Hacker News Reader

Comment by z0mbie42 | Hacker News Reader

Hi, I found it really interesting, but I think you should reduce the number of plans you are offering and eventually offer something like 3 plan, each with a base and price/data capacity and an additional cost per data usage

View on HN

It was also jarring to see the prices lised in descending order except Enterprise which is where I expected. Perhaps A/B test it if you plan to keep it such.

Hah, interesting point. Research says to use descending order. Look up "anchoring". It's been researched a lot by a lot of people. At the end of the day, "jarring" doesn't matter. Does it convert better is the only measure.

Agreed, conversion matters most. What is your conversion of the first two listed plans? Let's say it's 1/50 then 98% of the time, they're irrelevant and may reduce that 98% fraction may go higher and more than make up for any reduction in the conversion of the first two. I see anchoring as a way of planting a thought that can be executed without much more thought. By presenting two data points that are not executable for a majority of would be buyers, additional data needs to be contemplated which defeats the purpose of anchoring. A much more common way of anchoring is to show the prices small to large, left to right, but anchor on one of the middle ones by making it larger and taller so it enters the visitors mind first. I suspect some of the many who use this format has A/B tested it with their audience.

Seeing something 'jarring' or unexpected triggered a 'what's going on here' response which made me somewhat cautious of what's being offered. The play being extracting the most from the customer rather than delivering the most value like a pushy salesman. In the end sentiments matter less than conversion, but experimenting to see what improves conversion is often dramatically worthwhile. If you've already done so, I'm surprised why this form doesn't show up anywhere else I can recall.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com