this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
168 points (98.3% liked)

AssholeDesign

9822 readers
1 users here now

This is a community for designs specifically crafted to make the experience worse for the user. This can be due to greed, apathy, laziness or just downright scumbaggery.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
168
Leave it to a Bezos-owned company to confuse customers and mislead them for profit. (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by tfm@piefed.europe.pub to c/assholedesign@lemmy.world
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

$0.50/week = $26... not $24/yr.

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So they're upcharging you 3 dollars for the yearly payment, which is still scummy.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Scum indeed. I was just pointing out the math.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Honytawk@feddit.nl 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You're missing the part where you shouldn't have to do quick math in order to know the price difference in a comparison.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

So even if quick math is hard for you. Going with the cheapest looking option, is still the cheapest.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

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)

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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

[–] CannedYeet@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Volume discounts are everywhere. Ever seen “buy X get one free” deals at the grocery store? That’s all this is.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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?

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] alecsargent@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] Ugurcan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] I_Clean_Here@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

its stupid and unncessary more than anything else