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.
What am I missing? It’s just some quick math:
The 50¢ is designed to look the cheapest and it actually is the cheapest.
You're missing the part where you shouldn't have to do quick math in order to know the price difference in a comparison.
So even if quick math is hard for you. Going with the cheapest looking option, is still the cheapest.
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?