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.

  • Pechente@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    5 days ago

    I remember that I wanted to subscribe to a German newspaper that advertised 6 months for 99ct or whatever. I wanted to see if the regular pricing after the 6 months was good but I had trouble even finding it and when I finally found it, the different subscription options were so opaque that I truly didn’t understand which plan to pick. In the end I didn’t subscribe. I have no idea why some companies make their offerings so inaccessible.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Write them a physical letter complaining about their website and mail it to them via international mail. That should get the point across nicely.

      • sexy_peach@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        5 days ago

        They know. Some of them admitted their paid tier only exists to argue that a tracking free website exists and they can advertise and track all their readers.