- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
Wow, that’s really sneaky. You think you’re paying $29/year for access to the news, but really you’re getting the Washington Post.
What am I missing? It’s just some quick math:
- $7 x 52 =$364.00/year
- $0.50 x 52 =$26.00/year
- $29/ year
The 50¢ is designed to look the cheapest and it actually is the cheapest.
You’re missing the part where you shouldn’t have to do quick math in order to know the price difference in a comparison.
So even if quick math is hard for you. Going with the cheapest looking option, is still the cheapest.
$0.50/week = $26… not $24/yr.
So they’re upcharging you 3 dollars for the yearly payment, which is still scummy.
Scum indeed. I was just pointing out the math.
You’re charged monthly, at 50¢ per week, I think. So, you’re charged $2, once per month. But, there are 52 weeks in a year… I don’t know. You’re right, it’s confusing, but I expect it’s stated more clearly in the TOS, somewhere.
And the neat part is, based on the “Flash Sale” bit up top, and that it says “Get your first year…”, they don’t even tell you what the real price is if you fall into their subscription trap (I mean, that’s par for the course, but that doesn’t make it right)
Let’s see if I can math.
$7 a week x 52 weeks is $364 a year
50¢ a week x 52 weeks is $26 a year
$29 a year is $29 a year
The $7 option is good if you only need the paper for 1 week. The other options probably lock you into a 1 year contract.
Just because the other options are secretly worse does NOT make charging 14 times the price for one week GOOD.
Volume discounts are everywhere. Ever seen “buy X get one free” deals at the grocery store? That’s all this is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
its stupid and unncessary more than anything else
What in the flying fuck? If a service makes me calculate how much it costs for any given fixed amount of time then I’m not even considering it and move on.
Well, sorry to say this doesn’t seem scummy other than it expects you to have basic literacy. But if you have basic literacy, why would you read that trash anyway.
