feat(skills): add marketing skills collection
This commit is contained in:
1 parent
b3a19860b4
commit
71daa05071
280 files changed
+54006
No files matched your search
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
|
||||
# Pricing Models
|
||||
|
||||
The eight core ways to structure *how* you charge. This is distinct from the value metric (what unit you charge on) and the tier structure (how you package). Most real products **combine** two or more of these.
|
||||
|
||||
## Contents
|
||||
- The 8 Pricing Models
|
||||
- Combining Models
|
||||
- The Value/Price Ratio
|
||||
- The Low-Price Retention Counterpoint
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The 8 Pricing Models
|
||||
|
||||
| Model | How it works | Best when | Reference |
|
||||
|-------|-------------|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| **Flat-rate** | One price, one product, everyone pays the same | Simple product, one persona, you want zero pricing friction | Basecamp |
|
||||
| **Usage-based** | Pay for what you consume (metered) | Value scales directly with volume; consumption is variable and easy to meter | Stripe |
|
||||
| **Tier-based** | Good-better-best packages at set prices | Distinct segments with different needs and budgets | Kinsta |
|
||||
| **User-based** | Price per seat/user | Value grows as more people in the org use it (collaboration) | Notion |
|
||||
| **Feature-based** | Price gated by which capabilities are unlocked | Clear feature tiers map to willingness to pay | Intercom |
|
||||
| **Credit-based** | Buy a bucket of credits, spend them on actions | Usage is lumpy or bursty; you want prepaid commitment and simple mental accounting | Audible |
|
||||
| **Outcome-based** | Pay per result delivered (resolution, task completed) | You can measure and attribute the outcome, and the outcome is what the buyer actually wants | Intercom Fin, Zapier |
|
||||
| **Hybrid** | Deliberate mix (e.g. platform fee + usage, or seats + credits) | A single model under- or over-charges different customers | Drift |
|
||||
|
||||
### When to reach for each
|
||||
|
||||
- **Flat-rate** — reach for it first if you can. It's the easiest to sell, easiest to understand, easiest to forecast. The tradeoff: you leave money on the table with your biggest customers.
|
||||
- **Usage-based** — the fairest model when consumption tracks value, but revenue is less predictable and buyers fear a surprise bill. Pair with spend caps or alerts.
|
||||
- **Tier-based** — the default for self-serve SaaS. Lets one page serve SMB through mid-market.
|
||||
- **User-based** — only if value genuinely rises with headcount. If it doesn't, seats punish adoption (teams share logins to avoid paying).
|
||||
- **Feature-based** — powerful for segmentation, but don't gate the feature that delivers your core value; gate the ones that separate casual from serious users.
|
||||
- **Credit-based** — good for AI/actions-based products where each action has a cost. Credits decouple price from a single unit and make prepayment feel natural.
|
||||
- **Outcome-based** — the emerging model for AI agents (charge per resolved ticket, per automation run). Highest trust because the buyer only pays when they win — but only viable when the outcome is measurable and clearly attributable to you.
|
||||
- **Hybrid** — where most mature products end up. A base platform fee for predictability plus a usage/outcome component for upside.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Combining Models
|
||||
|
||||
These aren't mutually exclusive. Common combinations:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Tiers + per-user** — seats within each package (most B2B SaaS)
|
||||
- **Platform fee + usage** — predictable base, variable upside (Twilio-style)
|
||||
- **Seats + credits** — pay per person, then top up credits for heavy actions
|
||||
- **Feature tiers + outcome** — unlock capabilities by tier, charge per result on top
|
||||
|
||||
Pick the primary model from the value metric, then layer a second only if a single model clearly mis-prices a real segment.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Value/Price Ratio
|
||||
|
||||
Aim for roughly a **10:1 value-to-price ratio** (Ryan Kulp): the customer should perceive about **10x more value than they pay**. This is the buffer that makes the purchase feel obvious rather than negotiated, and it leaves headroom to raise prices later as you add value.
|
||||
|
||||
If you can't articulate 10x value, the problem is usually the offer or the positioning, not the price point.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Low-Price Retention Counterpoint
|
||||
|
||||
Charging too little is not the safe choice. **Low prices hurt retention** (Patrick Campbell / ProfitWell data, echoed by operators like Josh Pigford of SpyFu and Tyler Tringas): under-priced customers churn *more*, not less, because a low price signals low value and attracts the least-committed, most price-sensitive buyers.
|
||||
|
||||
Related: the **discount-asker signal** — customers who negotiate for a discount tend to churn at roughly **2x** the rate of full-price customers. Discounting to close a deal often buys a customer who leaves anyway.
|
||||
|
||||
**Implication:** when in doubt, price higher. It's easier to grandfather a price down than to claw one up, and a higher price selects for better-fit, longer-retained customers.
|
||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user