6 ms·
I’ve been a paid subscriber of FT for years. It’s horrifically expensive and worth every penny.
by mmaunder 5y ago
I’ve been a paid subscriber of FT for years. It’s horrifically expensive and worth every penny.
- notyourwork 5y agoI had to check pricing after reading your comment. $375/year! That sounds crazy.
- jfk13 5y agoDoes a dollar a day sound more affordable? Just read the news over a cup of home-brewed coffee instead of getting a take-out, and you should easily break even. :)
- dangrossman 5y agoIf I'm going out to get my avocado toast anyway, it only makes sense to get the coffee with it since I'm right there. Maybe they should let me round up my change to get the day's FT news with my coffee at Starbucks instead.
- malloryerik 5y agoNot an entirely bad idea.
- notyourwork 5y agoFor me, no it doesn't.
- 8ytecoder 5y agoThey regularly have some deals going around. ft.com/weekendpodcast would also show you some deals. I pay around $80 a quarter. Like OP, worth every penny and it’s much more than just a financial newspaper. I get WSJ through work and NYT/WaPo are all super cheap. I’ve just never found the quality of FT. So I decided to pay for it. Another publication I recommend is The Economist.
- agumonkey 5y agoyeah it sure is not a lot.. we waste that without thinking usually
- ghaff 5y agoNew York Times is around $200. The Economist is something north of $100. So the FT is on the high side but hardly out of the ballpark.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- melony 5y agoThat's cheap compared to the Bloomberg terminal. High quality news is not free (news is not necessarily the same as journalism).
- cellis 5y agoBloomberg is even more at $415, and that's just the baby bloomberg! I pay for it and think it's worth it too.
- tatrajim 5y agoI was a subscriber for ten years, but gave up on them over mediocre coverage of important issues in the US and East Asia, about which I had some knowledge. Relying on their reporting risked costing me money in my investment decisions.
- alecco 5y agoIndeed. FT used to be a must-read 15 years ago with investigative journalism and decent counterpoints on any issue. Now it's mostly one-sided opinion with little more information than you can read everywhere else. It's very sad.
- octoberfranklin 5y agoI feel like everything is this way nowadays. Apparently the only real news left is embassy cables.
- malloryerik 5y agoDo you have an opinion on Asia.Nikkei.com?
- octoberfranklin 5y agoIsn't that the same news organization now?
- malloryerik 5y agoWell the same ownership, Nikkei.
- 4cao 5y agoWasn't asked but wanted to chime in as well: I think they share some of the content now that the FT is owned by Nikkei. I notice some Nikkei bylines in the FT from time to time. For the record, I find the East Asia (and Europe) coverage decent. It's their US section that I'd say is in dire need of an improvement. Overall, a lot boils down to individual correspondents/writers: some are great while others not so much and thus best skipped (although the comments can also provide a lot of insight if the topic as such is interesting).
- anothernewdude 5y agoCan read every article on archive.is. And I still don't think they should be posted here.
- leoh 5y agoOne of the perks of Google is a free FT subscription, as it were