5 ms·

If it works, it's not bad UX it's dark UX. It would be great to ask WSJ if they considered A/B tests?

trhoad 4y ago
I think the point is it doesn't work. The author had the time, inclination, and technical ability to get through the bullshit and eventually cancel. A lot of people won't.
- thaeli 4y ago
  Which means it does work, as a malpattern. If your customers can't get through the bullshit to cancel that reduces churn. (Though this ignores the consumer-side counter, which is sort of a malpattern but IMO justified when the company makes cancellation difficult, of just cancelling the credit card authorization. Code 41 chargebacks are a beautiful thing.)
rchaud 4y ago
WSJ basically invented the paywall in 2007 (back when other major newspaper websites were 100% free) so they've probably done a fair amount of usability and A/B tests. Chances are that they're trying to optimize for things that are different from the things you or I wish they optimized for.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  Counterpoint: quite possibly they look at their large number of subscribers and take that as all the evidence that they need that there is nothing wrong with their subscription process.
  - rchaud 4y ago
    Their retention rate is pretty high because the competition can't really achieve the same depth of coverage. This would be a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation. Not everyone needs a WSJ subscription. Those that do either have a business plan or invest in a personal plan if they're say, MBA students. For most other people, WSJ is too stuffy and business-focused to be worth the cost. There's a reason why WSJ is considered gold standard of financial/business papers, and upstarts like BusinessInsider and QZ fall far short and have to target a poorer niche of general-interest users.
nvr219 4y ago
> If it works, it's not bad UX it's dark UX How are you measuring that it works? Are they getting better subscriber numbers with this UX than they would with a simpler one?

I think the point is it doesn't work. The author had the time, inclination, and technical ability to get through the bullshit and eventually cancel. A lot of people won't.

thaeli 4y ago
Which means it does work, as a malpattern. If your customers can't get through the bullshit to cancel that reduces churn. (Though this ignores the consumer-side counter, which is sort of a malpattern but IMO justified when the company makes cancellation difficult, of just cancelling the credit card authorization. Code 41 chargebacks are a beautiful thing.)

rchaud 4y ago

WSJ basically invented the paywall in 2007 (back when other major newspaper websites were 100% free) so they've probably done a fair amount of usability and A/B tests. Chances are that they're trying to optimize for things that are different from the things you or I wish they optimized for.

dsr_ 4y ago
Counterpoint: quite possibly they look at their large number of subscribers and take that as all the evidence that they need that there is nothing wrong with their subscription process.
- rchaud 4y ago
  Their retention rate is pretty high because the competition can't really achieve the same depth of coverage. This would be a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation. Not everyone needs a WSJ subscription. Those that do either have a business plan or invest in a personal plan if they're say, MBA students. For most other people, WSJ is too stuffy and business-focused to be worth the cost. There's a reason why WSJ is considered gold standard of financial/business papers, and upstarts like BusinessInsider and QZ fall far short and have to target a poorer niche of general-interest users.

nvr219 4y ago

> If it works, it's not bad UX it's dark UX How are you measuring that it works? Are they getting better subscriber numbers with this UX than they would with a simpler one?