5 ms·
So, of the people paying $1 for the product, you know that half of them would gladly pay $2? Sounds like it's time for 2 versions of the product : (i) The almo
by mdda 15y ago
So, of the people paying $1 for the product, you know that half of them would gladly pay $2?
Sounds like it's time for 2 versions of the product : (i) The almost-full-featured version ($1) and (ii) The super-duper gold-plated version ($2). The removed feature doesn't even have to be very useful : You might lose 10% of the $1 value people, but snag 25% of the $2 value people (who just want some justification for paying the full value to them).
- cotik 15y agoIt's hard to do that with a product that's specialized in removing features
- revorad 15y agoSo charge more for removing even more features. Call it Zen instead of Pro.
- tingletech 15y agocharge more for the zen version, add extra features for the cheaper version.
- wlievens 15y agoYou're joking obviously, but I wonder if this has ever been successfully applied in some form or other.
- ctdonath 15y agoSony and other computer manufacturers will charge you more to deliver the computer _without_ the "bonus" software they usually include. (Yes, it's probably a matter of the bonus/bloatware/crapware makers paying the manufacturer to include it vs. customers paying more to not. Flip side is a lot of that stuff _is_ useful, but many users just don't want it there to start with.)
- wlievens 15y agoGood example. I've just realized I saw something in my line of work too. One of our customers is planning to sell a premium version of their product that has their logo removed.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- adjohn 15y agoThere are several sports cars which offer a more expensive version with fewer features (making it lighter/faster).
- TillE 15y agoI think that's the future pricing model for a lot of software products. Think of games, for example, where you could sell the basic version for $5, then big chunks of DLC for a few dollars apiece. So you get your game into the hands of anyone willing to pay a small fee, in the hope that those who like it will continue to pay additional small fees for more content.
- nikcub 15y agoso, shareware
- barredo 15y agoApple's simple take on this may be revealing: iSomething = $X iSomething+ = $X+100 iSomething++ = $X+200
- lukifer 15y agoI've always wondered about the sales ratios of iSomething+ versus the other two. It seems to be that most people either want the cheapest, or the best, and that the mid-range exists primarily as a stepping stone to convert the former buyers into the latter.
- alex_c 15y agoI think many people want the second-cheapest (psychologically: good value, but not the worst), or the second most expensive (high quality, but not extravagant).
- ToastOpt 15y agoThis is especially true when "iSomething" is free. A lot of folks will want to 'buy in' to the software, out of guilt or gratitude, so will pay for "iSomething+" even if the delta is trivial.
- baby 15y agoI actually see that a lot in the appstore.
- nl 15y agoThis. Joel Spolsky wrote a pretty good piece on capturing the consumer surplus: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckie...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- aptwebapps 15y agoNo, it was total revenue that returned to previous levels after the initial spike, not volume. Approximately five times as many people were willing to pay $1 as were willing to pay $5.