Why is the Financial Times paper so expensive?

Most people just assume that capitalism and right wing are synonymous. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and George Soros all promote left leaning policies despite being obvious capitalists.

[-]

chambo143@reddit

It’s a bit absurd to suggest that supporting capitalism is not a political position

[-]

ldn-ldn@reddit

It's not a political position, just common sense.

[-]

chambo143@reddit

Okay mate. It’s a political position that you think is common sense

[-]

dream_metrics@reddit

that's the power of capitalist hegemony

[-]

TooHot1639@reddit

Only if you're an angry 12 year old who with authority issues.

[-]

SadSeiko@reddit

Because there exists a political ideology that is anti it. Branding capitalism as political position doesn’t make sense

[-]

YorkistRebel@reddit

By that logic Communism is apolitical.

The division of assets, income and other resources will always be political.

[-]

arkestrax@reddit

The FT strives to be impartial in its factual reporting but it has a definite political slant in its editorial pages. That's normal and appropriate.

[-]

wheepete@reddit

Socially left maybe, but economically right. I don't see any billionaire arguing for worker controlled workplaces.

[-]

BeefyWaft@reddit

You can be socially left without embracing extreme forms of socialism/communism. Why would a billionaire argue for something only seen in early USSR/ post war Yugoslavia?

[-]

wheepete@reddit

Left wing economics is worker controlled workplaces. They argue for higher taxes yes, but high tax doesn't mean left wing. It's just a different flavour of capitalism, centre right but still right.

[-]

BeefyWaft@reddit

Nobody is arguing for higher taxes. Everything needs funding, but nobody is arguing for higher taxes.

[-]

ldn-ldn@reddit

Why should they? If you want a "worker controlled workspace" - just make one. No one is stopping you.

[-]

Thomas5020@reddit

Whilst correct in principle I don't fully agree with this.

I would argue that the belief in free market economics is mostly a right wing thing these days. Markets need regulation and close monitoring, when you don't intervene at all you get price fixing.

[-]

PharahSupporter@reddit

This is an asinine comment, akin to a right wing person saying all left wing people hate capitalism and want communism.

Most right wing people do support free market capitalism, yes, but you will struggle to find many who support genuine 0 regulation.

A true free market needs some regulation to prevent collapse into a complete dictatorial monopoly. The balance is where the split lies.

[-]

Vehlin@reddit

Market System and Market Failure is basically the first thing you learn in Economics.

[-]

peterchekhov@reddit

I don't mean to be rude, but are you an American?

[-]

baldeagle1991@reddit

To be fair to the person you're responding to, you can legitimise capitalism to an extend across the political spectrum.

Even on the far left though can explain how to balance peoples labour using some crude form of capitalism.

Even in the soviet union and China they recognised the benefits of capitalism and adopted them.

[-]

EhDinnaeEvenKen@reddit

Even on the far left though can explain how to balance peoples labour using some crude form of capitalism.

Markets ≠ Capitalism

Markets existed long before capitalism, and fingers crossed they exist after it.

[-]

HugAllYourFriends@reddit

It would not be apolitical for the government to decide tomorrow to end capitalism and collectivise ownership of the means of production.

capitalism is a socioeconomic system based on a political ideology.

[-]

SocialistSloth1@reddit

Hence the old joke that Marxists read the FT because 'the capitalist class talks honestly amongst themselves.'

[-]

spindoctor13@reddit

Any reasonable paper in the UK is going to be pro-capitalist. Being anti-capitalist is mainly for loons and fools

[-]

dbxp@reddit

I wouldn't say it's pro capitalist. Investors want to know when they should pull out of a market, they don't just want good news.

[-]

I think you have the wrong end of the stick there matey, being pre-capitalist does not mean just reporting happy joy-joy news about the markets, it means being strongly in favor of capitalism as the dominant world economic system

[-]

Icy-Contest-7702@reddit

Ive not read it in years but i thought it had a sort orangebook liberalism bias and that was acknowledged

[-]

Interest-Desk@reddit

Rather, facts had an orange-book bias

[-]

cmotDan@reddit

I could Google it but could you tell me what orange book liberalism means?

[-]

SomeHSomeE@reddit

Nick Clegg

[-]

Bgtobgfu@reddit

Aww I actually miss him

[-]

audigex@reddit

I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire

[-]

cmotDan@reddit

Gotcha, cheers.

[-]

alarming_wrong@reddit

Ian Paisley Sr

[-]

Chemical-Lettuce2497@reddit

Highest quality might be a stretch, highest quality in print maybe

[-]

Hertstom@reddit

Its very biased to those with properly observant minds. EG no explanation that German growth has been poor for years inside the EU so therefore it’s erroneous to claim our growth would increase if we joined. Forecasts of possible growth as EU members ARE NOT FACTS.

Idiots like James O’Brien cannot see FT bias because he himself is riddled with infantile bias

[-]

lionmoose@reddit

That's not a great counterfactual setup.

[-]

HugAllYourFriends@reddit

there has never been an unbiased and politically neutral outlet. there is no such thing as politically neutral.

[-]

gowithflow192@reddit

Not unbiased but probably the least biased.

[-]

shroomninja@reddit

I mean the Sunday Times is £4.50 now which my 85 year old dad buys religiously every week. God knows why.

[-]

Brave_Assumption6@reddit (OP)

That's a weekly Sunday paper though. FT is £3.70 just for daily every weekday.

[-]

OddSign2828@reddit

Because they pay higher wages to get better journalists

[-]

humblepaul@reddit

Also falling circulation across all papers has been going on for a decade now. The Sun used to 4m readers, now I think less than 1m. Online isn't generating the same revenues with adblockers and easy work-arounds.

[-]

parsuval@reddit

The FT and the i are both up strongly in digital format. All the others are struggling, and all papers are down in print (which I think is understandable).

https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-newspapers-uk-abc-monthly-circulation-figures-2/

[-]

Brave_Assumption6@reddit (OP)

Only Metro and City AM have not decreased in circulation the past year (and both are free)

[-]

Ok-Blackberry-3534@reddit

The price of getting a vaguely accurate paper.

[-]

Darkgreenbirdofprey@reddit

The Sunday Times is £4.50.

I still buy it because it's essentially 4 different newspapers and a magazine. All with pretty good journalism and a good games page.

[-]

Brave_Assumption6@reddit (OP)

I mean yeah but that's a big Sunday paper. The FT costs almost that price just for a daily weekday edition!

[-]

FookinBlinders@reddit

You’re comparing a tabloid (The I) to a full broadsheet…

[-]

Brave_Assumption6@reddit (OP)

Isn't The i a 'compact broadsheet' instead of tabloid?

[-]

Upstairs-Quail5709@reddit

Much cheaper online - currently on offer £1 for four months.

[-]

welsh_cthulhu@reddit

Same here mate. Does wonders for mental health. Super relaxing on a Sunday.

[-]

Darkgreenbirdofprey@reddit

Yeah but I read papers to get away from screens unfortunately. Otherwise I definitely would.

[-]

Dorda@reddit

This is exactly why I pay a premium for papers and I’m happy to do so. Not just for the content, but also experience - which is often overlooked now.

[-]

Upstairs-Quail5709@reddit

Fair point

[-]

Brave_Assumption6@reddit (OP)

This is also why I've been slowly going back to print.

[-]

BeefyWaft@reddit

Not much point in The Sunday Times unless you can be seen reading it in a public space on a Sunday morning.

[-]

Upstairs-Quail5709@reddit

True.

[-]

peterchekhov@reddit

Because it is for people with money who want facts, and facts require money to research, report and circulate without bullshit.

[-]

hdhxuxufxufufiffif@reddit

For that reason as well, they rely on institutional and corporate subscriptions far more than other newspapers, which means they're fast less reliant on how many they sell at newsagents, kiosks and railway stations on a given day, and can price accordingly.

[-]

Snazz03@reddit

Surely if that was the reason why they are priced differently then they would instead be cheaper? Unless I’m missing something

[-]

hdhxuxufxufufiffif@reddit

Making the daily paper cheaper would make the subscriptions seem less attractive or necessary.

[-]

Snazz03@reddit

That’s a different reason

[-]

Maleficent-Drive4056@reddit

It’s the same. You need to force people in to buying a subscription.

[-]

Ok-Application-8045@reddit

I get the app free from work.

[-]

Past-Obligation1930@reddit

It is quite dull though. I used to subscribe, but I went back to the Graun. Now I can complain about there being articles about celebrities, THAT I DEFINITELY DON’T READ.

[-]

peterchekhov@reddit

I buy the FT when I am trying to decide what investments to make, and I want no bullshit, this is the true purpose of the FT.

Though I grew up reading the Guardian, I want to like it now, but it is so annoying at times, like a stereotype of the most wiberal pissy nonsense, I am sure they do their own form of rage bait deliberately,

Private Eye is one of the best sources of journalism nowadays I find.

[-]

Past-Obligation1930@reddit

I subscribe to Private Eye, in truth my wife subscribes to the Graun.

[-]

humblepaul@reddit

How do you find time to read Private Eye? I love it but I had to cancel subscription as I couldn't read them quick enough as I read cover to cover. Then there's the depression from the levels of corruption you don't read in other papers.

[-]

Past-Obligation1930@reddit

I feel seen. The short answer is that I don’t. I have a big pile of them that I haven’t opened.

[-]

FoodAccomplished7858@reddit

I wonder how many issues of PI are purchased but go unopened? I used to take it years ago, and picked a few up recently, almost out of duty. I find it incredibly dry now, and most of the jokes deeply unfunny. I can listen to the podcast with Helen Lewis et al - much more engaging. I worry that years of phone use have killed my ability to concentrate for more than two minutes though. I bought 1984 to read a few months ago and I’m about 50 pages in. Can’t read more than about 5 pages at a time. Humans are evolving in the way we take info in??

[-]

PharahSupporter@reddit

The guardian opinion section is beyond a joke. It has to be satire.

[-]

Ok_Economist7901@reddit

Guardian btl is also abysmal nowadays.

[-]

fuggerdug@reddit

The opinion section is why I eventually stopped buying it.

[-]

hhfugrr3@reddit

Me too. It was just so bad, I couldn't keep paying money only for a tiny fraction of it to go to those people.

[-]

Brave_Assumption6@reddit (OP)

They had a sister paper until recently The Observer. Wonder how that one's like now under new ownership.

[-]

Realistic-River-1941@reddit

In the subject I know about Private Eye is very hit and miss, and clearly fits every story to a specific model.

[-]

Zingalamuduni@reddit

Agreed.

Don’t get me wrong, Private Eye has done some wonderful and valuable investigative journalism over the years. But, when they touch on something you know a lot about, you do wince a bit at what they are saying.

[-]

xxx654@reddit

This is it. I’ve got a sub, although I’ll be honest some weeks it goes unopened. I admire what they do and all that.

But when it occasionally cuts across my own area of work expertise, I cringe a little because it’s the broadest of broadbrush takes and it makes me realise that it might be like that all over.

[-]

Bgtobgfu@reddit

Yeah I had to stop reading the Guardian a couple of years ago. They’ve stopped being proper objective journalism.

[-]

Prasiatko@reddit

I recall reading somewhere that the 'comment is free" section, the source of almost all the pissy nonsense you mention os by far the most visited part of their website.

[-]

Timely_Egg_6827@reddit

The Ferret in Scotland is good. Similar investigative journalism.

[-]

PeterG92@reddit

I wish Private Eye did an online subscription, would buy that.

[-]

pinklewickers@reddit

Because it is for people with money who want facts, and facts require money to research, report and circulate without bullshit.

Found Rupert Murdoch's Reddit account.

[-]

mtbMark85@reddit

He never owned the FT. 😂

[-]

xxx654@reddit

You would be hard pushed to find a media source more forensically critical of Newscorp and the Murdochs than the FT.

[-]

PorcelainMelonWolf@reddit

Janan Ganesh, that’s why. Who else is going to make me feel all warm and fuzzy about how wonderful London and/or Dubai are?

[-]

ConflictGuru@reddit

It costs £3.70 which is a ton

Actually a ton is £100. You would know this if you read the Financial Times

[-]

reuben_iv@reddit

it kind of is the resource for what it focuses on and is actually read by financial analysts and traders, the coffee shops around Bank even have FT themed bags available, and includes more in-depth research which all costs more to produce than your typical rags designed to just give us plebs something to grumble over on our work breaks lol

that said a digital subscription is £35 a month which works out at £1.60ish so it's not that expensive and considering what you're getting it's just tough to wrap your head around in a world where the internet is free and that's why published news has been struggling to survive

[-]

Money_Afternoon6533@reddit

£15 a month with Revolut :)

[-]

jackanakanory_30@reddit

Free via some universities. My account is linked to my old university and still works even now as alumni

[-]

Money_Afternoon6533@reddit

I was devastated after my uni took my ac.uk account

[-]

AverageMochiEnjoyer@reddit

Shhh

[-]

Demeter_Crusher@reddit

FT is a source of information for people who use that information to make money. That's why its content is so different from all other papers. It's for people with (some) skin in the game, who need accurate, actionable information tailored to their needs.

[-]

BeefyWaft@reddit

The FT is the only one that is worth anything (maybe The Guardian).

The rest are subsidised muck spreaders.

[-]

Ill_Tonight_2069@reddit

Lmao @ the guardian. Absolute shit along with the rest of them.

[-]

Skeptischer@reddit

Is that because you don’t agree with it or because you believe it doesn’t conform to proper journalistic standards?

[-]

Ill_Tonight_2069@reddit

Any paper with such obvious strong bias are fairly worthless as a fair imo.

[-]

carrickshairline@reddit

Out of curiosity, what papers do you read then? What's your bias?

[-]

kkodev@reddit

Mirror

[-]

carrickshairline@reddit

I rest my case.

[-]

BeefyWaft@reddit

Thanks for the insightful comment into British media.

[-]

Ill_Tonight_2069@reddit

Anytime

[-]

Past-Obligation1930@reddit

The guardian reports science better than the other non FT newspapers.

[-]

tomcat_murr@reddit

RIP The Telegraph.

It used to be a useful read - like something like the Economist it had a pretty consistent stance, but what you got was fairly high quality as long as you bore that in mind. Now it's just a comic.

[-]

jackanakanory_30@reddit

I grew up reading the telegraph, mainly coz my parents like their crossword. But it was a quality paper, good articles. Make sure you take the political commentary with a pinch of salt, but it was otherwise good. Nowadays any political reporting is on par or worse than the daily mail. It's very cringe.

[-]

BeefyWaft@reddit

Used to be good. It’s now just The Daily Mail for the slightly better educated.

[-]

rising_then_falling@reddit

I've not read it regularly for years. It used to have good sports coverage and good obituaries.

The few times I've looked at it recently there's way too much salacious crime reporting and the oped stuff might as well be on Reddit. The Times and the Guardian are just as bad - just differently bad.

[-]

peterchekhov@reddit

Telegraph used to have really good news on archeology, antiques, classics and similar things. But yes now it is a pile of rage baiting shit.

[-]

Brave_Assumption6@reddit (OP)

How about Metro which is free?

[-]

BeefyWaft@reddit

Metro is useful if you want to read something on a train. I remember learning about John Peel’s death via the Metro at a train station. That was a sad day.

[-]

InternationalRide5@reddit

But published by Mail Metro Media.

[-]

Brave_Assumption6@reddit (OP)

True but doesn't change that it is still separate from the Daily Mail team and is politically nonpartisan.

The Daily Mirror and Daily Express have very opposing views yet they're under common ownership so it doesn't matter what the publisher is.

[-]

Upstairs-Quail5709@reddit

Guardian? Seriously? That rag list what credibility it had over 25 years ago.

[-]

dmada88@reddit

Most FT subscriptions are either claimed on expenses or claimed against tax. The end use doesn’t feel the actual cost

[-]

Tru72@reddit

Dunno, but it makes for funky wrapping paper....

....yes I have

[-]

THE_IRL_JESUS@reddit

Honestly surprised it's only £3.70. Super high quality journalism

[-]

Jayatthemoment@reddit

Fewer people buy it, and because it contains actual info produced by experts, and isn’t just a comic for boomers.

[-]

systemisrigged@reddit

It’s the best newspaper and best journalism in my opinion. No offence to American press (or most of the UK press) but WSJ is really nowhere near as good. The depth of analysis and insight in the FT is superior. That said I agree it’s a lot to pay every day - weekend edition is also the best but I think it’s about £5.60

[-]

strum@reddit

FT is a must-have for a number of institutions & corporations, so they can charge what they like (& decent journalism costs money).

[-]

Winter_Cabinet_1218@reddit

The first rule of becoming in financial advice guru, charge people for the knowledge.

Second rule, take that money and show the people how wealthy you are

[-]

hhfugrr3@reddit

The i paper may be a third of the cost but it's also an barely able third of the newspaper. I think the answer is that proper indepth & independent journalism costs money to produce.

[-]

Blackstone4444@reddit

Because it’s quality vs made-up-low-quality-mail etc

[-]

Past-Obligation1930@reddit

Because they actually still do journalism, and research things properly. Dull though.

Also because people will pay it. It has a dedicated magazine called “how to spend it” and I can’t afford any of the stuff in it, and I’m quite well paid. £3.70 is nothing to a banker.

[-]

Pristine_Speech4719@reddit

"How to spend it" is not just a reference to money. It's also a reference to your time, your weekend, your life.

[-]

fuzzerino@reddit

HTSI has long been the weakest part of the FT in my opinion. Likely paid-for product placement more so than well researched quality suggestions. They’d do well to hire a bunch of people from niche hobby subreddits to run the show in that section.

[-]

KeirStarmernator@reddit

They have some of the best food / lifestyle writers. Also lunch with the FT is fun. Look up (former newspaper proprietor) Richard Desmond’s one, for example.

[-]

spaceshipcommander@reddit

People qualified to write in the Financial Times can demand a premium and the audience is niche so they have to recover the cost from less people. Plus they have to be very selective about who they advertise or endorse if they want to maintain credibility.

[-]

Electrical_Peach5715@reddit

Cost of using pink paper?

[-]

berobed_sloth16@reddit

If you subscribe it can be cheaper. I get the physical copy monday-saturday for £300 per year.

[-]

Money_Afternoon6533@reddit

Here’s a tip. Get a Revolut account and pay £15 a month for their metal upgrade. You get FT subscription with it and some other usually paid for apps like perplexity, chess.com premium, tinder+(if that’s your thing)

[-]

AlphaAndOmega@reddit

Top tip

[-]

effefille@reddit

Because it's mostly read by people who don't consider £3.70 "a ton"

[-]

Royal_Promotion@reddit

Went on a cruise recently and the Mayflower Cruise Terminal departures hall had loads on the magazine racks for passengers to take for free.

[-]

my_beer@reddit

This might be old but it is still basically true,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJh9ui11mP4

[-]

New_Slice_1580@reddit

😁

[-]

tetlee@reddit

Also worth adding that some companies in The City buy them for staff or get them for free

[-]

Zarniwoop7@reddit

Loads of FT copies are delivered daily at hotels across Manchester city centre and are free. This has been going on for at least a couple of years now. TBH they are not that popular with guests. I don't know if they are the full £3.70 version though.

[-]

Jesisawesome@reddit

Yeah, they are the same.

[-]

Brave_Assumption6@reddit (OP)

Seems like an odd choice of newspaper for hotel guests.

[-]

theonetruethingfish@reddit

You won’t find it in Travelodge. It’s there mainly for business travellers.

[-]

BeefyWaft@reddit

Whenever I stay in a New York hotel I always get a copy left outside my door. No idea why.

[-]

PitchOk1448@reddit

The sort of person who is likely to buy it can afford it.

Though you're right it's not far off now, on subscription prices at least. I pay £30 per month for a digital subscription to the (non-financial) Times and the FT currently looks to start at £39 per month.

[-]

2050Newspeak@reddit

You are massively overpaying at £30 per month for the Times. Very few individual subscribers (as opposed to corporate) pay list price. Ring them to cancel and you should be able to get it down to £15 or less.

[-]

PitchOk1448@reddit

Huh. Ok, I'll do that. Thank you!

[-]

Realistic-River-1941@reddit

The Times want you to pay something and keep paying, but are less bothered about how much you pay. My dad told them he only gets it for the crossword, and they offered a "people who only do the crossword" price... including with free news.

[-]

Ulver__@reddit

I love it. Though I get the online sub free through work. I don’t have to see stories about rape, murder, horrendous paedophiles and all the rest of the depravity that mentally drains you to know about. Even yesterday I was constantly thinking about some awful pedo murderers I accidentally saw a story about on Reddit.

If I didn’t get it free I’d pay for it. There’s plenty of non ‘business’ stories and it keeps me informed

[-]

Realistic-River-1941@reddit

Producing serious hard news is expensive, the people who want what the FT does really want it, the main way of accessing it is online not print - and someone else is often paying.

[-]

NeilSilva93@reddit

It's more amazing that some people pay 2 quid a day for the comic known as The Daily Telegraph

[-]

lukei1@reddit

My annual sub cost £175 so that's £0.50/day

[-]

BaronSamedys@reddit

Because less people buy them. They cost pennies when everyone bought them. They now cost pounds because very few, do.

[-]

LellowYeaf@reddit

Have you seen the difference in quality between the FT’s reporting and the i Paper?

This sums up the problem with our media. It’s becoming ever more shit (opinion pieces, lack of detail, target audience of someone with a reading age of 12) because people feel entitled to free news. Which means we get shit news in return

[-]

Timely_Egg_6827@reddit

The quality of the journalists and back room data analyst. Also the paper is best quality. I used to get work to save them for me. Great litter paper.

[-]

Important_Ruin@reddit

Quality costs money.

[-]

KeirStarmernator@reddit

Anything which can make you money can charge more money. Reading the FT helps you (or those in the City, or both) make money, so can charge the big bucks. Same with Bloomberg.

[-]

LeonardoW9@reddit

Look at who reads the papers:
'The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
the Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country,
and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.'

[-]

DiskBytes@reddit

Newspapers are generally expensive these days. Soon, Murdoch will be printing them all, even the left wing papers, whether people like it or not.

[-]

Sandy_Bananas@reddit

Know your market (and extract what you can).

[-]

mdzmdz@reddit

It appears to be £75/quarter to have the print edition delivered Mon-Sat, so that's 78 copies for less than a quid each. ( https://subs.ft.com/products ).

I think a lot of papers do similar schemes whether it be delivered or via a voucher - though with those make sure which local places will take it.

[-]

ImmediatePiano6690@reddit

This can be applied to all newspapers, they're insanely expensive and unnecessary for what they are especially with modern technology.

[-]

rising_then_falling@reddit

They are expensive because readership has dropped so much - it's a downward spiral. I hope the trend reverses in my life time, perhaps on the back of the social media backlash. I miss having intelligent research based reporting.

[-]

TachiH@reddit

It is very unlikely to ever go back to a higher physical print numbers because a lot of dedicated print houses closed down. I do much prefer a physical paper than articles online as they tend to make better use of the space than filler articles.

[-]

Brave_Assumption6@reddit (OP)

Hear this then. From 2024-2025 the only two national newspapers that didn't decline in circulation were the Metro (stable) and City AM (1% increase). Guess what they have in common: they are free.

[-]

Brave_Assumption6@reddit (OP)

I would happily pay a pound and ten for a copy of The i Paper which I find good, so no they're not all expensive and unnecessary.

[-]

fortyfivepointseven@reddit

Because the other papers aren't the product: you're the product.

[-]

Educational-Angle717@reddit

Its in the name isnt it?

[-]

BarbiePeonies@reddit

Not sure why but working at my dads newsagents has made me notices that people who purchase it are the only ones who complain about the price.

[-]

dbxp@reddit

Because it's real news and analysis not listicles and photos of celebs

[-]

Namaste_Life@reddit

The pink paper costs more? :p

[-]

WGSMA@reddit

“Why does this Fillet Steak cost more than McDonalds meat?”

[-]

language_jellyflibs@reddit

I used to work for a large professional services firm who played a corporate membership for all employees for the FT (which was thousands of employees) - unsure on other similar papers but I imagine perhaps this makes up a large share of FT subscriptions, meaning they can charge more.

I personally found them to be very good journalists who largely take an objective, data driven approach to reporting, and highlight clearly when a piece leans on opinion.

Now I don’t have it, I can see a clear difference in quality between the FT and free news sources like BBC and Sky, imo. I used to just use their app and website though, not the physical paper.

[-]

AndyVale@reddit

People make big financial decisions based on the FT, they don't make them based on The I.

The extra cost is worth it for the higher quality of information and advice.

[-]

When replying to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. If a post is marked 'Serious Answers Only' you may receive a ban for violating this rule.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!

Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.