this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
168 points (98.3% liked)

AssholeDesign

9843 readers
2 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
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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 4 points 1 month ago

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