3 ms·

I think the scenario is correct, the analysis for each choice seems to be realistic but this dialog would be finished after a couple of interactions for sure.

by motbus3 10mo ago

I think the scenario is correct, the analysis for each choice seems to be realistic but this dialog would be finished after a couple of interactions for sure. (I think 1.9 USD is more realistic than 19 USD for now. I don't want to say the product is bad, it is hard to evaluate it at 19 USD for this simple interaction. For a QA simulation with multiple choices seems quite pricey)

jtokoph 10mo ago
I would argue that the price is too low. Any price under $200 is practically free to the employee with so many companies providing learning and development budgets.
- pingananth 10mo ago
  You hit the nail on the head regarding L&D psychology. For corporate budgets, $19 signals 'toy,' not 'training.' My current logic: I'm optimizing for the individual dev/lead paying out of pocket who wants to start now without asking a manager for approval. The goal is to be below the 'mental friction' threshold for a personal impulse buy. But for a Team/Enterprise version (where the manager buys it for 5 people), you are absolutely right—the pricing structure needs to look very different.
  - jtokoph 10mo ago
    Many companies have discretionary budgets fully in control of the employee. For example, I had $2,500 per year to spend on valid expenses without needing prior approval.
    - pingananth 10mo ago
      That sounds like a manager budget. My rationale of 19$ is considering the global audience and budget. I do have a vision of introducing team licenses later but currently focused on gathering volume and feedback!
pingananth 10mo ago
Fair point! $19 for just this one interaction would be steep. The intention is that the license covers the Full Library (I'm building 12+ scenarios covering Firing, Performance Reviews, Hiring, etc.). But your comment proves I failed to communicate that scope more better on the landing page. It looks like a 'Single Level' purchase right now, which is definitely not the value prop. I will revisit my messaging. Thanks for the heads up.
- motbus3 9mo ago
  Hey I would never be cheering for your business to fail or anything. Good luck there! I work for a company which I also think the content is worth and people don't pay. And we charge much much less than that. The problem we identified, though debatable, is that people consider three things: 1. Exclusivity 2. Comparison 3. Alternatives 1. Is this a thing a thing only available here 2. That's not what it seems. People thinks that 15 USD for netflix is ok, but they think that everything that costs 15 USD should be stream content high production with tons of options. So if you give text, the expect cheap or free 3. If I cannot get what is being offered, can I get something about the same for free? Anyway Good luck there man

by motbus3 10mo ago

jtokoph 10mo ago

I would argue that the price is too low. Any price under $200 is practically free to the employee with so many companies providing learning and development budgets.

pingananth 10mo ago
You hit the nail on the head regarding L&D psychology. For corporate budgets, $19 signals 'toy,' not 'training.' My current logic: I'm optimizing for the individual dev/lead paying out of pocket who wants to start now without asking a manager for approval. The goal is to be below the 'mental friction' threshold for a personal impulse buy. But for a Team/Enterprise version (where the manager buys it for 5 people), you are absolutely right—the pricing structure needs to look very different.
- jtokoph 10mo ago
  Many companies have discretionary budgets fully in control of the employee. For example, I had $2,500 per year to spend on valid expenses without needing prior approval.
  - pingananth 10mo ago
    That sounds like a manager budget. My rationale of 19$ is considering the global audience and budget. I do have a vision of introducing team licenses later but currently focused on gathering volume and feedback!

pingananth 10mo ago

Fair point! $19 for just this one interaction would be steep. The intention is that the license covers the Full Library (I'm building 12+ scenarios covering Firing, Performance Reviews, Hiring, etc.). But your comment proves I failed to communicate that scope more better on the landing page. It looks like a 'Single Level' purchase right now, which is definitely not the value prop. I will revisit my messaging. Thanks for the heads up.

motbus3 9mo ago
Hey I would never be cheering for your business to fail or anything. Good luck there! I work for a company which I also think the content is worth and people don't pay. And we charge much much less than that. The problem we identified, though debatable, is that people consider three things: 1. Exclusivity 2. Comparison 3. Alternatives 1. Is this a thing a thing only available here 2. That's not what it seems. People thinks that 15 USD for netflix is ok, but they think that everything that costs 15 USD should be stream content high production with tons of options. So if you give text, the expect cheap or free 3. If I cannot get what is being offered, can I get something about the same for free? Anyway Good luck there man