Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

Get 25,200 Avios with a subscription to The Economist

Links on Head for Points may pay us an affiliate commission. A list of partners is here.

If you are running low on reading material whilst sat at home, British Airways and The Economist have brought back (again!) a special offer for taking out a subscription.

As you can see at this link, you can earn up to 25,200 Avios with a new subscription.

I should say up front that this is not the best offer we have ever seen.  The previous deal, which ended in May, offered 15,000 Avios for a £179 one-year digital deal.  This current offer is only offering 10,200 Avios.  This is quite a substantial drop so, unless your subscription has just ended and you want to renew by using your partner’s details, you may want to wait.

Here are the two options on offer if you are a UK resident:

Digital only:  £179 with 10,200 Avios for one year, rising to £429 with 22,200 Avios for three years

Print and digital:  £215 with 13,200 Avios for one year, rising to £519 with 25,200 Avios for three years

Note that ‘print only’ subscriptions are no longer available.

In the past, it has been worth signing up even if you weren’t interested in the magazine because the Avios were so cheap (around 1.2p).  This is NOT the case here.  The cheapest offer here is still costing you 1.62p per Avios.

avios economist

There are better deals when looking at other countries.  A two-year digital only subscription for someone with a Canadian address snags you 16,200 Avios at 1.3p per point (C$355 / £211).  It still isn’t a bargain however if your focus is cheap Avios.

As always, if you are self-employed you may be happy writing off the subscription cost as a business expense.  This would sharply reduce your price per Avios.

This offer runs until 31st July.  The Economist website does not show a deadline but ba.com quotes this date.

(Want to earn more Avios?  Click here to visit our home page for the latest articles on earning and spending your Avios points and click here to see how to earn more Avios from current offers and promotions.)

Comments (61)

  • SWWT says:

    Timely, as am looking around for a reliable and credible news source. After defaulting forever to the BBC have finally had enough of trying to filter out their left bias, -used to be just about possible but not so now they’ve signed up to the woke and BLM bandwagon. Tried Fox but its too US, Sky News, but it’s not very comprehensive, even Unherd, -the same. So am struggling with options. Used to take The Economist as weekly print and know it is good, unbiased journalism. No idea as to their online offering.
    Any ideas anyone?

    • Vladimir Ilyich says:

      Plenty of right wing rant blogs and conspiracy theorists can be found online to confirm your set in stone views. Sadly Katie Hopkins has been banned from Twitter…

      • Daz says:

        Wouldn’t say that was the most helpful of comments? It seems it is you that has ‘set in stone’ views and are straight in with the partisan approach. It has been confirmed by staff and in the news that the BBC is indeed displaying Left leaning idiosyncrasies. It is no secret.

        • Callum says:

          Unless the staff making those claims are actually providing evidence, their claims are irrelevant.

          You possibly misspoke by including this as your “main evidence”, but I wouldn’t trust anyone’s opinion on bias if their evidence is the opinion of other biased people (of which every single person on the planet is).

          As someone who tries to be a vaguely neutral observer, I see no major bias in the BBC’s news output. The only real bias I see is in comedy, which is overwhelmingly left-leaning, but that is easily explained by a lack of right wing comedians – and those that exist are often unpleasant.

          While it ultimately doesn’t mean anything, the fact that the right whines about them being left wing and the left whines about them being right wing has always been a good indicator for me. Does any other broadcaster get a reaction like that?

          • Daz says:

            Callum, this is a blog not Crown Court. Treat it like that and you’ll be more likeable.

        • Callum says:

          Especially as it’s clear that SWWT isn’t actually looking for unbiased news, but news that suits their political slant. The BBC are accurately reporting the BLM movement, for example, and the fact they decided to give Fox “News” a go in the search for unbiased news is an absolute joke!

    • Genghis says:

      I wouldn’t say The Economist is unbiased. A good read yes, unbiased, no. Maybe you think it’s unbiased as it aligns with (most of) your own views?

      • Harry T says:

        Yes, I’d say the Economist is fairly liberal leaning. Very informative but every news source has its bias.

      • Mr. AC says:

        I think The Economist is at least better than most at being more up front about what’s factual and what is their opinion. They will literally write “This newspaper supports…” etc.
        Additionally the lack of incentive to make content clickbaity helps massively.

        • Genghis says:

          Superficially perhaps. I’d argue most writing is biased as it is influenced by the writer’s own world view.

    • Nick_C says:

      I’ve given up on BBC and Sky News. Both too parochial and BBC too many inaccuracies which they have no interest in correcting.

      I’m now getting my TV news from Euro news, Al Jazeera, and CNN.

    • Michael says:

      Is protesting about the death of an unarmed black man in police custody “jumping on a bandwagon”?

      Sounds like Fox News might be too left leaning for you.

      • Ian says:

        Protesting about the murder of an unarmed man is obviously a very reasonable thing to do. Joining a campaign to defund the police seems a bit more extreme however. I’m surprised how mainstream that idea has become so quickly, although in saying that, I also doubt that many people know that that is one of the main aims of BLM.

        • N says:

          Have you done any reading yourself on what defunding the police means?

          As a phrase “defund the police” is extreme, but once you read into it and the policies and thoughts behind it, it makes a lot of sense.

        • Callum says:

          Why not do some research?

          Defunding the police is not new, is not hidden and is a very well known stance in the US. Hence the high profile politicians campaigning for it, all the way down to placards and chants at every single protest.

          The reason it’s been unpopular – not unknown – until now is the sheer level of ignorance people had of what the police do and how much money they suck up. Many people were shocked to discover that they were operating military Humvees and APCs, for example.

          The US justice system is effectively for-profit. Money has been drained away from community services that prevent crime into simply aggressively fighting criminals instead – then placing them into a system designed to keep them there, generating profits for private prisons etc. And don’t even get me started on civil forfeiture – where the police can seize your property with little/no evidence, make you prove your innocence (as opposed to them proving guilt) without providing you any legal assistance and then keep the money for themselves (not just for the actual policing budgets, some precincts use them to buy fancy requirement for the break room etc – look up the stories on this, some of it is horrific!).

          It’s the norm for US police departments (distinct from the officers themselves) to be rotten to the core. The defund movement is predominantly about moving resources to where they are most effective and demolishing and rebuilding the police system (as Camden did very effectively), and not the lawless vision of a land without police many people are imagining it is.

      • Daz says:

        That’s a bit strong isn’t it? Slight overload on reaction!

    • Ken says:

      Katie Hopkins TV ?

    • Rui N. says:

      If you think that the BBC is left leaning, you probably want something like Breitbart or OANN.

    • Crafty says:

      “Left bias” in the organisation that gives far-right symbol Andrew Neil a national platform. Ok then.

      • Ian M says:

        Andrew Neil – far-right.. Your world view seems a little off

        • Lady London says:

          Yes but sometimes people are so far right they come back round to it the left again.

          • Dezbez says:

            That is very true LL – it is circular rather than a straight line. There’s little difference at the extremes

      • Daz says:

        My goodness ‘Far Right’. The UK doesn’t even know what far Right and Left are! Greece and the Eastern European countries have pretty well established partisan ideals that would devour UK political leanings.

        Andrew Neil is a very credible journalist and editor who doesn’t pull punches on anyone, Left or Right. If he is is what you say, then look up the video of him interviewing Ben Shapiro from the US.

      • the_real_a says:

        Andrew Neil FAR right… hahahahaha. I suppose its relative to ones own political viewpoint.

    • Lady London says:

      What foreign news sources would people recommend? (even non-English)

      • Daz says:

        I like Reuter’s and AP, they are genuinely a very good source, especially when I’ve been in less that peaceful locations.

        • Dezbez says:

          In general, Channel 4 News. Matt Frei and Gary Gibbon are outstanding and the guests they get very informative

      • memesweeper says:

        BBC Global News podcast is convenient and good.

        I pay for both the Telegraph and the Guardian

    • Daz says:

      I stopped reading print mainstream media over 10 years ago, since then I’m quite happy, I take my news from many sources eventually revealing the truth from all the smoke and mirrors placed around it. It is quite amazing how selective the main media outlets are.

    • Chrisasaurus says:

      If your primary concern with fox news’ bias is its *geography* then and suggest you’re going to struggle to find a news source you dont perceive as too ‘left leaning’

    • James Schmidt says:

      It has changed and gone downhill – Leftie Claptrap crept in it these days….

      • Callum says:

        I think you’re the one who has changed.

        I remember as children (well, young adults I should say – it wasn’t exactly front of mind in primary school!) most would say “when I grow up I’m not changing my opinions to be more right wing like my parents/grandparents” – the vast majority did.

    • A commenter says:

      FT is still my go-to, pricy though. Just started reading The Spectator, which I’d hitherto considered a nutty Tory newsletter. It actually challenges things politicians and the mainstream media say rather than blindly regurgitating then like the BBC or warping everything through wokeness like the Guardian. Project Syndicate is a good website for opinion pieces by experts rather than ‘what shall I write about in this week’s column’ types.

  • Mike P says:

    The BBC is becoming ever more left leaning and ‘woke’ in my opinion. Emily Maitlis’ rant about Cummings was a prime example of just how biased. The BBC admitted she broke their rules on impartiality but she’s still in a job. They have recently hired Richard Sambrook as their ‘impartiality adviser’ and he appears to be anything but impartial; have a look at some of his tweets.

    The BBC is now so far from what I want to see that I’m seriously considering cancelling my TV licence.

    • Mike P says:

      It’s a real shame there isn’t an ‘ignore’ feature on here as there is on most forums…

      Perhaps if you have nothing other than sarcasm to add to either side of an argument, saying nothing might be preferable?

      • Daz says:

        Hey Mike, chill and stop putting your views over everyone, it’s suffocating!

    • BS says:

      I cancelled my TV licence in 2016 following the junior doctor strike. It was tedious and lazy watching them parrot the government press releases as the ‘correct’ version of the news. Yes, I’m a junior doctor.

      It has made me a lot more sympathetic to other issues and I have no doubt things like the cabin crew struggle are something that will be poorly reported: when there is controversy I want to be able to make up my own mind, not have it made up for me. All too often I read a headline like such and such an MP says BA are treating cabin crew awfully. They might well be. But I don’t want the report to be about the MP saying one side of the story. I want the story of the dispute. It is just lazy.

    • Lady London says:

      No idea why on earth we’re all paying the licence fee to thr BBC anyway.

      Everyone seems to have forgotten that the government made a promise they would abolish the licence fee by 1997. And yet here we all are still being taxed for it.

      I would mind less if they went back to being a production source of quality drama and quality documentaries in the reliable high volumes they used to provide.

      I still think it’s time the BBC was forced to provide most of its own funds by advertising. And removing the free licences for people over 75 was just mean.

      • Daz says:

        I have stopped my TV licence, I genuinely do not watch TV much anymore and whilst I did enjoy many BBC programs in nature, food, travel, it’s time to go.

    • AndrewA says:

      Emily Maitlis’ “rant” was, in my opinion, spot on. Yes she should be impartial but obviously felt very strongly about the situation. Also, if anyone should be out of a job it’s Mr Cummings.

    • Chris says:

      “Emily Maitlis’ rant about Cummings was a prime example of just how biased. The BBC admitted she broke their rules on impartiality but she’s still in a job.”

      Cummings admitted he broke the rules but he’s still in a job *shrug*

    • Nick_C says:

      I’m with you on that Mike. My license runs out at the end of July, and I will not be renewing it. I’m not prepared to fund the BBC any longer. Apart from parochialism, inaccuracy, occasional bias, and too many adverts, there is a real lack of appropriate content from a so-called public service broadcaster. Political coverage has got worse, with the Daily Politics being cut from an hour to 45 minutes, and This Week being axed. Politics Live has been off air for most of lockdown. Channel 4 shows the BBC how investigative journalism should be done.

      I will be getting my entertainment from catch up and streaming, politics directly from https://parliamentlive.tv/Commons, and news on line and from the radio.

      The BBC should have stepped up with a comprehensive education programme during lockdown. Three channels of daytime programmes for school children would have gone some way to providing a safety net for disadvantaged children who will fall further behind as a result of schools being closed. Instead we have had the usual rubbish that we have come to expect from the BBC.

      If the best the BBC can come up with these days is “Strictly”, “Eastenders” and repeats of “Homes Under the Hammer”, then it has outlived its usefulness.

  • mutley says:

    IMO the BBC is, and certainly has been left leaning since the 80’s ( anyone remember Dennis Thatcher Rant about BBC trots ) and maybe prior to that. However this is balanced by Sky News right of centre agenda (Kay Burley anyone?)

    Personally I take the Guardian and the Telegraph online for balance, a hard copy of the FT once a week, and Viz occasionally for some juvenile amusement.

    • Lady London says:

      No Private Eye?

    • Chrisasaurus says:

      You know what I think that’s about the most sensible blend suggested yet (incorporating LL’s private eye suggestion by way of an external check since neither of those papers owners are without a good smattering of sinisterness themselves)

  • Clarence says:

    Last month I received my cash refund from a cancelled booking using the chrome work around but the avios haven’t been refunded yet. Has anyone else had the same issue ?

  • Shanghaiguizi says:

    Is this only open to new subscribers? My subscription from the previous offer is coming up for renewal. Should I register with an entirely different email address to be safe?

    • Lady London says:

      They seem quite relaxed but for caution you might use a different email address. IME rest can be the same, albeit ME is from a few years back as if I want The Economist I’ll use pressreader now (thanks to our departed poster SS)

    • Rob says:

      Yes, new subscribers. You could use a version of your name with a different email, and different credit card. Amex doesn’t do name verification so if you put a different name down as subscriber, you can put that name down as the Amex cardholder and the payment will still clear. Doesn’t work with Visa or MC though.

      • Genghis says:

        The definition of a new subscriber is simply a person taking out a new subscription!

  • Ian says:

    Correct grammar please….whilst sitting at home, NOT whilst sat at home!

    • Charlieface says:

      I can see you don’t live up north. We was runnin’ down the road…

  • SWWT says:

    Silly me to have asked such an open question. As to my political flavour of my desired news source? Let’s just say that If Douglas Murray ran a news channel, I’d sign up in a heartbeat.
    Meantime, still looking….