3 ms·

"Charged monthly at only $5 for individuals or $3 per person for teams of 3 and up. Cancel anytime." - excellent tool, terrible business model. No on wants to

by movedx 4y ago

"Charged monthly at only $5 for individuals or $3 per person for teams of 3 and up. Cancel anytime." - excellent tool, terrible business model. No on wants to pay $5/month for a utility.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mikaelaast 4y ago
OP here. How would you monetize it?
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  Yeah, subscription for the big players (and raise your subscription price), then $1 a pop for a one-off.
  - moneywoes 4y ago
    What if a corp signs up as a consumer and uses $1 pops?
    - justsomehnguy 4y ago
      Mr. TotallyNotCorporate which makes 20 orders a day? Totally not a corp. Just add "more than N screenshots a day are considered corporate usage with an according plan", ask to upgrade, ban.
      - qbrass 4y ago
        Just let them give you $20 a day.
- movedx 4y ago
  I would consider the value to the consumer and use a value based pricing model. The value you're offering is overcoming a few challenges. First, the technical challenges of designing these graphics yourself - you have to pay for potentially expensive software suites (Photoshop, etc.) to get this kind of work done, and then you have to learn how-to do it. There is a financial and educational curve to climb there. Then the second challenge is time. It takes time to sit and fiddle with a complex piece of software to make a screenshot do what your utility does. So your value is you provide a single piece of software that does one job very well, and it's near instant and requires little to no learning curve whatsoever. Further, you need to consider your own personal objectives with this software. I'm not in this field, so I do not have the foresight to see the potential growth with this software, therefore from my perspective it's a cute tool that does one thing. You might know different and can see potentially big markets. Anyway. I would likely price this as a $15 one time purchase at the non-commercial level (targeting everyday Joe Blogs) with one year of upgrades, and around $50/year/user at the commercial end. It really depends on the market and the user's pain points, Jobs To be Done, etc.
- dharma1 4y ago
  Maybe a couple of freebies (with watermarks with link to your site for viral growth and license for personal use), then upsell with credits. You mentioned newspapers - I think you could charge a bit more for a full commercial license for the outputs - but it is fairly trivial for a graphic designer to replicate this in photoshop in 2 mins so there is probably a limit to the max fee. Subscriptions are good for recurring revenue but maybe offer that as one option, not the only option? A lot of people drop off at that point. I used to do these tilted 3D dof screenshots in After Effects a lot for videos - that is a use case I would pay for, if it’s quick enough - it was always a bit time consuming in AE and also a lot of people need videos but not everyone can use AE.
- ldenoue 4y ago
  For my own app https://screenrun.app/ https://screenrun.app/ that also produces outputs, I was thinking credits: eg $5 gives you 50 screenshots (or videos in my case). No subscription and people get debited only when they use the tool. Would be nice to add referrals so they could earn credits when others sign up?
_zzaw 4y ago
Yeah, I was initially interested, but then I saw that it was a subscription and I just stopped looking.
Too 4y ago
While the tool is extremely simple to replace with something more low level. I think there is no better way than what he chose to actually monetize something like this. Consider the target markets. Individual bloggers. Too cheap to pay sub. Also too cheap to pay a $10 onetime. Hackers. Would happily spend whole day implementing the same with a less polished npm package and would never pay for anything anyway. Professional designers. Can get the same or even better results in the tools they already use with both hands tied behind their back. They don’t need this even if it’s free. Now to the last and only viable market. Journalists who are lacking tech skills and no designer to back them up. They don’t care how simple the tech behind is, as long as it gives them value. It’s just cheap enough that they don’t have to blink and the recurring revenue from these will offset any non-existent $10 one-off purchases from individuals.

by movedx 4y ago

"Charged monthly at only $5 for individuals or $3 per person for teams of 3 and up. Cancel anytime." - excellent tool, terrible business model. No on wants to pay $5/month for a utility.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mikaelaast 4y ago

OP here. How would you monetize it?

JKCalhoun 4y ago
Yeah, subscription for the big players (and raise your subscription price), then $1 a pop for a one-off.
- moneywoes 4y ago
  What if a corp signs up as a consumer and uses $1 pops?
  - justsomehnguy 4y ago
    Mr. TotallyNotCorporate which makes 20 orders a day? Totally not a corp. Just add "more than N screenshots a day are considered corporate usage with an according plan", ask to upgrade, ban.
    - qbrass 4y ago
      Just let them give you $20 a day.
movedx 4y ago
I would consider the value to the consumer and use a value based pricing model. The value you're offering is overcoming a few challenges. First, the technical challenges of designing these graphics yourself - you have to pay for potentially expensive software suites (Photoshop, etc.) to get this kind of work done, and then you have to learn how-to do it. There is a financial and educational curve to climb there. Then the second challenge is time. It takes time to sit and fiddle with a complex piece of software to make a screenshot do what your utility does. So your value is you provide a single piece of software that does one job very well, and it's near instant and requires little to no learning curve whatsoever. Further, you need to consider your own personal objectives with this software. I'm not in this field, so I do not have the foresight to see the potential growth with this software, therefore from my perspective it's a cute tool that does one thing. You might know different and can see potentially big markets. Anyway. I would likely price this as a $15 one time purchase at the non-commercial level (targeting everyday Joe Blogs) with one year of upgrades, and around $50/year/user at the commercial end. It really depends on the market and the user's pain points, Jobs To be Done, etc.
dharma1 4y ago
Maybe a couple of freebies (with watermarks with link to your site for viral growth and license for personal use), then upsell with credits. You mentioned newspapers - I think you could charge a bit more for a full commercial license for the outputs - but it is fairly trivial for a graphic designer to replicate this in photoshop in 2 mins so there is probably a limit to the max fee. Subscriptions are good for recurring revenue but maybe offer that as one option, not the only option? A lot of people drop off at that point. I used to do these tilted 3D dof screenshots in After Effects a lot for videos - that is a use case I would pay for, if it’s quick enough - it was always a bit time consuming in AE and also a lot of people need videos but not everyone can use AE.
ldenoue 4y ago
For my own app https://screenrun.app/ https://screenrun.app/ that also produces outputs, I was thinking credits: eg $5 gives you 50 screenshots (or videos in my case). No subscription and people get debited only when they use the tool. Would be nice to add referrals so they could earn credits when others sign up?

_zzaw 4y ago

Yeah, I was initially interested, but then I saw that it was a subscription and I just stopped looking.

Too 4y ago

While the tool is extremely simple to replace with something more low level. I think there is no better way than what he chose to actually monetize something like this. Consider the target markets. Individual bloggers. Too cheap to pay sub. Also too cheap to pay a $10 onetime. Hackers. Would happily spend whole day implementing the same with a less polished npm package and would never pay for anything anyway. Professional designers. Can get the same or even better results in the tools they already use with both hands tied behind their back. They don’t need this even if it’s free. Now to the last and only viable market. Journalists who are lacking tech skills and no designer to back them up. They don’t care how simple the tech behind is, as long as it gives them value. It’s just cheap enough that they don’t have to blink and the recurring revenue from these will offset any non-existent $10 one-off purchases from individuals.