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

Post by a-priori » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 3:29 PM UTC

lywald wrote: post #136

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"

I'll bite: this is immoral, isn't it? To charge more than what you think it's worth. Because that's taking money you don't think you deserve. Anyway, this whole community seems oblivious to morals... I can almost feel the nihilism through the internet.

Post by StavrosK » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 3:53 PM UTC

powermeat wrote: post #152

StavrosK wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been toying with the idea of making a simple service like that. You can download file X for free, only by leaving your email address. Then, after a few days/weeks/months, depending on what the author wanted, the service emails you and asks you to pay for the thing you downloaded, and gives you a link to easily pay. I've found that I'll definitely pay for things after I've tried them, but I'm more hesitant to do…

There's a concept in the info marketing space called the "invisible funnel" You collect credit card info upfront, deliver the information they opted in for with their cc, then the option to not process your cc is presented.

Post by borlak » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:22 PM UTC

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…

Post by jedahan » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 5:24 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #141

gawker wrote: post #10

I think it's absolutely great that they've donated all the proceeds to Wikipedia :) Congratulations. It's heartwarming to know that although there are some free loaders, you were still made a pretty penny. On the other hand, how come all the design work, copy writing, etc are considered free? That's just masking the actual cost of the product.

"I think it's absolutely great that they've donated all the proceeds to Wikipedia" Looking at their quirky web page of comparisons, I think it would be hilarious if the wikipedia deletionist camp responded by deleting all the articles quoted on their page. I'll never donate a penny to wikipedia until that social problem is eradicated. "Here's $70K of value... whoops deleted"

Post by d0mine » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 6:12 PM UTC

Ntrails wrote: post #143

d0mine wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Logical thinking is fine: garbage in — garbage out. Logical thinking won't help if you give it incorrect input data. Unless you believe in supernatural; everything is math provided a correct model.

That is a complete misunderstanding of the word model. Models are tools to help describe expected behaviour given a plethora of assumptions - they are not there to perfectly predict what can and will happen. The idea that a model can do so has caused innumerable problems of late and it is frustrating to hear such myths perpetuated.