Why charging $12/year converts higher than $9.99
bothsidesofthetable.com
Why charging $12/year converts higher than $9.99
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Why charging $12/year converts higher than $9.99
#2Is the reason that $12 converted better than $9.99 definitely because users are able to visualise it as one dollar a month?
Maybe people see the .99 and are trained to think "99 cents is a marketing plan to make me think it's cheaper than it is", thus causing it to have the opposite effect?
Maybe people see $9.99 as a generic price, implying it was picked fairly randomly, whereas $12 is a slightly odd number to chose, implying that it was carefully picked as a price that gives users good value? (It would have that effect on me - $9.99 suggests they haven't worked out how much they need to charge me to make a profit, and just picked a rounded number that looks normal.)
I'd like to see $12 compared to $14, compared to $11.99, compared to $24, compared to $20.
Re: Why charging $12/year converts higher than $9.99
#3I wonder if anyone has data on the broader question of whether numbers that are easily divisible perform better than prime or hard to divide numbers?
Re: Why charging $12/year converts higher than $9.99
#4Great headline, converted me.
Price elasticity testing is so crucially important and I consume everything I can find about rationality vs. the seeming randomness (particuarlly for digital products).
Even this single morsel tying rationality of consumer mind-set of $1 per month is interesting.
Re: Why charging $12/year converts higher than $9.99
#5Direct link to the interview:
http://thisweekin.com/thisweekin-venture-capital/this-week-i...
Re: Why charging $12/year converts higher than $9.99
#6Speaking from personal preference: I always prefer "honest" numbers like $1, $10, $12, $60, etc, rather than marketing number such as $0.99, $9.99, or even $55.59 (they seem sleazy and to an extent insulting - as if I cannot work out that $9.99 is almost identical to $10).
Re: Why charging $12/year converts higher than $9.99
#7Is the reason that $12 converted better than $9.99 definitely because users are able to visualise it as one dollar a month? Maybe people see the .99 and are trained to think "99 cents is a marketing plan to make me think it's cheaper than it is", thus causing it to have the opposite effect? Maybe people see $9.99 as a generic price, implying it was picked fairly randomly, whereas $12 is a slightly odd number to chose…
Exactly–seems a little speculative.
Maybe $9.99 would have converted more if they sold it as "That's less than a dollar a month!"
Re: Why charging $12/year converts higher than $9.99
#8Is the reason that $12 converted better than $9.99 definitely because users are able to visualise it as one dollar a month? Maybe people see the .99 and are trained to think "99 cents is a marketing plan to make me think it's cheaper than it is", thus causing it to have the opposite effect? Maybe people see $9.99 as a generic price, implying it was picked fairly randomly, whereas $12 is a slightly odd number to chose…
My take - People see one and two and those are the two lowest numerals. Fill their brain up with nines and somewhere there are synapses firing which say that's a lot. It's not like $10 is a huge psychological barrier in the same way $1000 is.
Re: Why charging $12/year converts higher than $9.99
#9Speaking from personal preference: I always prefer "honest" numbers like $1, $10, $12, $60, etc, rather than marketing number such as $0.99, $9.99, or even $55.59 (they seem sleazy and to an extent insulting - as if I cannot work out that $9.99 is almost identical to $10).
I wish Apple allows developers to decide their exact price instead of price-tiers which are variations of $*.99. I wanted to pick honest pricing for my iPhone app's in-app purchasing plans, but you've no option than to choose these marketing numbers.
Re: Why charging $12/year converts higher than $9.99
#10Speaking from personal preference: I always prefer "honest" numbers like $1, $10, $12, $60, etc, rather than marketing number such as $0.99, $9.99, or even $55.59 (they seem sleazy and to an extent insulting - as if I cannot work out that $9.99 is almost identical to $10).
So does almost everyone, when asked. The depressing thing is, when it comes to actual results, the x.99 pricing still works (well, I read this on the BBC a couple of months ago - don't have the link but the study they were quoting sounded pretty convincing).