[Guest0918231]

It would make more sense to have prices $40, $50, $60, where the $50 plan is always on sale for $30. Then, you effectively have a $30 and $60 plan, and the $40 is a decoy to make $30 seem like great value.

I designed a quick example below. That being said, I have no experience with pricing strategies, and I feel like this example is missing out on users and businesses that would be willing to spend $100.

https://i.imgur.com/vzaoy8q.jpg

[listenallyall]

$29 would likely work a whole lot better than $30

[csa]

$28 would work better than $29... the main point still holds.

[listenallyall]

you have no evidence for that claim... the '9' effect has been studied extensively

[csa]

I think you missed my point. Whether it was 30 or 29, the idea still holds, and the idea was not optimizing to the single dollar level.

[listenallyall]

No, I didn't. If you're going to optimize the article's example, why stop halfway?

[goliatone]

So, $39 would work better than $28?

[listenallyall]

Was this comment really worth exposing the fact that you don't understand why nearly every store in America prices with 9's?

But since you asked... lowering the price by $11 will require 28% more unit sales to cover the difference. Normally 28% more units would increase COGS, resulting in less profit on equivalent sales, requiring even larger unit growth, but we're talking about software here so let's ignore that. Regardless, I couldn't tell you which works better without some more data.

I will bet you, however, that $39 will outperform $40 in total revenue and profit.

[alvarelle]

The article also suggests you should start with the post expensive option (60 in your case)