3 ms·
I agree and disagree. I agree that there's not necessarily a harm to having "beta pricing" or waiting to work out your price structure until you've found some p
by schneidmaster 8y ago
I agree and disagree. I agree that there's not necessarily a harm to having "beta pricing" or waiting to work out your price structure until you've found some product/market fit. But I was largely responding to the "Coming soon -- business $34.90/mo" plan -- I think by the time they're ready for a business plan, they're ready to start charging "real" prices. I also think you have to be cautious with "beta pricing" because it can distort your view of the market -- the cohort who will pay $10/mo is usually drastically different than the cohort who will pay $100/mo, and it's easy to mistake the former for an indication that you've got a market fit, when you might find that the market is much different when you're charging what you actually need to grow and turn a profit.
- jv22222 8y agoI agree! How about this: Start with a price that is the lowest price in the cohort/market band that you are interested in and then work your way to the top as you get settled in. I'm a big fan of the inner game, IMHO folks should operate where they feel comfortable so they can rid themselves of impostor syndrome and get more confident over time. But yeah, do like compete.com did move from a $49 price point over time all the way up to $1,000+! That's fine by me ;)
- schneidmaster 8y agoYeah, I agree that is a reasonable approach, particularly since it tends to align well with product development (as you add more advanced features, you can easily justify segmenting them into a new premium plan). Though I'm a proponent of having enterprise pricing (or at least "call me" pricing) at any stage -- if a large enterprise comes knocking, you need to make sure you can get enough value for you to support their scale and procurement processes.