《纽约时报》的绝望
The desperation of NYTimes

原始链接: https://rozumem.xyz/posts/16

作者讲述了自己在订阅《纽约时报》单篇文章后的沮丧经历。尽管订阅费用低廉,但该公司强制发送为期14天的“入门”邮件且无法取消订阅,因为公司认为这些邮件是“必要的”。 这种激进的策略适得其反,让作者感到被动,从而促使他们预先禁用了自动续费——如果公司提供简单的退订选项,他们本不会这样做。作者指出,这些“绝望”的策略讽刺地违反了行业通用准则。 作者结合自身作为企业主的经验指出,通过便捷的退订功能尊重用户自主权,实际上能通过保持名单纯净和维护良好声誉来推动增长。通过向新订阅者强推内容,《纽约时报》制造了损害品牌信任的摩擦。作者最后质疑,为什么像这样的大型机构需要使用这种强制性手段,而规模较小、更尊重用户的企业却能通过将选择权交给客户而获得成功。

这份 Hacker News 的讨论凸显了消费者对《纽约时报》激进的订阅与营销策略的普遍不满。许多用户将其商业行为斥为“掠夺性”,并指出取消订阅过程的困难(往往需要拨打客服电话或面对挽留式的推诿)是他们抵制该媒体的主要原因。 这场讨论涉及几个核心主题: * **黑暗模式:** 评论者批评了那些“对用户不友好”的策略,例如持续不断的电子邮件营销、自动播放视频,以及因司法管辖区不同而各异的误导性退订流程。 * **消费者伦理:** 用户之间存在分歧:一方认为应通过“用钱包投票”来惩罚不道德行为;另一方则认为,考虑到大多数大型企业都采用类似的增长黑客策略,这种做法往往徒劳无功。 * **变通方法:** 精通技术的用户分享了绕过这些烦恼的技巧,包括使用虚拟信用卡、通过图书馆访问,或通过苹果 App Store 管理订阅以确保能够轻松取消。 总而言之,尽管许多用户认可该媒体的新闻价值,但共识反映出人们对现代企业“订阅地狱”的日益疲惫——在这种模式下,留存客户往往被置于用户体验和透明度之上。
相关文章

原文

I recently got suckered into subscribing to NYTimes because I wanted to read an article behind a paywall and I couldn't find an easy and quick alternative. I didn't mind the $2.00 a month. But I took offense to what happened after I paid.

Over the course of the next 5 days, they sent me 5 onboarding marketing emails and I could not opt out of any of them. What's worse is their message in the footer.

You are receiving this one-time series of onboarding messages over a 14-day period because they provide essential information about your new subscription. Because the messages are about your relationship with The Times, you are receiving them regardless of whether you are opted in to receive marketing emails from The New York Times.

They probably think it's a clever marketing copy. It's not. It made me feel powerless. It put a sour taste in my mouth. It made them reek of desperation. It made me go out of my way to check that my subscription does not auto-renew. The irony is that had they included a simple unsubscribe link or not sent me anything at all, I probably wouldn't have bothered to check.

Their copy makes it seem like they know they're being coy. And still they choose to not follow CAN-SPAM best practices. And for what? A few more eyeballs and clicks. I'm aware media and journalism sites have been getting hit hard over the last few years, but is it this bad? It makes me wonder if NYTimes is unique in employing these tactics.

Email is near and dear to my heart. My own business uses email as a key growth channel, so I understand its importance. But I make sure every marketing email has an unsubscribe link at the bottom. Gmail users also see a one-click unsubscribe button at the top. I also provide a link which recipients can click to initiate the off-boarding flow in case they wish to permanently close their account. I add this on some transactional emails too.

I don't consider these things to be anti-growth. On the contrary, I consider them to be growth drivers. They help keep my email sending reputation high and my email list clean. Customers feel like they're in the driver's seat, which is ever more important in today's climate and probably helps my brand. Customers who wish to discontinue their relationship with my business can do so without fuss, so they're less likely to badmouth me.

I earn a small fraction of what NYTimes earns. If I'm not desperate, why are they?

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com