The desperation of NYTimes
Criticism is mounting over the New York Times’ aggressive growth and retention tactics, from hard‑to‑cancel subscriptions and forced “onboarding” email campaigns to constant in‑product upsells and app nags that persist even for paying users. Commenters see these dark patterns as part of a broader trend of user‑hostile behavior across media and tech, driven by pressure to monetize in a collapsing ad and news market, and debate whether the NYT’s journalistic value justifies its business practices. Many advocate alternatives such as library access, virtual cards, ad blockers, or simply canceling and seeking news elsewhere.
NYT subscription and cancellation experience
- Many recount predatory or frustrating NYT subscription flows: teaser intro rates that silently jump, historically phone-only cancellation, and “save” agents who argue with customers.
- Others say cancellation is now just a few web clicks, sometimes due to state or federal “click-to-cancel” rules; experiences differ by jurisdiction and time.
- Some deliberately cycle intro offers by threatening to cancel annually; others refuse to subscribe at all because of past difficulty.
Marketing emails and “transactional” loopholes
- Central complaint: new subscribers receive a multi-day onboarding email campaign that cannot be opted out of, labeled as “about your relationship” rather than marketing.
- Several see this as a CAN-SPAM / GDPR–style violation and classic dark pattern: transactional channels used to push engagement/upsell.
- Defenders argue such finite, time-bound onboarding emails can be legally framed as transactional and may improve retention.
User-hostile UX and upsell pressure
- Users describe constant nags: family-plan popups, “It’s better in the app” modals without a “never show again”, front-page autoplay videos, mid-article ads for paying subscribers, and aggressive device/2FA checks that feel like anti–account-sharing measures.
- Some say this “timeshare-like” pressure turns happy subscribers into churners.
Value vs. ethics of NYT
- One camp: NYT’s journalism, data viz, and breadth justify a subscription despite annoying business practices; they see it as one of few viable high-quality US papers.
- Another camp: subscription tactics are unethical; combined with perceived political bias, Iraq War coverage, and recent conflict reporting, they refuse to pay and sometimes avoid NYT entirely.
- There’s debate over whether consumer boycotts meaningfully influence such institutions.
Alternatives, workarounds, and broader pattern
- Workarounds: library-linked passes, masked/virtual cards, merchant blocks, chargebacks, Apple/Store-managed subs, ad blockers, and paywall bypass tools.
- Alternatives mentioned include other newspapers, newsletters, independent outlets, and YouTube channels; some are criticized as “fringe”.
- Many note similar or worse behavior from other media (Economist, WSJ), telcos, banks, LinkedIn, nonprofits, and software firms—framed as part of a general “corporate desperation” and spam arms race.