I read the daily paper on the internet, but I like the printed edition at the weekend. if you are the same, then this offer in todays SMH may be of interest.
From the SMH website:
Get the new compact SMH home delivered for 50% off
Reader-friendly size, pocket-friendly price
Update: you get 3 papers per week for $ 3.77!
Thanks, I modified the listing to say that.
no deal, thanks anyway!
no deal, they loss all credibility when they abandoned the broadsheet format
why? did their content change over night?
The 3 day deal is a good one but why do they make you get the bloody useless Sunday paper?
This might be a good deal if it's still around when they put up a $15/month paywall on their website later in the year: http://knownoboundaries.smh.com.au/#digitalaccess
Print subscribers which get delivery for two or more days a week will get full digital access, so it might be better value to take up a print subscription than a digital-only subscription.
or just join your local library for free access :)
http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/93255#comment-1243682
I've been using PressDisplay since 2008, but still prefer the SMH/The Age website for general browsing and searching and having updated news throughout the day. PressDisplay feels slower and more cumbersome, but it does have its uses.
Good tip for those who might not know about it, though, so +1 from me. :)
Trial period is 13 weeks. Once the period is over subs revert to full price. They used to do a graded hike every time you were to renew your subscription (every 26 weeks for me) from trial but now they just slog you back onto the headline subscription rate (the standard price they offer on their site). I know since I subscribed for a trial in 2010 and every six months they hiked up the fees by $20-30 increments until it was over $400 to maintain a yearly subscription. I left the subscription. Now my grandmother subscribed on 13 week terms and was only offered to renew at the end of the 13 week trial by going full rate. She attempted to negotiate, I was with her, but was offered $249 for 26 weeks (or $495 for the year) and that was it. I am young and not in steady employment (and don't have any housemates with whom I can split costs) and she can't afford that kind of price with her retirement savings so the delivery has lapsed. We live in the same street and are serviced by the same delivery chucker (he just pulls up in the car and chucks papers out the window so I would not call him a courier or newsagent delivery man) so I don't believe it's Fairfax geo-targeting subscription areas that is slugging my grandmother, and not me at the time my sub ended, to go right back to full price (they apparently, reading forums on here, do deals based on customer locale as their form of market segmentation). It must be new policy or maybe I just got a better (not good as when it started reaching above $180/26 weeks the rep I spoke to would not stop hiking) agent dealing with my subscriptions. So if you go on the trial with the intention of sidestepping the apparent $15 a month proposed paywall you may be in for a rude shock as the minimum standard cost is the two day weekend which is $19 av on 26 weeks (greater than $15 a month average) plus you have to pay it as a lump sum prior to the subscription period (unless you opt for $18 per 28 days direct debit which is still more expensive than the proposed digital access pricing).
Oh and once you subscribe to a trial you are disqualified from subscribing to any new offers available for new customers only. So as a past customer even though my subscription lapsed over 12 months ago I am unable to sign up to any new trial (even now the format and editors have changed substantially so as a new trial would be appropriate to test out the new tabloid format and editorial team). So if you were going to subscribe to a trial I would wait until dates for the Paywall have been released otherwise you will be paying for a 13 week subscription, that once ended, will send you back onto the full rate.
It's disappointing Fairfax treats customers like this. I would be willing to pay $175 every 26 weeks but anything more I can't afford and the value dissipates. While I was on my subscription I entered various fairfax run events (City2Surf, Sun Run and 100+ Fairfax benefits comps, the vast majority which required my email and name to be provided to an external agency/company - 0% success rate) So I felt I provided Fairfax with enough referral value and money spent on events ($200+) to justify the lower than headline subscription price I was receiving. I felt they treated me like the proverbial when I attempted to negotiate on my behalf to an agent, even worse was the experience with my enfeebled grandmother. Scum.
Beyond myself creating an entirely fictional identity to act as a 'new customer' to entitle me for renewed delivery (I am unsure whether people do this with Fairfax and get away with it; most probably. I have nine active email accounts under various names and sure most people do. The user authentication systems they have in place probably aren't that good. I can also easily source alternative physical delivery addresses so that to isn't a problem.) I have changed my name with the registry of BD&M and still have forms of identification in an alternative name so could easily defraud and subscribe under my previous name but will not break the law to save on some newspaper delivery. I also shouldn't have to cower and beg to be held on the same rate after tolerating an increase of $100 per 26 weeks (from $99 to beyond $180) during my time subscribing (less than two years).
This has obviously caused much anguish, disgruntled isn't the word. I could definitely think of better things to do on a Saturday night/early Sunday morning than spend time irate with Fairfax. Like sleeping, but I can not whilst I'm worked up.
Maybe in their sneering elitist arrogance they think people who are intelligent and subscribe are rich and as such too intelligent to bother fussing over 'small things' like I am; like negotiating newspaper subscription terms. The small amount of suckers they deem 'unintelligent' in their eyes too insignificant to care about as a consumer segment (fairfax strategists probably think they are beyond those who subscribe to News publications anyway) and not worth worrying about, or 'too dumb' to notice (even though it is a significant rise).
Maybe Fairfax are right in not negotiating or tailoring a policy of trial subscription transfers and subscribers are too dumb to notice or too rich to care (otherwise would be bleeding subscribers and losing money - oh wait).
cool story, bro.
I am a lapsed subscriber too. I think this offer is what it is… A good price for 13 weeks. I am taking it up for that, as I'm spending $3 anyway for the Saturday edition.
How long have you been without a subscription that they have let you re-subscribe for a trial? I was told that once I had subscribed that I would be an old subscriber and no longer eligible even if I ended my subscription for a year or more then came back.
Anyway good work if you managed it :)
That's $3.77 for the weekend + 1 weekday = 3 papers.