Not paying is always simple.
—
The New York Times’ pricing strategy is a failure, both in concept and execution. As far as execution goes:
The plan is complicated by exceptions, quotas, pricing tiers, and delivery methods.
Even having understood those, the true price is hard to calculate because it’s given, very disingenuously, in terms of weeks. Most people will round four weeks to a month, but this actually comes out to be more expensive than if it were charged monthly.
If you make it easy for people to understand how much they’re paying, and what they’re paying for, it is more likely that they’ll buy it. The decision to purchase and the act of paying are part of the experience for any product or service, and should be designed accordingly.
Not paying is always simple.
It is at best arbitrary, and at worst punishment for enjoying the product.
It must be assumed that it’s more expensive to read on a larger device, or on many devices, because one could potentially read more. A newspaper should consider that a success, especially since, presumably, even the paid version will still include advertising and their asinine pageview-mongering pagination.
Netflix: one price, access from any device.
New York Times: three tiers, arbitrary division between devices based on screen size.
and, astutely:
And how many normal people realize that if you, say, opt for the $15 plan, that you’ll be able to access the Times website from your iPad?
Nor is it a good value.
Just a guess, but $5/month to read The Times anywhere would have people signing up without thinking twice.
[The New York Times’s new digital subscriptions] are neither easy-to-understand nor sound like a great value
