I like the Golden Ratio approach (b+a : b as b:a). So you get a simple 5-3-2-1 approach 49 - 29 - 19 for your pricing plans. Or I guess 125 - 74 - 49 It's

I like the Golden Ratio approach (b+a : b as b:a). So you get a simple 5-3-2-1 approach 49 - 29 - 19 for your pricing plans. Or I guess 125 - 74 - 49 It's just easier to remember a fibonacci sequence than worry about marketing research. What surprises me however is the reverse ordering '''Reordering the pricing table in descending order from fastest/most expensive to lowest/cheapest resulted in a 14.9% increase in overall orders.''' I am not sure this carries from pricing - I recently bought a new ISP connection at home (lockdown, plus fibre to house suddenly became available). I went for the most expensive- partly because the feature set was easily rankable. I could get 300, 600 or 1Gb - so going for the top level seemed easy (plus lockdown panic). But with features that don't rank (a book, a book with video course, a book with two hour consult with author), suddenly I am not comparing the same feature (download speed) but more of it, I am having to ask do I want this extra feature at all - i am in effect not making a pricing decision but making a feature choice decision, proxied by price. So I am not sure the research carries over. And that leads me back to the easy version of use the fib.