The desperation of NYTimes

Post by johannes1234321 » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 10:09 PM UTC

kmoser wrote: post #188

Centigonal wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting topic. If a company does something you approve of (e.g. do journalism) and something else you disapprove of (e.g. make canceling hard), is there a good way to signal both as a consumer? This is also relevant in the context of companies like Target, which has been boycotted by both sides of the US political spectrum for various reasons.

> If a company does something you approve of [...] and something else you disapprove of [...], is there a good way to signal both as a consumer? I'm a fan of writing actual paper letters, which are (marginally) harder to ignore than emails, and (at least I like to think) carry a bit more moral authority, since I'm making the effort to print and (pay to) send them. In my letter I make it clear what I like they're doin…

Post by nickff » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 10:27 PM UTC

saghm wrote: post #260

nickff wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It's nuts and I can't believe it works." The success rate is low, but the problem is that it's an arms race, where every competitor is spamming, so each new entrant (or non-spammer) must try to spam even harder to compete. If one elects not to spam, they are at a competitive disadvantage. If there is an anti-spam law or regulation, this just benefits competitors from other jurisdictions, where it is difficult to e…

So then enforce the rule on the receiver side: people in your jurisdiction should have the right to be free from spam, and if you want to serve customers there, you need to comply. I'm pretty sure companies aren't going to opt out of the US market because if they're not allowed to send stupid marketing emails anymore.

Post by dreamcompiler » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 10:36 PM UTC

dieselgate wrote: post #10

epistasis wrote: post #3

NYTimes is predatory on subscriptions. Over my long lifetime I've subscribed twice, and regretted it both times with intensity. Any place that allows easy instantaneous subscription by a simple web form, but makes you call and talk to a person during limited business hours for cancellation , is a toxic place. I've been told they have stopped this predatory practice due to some newly passed laws or something, but they…

I respect your opinion but am grateful for and find tremendous value in my NYT subscription. I share it with my SO and read their articles constantly. Prior to getting a subscription I was a "turn js off" kind of person - which is fine I suppose and still do it for other sites. I do not maintain any streaming or other subscriptions outside of Deezer (and a Garmin GPS FWIW). I would like a Bloomberg subscription but t…

Post by brikym » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 10:42 PM UTC

Post by fragmede » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 11:21 PM UTC

somewhatgoated wrote: post #198

fragmede wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thus the thing to do, for funsies, is to subscribe, and then cancel, and give the poor customer service person on the other end of the line, a piece of your mind, every time you cancel. Boycotts generally don't work. But the goal is to make a signal that gets noticed by the C-suite. Unfortunately, the routes I see are in the pocketbook, the customer service department, and via Twitter, if they do actually happen to b…

Being horrible to the CSR will never be noticed by the C-suite. If you think they give one flying fuck about what customers think I have news for you: the only thing that matters is what the board thinks and if revenue is rising but everyone hates the product/company they won’t even blink.