Pricing Strategies For Online Products

"Is $20/month too much for our product?" Instead of guessing, we used the Van Westendorp method to find our pricing sweet spot. 4 questions revealed exactly what users would pay (and we haven't touched our pricing since). Here's the framework any founder can steal: 1. Send a survey to actual users, not prospects We surveyed people already using Gamma. They understood the real value of our product, not hypothetical value. Too many founders survey their waitlist or randomly select people who have never used their product. That's like asking someone who's never driven about car prices. 2. Ask these 4 specific questions - At what price would this be too expensive for you to consider it? - At what price is it expensive but still delivering value? - At what price does it feel like a bargain? - At what price is it so cheap you'd question if it's reliable? These create bookends for perceived value. You're mapping the entire spectrum of price psychology, not just asking "what would you pay?" 3. Plot the responses and find where the lines intersect Graph responses from lots of users. Where "too expensive" and "too cheap" lines cross: that's your acceptable range. Where "expensive but fair" meets "bargain": this is your optimal price point. 4. Test within the range, don't just pick the middle The intersection gives you a range, not a number. We ran pricing experiments within that range to see actual conversion rates. A survey shows willingness to pay; testing reveals actual behavior. 5. Lean towards generous (especially for product-led growth) We chose to be more generous with AI usage than our "optimal" price suggested. Word-of-mouth growth matters more than maximizing initial revenue. Not everything shows up in the numbers. 6. Lock it in and stop tinkering Once you find the sweet spot through data, stick with it. We haven't changed pricing in 2 years. Every month debating pricing is a month not improving product. Remember: pricing is a signal, not just a number (Image: First Principles)

Massive news that marketers must understand Digital was built on the promise of being "better" than TV. Now, it's being sold increasingly like linear TV. Isn't that hilarious? Social gunned for targeting now it pushes broad reach. There are more unskippable formats for long-form viewing, like YouTube. Prime introducing ads as standard. Now, Meta appears to be moving to principal-based trading. Principal-based trading occurs when a media owner sells a large chunk of inventory to an agency, which the agency then marks up and sells to clients. It can be incredibly profitable for the owner and agency and guarantees steady revenues. This practice (partly) originally divided creative and media, with media agencies splitting off to run their "not messy" numbers-focused businesses. A great quote from the below: this is the practice of being "transparently un-transparent". This cynical view is born from the idea that if an agency buys £100mil of media inventory, they won't build strategies and plans to deliver incremental effectiveness. Instead, they'll push whatever they've bought. It's hard to argue that this won't be an outcome here. And this is another step to huge hold cos winning clients on the promise of discounts and efficiencies. However, principal-based trading has always been around, and there have still been HUGE jumps in media strategy, effectiveness and planning from brilliant teams. Attention-based incrementality planning, MMM analysis and signalling theory. It feels wrong not to mention the work of EssenceMediacom, Richard Kirk, Jellyfish, Lumen Research, Thinkbox and Amplified Intelligence here. It should be simple for advertisers to unpick this mess. If you want to lower your cost per reach (CPM) and save some cash, go with whoever sells you on discounted bulk media. If you want incremental growth, use a media planning team that can add value and deliver a connections plan specifically for your brand. Sometimes, these two will overlap. The real losers here are brand managers who consistently need to up their media knowledge and deliver growth with an increasingly complex media mix. I share #advertising and #marketing insights daily, follow for more. https://lnkd.in/e-QRuBfs

AI pricing is broken, and everyone knows it. Orb just analyzed 66 AI companies and found something interesting: 𝟗𝟐% 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞-𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠. Quietly, completely, across the board. Why? Because usage is unpredictable, infra costs are high, and old SaaS pricing just doesn’t cut it anymore. We’re not pricing features anymore. We’re pricing intelligence. Some insights from the report: ◾𝐇𝐲𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝 – 92% blend subscription, usage, freemium, and tiers in one structure ◾𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐨? Subscription + usage + freemium + tiered plans ◾𝐏𝐞𝐫-𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐝, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞 – 85% of companies using SaaS pricing now pair it with usage-based pricing ◾𝟏𝟐% 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐥 – often segmenting between business and individual users … This shift is more than cosmetic. It reflects a deeper reality: AI products don’t fit cleanly into legacy monetization models. They need pricing systems that scale with usage, support experimentation, and reflect actual value delivered. If you’re building in AI, your pricing strategy isn’t just a detail, it’s a growth lever. 📊Full report https://lnkd.in/g-R3_cwU It’ll reshape how you think about monetizing AI.