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.
Godort@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Worked out to yearly prices from the weekly cost, they are:
7*52 = $362
0.5*52 = $26
Or $29
bier@feddit.nl 2 weeks ago
It is because of your post I realized it’s cent not dollars. I thought who pays 50 dollars per week for an online newspaper.
In euros AFAIK we don’t really use cent very often and it would probably be shown as €0,50