True brilliance.
The New York Times, on the other hand, seems less logical. The website+smartphone app is $15/4 weeks, the website+tablet app is $20, all three is $35, so the website is worth... nothing? Or, you could go with the home delivery option, which would cost you $455 (all digital access) -$304.20 (daily delivery in NY) = $150.80 less per year, even though they have to print all that paper.
Nobody's doing what the NYT is doing. Netflix and Hulu are given as examples of content producers that have a simple pricing scheme over multiple devices. Lots of people use those services. The NYT pricing not only violates expectations for online content, it doesn't even seem typical for newspapers. Paying per 4 weeks instead of per month? Who has ever done that?
I guess we'll see how it turns out, though. Maybe most customers won't actually mind these irregularities.
With monthly, you're getting paid 12 times a year. With every four weeks, you get paid 13 times.
It's a nifty little sales trick. Most people (including me) automatically round four weeks up to a month before thinking about it.
I would say people would care about the other NY Times plans. I would personally much rather use a NY times App on my iPad (Which would mean the $20.00 plan) versus using it on my iPhone. But if I wanted to use both apps, it would cost $35.00. It's cheaper just to get the physical paper delivered to your house.