Leave it to a Bezos-owned company to confuse customers and mislead them for profit.

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.

MedicPigBabySaver 27 points a year ago

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

save

path: 0 19155236, hotness: undefined, score: 27, children: 2

Glytch 15 points a year ago

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

save

path: 0 19155236 19155960, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 1

MedicPigBabySaver 4 points a year ago

Scum indeed. I was just pointing out the math.

save

path: 0 19155236 19155960 19156940, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

ramble81 22 points a year ago

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.

save

path: 0 19156761, hotness: undefined, score: 22, children: 3

Honytawk 19 points a year ago

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

save

path: 0 19156761 19167054, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 2

ramble81 5 points a year ago

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

save

path: 0 19156761 19167054 19167271, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1

webghost0101 1 point a year ago

How about the part where.

“To get your first year of the post” “For 50c a week” Which is the monthly plan..

Cheapest be damned, what am i even (not) buying? Contractually obligated to keep paying for a full month/year or fined?

save

path: 0 19156761 19167054 19167271 20765119, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

edgemaster72 17 points a year 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)

save

path: 0 19155330, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 0

DarrinBrunner 17 points a year 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.

save

path: 0 19155715, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 0

AtariDump 9 points a year 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

save

path: 0 19156749, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0

CannedYeet 7 points a year 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.

save

path: 0 19176560, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0

chonglibloodsport 5 points a year ago

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.

save

path: 0 19157126, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 11

Susaga 4 points a year ago

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

save

path: 0 19157126 19162948, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 10

chonglibloodsport 4 points a year ago

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

save

path: 0 19157126 19162948 19163986, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 9

Susaga 1 point a year 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.

save

path: 0 19157126 19162948 19163986 19164703, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 8

chonglibloodsport 1 point a year 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.

save

path: 0 19157126 19162948 19163986 19164703 19167959, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 7

alecsargent 2 points a year 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.

save

path: 0 19156828, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

Ugurcan 1 point a year 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.

save

path: 0 19156477, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

I_Clean_Here 1 point a year ago

its stupid and unncessary more than anything else

save

path: 0 19164078, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0