Microsass Founders Missed Pricing Conversations

“The 30-60 dollars is the whole problem. From the agency's side that isn't a free trial, it's a small purchase of something unproven, so the decision stops being "sure, why not" and turns into "let me think about it". Nobody thinks about it. I'd swallow the infra cost for the first five and cap it at a month. And pick those five by name instead of posting: look at the lead form they run today, then tell them what you would have caught in their last 100 leads. S”

“On waiving the fee: I tried the discount route for my own launch, $9 instead of $29 forever, and nobody took it. A discount doesn't help someone who hasn't decided they want the thing yet For a first brand I'd skip the waiver and ask them what the first campaign would be worth to them. Whatever they say tells you more about demand than a free run would”

“20 paying, easily. I'm at 8 signups and 0 paying, and the free signups tell me very little about what the thing is worth If I had the 1,000 free ones, the first thing I'd do is ask each of them what they'd pay. Free users will tell you a number if you ask directly, they just never volunteer it”

“This is overall a good move for those of us who are not willing to pay credits on top of a big subscription a frontier vendor. Lets see how it goes! submitted by /u/eld3rlyy [link] [comments]”

“But yeah I've noted it. Thanks for the feedback. I'm working on getting verifiable claims in.”

“I removed the word "unlimited" from my pricing page last month. Not because of a limit I wanted to enforce, but because nothing is actually unlimited and I did not want to sell a word I could not stand behind. Now the page reads plainer than the competition and I have no idea whether that costs sign-ups. Solo founders and people who run pricing pages: have you seen a difference between "unlimited" and an honest number? Was this a principled move or a dumb one? submitted”

“One thing I noticed on your pricing: Free covers up to 3 members, and the day a team adds a 4th, everyone goes to $25 each. That's where I'd want a team to make an offer instead of staying stuck on free Happy to set up a Haggin for Stashbase so you can see how it looks, Pro's on me for 60 days. Your DMs seem closed, send me a chat if you're up for it”

“thanks for the feedback! basically its free for anyone and we'll give a free trial for a month or so. Now that we got many misunderstanding on the pricing, we'll change it! Thanks again!”

“Really appreciate the reality check. The scope is tiny, but you're right—pricing it into the ground just creates an artificial bottleneck. I'm going to test a higher tier (probably around $19–$25) or the annual updates route. I need to find that sweet spot where I’m not running a charity, without pricing out the people who actually love using it.”

“the lifetime deal is tempting when you're starting out but you've already seen the numbers don't work at that price point I'd bump it to $25 and call it a day, that's still impulse-buy territory for someone who needs the tool. people who complain about a one-time $25 payment for something they use regularly weren't gonna be great customers anyway the annual update model is underrated too, you're not locking anyone out of the version they paid for but you've got a”

“yeah, that’s closer to the plan Im not planning a second sku for v2. once the app materially expands, I'll raise the price for new buyers from $15 to around $25. early buyers keep the app and the update so $15 is a launch price, not a claim that a mature product will cost the same forever. I agree on paid acquisition though. at this price it only makes sense if cac is clearly below the contribution margin. early on the bet is organic, intent-driven discovery and shipping something people act”

This is the sharpest thing anyone's said to me about the pricing. The light theme is out free now. You're right that "themes" was doing the wrong job on that paywall. The…

“Not being in the demo but I would distrust a $29 product but a $299 product with a clinician I would be far more likely to trust for a therapeutic solution”

“Appreciate that, I'd add: timing matters as much as the parallel run itself. The moment their current setup visibly breaks (a stockout it should've caught, a report that was wrong), "it already works" stops being true in their own head, that's when testing something new in parallel stops feeling risky.”

“Yeah. Price was not the problem. It was the message you gave them”

“Yep, and this is why pricing against features almost always undersells the product. If someone buys the outcome, price against the outcome.”

“Other commenters make some good points but I’d also add that free isn’t always better from your perspective. The price we set as businesses will determine the type of customer we get. Cheap products and service being one type of customer, whereas expensive brings another. Free brings a bit of an unpredictable one because free things could be gifts, could be things we’re testing or could be samples or super cheap to make things so it’s a bit hard to predict with free. I think the key issue you’re”

“Putting the 300 to 800 range straight on the pricing page is the change I'm making first. You're right that leaving it to whoever raises it first means I lose half the conversations before they've started. And your three tier experience matches mine exactly: the cheap one carried the support load and the churn. Removing it cost volume, but the people who stayed are a different crowd.”

“Users don’t read - they just scan. On first scan i am unable to understand anything Customers love easy decision making. If its hard to take decisions they move on. This gives a feeling that i need to read a lot to decide 2nd tier 1 video 30$ 2nd 39$ for 1 video - if you are optimising for 2nd tier it should look nobrainer. (I know you are giving other features- but users dont read) Apply decoy theory”

“Adding to your point 2, the offer people can't refuse, from a slightly different angle. Mine was a lifetime deal, so my first buyers paid once and got the product forever. Awful revenue per user. What I got instead was people who act like they own a piece of it. One of them filed a report on a beta that was better than our own QA. He found that a failed local model load put the app into a crash loop, worked out that the setting to fix it was unreachable because the app crashed on startup, ed”

“$125 with exclusivity attached is a bad trade. exclusivity should cost them extra, not come free just because it's the smallest number they could get you to say.”

“One trap with undercutting is attracting only the most price-sensitive users. Id keep a close eye on support load and activation quality by tier, because a generous free plan can look great until it crowds out the users most likely to pay.”

“priced to undercut, and what I missed is that the number also decides which acquisition channels you're allowed to have. I'm at $7/mo. The incumbents in my category are $79, $89 and $249. Great, I'm the cheap one. Then I ran the paid search math and it's just closed to me. Non-brand CPC there is north of $5. At $7/mo with any realistic churn my gross LTV lands somewhere around $84 to $170, so a click has to convert inside about fifteen of them, with nobody ever cancelling, to bre”

“watched a few micro-saas founders in this space price like they're selling to enterprise from day one, and i think it's the wrong instinct when you're the small player entering an established category. the category anchor here (email and identity infra for ai agents) charges roughly $20/mo for 10 inboxes and $200/mo for 150. that works fine if you're the funded incumbent people already trust. as the newcomer, matching that price buys you nothing, because trust is exactly what you”

“so you went free right after those first 8 people gave you feedback... i'd be a little careful there before you scale. once folks get used to not paying it's hard to walk back, so maybe try a few actual pricing convos now while you can still talk to users one on one, before you're chasing the 100-1000 mark”