wall street journal subscription price comparison

People who've paid for website access are the newspaper's most loyal fans.With 500,000 alternatives, people don't have time for junk apps. Thus, many potential new subscribers will see the 2-star rating and immediately abandon the application download. Existing subscribers feel so insulted by having to pay twice that their negative ratings dominate the App Store feedback.So why not just focus on new subscribers and ignore old customers and their horrible user experience? Even though phone screens are small, users might still overlook the last option as they focus their attention on the top of the screen.) Degrading the Brandĭoes it matter that existing website subscribers give up on the mobile app? After all, the company already has their money from the website subscription.Īlso, the design works reasonably well for new subscribers - who are the only ones generating incremental revenue. (Also, our tests of hundreds of mobile apps have clearly shown a strong user preference for engaging with the top option this is similar to what we see when testing mobile sites. However, as the many negative App Store reviews attest, few users ever make it this far. Those few users who do press Log In will finally see that they can use their existing credentials to access the app. However, they're unlikely to press this button because their experience with the app so far has taught them that they must register (and pay extra) before being allowed to log in. Wildly persistent users might notice the much smaller Log In area at the bottom of the startup screen. Again, the only sensible conclusion is that you can access the full set of articles only by ponying up again and paying the extra $1.99/week. You aren't told that you can use your existing website account if you have one. The second button leads to a registration screen, where you can create a new account that gives you free access to a small number of articles. If some users are particularly persistent, however, they might return to the startup screen and try the second button. Most people will probably give up right here, because using the app so clearly seems to cost an extra $1.99/week. Thus, as soon as users see the 2nd screen, they'll back out if they don't want to pay twice for the same articles. Past experience from all websites and apps uniformly leads people to the same conclusion: Subscribe is the call to action for establishing a new subscription. The Subscribe button has zero information scent for current subscribers. However, most users will never see this 3rd screen. Click the Subscribe button on the 2nd screen and you'll get a screen saying that access is free for current website subscribers. Although this is the only logical conclusion, it's false. It's obvious that it will cost $1.99 per week to use the mobile app after the first 2 weeks. Screen shown after tapping Subscribe Now. (Implying, of course, that there'll be a fee after this period.) Pressing this button gives you this screen: The strongest call to action - both in terms of placement and size - is the offer to subscribe and get 2 weeks for free. The first time you launch the app, the following startup screen appears: Why do so many people think they have to pay when they don't? Because of a highly confusing user interface design. Mobile app access is free to paying website subscribers: they simply have to log in with their existing userid and password.

I would agree with these users if in fact they were being charged twice for the same articles.

It's clear that people are deeply offended by being asked to pay again for mobile access to the newspaper when they're already paying for a wsj.com subscription. 'Useless app, have to pay twice for same content.'.'Slap.' (The first sentence? 'These guys have the nerve to charge additional fees to current online subscriber.').The 3 highest-rated reviews all gave 1-star ratings, and their headings were: The answer is clear from reading the reviews. The WSJ is one of the world's most respected newspapers and has long been a digital pioneer. Given the 90-9-1 rule for social design, most users never bother reviewing products, so 40,000 low scores represent at least half a million dissatisfied customers. Averaged across 68,418 consumer reviews, the rating is not just a reflection of a few irate users.Īs a rough estimate, a 2-star average across 68,418 reviews means that 40,000 users gave the application a 1-star rating. The Wall Street Journal 's iPhone app had just 2 stars in Apple's App Store at the time of this writing.

Wall street journal subscription price comparison