You’re Pricing It Wrong: Software Pricing Demystified
smashingmagazine.com
smashingmagazine.com
Let's say that for your particular niche, you pay on average $1 per click. These are the expected conversion rates to break even, depending on the price of your product.
$1 - 100%
$2 - 50%
$4 - 25%
$8 - 12.5%
$16 - 6.25%
$32 - 3.125%
$64 - 1.563%
$128 - 0.781%
In general, it's far easier to convert 1.5% of your visitors, with a product that costs $64 than it is getting 50% of your visitors to pay $2, 25% to pay $4, or even 12.5% to pay $8.
So in my experience, charging a premium has practical implications when advertising, that go beyond pricing as a quality indicator.
The lifetime value of a new customer must justify the cost of paid acquisition channels, and leave room for profit.
Apple sold a seriously expensive (especially initially) device to people who would later complain about 2 bucks. They owned word-of-mouth and viral. Any Nokia user seeing their friend using an iPhone would immediately calculate the months to the end of their phone contract. There's been so much free marketing that it can't possibly be calculated. But the product is not cheap.
Our challenge is to find out how to harness that for our own software/services. First step is to avoid boxing ourselves in, e.g. by price.
> Objective Value:
> (Hourly rate × Development time in hours) − Price = Value
Um, no. This assumes the value of the product is based on the inputs, and is incorrectly modeled from the seller's perspective. Any product's value is determined by the buyer, who is the one making the purchasing decisions. The value is not in how much time the developer put into it, but what it does.Yes, the article is about subjective value (and finding it), not objective value, but taking the developer's (biased) perception of value as a starting point is a bad idea.
Pricing should be determined early in the development process to inform go/no-go, and the amount of development effort to apply. Starting from scratch on pricing after the product is ready is backward.
buyer price (= contracted price + opportunity cost to buyer)
buyer value (what the product is worth to her)
seller cost (cost to create product + opportunity cost to seller)
seller value (value of what he will be receiving in return, usually face value of money)So yes, price is a function of demand first - don't tell the customer what it's worth, let them tell you.
Err, no. The biggest rectangle represents the biggest revenue. Profit != revenue, unless you have zero costs.
To the author's credit, my guess is that he's living in the bubble of sales&marketing. Their assignments are usually something like "Go out and sell as much as you can!" with little regard to product cost, production limits, or even cost-of-sales.
I'm guessing that is why he makes such an elementary blunder.
I think I'd rather have 5 customers paying $20 than 10 customers paying $10 - is this a thoroughly bone-headed point of view? Or is supporting more customers essentially a marketing cost?
So it really all depends, but it's definitely not bone-headed.
If you're interested, here's an article I wrote for Inc. that discusses some of these ideas: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20101101/go-ahead-raise-your-bus...
There can also be an element of customers paying more will expect more from you (ie. support).
(Neil is CEO of Red Gate Software and co-founded the Business of Software conference.)
"Apple charges a premium because of the perceived value of its products"
Is this necessarily true these days? Air vs Ultrabook pricing for example?I take the general point. In the UK college education sector there are two main players for providing virtual learning environments. One is open source, the other has a lease contract price in the tens of thousands per year (depending on the number of seats). Both are widely used!