My subscription to The Economist magazine is set to expire at the end of the month, so I went to their website for some pricing information. Being in a slightly curious mood, I wanted to see how the UK pricing compared to the US.
To my surprise, the prices were almost identical at around $1.99 per issue, at least if you went for the best possible deal, which happened to not be the ‘best offer’ for the UK subscribers.
Yet what surprised me more was the different approach taken to presenting the information for each country.
Take a look at the UK offer:
The assumption appears to be that a UK subscriber has the mathematical ability to work out for themselves how much each issue will cost, yet not quite enough to see that the ‘best offer’ might not be the best offer at all.
If I were to subscribe for three years using the ‘best offer’, I would pay a total of £309. Yet the standard three year subscription costs only £216.
Compare this to the US offer:
The US offer is a good example of more is less. Each offer includes a bewildering amount of information, yet doesn’t say how long the subscriptions actually last. The magazine also assumes that US subscribers cannot work out how much each issue costs, and has to spell out precisely how many issues they’ll receive (four trial plus 98 additional = 102) unlike their more intelligent UK counterparts.
Interestingly, the UK options contain far less information, yet the costs and savings are highlighted, making it clearer.
Take the last option for each country, and look at what each contains.
US: Number of trial issues, number of additional issues, total number of issues, cost per issue, total cost, percentage saved.
UK: Lenth of subscriptions, total cost, percentage saved.
The question is why?
The most likely reason is local norms. If subscriptions are normally presented this way in the US, then it makes sense for The Economist to conform to what their subscribers expect. And in the case of the US, there may also be legal issues to consider.
A few points to think about.
1) Selling a subscription is simple. The subscriber pays for a number of issues and receives them. The complexity only comes into effect through the vendor.
2) Most subscribers are a captive audience. They like the publication, they’ve already decided to purchase a subscription, and they won’t be put off by a few basic (or not so basic) choices.
3) The Economist can offer their mathematically savvy UK subscribers a ‘best offer’ that isn’t a best offer because they can get away with it. They can argue that it is the best offer if a person only wants a one-year subscription, and more importantly still, the people who do realise that another option is cheaper aren’t going to walk away in disgust. They’ll just choose the cheaper option, and probably feel good for outsmarting The Economist.
It’s also worth considering what they are really offering with their special rates. When comparing the offers, US readers can save $0.50 an issue, but is that actually tempting for them? Is a reader to The Economist really persuaded to subscribe because of a 50 cent saving? Probably not – but the 71% saving will be far more tempting.
I’d be intrigued to know which of the offers are the most popular. I suspect that the longest term offers are the winners, as I would think that most subscribers are looking for convenience. As a UK subscriber I know I can pay today and not have to worry about resubscribing until March 2012. The extra saving is just a little icing on the cake that further tips the scale. Convenience plus savings are an effective incentive.
