17
Leave it to a Bezos-owned company to confuse customers and mislead them for profit. (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago by tfm@piefed.europe.pub to c/assholedesign@lemmy.world
19 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 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

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

[-] Glytch@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

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

[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Scum indeed. I was just pointing out the math.

[-] ramble81@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months 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.

[-] Honytawk@feddit.nl 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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.

[-] ramble81@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago

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

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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?

[-] AtariDump@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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

[-] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months 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.

[-] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

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

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

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 0 points 3 months 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.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months 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.

[-] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

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 0 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 weeks ago

People will buy it alright.

Rich people won’t care and its more profitable to sell to one rich person for 200x the price then to 100 poor people at 1x the price.

[-] alecsargent@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months 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 -2 points 3 months 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.

this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
17 points (94.7% liked)

AssholeDesign

10055 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