Hacker News Reader

Comment by condescendence | Hacker News Reader

After spending much time among entrepreneurs I find that there are very few with a "business" mind. Great idea, horrible model. This pricing model is so far out of left field that I had to do some research to see if it's ever been successful.

It hasn't.

Although https://github.com/metafizzy is kinda interesting (what this websites UI is based off of)

View on HN

>"After spending much time among entrepreneurs I find that there are very few with a "business" mind. Great idea, horrible model."

It's very risky to preface your opinion with a statement that might reflect on yourself potentially.

IMO,

This model is used successfully all the time in hundreds of variations, from Saas products upping prices as they add features, to people buying on sale before the price goes up, to penny auctions.

This is simple and brilliant marketing combining Fear of Missing Out, combined with fear of overpaying.

It literally works all the time.

Your comparisons are completely invalid. This is quite different from penny auctions or services that get better in time.

This is inverse actually, as less desired logos get sold at higher and higher prices.

Your assumption that there is such a thing as a more or less desired logos is completely invalid. It is a completely subjective issue. Even if it wasn't subjective, they are certainly geared towards different industries.

The social influence mechanisms are the same as a SAAS Product adding features (which again are of subjective value, and not necessarily an improvement in service, just in perceived value.)

At first I thought the pricing model was backwards, but then I considered that for each logo that was purchased there is an increase of social validation which makes it more tempting for other to buy. I also immediately thought that he marked 17 as sold to give the impression that anyone bought his logos

Of course there are more desired logos. The ones that are picked first.

There are two cars in a lot sold for the same price. Any buyers cannot resell them and must buy them solely for their own use.

One is a Bugatti Veyron fresh off the factory floor, and the other is a 2nd hand 10yr old Ford pickup.

A 55yr old farmer shows up. He lives out in farm country at the end of a 4 mile driveway that looks like this: http://imgur.com/a/SsusC and he needs a vehicle for general farm work.

Which car does he buy?

He would not buy a car.

Ahh, an american.

Sorry, in my part of the world a pickup truck more often than not is just called a car, with the word "truck" usually reserved for larger cargo-carrying vehicles.

This page about Car Classifications also mentions pickup trucks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_classification

I can't edit my earlier post, but assume I meant "vehicle".

Road signs in California for weigh stations will say something like: this lane, trucks only (no puckups). Car is used to mean either in most conversations, so I knew what you meant. I liked your analogy and found humor in the fact that the answer to your question was in a way hidden in your question. I intended to answer your question and share the humor I found but I was short on time and instead my comment looks snarky.

In any case, good point.

Have you considered that maybe he's using this pricing model because it's novel and entertaining? Perhaps maximizing his profits isn't his goal; it doesn't always have to be. Plus, any logos he doesn't sell in this scheme can just be sold individually later on.

I have never previously cared even a little bit about a designer selling logos, but this one really caught my attention because of the unusual pricing scheme.

This is a very interesting pricing model. As the supply decreases the equilibrium price is forced to rise regardless of demand. Also interesting that theoretically worse logo options are what's left at a higher price in the end. Could put pressure on buyers to just settle and go with something.

Isn't the quality of the logos left really dependent on the ability of previous purchasers to pick the better quality logos? I would say that it isn't necessarily true that the worst logos are last, much depends on the customers. Plus, it is a fairly subjective metric. (obviously there is a floor here)

But why is there an assumption that he won't be continually adding new logos, presumably using the knowledge of what's been selling to inform what types of new logos to add. I think it's brilliant.

Flaws notwithstanding, I appreciate the sense of urgency this pricing model imparts. "Buy now, or pay more!"

It also has baked in social proof. Someone else found value and paid $xxx for his logo(s).

I can imagine that the good icons are taken first. But paradoxically, they are also priced the cheapest, while the really ugly icons end up being most expensive.

Strange.

Why is it good vs bad objectively? Why isn't it more suitable and less suitable for a specific buyer's purpose subjectively?

Well, in many cases a good icon can be used for many purposes.

For example, what does a whale have to do with a service like Docker? Or what does a python snake have to do with a programming language?

> After spending much time among entrepreneurs I find that there are very few with a "business" mind.

I'm sorry but you seem to be one of them. Think outside the box please.

This completely. People don't forget that in technology, novelty (and by extension innovation) is the entire goal. And following the groupthink of best practices puts your squarely in the middle of the pack. In short, we don't have enough free thinkers in our industry, so I pretty psyched to see this site.

I've purchased multiple licenses from MetaFizzy. Good software and great folks over there! The founder reached out personally after purchase to learn more about our use of his product and sent me some stickers.

> I had to do some research to see if it's ever been successful. It hasn't.

You failed at your research. In art, this is quite common. As an artist gains notoriety, their work goes up in price. How much do you think Picasso sold his early works for? How much do you think Picasso paintings are worth now?

Also, Minecraft started out cheap and got more expensive over time.

That's completely different. You're talking about a single piece of art gaining value over time as it's bought and sold. What's happening here is the price of all remaining logos increases as sales on any other logo happen.

No, artist will commonly price a collection this way to show there's a market and get buyers to act sooner that later. It's assumed that not all of the logos will sell, and some if not all may have been versions of another logo.

I am NOT talking about a single piece of art gaining value over time.

I'm talking that I sell one painting for $10k, and the next for $15k, and eventually I'm selling a painting for $1m.

condescendence's point is not that there is nothing in the world which goes up in value over time.

Better not try to make condescendence's argument with any collectors.

Why? I guess you parsed inputcoffee's confusing multiple negations wrong?

Google AdWords seems to work the same way too.

Seems to be working reasonably well so far today.

Seems to be a perfectly reasonable promotion for a designer who had a surplus of sitting-on-the-shelf work and a near-term pipeline problem. Options: a) start doing the consulting rainmaking dance or b) spend ~1 day on the fulfillment required here and get paid a few thousand dollars to showcase their work in front of people who can pay _hopefully more appropriate_ rates for their bespoke services.

If the experiment works, wonderful, if not, he'll dry his tears on $X,000 and then move forward.

As a long-term business model, I find a number of things to be problematic, but if you think of it less as Founding A Company That Will Endure For All Time and more like Spiritually Similar To A Halloween Sale, this has a lot to recommend it. As the cost of starting things goes to zero the expected value of them doesn't have to be super high to be worthwhile.

Except now it's stopped at $320. That's an average of $93.33 per logo (if my math is right). They would make more money by simply selling the logos for $100 each, and they would probably sell way more logos.

Sales psychology

1 - Start pricing extremely low, and word travels fast

2 - Temporary pricing causes buyers to act quickly, with less consideration

3 - Buyers who wavered in their decision making panic and pay more than they originally would have in order to not miss out.

4 - Designer knows what is left is both over priced and no one really wants.

With static pricing, #1 doesn't happen, #2 doesn't happen, #3 doesn't happen, #4 does, albeit much more slowly.

#1 is a core piece of both Google & Facebook's sales psychology. You can see them move the sliders from totally free, to really good deal, to your fucked without paying us lots of money as they launch ad channels.

If he sells all 50 that he has, he'd net an average of $1020 per logo. (First one was $40, price increases by $40 per logo, last logo is $2,000, total net is $51,000)

That's a highly unlikely "if". I doubt they'll sell any logos for much more than $400, which averages "only" $146.66 per logo. That's pretty good one-off revenue if the logos were already finished, especially considering they can probably sell the remainders on the side for some extra cash, but it's probably not a sustainable business model.

Yes, yes it is an unlikely "if" – but it was interesting to see the ceiling for the model, given current supply.

Currently at $560, with $20 increases.

And that's where it remains, 1 hour later. Looks like he hasn't sold one in a while

At $560 only 6 hours later from your comment

make that $420,

despite arguments against (that I agree with) this model .... its working.

Wait, if it increases $40 per, how did it go from $320 to $420.

Need a "fishy" logo. <º))))><

Any logo: $420 . Price increases by $20 with each logo sold.

it increases by $20/logo sold

I believe they reduced this from $40 to $20. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

That does seem to be the case. It actually could be an interesting sales move. If the price would rise linearly, the saturation point in which the logos become "too expensive" would occur faster in sales. Gently lowering the additional value (from 40 to 20 and i assume from 20 to 10) would let the saturation point occur later, thus having more sales in total.

They did. The page from several hours ago said $40.

When I loaded the page to now the price has jumped by $180. So he seems to be getting some decent sales here.

Some very smooth JavaScript UI widgets on their site too

http://metafizzy.co

I have been using isotope and masonry for years. Great tools.

Hey, we're chatting about it, right? Would a site with $100 logos make it to the front page of a highly trafficked site like this?

How much money is it worth to make the front page of HN one time?

That's actually an interesting question in its own right, now that I think about it...

Probably highly dependent on what you're selling. But this? How many of us have agonised over naming, what domain names to buy, and how to get a suitable logo. Multiple times in many cases..

Hard to say. I'm sure this is a combination of:

- novel concept / unique pricing model

- reasonably good logos (I think)... at least if you can judge a logo made outside of the context of a company and knowing about it

- cool domain hack

- really nice design and fast UI

- he did the logo for something I've heard of (Bower)

Basically this. There are sites out there that sell $20 - $100 logos all over the place.

Steve & Barry's used this model in retail stores.

At opening the whole store would be priced at $5 or so then slowly it would raise the price every few weeks

They did however go bankrupt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_%26_Barry%27s

> It hasn't.

Pinboard.in used this model for years.

This is exactly a business minded decision. It is basic supply and demand. The lower the supply, the higher the price. It isnt perfect because the logos aren't a commodity, some will be more liked than others. I suspect that they will either add more logos on a regular basis (e.g. four more every month) or they will add more and take away poorly performing logos to keep the price in a certain range.

Except supply is about the market – i.e.: the universe of substitutable goods. There are many, many substitutes for these logos and there's nothing unique to make these an exclusive. Now, if these were previously undiscovered works of Paul Rand, then your argument would make sense...

> It is basic supply and demand. The lower the supply, the higher the price

If demand stays constant/increases..

Yeah it has. Peter Lik.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com