns Wapo. That’s why I don’t read it anymore.

                    Do you think it’s his personal charity? I doubt it! Even if he doesn’t need the money he’ll see it as a matter of pride to make the paper profitable. Anything otherwise would be like a gardener letting all his plants die: embarrassing.

                    Economics 101: if you charge a trillion dollars for a newspaper and nobody buys it, your profit is zero. If you give your paper away for free and everyone in the world accepts a free copy, your profit is also zero. Somewhere in between the two extremes is a price where profit is maximized. This is the equilibrium or market-clearing price since either raising or lowering the price from this point will reduce profits.

                    Again, maybe you don’t understand, but $7 < $26 < $29. If you only need the paper for 1 day (or anywhere up to 1 week), it’s cheaper to pay $7 for the 1 week subscription than it is to pay $26 (50 cents per week) for the whole year. There is no option to pay 50 cents for one week and then cancel it.