I think the point is it doesn't work. The author had the time, inclination, and technical ability to get through the bullshit and eventually cancel. A lot of people won't.

Which means it does work, as a malpattern. If your customers can't get through the bullshit to cancel that reduces churn.

(Though this ignores the consumer-side counter, which is sort of a malpattern but IMO justified when the company makes cancellation difficult, of just cancelling the credit card authorization. Code 41 chargebacks are a beautiful thing.)

> If it works, it's not bad UX it's dark UX

How are you measuring that it works? Are they getting better subscriber numbers with this UX than they would with a simpler one?

WSJ basically invented the paywall in 2007 (back when other major newspaper websites were 100% free) so they've probably done a fair amount of usability and A/B tests.

Chances are that they're trying to optimize for things that are different from the things you or I wish they optimized for.

Counterpoint: quite possibly they look at their large number of subscribers and take that as all the evidence that they need that there is nothing wrong with their subscription process.

Their retention rate is pretty high because the competition can't really achieve the same depth of coverage. This would be a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation. Not everyone needs a WSJ subscription. Those that do either have a business plan or invest in a personal plan if they're say, MBA students. For most other people, WSJ is too stuffy and business-focused to be worth the cost.

There's a reason why WSJ is considered gold standard of financial/business papers, and upstarts like BusinessInsider and QZ fall far short and have to target a poorer niche of general-interest users.