|
|
|
|
|
|
by smacktoward
3917 days ago
|
|
|
I generally agree. My only hesitation is that I wish they would simplify the pricing structure -- everything's pitched around promotional rates and discounts that only apply for X weeks, so it's difficult to know at a glance exactly what a sub will end up costing you over, say, a year. I'm sure they have their reasons for doing it that way, but to me these kind of pricing structures are a huge turn-off. Just tell me what it costs and let me pay it, you know? If you want to capitalize on the moment when I'm reading an NYT story and think "you know, this is so good I really should be paying for it," putting math problems between me and the payment form is the wrong way to do it. |
|
|
However, nytimes.com has a very regrettable pricing structure, as you say. They seem to aim to be Comcast-like. The pricing is:
* Heavily promotional (special price 50%+ off sticker price)
* Difficult to cancel (you are asked to call them, although they will ultimately run it through email)
* Opaque in billing (no way to actually look at the terms of your current subscription/promotion; full payment history hidden away to obscure how much you're paying them)
They do this no doubt because it works in the short term and bumps up numbers. But as a consumer I can't help but feel they are losing goodwill and face in this new age and hope they come around to more contemporary online billing practices.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media... is the best example I can find. It's very nice to get stuff like this every week. Kudos to the web team.