Financial Times Bewertungen 

They are fully bias and anti bitcoin. They discrimated against “citi” and said it is embarrassing. Even tho everyone else believes it is perfect.

The FT provides excellent customer service. Both Amber and Shirley have been very conscientious when resolving my customer service issue. They check in with me every week to check I got my paper, which I think is excellent. Thank you Amber and Shirley.

+ Still essential daily reading. Reviewers complaining of ideological bias protest too much.

- Avoid subscribing as an individual. That turned out to be an expensive process accompanied by unpleasant surprises unworthy of a blue chip organization. Hopefully it's improved since 2020.

I follow the FT online (free) and I'm constantly amazed at their anti Brexit, almost pro Labour stance. A lot of their articles have strong political narratives and, to me, they don't seem at all bothered about telling the news straight. I won't be reading the FT in future, even if it is free. Reuters is far more balanced.

FT customer service is amazing. Their emails are so professional and I can tell their staff are really well trained. The paper seems to provide a lot of value, and the company seems to be really generous with everything they do/provide (e.g. the supplements).

Sadly after 24 years of subscribing to the FT I had to cancel. The FT used to be a source of credible, objective analysis and reporting. Now it is sadly another clickbait driven online publication measuring how many people click through sensationalist and misleading headlines. It’s basically dropped its standards to play in the tabloid zone. What a sad demise from quality to populism.

I would advise you to sign up to a different publication if you want good business news (what the FT used to be good at) and/or objective, thoughtful journalism. One of the few that remain is the Economist.

There are journalists like Stephens on the FT who simply propagate their own personal, pretty nasty views on the readership without concern for journalistic integrity.

Personally, I use to love the Financial Times, they had a really good comment section where you were free to post your comments. Since the start of 2020 all that has changed. If you don't agree with an article then your comments are blocked. What ever happened to free speech and a civilized debate? The FT use to encourage this but not anymore. The paper has really gone down the slippery slope with gender related articles and political correct commentary, it's a very left leaning paper now and if you say anything then you are blocked in the comment section. All I wanted was good non biased financial news, not left leaning gender politics.
I will not be renewing my subscription, as I personally feel it's just a waste of money now.

Used to be an outstanding newspaper but has deteriorated markedly since being taken over by Nikkei, and since the departure of star editor Lionel Barber. The paper has become more populist and the journalism shallower. One of the glories of the digital version has been the opportunity to read and join the reader comments which were available at the end of every article. But early in 2020 the newspaper made a very clumsy attempt at moderating comments using American computer software which took no account of the occasionally robust style of some UK contributors whilst destroying the flow of comments. Worse still, commenting on articles deemed to cover sensitive topics (eg gender issues, Israel, diplomatic matters) has frequently been completely switched off in recent months, not a good move in response to an intelligent, educated readership when clearly the better move would have been to employ more moderators.
In response to these frustrations I recently reluctantly decided to give myself a break from subscribing. The final insult was when, in response to me cancelling, I was offered a reduction from the £306 renewal fee to £220. My bottom line is that until the FT bucks itself up, there are better value sources of news and opinion. Finally, in fairness, I should add that the FT's customer service is excellent; a pity when the publication they support is going the other way.

The Financial Times used to be a reputable news organization in my mind. Sadly they have turned to sensationalism in their headlines like some cheap advertorial. In this modern world where people are increasingly skeptical of the media and the advent of infotainment, probably not a great time for this once mighty force of objectivity to fold and turn to the darksisde. There is still time my editorial friends to regain your honor.

Amber Mcstravick from the customer service team was outstanding when I encountered issues with my newspaper delivery. She was the person I first spoke to on the livechat when I reported the issue and followed through with the case since then. She was very kind and sympathetic and arranged for my missed delivery to be sent out again (this was received the very next day). She then followed up with me regularly via email until my issue was resolved. Amber is a real asset to the company, it is people like her that really makes a difference to subscriber satisfaction!

When I started reading them in 2011 they seemed good, but have now denigrated into a lousy own opinion pusher. Don't publish a neutral stance and let the reader take a stance. And on top of it they don't like differing opinions from the mainstream opinions and go to great lengths to ban you from posting differing opinions

Misleading and possibly illegal online subscription management.

When trying to cancel my subscription, today, I have to click through one or two extra pages that try to entice me to stay after all. I just want to reconfirm my initial choice made to cancel.
When I then click on confirm or reconfirm, I notice (afterwards!) that the system had in the meantime activated a radio button (an option) which was to indicate an annual subscription for over two hundred pounds amongst other options. I NEVER actively opted for any other option but to cancel my subscription! Now, having luckily noticed this misleading process, I tried to immediatley rectify this mistake made by the FT, by going back in again on the website to cancel again or try to do so again. And, guess what, this is now not possible. The page then requires to call the FT customer service. Guess what - again? They are shut today. Then I try a Chat option. Guess what? No-one there. I have emailed help at ft.com and shall be calling them. I feel like calling Trade Standards too. Not happy.

great coverage during the current challenges. Some excellent recommendations for a part time investor of over 20 years.

Let's hope some of their suggestions help (pension has taking a beating over the last few months!!!)

I had a trial digital subscription which I enjoyed. When it came to an end I cancelled it. In my account area was a range of subscription options including a trial print subscription for £50. I wanted to try that as I'd like to have a print subscription but not sure I'll have time to read it every day so a trial is ideal. I entered all my details only to be told no.

Spoke to the online chat who took ages to say it was because I'd already had a digital trial. Why offer it to me then?! Next message I get is from another operator saying "Hi how can I help?". What?! Bizarre.

Anyway from reading the reviews below it seems I've had a lucky escape.

Shame - I think the paper has great journalism but the customer services end needs a lot of work

The articles are fine, however I find companies that let you sign up digitally and then force you to call to cancel unethical. The sales pitch when calling confirmed the real reason for this process.

They are also priced well above market average for monthly costs.

Great coverage of the coronavirus outbreak. And good customer service too.

I have made the most of 4 weeks subscription and I really enjoyed the high quality and rich content provided by the newspaper.

I do not work in the finance industry but I love being up to date with the latest trends, insights about the markets and the economy. It supplements very well other sources information in order to make informed decisions as a retail investor.

Despite all the advantages described above, I believe it is a bit pricey for retail investors that read it occasionally. I would consider an annual subscription if it was 50% cheaper.

I signed up for a trial for the Financial Times for the Premium Digital access. £1 for four weeks and the price advertised after was shown as "Just £9 per week". Now considering that's the advertised price I assumed that after my trial I would then pay £9 weekly and could cancel at any time. However after the 4 weeks was up I received a charge for £51.40. After contacting support I was told that the £9 per month advertised was a "representation of the cost per week if you pay annually at £468 per year". In fact what I would pay was £51.40 per month. IMO this is false advertising and considering the subscription had started only minutes ago and I hadn't used the service I requested to cancel and get a refund. They told me that their terms and conditions did not allow refunds. The sales person was somewhat reasonable in the end and agreed to downgrade me to standard service and refund the difference of £29.50. But at the end of the day I don't believe I should be paying anything. Not only was the price misleading, but the method of payment (monthly) was misleading and considering my cancellation request came minutes after the subscription started I believe its completely reasonable to get a refund for a service that clearly has no been used yet. At least I got some money back, now I'll be cancelling and won't go back ever, so I hope the FT enjoy their one time payment of £22 and the negative review its cost the company. I don't really blame the support person, I blame the Financial Times misleading advertising and very unfair terms and conditions.

My advice, be very careful when signing up for a trial with the FT.

Good journalism, but tried to cancel and charged me an extra month and wouldn't refund me

No longer a customer or a reader. Bad journalism.