The ramp from free to paying customer is too high. Either remove the free plan or add a lower bracket. The way you priced things is cute, but shows that these are numbers that you made up. People might look at them and question you, your business, and the value you provide. The standard pricing model [1] works. Stick to it.
[1] - Use .99, .97, or .95 instead of whole numbers. Use odd numbers. Example: 127.99 or 129.99 for your lowest plan.
.99 is for regular prices. .97 is for lowered prices (but still considered regular). .95 is for promotional prices. Special prices may include either, but are ruled by different pricing options.
> The way you priced things is cute, but shows that these are numbers that you made up
What it sounds like you're driving toward is better documenting the rationale behind the cost. To my untrained eye, the costs scaled with usage in a fairly familiar pattern.
What would you do to better illustrate the logic behind a pricing structure?
> The standard pricing model [1] works. Stick to it.
[1] - Use .99, .97, or .95 instead of whole numbers. Use odd numbers. Example: 127.99 or 129.99 for your lowest plan.
When I see "x.99" prices I always think "annoying gimmick" and typically associate it with low cost consumer goods.
Is there any evidence this type of pricing is appropriate for B2B products?
> The way you priced things is cute, but shows that these are numbers that you made up.
It really does. The events and calls are nice round numbers, so it's not like the worked though to match the silly price points.
A bigger problem I thought though was the type of work.. it's an analytics company that couldn't factor their costs + target margin and arrive at a reasonable, marketable price, without resorting to gimmicks.. doesn't fill me with confidence.
I disagree completely. The prices act as a (slight) marketing tool giving a nod to their primary customer base, and adding .99 prices would feel like pandering. It's clean and simple, as a potential customer I appreciate that.
I really commend Keen for throwing consulting into the mix - Consulting prices are typically a black box to the customer that sales teams use as bargaining chips. This sort of openness is quite welcome as far as I'm concerned.
Depends on their target market. B2B tends to be less influenced by pricing gimmiks and more on straight-up cost/benefit analysis. In which case, the numbers can be completely arbitrary so long as the analysis comes out in their favor.
For me personally, "128, 256, 768, 2048" pattern looks like a product of nerdiness to the prejudice of real value. And, since real value is likely to be less that nerdic numbers, I instantly feel cheated by looking onto these rates.
I've seen a lot of comments to this effect, and I don't get it. Just to pick an example more or less at random, Mixpanel's prices [1] are all multiples of $50; how is that any less arbitrary than using multiples of $128?
Your rate looks arbitrary enough that it flipped my "this must be algorithmic!" flag. But, its probably not.
Even if its not, it would be cool to hang a shingle as a consultant and have a variable rate based on how much work is in the pipeline. This would be an awesome visual and may actually help choose the optimum hourly rate over the long term.
Edit: hah, just saw the pattern. Still, interesting idea you piqued there. Surely it must have been done somewhere.
We'd love your feedback on consulting as a piece of our business model.
The main reason we're doing it is to put our customers at ease while we continue learning, not because we want it to remain a substantive part of our revenue at scale (because the linear opex is unattractive to us as businesspeople)
If you go over your plan by 20%, we simply charge you for the next tier for that month only. We'll then revert you back to your the plan you last selected."
Very nice but the general idea would be to not do this so that people would tend to buy more than they need and then you make more money. From what you are doing you give don't give anyone a reason to purchase more than they have to by bumping to a higher plan. Not sure how much this matters given the tiers but I thought I'd throw it out there just the same because it would matter in other cases potentially.
(Think back in the day of cell phone plans with minutes and how you were forced to buy extra minutes lest you get hit with a bigger charge.)
[+] [-] orangethirty|13 years ago|reply
[1] - Use .99, .97, or .95 instead of whole numbers. Use odd numbers. Example: 127.99 or 129.99 for your lowest plan.
.99 is for regular prices. .97 is for lowered prices (but still considered regular). .95 is for promotional prices. Special prices may include either, but are ruled by different pricing options.
Edit:
Don't take my word for it and test it.
[+] [-] doktrin|13 years ago|reply
What it sounds like you're driving toward is better documenting the rationale behind the cost. To my untrained eye, the costs scaled with usage in a fairly familiar pattern.
What would you do to better illustrate the logic behind a pricing structure?
> The standard pricing model [1] works. Stick to it. [1] - Use .99, .97, or .95 instead of whole numbers. Use odd numbers. Example: 127.99 or 129.99 for your lowest plan.
When I see "x.99" prices I always think "annoying gimmick" and typically associate it with low cost consumer goods.
Is there any evidence this type of pricing is appropriate for B2B products?
[+] [-] alexwright|13 years ago|reply
It really does. The events and calls are nice round numbers, so it's not like the worked though to match the silly price points.
A bigger problem I thought though was the type of work.. it's an analytics company that couldn't factor their costs + target margin and arrive at a reasonable, marketable price, without resorting to gimmicks.. doesn't fill me with confidence.
[+] [-] colbyh|13 years ago|reply
I really commend Keen for throwing consulting into the mix - Consulting prices are typically a black box to the customer that sales teams use as bargaining chips. This sort of openness is quite welcome as far as I'm concerned.
[+] [-] dpe82|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ElCapitanMarkla|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dorkitude|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] juskrey|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ElCapitanMarkla|13 years ago|reply
I feel the starting price is fairly high but that's not to say it won't work for you.
[+] [-] teraflop|13 years ago|reply
[1] https://mixpanel.com/pricing/
[+] [-] stormental|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thetrumanshow|13 years ago|reply
Even if its not, it would be cool to hang a shingle as a consultant and have a variable rate based on how much work is in the pipeline. This would be an awesome visual and may actually help choose the optimum hourly rate over the long term.
Edit: hah, just saw the pattern. Still, interesting idea you piqued there. Surely it must have been done somewhere.
[+] [-] dorkitude|13 years ago|reply
The main reason we're doing it is to put our customers at ease while we continue learning, not because we want it to remain a substantive part of our revenue at scale (because the linear opex is unattractive to us as businesspeople)
[+] [-] ckluis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] larrys|13 years ago|reply
"What happens if I go over my plan?
If you go over your plan by 20%, we simply charge you for the next tier for that month only. We'll then revert you back to your the plan you last selected."
Very nice but the general idea would be to not do this so that people would tend to buy more than they need and then you make more money. From what you are doing you give don't give anyone a reason to purchase more than they have to by bumping to a higher plan. Not sure how much this matters given the tiers but I thought I'd throw it out there just the same because it would matter in other cases potentially. (Think back in the day of cell phone plans with minutes and how you were forced to buy extra minutes lest you get hit with a bigger charge.)