4 ms·
That's unfortunate. The Economist's attempts at creating a sensible digital pricing model has just been a range of awful options. From the Kindle, to the iPad,
by CONTRARlAN 12y ago
That's unfortunate.
The Economist's attempts at creating a sensible digital pricing model has just been a range of awful options. From the Kindle, to the iPad, etc.
To say nothing of the fact that it's still cheaper to just find a decent discount on the print edition and access the web version via that account, than it is to save the materials and costs and go digital-only.
For all the normative claims they make about the need for better environmentalism and economic policies, they sure seem to have difficulty keeping their own house in order.
- dingaling 12y ago> To say nothing of the fact that it's still cheaper to just find a decent discount on the print edition and access the web version via that account I thought I had found a clever trick when I called them and asked them to stop physical delivery ( as will they do if you're going on an extended trip, for example ). The next week they also suspended my digital access... I tried to explain to them that I didn't actually want the paper copy but it didn't register with them. When it came to renew, I let the subscription lapse because it felt so wasteful to be throwing the magazine straight from the letterbox into the recycling bin. And I wasn't prepared to pay more to go without the paper!
- CONTRARlAN 12y agoThat'd be funny if it wasn't such an infuriating brand of stupidity on their part. With only one or two exceptions where I like to keep print copies around for reference (or for travel use where I want something disposable–don't want to leave an iPad on the beach or by the pool, for example), I'm the same as you: it arrives, it goes straight to recycling, and I read it on my iPad/Kindle/whatever. Last year I went on a tear, trying to stop all paper delivery while retaining digital access. Turns out very, very few publications were helpful. Everyone understood why I wanted to do it, but they make their ad money off of paper copies shipped. So, as with the Economist, you have a lot of rags who're talking the talk about conservation, provided it doesn't cost them a penny. Sure, they'll charge the customer more for less. A couple were great about it: a quick email and it was moved over to Newsstand, or their app, etc. But the rest, the bigger publications, almost uniformly baulked, and could never make it happen. I even considered trying to shame them by creating a site so everyone see who's forward-thinking, and who's myopic. I may yet. It kind of reaffirmed my view that the whole print industry is a broken model. The end result is that I canceled a bunch of subscriptions, since the ones that are supposed to have credibility about world affairs just lost it in my eyes, I couldn't take them seriously (not that I ever should have). It's also made me extra sensitive to the whored-out nature of publications that take ad dollars. As a result, I canceled a bunch of subscriptions, and focused my energy on the ones that operate from subscription models (which are more expensive individually, but I saved more than that getting there). Turns out I'm getting better information, paying more attention to it, and don't have a stack of magazines to worry about recycling every month.
- dublinben 12y agoYou're welcome to have them send your paper copies to me. I'll happily read them before I recycle them for you.