Not sure why your comment got downvoted, really. I agree, from their perspective it makes sense to give away a half year of service if it keeps the subscriber

Not sure why your comment got downvoted, really. I agree, from their perspective it makes sense to give away a half year of service if it keeps the subscriber account active. It increases the odds above zero that the customer will stay even after they have to pay again, it looks good for the advertising stats, etc. I don't think they're really factoring in the "angry customer" aspect, however, or they'd stop. They turned me from an ambivalent customer who decided the ROI wasn't there, into an opinionated former customer who is willing to tell friends and family the horror show that will happen if they subscribe and then decide later it isn't for them. It's the opposite of good word-of-mouth advertising, and NYT is going to suffer for it. Even if they change their policy today.