A pricing scheme

[benlehman]

Nathan proposed this to me as a pricing scheme for Drifter's Escape. Sadly, I've already done a lot of selling of the books at the present price point, but it's worthwhile to think about for future endeavors.

The pricing scheme is as such:
Two paypal buttons. One $10 + SH, one $20 + SH. The $10 button is labeled "reduced rate for poor people." The $20 button is labeled "standard rate for middle class and wealthy people."

So, I'll ask you: What are your thoughts on this? Why? Would this excite you or turn you off? Which button would you pick and why?

Comments

[russiandude.livejournal.com]

I would prefer to think of it as a "reduced rate" and a "bonus rate", where the bonus rate came with, a wallpaper, or something. The extra trinket does not at all have to be worth $10 more. In fact, it should not. It's kind of like a pat on the head.

Just because I am middle class or whatnot, does not mean I like wasting money, or just paying more for stuff. Otherwise, what's the point of having more money, if the cost of everything scales up? The implication here is offputting.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Here's my line of thought.

I, and a lot of other people, have noticed that game books priced under $20 (possibly $19) sell a lot less than game books priced at $20 or over. My hunch is that book which are cheaper than $20 trigger some sort of "bargain" or "low quality" thing that turns people off.

Clearly, the smart thing to do is just price everything above $20: higher profit margin and more sales! Everyone wins.

But, particularly in terms of the book in question, I want to reach people for whom the difference between $13 (the present price) and $20 is significant and may make a difference in whether they can afford the book or not. These are people who are unemployed, underemployed, on food stamps, etc., and they constitute a large %age of my friends right now. The implication here isn't that every item should scale up, but that for *this book* it's important to reach people who serious issues.

So, the initial thought was, two price points. Let people choose how much to spend. But clearly that's alienating to certain groups of people (you and Serin and, I imagine, a lot of the FGS peeps I know.) So will do more brainstorming.

yrs--
--Ben

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Argh: People for whom money is a serious issue.

[russiandude.livejournal.com]

That's the thing. You need to tell me why I am paying $10 more than someone else. Because otherwise I don't want to pay it.

If you say, "Pay $10 more to support the author and get X cool thing", that's one thing. Note how I am phrasing it - paying $10 MORE. That is how I (and many other people) am going to see it - $10 is the base price and $20 is the premium price.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

What if the price is listed at $20 with a "hardship rate: for people unemployed, under-employed, with medical debt, or on government assistance: $10" listed underneath?

yrs--
--Ben

[russiandude.livejournal.com]

That's much better. I would feel guilty clicking on that bottom link if I were not in one of those categories, which is what you want.

[doublefeh.livejournal.com]

I think there's nothing wrong with the idea of "Let people choose how much to spend", but that's not the same as the implied "If you have more money, these Paypal buttons will judge you harshly if you choose the smaller one." They take the choice and turn it into an obligation, which can be off-putting if I just want to come buy a game. So if it was just "Here's a $10 button and a $20 button, pick whichever", or "Pay $20 if you want to support me more" or even "Pay $20 if you think the value in the game is there" would all Not have the off-put-ness. They make people feel good about the choice to pay more, instead of punished for having more money on hand.