Until yesterday, I paid CHF 450/year for a Financial Times subscription.
Then I discovered Revolut Metal.
Now I pay CHF 200/year to Revolut and get the exact same Financial Times subscription included. Less than half the price!
But it doesn’t stop there.
Revolut Metal also includes:
• Perplexity Pro, normally CHF 20/month
• MasterClass, minimum CHF 120/year
• Even Tinder! which can cost over CHF 50/month
• & much more
I understand partnership economics in travel or retail.
Merchants typically share discount codes with partners.
Customers buy more, the basket size goes up, and the higher volume may compensate for the lower margin.
Plus, the merchant acquires a user who may not have come otherwise.
Everyone wins.
But with online subscriptions, I struggle to see the same logic.
There is no larger basket.
And very limited upsell.
In my case, the partnership replaced a full-price subscriber.
No upsell.
No user acquisition.
I stopped paying the Financial Times directly and now access it through Revolut.
In theory, I could be upsold and upgrade to the more expensive FT Premium.
But as far as I understand, not inside the Revolut bundle.
I’d need to give up the entire benefit.
Which I obviously won’t do.
So who is subsidising whom here?
Is Revolut paying a heavily discounted wholesale rate?
Are partners treating this as cheap acquisition?
Not in my case, for sure.
Are they betting that most users never activate the benefits?
Probably.
Revolut gets great marketing for its Metal subscription and partners never deliver the service anyway.
But if other users behave like me, the partner replaces direct revenue with a heavily discounted bundle.
Anyone from Revolut or the Financial Times who can explain how this works?
I’m genuinely curious!
Maybe Linas Beliūnas?
I know you understand Revolut very well.
