"Annual plan, paid monthly" seems pretty clear to me too, so help me approach this with a new perspective.
Is there a SaaS provider using the "annual plan, paid monthly" who does this "right"? Are you against this pricing model in general?
Adobe has a moral obligation to explain that up-front, so that consumers who cannot easily pay the fee are adequately warned of the danger they are getting themselves into.
I hear you, and I want to dig in on that a bit if you'll be kind enough to indulge me.
I'm currently helping a SaaS vendor define their pricing plan, so I'd like to know what you would like to see in order to feel comfortable with an annual, paid monthly plan. If you have any thoughts on the two questions I asked, I'd really appreciate the feedback!
"Yearly plan, paid monthly, £678" --> [ minimum cost £456 [[ a href="terms-cancel.html" ]] if cancelled early ]
The cancellation fee might be quite high, but it is absolutely expected that there is one. And if I'm not sure if I'll keep the subscription running for an entire year, then I'll look into the cancellation term beforehand or simply pick the monthly plan.
People are reporting that they were surprised by the cancellation fee. Is it reasonable to assume that these people were fully aware of what would happen? And chose this path anyway, in order to... what, exactly? It makes no sense. It's more reasonable to take what they say at face value, that they were in fact surprised and didn't understand in good faith what they signed up for.
Given that, what is so unreasonable about expecting companies to be upfront about the fee and explain it in the payment page? Why is this trivial disclosure and transparency to the consumer something to balk about?
I think the reason is pretty obvious. Companies have always loved it when confused customers have to pay money they didn't expect to pay. So the companies design their payment flows to encourage this, to the maximum extent the law allows.
It's sociopathic, and just because it's common and accepted doesn't mean I have to think it's okay.
"Yearly plan, billed in monthly instalments"
makes the point more clear that you're in for a year. You can then put accompanying print that says "early termination fees apply".
But really, apart from people perhaps not understanding that "Annual" is doing the work of saying "yearly, not rolling", I don't get the logic here.
Reading the twitter thread it seems to me that you can cancel within 14 days of subscribing without a cancelation fee. See also: https://twitter.com/darkpatterns/status/1489901691151519746
But an annual plan really is that. They are telling you pretty clearly* what you're buying; the fact that there's a way to bail out half way for less is an advance on that position.
* though as I said in the other reply, "yearly" would be better
It isn't hard to provide a complete explanation of what happens if you go past the trial period and want to cancel. All they have to say is, "if you don't cancel after the trial period, you are obligated to pay X over the next 12 months. Early cancellation is possible for a fee of half the remaining balance. For example, if you cancel immediately after the trial period your early cancellation fee will be X/2."
There's plenty of space to feature this explanation prominently. We all know why they don't. It's to trap people.
Many subscription plans work this way but it's no excuse. It's scumbag behavior. The fact that it's so common is just one of the many reasons why I believe the world is run by sociopaths.
Finally a point on which we agree. On average I suspect it is.
Again, this wording seems unnecessarily soft to me - the inclusion of 'may' adds ambiguity to make the user think that there might not be exit fees - it should really be "early cancellation fees will apply".
Better yet, you could give the cost:
"Early cancellation fees of 50% of the remainder of the year will apply".
Early cancellation fees will apply after the trial, is the wording that is the clearest, I guess.
This is a really interesting exploration of word choice though. I must say, I had not considered that the word "annual" could be perceived to be unwieldy in this situation, for example.
How can you misinterpret those words?
If it said "one year", that would match the meaning you have.
They don't explain it because they want everyone to convert, even people who did not understand what they signed up for and would not have signed up if they had understood.
Subscription fee companies have always behaved like this.
Being charitable, I would guess that they don't explain it because it seems like plain language and should be understandable.
These people exist and have made themselves known in the OP Twitter thread and other HN comments on this post.
I can't help but wonder if all this "how can people not understand" is just thinly-veiled contempt for people who don't have the same background or way of thinking or interpreting words as you do.
Who gives a shit about those people, am I right? Who cares if they're on the hook for hundreds they didn't expect to have to pay. Good on Adobe for imposing that stupidity tax on lesser minds than yours!
You're just playing dumb and it's uninteresting and in bad faith, so, bye. Enjoy being baffled about how a giant rich company could possibly be less shitty to their customers.
I'm playing dumb by understanding the sales copy?
And the people who pretend to be dumbfounded by 'annual plan' are the ones who aren't playing dumb?
Come on - people are putting on this outrage. Nobody was seriously confused at what 'annual plan' means. It's the plainest language possible.