It's a great tool, but no one is going to want to pay $10/mo for it.
You will get a better ROI if you replace the pricing with a link to your socials/ website.
You will get a better ROI if you replace the pricing with a link to your socials/ website.
You’re competing in a very crowded market of generally free tools. Unless your offering is VERY good you’re going to struggle selling at all… $5-10 maybe? That’s about as much as I’d be willing to pay for a hyper-specific tool like this if it makes one of my tasks at hand a little easier.
If the only motivation for this product is money, then it will die in no time. Comparing the value I’m getting to the 7€ / month on Amazon prime, or the 10€ for Apple Music – that’s the value perception you’re competing against.
If you tell me you need 120€ a year from multiple customers to maintain and improve a json app good luck. One time purchase – get access – done. You can later upsell me with even more features in a v2 or whatever. I also doubt this tool has a lot of running costs to warrant this much.
Maybe if you work in SF and you make 300k a year so 10 bucks don’t mean much, but for the rest of the world 10$ is a lot of money / month.
1. The price is too high.
2. Dislike for subscription-based payments.
I have no problem with the first point, but I'm curious why everyone dislikes the subscription model so much? Or at the end of the day, is it really because the price is too high?
Because _everything_ is a subscription today, and even more of them make people angry. When a tool doesn't have any "infrastructure" costs per se, it rubs people the wrong way. Most don't want yet another subscription to manage
- With a buyout system, users perceive that they own the item after payment.
- With a subscription system, users perceive that they are renting the item after payment.
When there's a mismatch in expectations (I pay to own, but you only let me rent), users feel deceived and angry. The same issue occurs with the ownership of accounts in online games, where some game companies state in their terms of service that the game account belongs to them, not the user, naturally leading to user outrage.