Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

cardsagainsthumanity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 168 posts

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#81

Post by dvirsky »

daeken wrote: post #76
MicahWedemeyer wrote: post #31

It seems like one takeaway is that a significant portion of people will just pay the default as stated, even if given a choice. I think people just have a hard time deciding what something is actually worth, so they'll take whatever advice is given. So, when pricing your products, if you're wondering if you should charge more, the default answer should be "Yes"

So, a couple months back I released a WebGL Enabler for iOS with a pay-what-you-want model: http://demoseen.com/webglenabler/ I keep meaning to write a blog post about the results, but ~99.5% of people paid $0. Of the people who paid, probably around 50% paid the $1.99 I had as default, but what's really interesting to me is the way people priced it if they changed the value. I got a number of payments for amounts li…

aren't a lot of people who have jail-broken iOs devices, already by definition people who want paid apps for free?

I'm an Android guy myself so I might be wrong here (and your app is an example of non pirate usage for jail-breaking), but I often hear young relatives talking about jail-breaking their iPhones to save those $1-2 on apps, which to be honest, is pretty shitty behavior IMHO (yeah, I lecture them, they look at me like a crazy old person)

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#82

Post by daeken »

dvirsky wrote: post #81
daeken wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, a couple months back I released a WebGL Enabler for iOS with a pay-what-you-want model: http://demoseen.com/webglenabler/ I keep meaning to write a blog post about the results, but ~99.5% of people paid $0. Of the people who paid, probably around 50% paid the $1.99 I had as default, but what's really interesting to me is the way people priced it if they changed the value. I got a number of payments for amounts li…

aren't a lot of people who have jail-broken iOs devices, already by definition people who want paid apps for free? I'm an Android guy myself so I might be wrong here (and your app is an example of non pirate usage for jail-breaking), but I often hear young relatives talking about jail-breaking their iPhones to save those $1-2 on apps, which to be honest, is pretty shitty behavior IMHO (yeah, I lecture them, they look…

I don't mind people getting it for free -- if I actually cared about making money from it, I wouldn't have gone about it the way I did -- but it's just interesting to me how people who are willing to spend money actually value it.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#83

Post by dvirsky »

daeken wrote: post #82
dvirsky wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aren't a lot of people who have jail-broken iOs devices, already by definition people who want paid apps for free? I'm an Android guy myself so I might be wrong here (and your app is an example of non pirate usage for jail-breaking), but I often hear young relatives talking about jail-breaking their iPhones to save those $1-2 on apps, which to be honest, is pretty shitty behavior IMHO (yeah, I lecture them, they look…

I don't mind people getting it for free -- if I actually cared about making money from it, I wouldn't have gone about it the way I did -- but it's just interesting to me how people who are willing to spend money actually value it.

What I meant is, aren't you limiting yourself to an audience who already chose to go out of their way to save a couple of bucks? they may not represent "ordinary" people and how they value apps.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#84

Post by daeken »

dvirsky wrote: post #83
daeken wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind people getting it for free -- if I actually cared about making money from it, I wouldn't have gone about it the way I did -- but it's just interesting to me how people who are willing to spend money actually value it.

What I meant is, aren't you limiting yourself to an audience who already chose to go out of their way to save a couple of bucks? they may not represent "ordinary" people and how they value apps.

Sure, but it's odd that the people trying to save money on apps would pay anything at all. I don't think I have enough data or a large enough sample size to say with confidence either way.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#85

Post by Confusion »

daeken wrote: post #76
MicahWedemeyer wrote: post #31

It seems like one takeaway is that a significant portion of people will just pay the default as stated, even if given a choice. I think people just have a hard time deciding what something is actually worth, so they'll take whatever advice is given. So, when pricing your products, if you're wondering if you should charge more, the default answer should be "Yes"

So, a couple months back I released a WebGL Enabler for iOS with a pay-what-you-want model: http://demoseen.com/webglenabler/ I keep meaning to write a blog post about the results, but ~99.5% of people paid $0. Of the people who paid, probably around 50% paid the $1.99 I had as default, but what's really interesting to me is the way people priced it if they changed the value. I got a number of payments for amounts li…

I can imagine more people might have paid if you made the default $3.99. $1.99 is practically zero, so people may consider it less of a difference.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#86

Post by daeken »

Confusion wrote: post #85
daeken wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, a couple months back I released a WebGL Enabler for iOS with a pay-what-you-want model: http://demoseen.com/webglenabler/ I keep meaning to write a blog post about the results, but ~99.5% of people paid $0. Of the people who paid, probably around 50% paid the $1.99 I had as default, but what's really interesting to me is the way people priced it if they changed the value. I got a number of payments for amounts li…

I can imagine more people might have paid if you made the default $3.99. $1.99 is practically zero, so people may consider it less of a difference.

Agreed. I considered having it show various different values at random to do testing on the payments received when users are presented with them, but honestly there just wasn't enough data to pull that off and make it worthwhile. I think my total sales were <40 (downloads were in the tens of thousands, IIRC).

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#87

Post by fleitz »

bicknergseng wrote: post #80
daeken wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, a couple months back I released a WebGL Enabler for iOS with a pay-what-you-want model: http://demoseen.com/webglenabler/ I keep meaning to write a blog post about the results, but ~99.5% of people paid $0. Of the people who paid, probably around 50% paid the $1.99 I had as default, but what's really interesting to me is the way people priced it if they changed the value. I got a number of payments for amounts li…

That's what I hate most about having insight into data... the times when my intuition is wrong and there is no rational reason for what is actually happening. Human behavior can be so bizarre...

Unfortunately, it's logical thinking that is bizzarre. Irrationality is the norm.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#88

Post by mratzloff »

matthuggins wrote: post #18
mephi5t0 wrote: post #2

I am surprised there were jerks that paid 0. Really? You can't afford give them five bucks? You spend more on beer OR lunch OR coffee in Starbucks if you feel kinky. At least humble bundle not allow you to pay 0 :)

The site even made you feel guilty (in a "please reconsider" way) if you put anything less than $3, explaining that the cost for them to create, produce, and mail a single pack will cost them $3, meaning they're taking a loss. That really speaks to how selfish people are (especially considering it's the "most wonderful time of the year").

Yes. In any event, it's interesting data: at least 20% of people will never pay for something, no matter what the price is or the cost to create it.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#89

Post by psc »

What these stats don't show is how many people will go out and buy a full $25 set or have already done so. The expansion isn't particularly useful without the main set, so even if everyone paid $0, it would still probably be a good promotional tool.

Plus the cards are awesome, I don't see how anyone could not want go out and buy the full set and the expansions after seeing this pack.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#90

Post by Spellman »

MicahWedemeyer wrote: post #31

It seems like one takeaway is that a significant portion of people will just pay the default as stated, even if given a choice. I think people just have a hard time deciding what something is actually worth, so they'll take whatever advice is given. So, when pricing your products, if you're wondering if you should charge more, the default answer should be "Yes"

This is a well-known cognitive bias called Anchoring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring

Just by giving a starting value predisposes people towards that value. And in this case, it was low enough people would impulse buy with the default value left in. Contrast to the Humble Bundles where their true value is much larger, so people tend to weigh the value against other purchases from their peers or prior purchases (which is why the median prices seem invariant between bundles).

Post reply on HN