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.
The price for one week of access is 50 cents. They are charging $7 for it. They are charging the price of three and a half months for 1 week of access. Even if that's better than paying $26 for a service you only use for 1 week, it's not good.
Okay? Read that again. Especially that last part. Now read it again. "Better does not mean good." Are you understanding that? I'm sick of saying it, so if you don't get it, just keep reading it.
There is no option to pay 50 cents for a week and cancel it. That's a problem. You also imply there's no option to pay $2 for a month and cancel it. Which is weird for a monthly payment option.
Now, do you want to keep explaining how economics works if you're not greedy and stupid in the naive belief that Wapo execs aren't greedy and stupid? As if they aren't akin to a farmer who loses a cow, so they milk the remaining cow twice as much? Or do you want to move on with your life?
Greed has nothing to do with it. Even mom and pop bakeries will give you a discount if you buy a dozen bagels instead of just one. Are you going to start shouting at them? Why am I wasting my time talking to you? Blocked.