3 ms·

Two issues: 1. There is no quantifiable data to backup the assertions. Does anyone have A/B test data to back any of the author's assumptions? 2. There is no

by DJN 16y ago

Two issues: 1. There is no quantifiable data to backup the assertions. Does anyone have A/B test data to back any of the author's assumptions? 2. There is no discussion on how to structure pricing that scales on a specific metric e.g. users, storage space, number of uses etc. The common approach is to lump all the plans into 3-4 buckets with the last bucket being an "unlimited" plan. Suffice to say, this approach may not be ideal in cases where users have widely differing requirements. For example, imagine pricing a product based on impressions/page views. Buckets simply don't make sense. I'm currently experimenting with a pricing table that allows buyers to CUSTOMIZE their plan from a traditional 3-4 plan table. See http://www.trafficspaces.com/plans/ http://www.trafficspaces.com/plans/ for how I've done it. What do you think?

jsatok 16y ago
We've done A/B testing at Rypple on our Pricing page, and found most of the principles suggested by UXMovement to be true. http://rypple.com/pricing http://rypple.com/pricing You've done some interesting things with your pricing page. Couple comments: - I'd reduce the complexity of the page by removing the drop down boxes for impressions and just changing the pricing buckets to up to the maximum impressions offered by that bucket. The way you've got it now means there's effectively 13 plans. - I've found that listing the features in order from those included in all plans to those included in the fewest plans to work the best.
- DJN 16y ago
  Thanks for the advice. We'll reorganize the feature set as you've described. It seems to make a lot of sense. Regarding the drop down, whilst it isn't the most ideal implementation, I can't think of a way to allow publishers to pick a plan that meets their specific needs without using the drop downs. We've tried to reduce the visual complexity by using 4 buckets, hence the drop downs in each category. Getting rid of them, I fear, may create more confusion about the flexibility (or lack of) of the plans. Especially because our customer's requirements are quite varied. We've literally got people on 250,000 impressions and others on the largest plans.

by DJN 16y ago

jsatok 16y ago

We've done A/B testing at Rypple on our Pricing page, and found most of the principles suggested by UXMovement to be true. http://rypple.com/pricing http://rypple.com/pricing You've done some interesting things with your pricing page. Couple comments: - I'd reduce the complexity of the page by removing the drop down boxes for impressions and just changing the pricing buckets to up to the maximum impressions offered by that bucket. The way you've got it now means there's effectively 13 plans. - I've found that listing the features in order from those included in all plans to those included in the fewest plans to work the best.

DJN 16y ago
Thanks for the advice. We'll reorganize the feature set as you've described. It seems to make a lot of sense. Regarding the drop down, whilst it isn't the most ideal implementation, I can't think of a way to allow publishers to pick a plan that meets their specific needs without using the drop downs. We've tried to reduce the visual complexity by using 4 buckets, hence the drop downs in each category. Getting rid of them, I fear, may create more confusion about the flexibility (or lack of) of the plans. Especially because our customer's requirements are quite varied. We've literally got people on 250,000 impressions and others on the largest plans.