Web Application Pricing Review – SEOMOZ

SEOMOZ is a collection of Search Engine Optimization (SEO) tools that automate a wide range of tasks. These include checking a site’s ranking for a selection of keywords, crawling a site for errors, and competitive intelligence. Compared to other SEO tools they have a killer marketing feature credibility.

Not only does the product ooze quality, it was also created by long standing and respected members of the SEO community. In our world, where SEO has become such as distrusted and misunderstood profession, the importance of credibility cannot be overstated.

[Disclosure: We use SEOMOZ at WhatClinic.com, but have no further relationships with the company.]

Test 1 – Simplicity

SEOMOZ Pricing

SEOMOZ Pricing

At first glance the pricing looks pretty overwhelming. There are three plans that each have different volume limits for each of four different feature sets, and to make matters worse each feature set has its own incremental scale, each of which is independent of the overall pricing scale:

SEOMOZ features scale

To a potential first time customer this makes the pricing seem complicated and confusing. To alleviate this SEOMOZ do an extremely good job of promoting the lowest price option and give reassurance that the first 30 day period is risk free.

Test 2 – Market Size

Pricing is definitely set high enough to make SEOMOZ commercially successful with any kind of reasonable market penetration.  If they have any kind of success getting customers onto higher price plans then I could see a tremendous amount of revenue being generated.

Normally I would think that a $99 per month entry was too high as it would exclude the bulk of the market. However, I feel that that this entry point is correct or near correct for SEOMOZ for two reasons.

  1. Price sensitive customers can rationalize a $99 expense by treating the purchase as a single $99 purchase which they then unsubscribe from. I see a slight potential problem here in that the 30 day money back guarantee essentially allows this market segment to game the system and get value for nothing.
  2. The market advantage SEOMOZ has is credibility, which would not be enhanced by low end pricing.

Test 3 – Comparable Pricing

Complete failure here. As a potential customer I have no idea if SEOMOZ is reasonably priced, there is simply no frame of reference. To make matters worse SEOMOZ price points are so distantly spaced that I can’t easily compare one price to another to determine the best one.  I would nearly always recommend having two price points relatively close to each other so that potential customers can directly and easily compare one to the other.

Test 4 – Adoption

The 30 day money back guarantee massively reduces the barrier to entry of the $99 per month price.  None-the-less I think I would prefer to see a massively crippled free version that I would use for lead generation.

For example I think a free plan that crawled just 25 pages and tracked 10 key phrases would be commercially useless but would still allow a potential customer who was wary of entering their credit card details to become comfortable with the product. In addition, amateurs would use it and talk about it which would increase overall market awareness.

Test 5 – Price Discrimination

SEOMOZ discriminate on volume not features. Essentially they’re saying “the more sites that you have & the bigger the sites the more you pay us”. This is a perfectly reasonable method of price discrimination, but I think that some feature discrimination could segment the market further and therefore improve revenues.

For example, I would suggest that the Q&A feature not be made available on the base plan.  This would then create strong pressure to upgrade during an SEO crisis period when the customer’s need of the product is at its highest and their price sensitivity is at its lowest.

SEOMOZ’s price discrimination is extremely aggressive. In fact I think it is far too aggressive. There is a massive difference between $100 a month and $500 a month. There have to be a large number of users on the $99 plan who would happily pay more, but won’t stretch to $500 per month.

Suggested New Pricing

Suggest new SEOMOZ pricing

The main point of this new pricing is the introduction of a new price point closer to the base plan. The base plan has also been reduced in functionality and number of campaigns. I believe that such a pricing structure wouldn’t hurt adoption while providing an attractive upgrade route for satisfied customers.

At this level of pricing I really don’t think that people are going to sign up for anything but the base plan so I think it’s okay that the PRO membership is still clearly the preferable option to start at.

SEOMOZ Pricing Analysis Score Card

Simplicity: 4
Market Size: 9
Comparable Pricing: 2
Adoption: 7
Price Discrimination: 3
   
SEOMOZ Score 5.0

 

Web Application Pricing Review – KISSmetrics

It seems to me that web application pricing has started to come of age.  I was getting sick to the back teeth of start-ups pricing on the 37signals model minus a few dollars. Just as the US lead the free model, now young eager start-ups in the states are driving realistic pricing that genuinely has the potential to create a successful company.

Over the next few weeks I’m going to have a look at a few of them and attempt to dissect their pricing with a view to seeing if their pricing passes the following tests:

  1. Simplicity
  2. Market Size
  3. Comparable Pricing
  4. Adoption
  5. Price Discrimination

A Quick Introduction To KISSmetrics

KISSmetrics is an analytics service that attempts to model a website’s most commercially important interaction with its users – the conversion funnel. Their market is anyone who runs a website commercially and who cares about the performance of their conversion funnel. Value is delivered by providing business intelligence that enables the website owner to intelligently change their interactions with their users, maximizing their revenue as a result.

KISSmetrics Pricing

KISSmetrics Pricing

Test 1 – Simplicity

KISSmetrics has beautifully simple pricing that poses no barrier to comprehension. I can immediately see what pricing plan suits me best.  It almost seems a shame for them to include standard features on this list (Unlimited Reports, A/B Testing, GA Integration) which interfere somewhat with the simplicity.

I have one minor problem with the simplicity of the pricing – what happens if I opt for the 1 million event plan and in one particular month I run 1.1 million events?  Are the last 100K events trashed? Are they stored and subsequently computed if I upgrade. Is a random 100K chunk lost?  In my opinion this needs to be clarified and simplified in the customers’ eyes on the pricing page. For example, change the Events per month values to “First 1 million events”, “First 5 million events” and “First 10 million events”.

Test 2 – Market Size

Pricing affects market size in a variety of different ways. Trivially, market size equals the number of customers multiplied by the average price, so the higher your price the bigger the market. However, higher prices can reduce customer numbers and you can end up excluding part of the market. However, conversely, you can increase your sales/marketing resources allowing you to capture more of the market.

In my view there is no question that KISSmetrics have set pricing high enough so that even if only a small percentage of the market adopts their service the company will be a success. The pricing should also provide KISSmetrics with sufficient resources to be able to go after more market share.

I only offer one proviso here: if KISSmetrics is not as well funded as it seems, then it would pay to offer a heavy discount for annual subscriptions, rather taking slightly more money in the long term delivered as smaller monthly amounts now. That way the money invested in sales can be immediately recycled.

Test 3 – Comparable Pricing

No one wants to pay too much for a product. If a potential customer feels a service may be priced too high many will delay or avoid the purchase. Unfortunately for KISSmetrics the product that is immediately comparable to the first time visitor’s eye is Google analytics, which is free. To make matters worse, KISSmetrics itself ensures that I make this comparison by including ‘Google Analytics integration’ on its pricing page.

In my view, if you cannot provide a favourable external comparison then your own pricing needs to be comparable. I should be able to compare one of your prices against another and get a level of comfort that the package I’m buying is priced competitively. For this to happen two price points need to be close together. KISSmetrics’ pricing fails here.

Test 4 – Adoption

I don’t care what planet you live on but $1,800 a year is a lot of money.  Having entry level pricing at this rate automatically excludes a huge portion of the market that would otherwise derive value from the product. Unless KISSmetrics has high costs associated with a sale (maybe support costs) I would be tempted to look at a lower entry price that was limited in such a way that it wouldn’t cannibalize my higher priced offerings.

KISSmetrics Potential Market Size

KISSmetrics Potential Market Size

This way it would be easier for KISSmetrics to get much wider adoption, and if the pricing was designed correctly they could push customers up their price plans as they prove the value of their product.

Even if a small user with 100K events per month was willing to pay $1,800, the pricing is going to make them feel like an idiot. “Here am I paying for a million events when all I’m going to use is 100,000”. Pricing should make the customer feel like the smartest guy in the world.

Test 5 – Price Discrimination

The goal of price discrimination is to segment the market according to willingness to pay, with a goal of maximising revenue.  KISSmetrics discriminates on one axis only: volume. It’s even debatable if they use price discrimination at all – one bar of chocolate costs X, two bars cost 2X, etc.

Since the distribution of websites by their traffic is a classic power curve (as in the events graph above) the KISSmetrics pricing model will always result in the most customers being on the lowest price plan.

This means that the bulk of the market can only give KISSmetrics $149 a month. Customers with less than 1 million events still get access to all of the features so there is no reason why they would ever adopt a higher price plan. This doesn’t make much sense; it’s kind of like offering a student price for a haircut and then not allowing them to purchase an expensive and more profitable colouring.

What defines willingness to pay for KISSmetrics? This is always difficult to model and generally we have to accept an inaccurate model that works for the bulk of customers but fails for a minority (for example cheap OAP pints fail to account for the millionaire OAPs). For a KISSmetrics’ customer it would seem that the factors that matter are:

  • Volume of events
  • Dollar value of  the margin on the average event
  • Perceived potential improvement that can be expected

The second two factors are difficult to model which is probably why KISSmetric’s have stayed away from pricing off of them. However, I would contend that there are several ideas that would we could look at to help define these factors, albeit inaccurately.

  • Logins. The number of people who want access to the data. A company selling X units at a high price is typically going to have more people who want access to business intelligence than a second company selling the same volume at a lower price.
  • Accounts reconciliation. Refunds and charge backs are likely to be a factor in higher ticket items.  Adding a feature that would allow for the service to be reconciled with month end accounts ensures that refund sales and charge backs are taken out of the analytics and that data is true and accurate. In addition, top-end products may result in the creation of a sales lead rather than an online purchase and being able to reconcile sales with the lead conversion funnel will be valuable.
  • Traffic Spike Overruns. This feature would securely store events that overrun a plan and can subsequently be recovered by paying the transaction fee. The longer a site has been in existence the more iterations it will have been through and given that KISSmetrics is targeting metric driven companies the less perceived improvements there are likely to be. It seems likely that older sites have more predicable traffic with smaller spikes,  so pricing off of this may be able to segment the market (needs more research).

Suggested New Pricing

I’m not going to suggest that this is right; however it should show the rough direction that I would like to move the pricing towards.  Also please accept that I haven’t put in the kind of effort required to make the verbiage easily consumable – clearly a lot of work would be required to get this into any kind of finished form.

Proposed New KISSmetrics Pricing

Proposed New KISSmetrics Pricing

* All accounts get free A/B testing and commoditized website analytics integration (including Google Analytics).

This gives me

  1. A much more attractive market entry price that is sufficiently limited so that it shouldn’t cannibalize my higher priced plans
  2. Pricing is comparable. Silver is obviously much better than Bronze for just 20% more
  3. There is an attempt to segment the top end of the market and to price discriminate accordingly

What do you think of KISSmetrics pricing model? How would you change it to move the company forward? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Also feel free to suggest other web application pricing that I should look at

The Auction Model

When we first set up RevaHealth.com our business model was very similar to Google AdWords. Clinics would effectively bid for position in our featured listings section according the treatments that they delivered and the market in which they operated. The model was very elegant for a number of reasons.

Firstly and most importantly it eliminated the need for us to price, and pricing is difficult. In fact pricing is incredibly difficult. This is because in order for the price you set to maximise your revenue it needs to reflect the value that the customer places on the product or service, and value is subjective. That means that the right price for one person is the wrong price for the next. (Take a read of Eoghan McCabe’s related post on the Contrast blog, You Are What You Charge.)

In our case we do business across 90 countries and about 1,000 treatments. Pricing across these 90,000 combinations would be impossible. So the second reason we liked the auction model was that in a liquid market auctions discover the value for you. They don’t discover the value to the highest bidder but they do uncover the value to the second highest bidder (unfairly referred to as the loser).  Pricing never uncovers this.

Thirdly, the auction model eliminated the risk of over pricing and excluding potential customers. This is always the worry of normal pricing, however with auctions it is the customer that sets the price, making over-pricing impossible. The customer can still feel that the price they’re paying is expensive, but they come up with the price and they choose to pay it.

So Why Didn’t Auctions Work For Us?

OK, so in a way the auction model kind of worked for us, but as hard as we tried we simply couldn’t get it to scale. There were four problems:

  1. Auctions require a liquid market. Put simply an auction with one bidder achieves nothing. When we started RevaHealth.com we were effectively dealing in a number of niche markets in the medical tourism field, and there wasn’t the required demand or liquidity in each market to ignite its own auction.
  2. Auctions require the bidders to be actively involved in the auction. Our customers simply didn’t want to be that heavily involved, they would rather have paid a fixed fee without the complexity of bidding. In fact, the only time our customers did change their bids was when we picked up the phone and told them they should.
  3. Auctions required educated bidders. Our customers at the time weren’t sophisticated marketers. They didn’t keep accurate and diligent marketing records and work out their ROIs. They spent their nights poring over medical records not marketing data. As a result they weren’t really sure what the value of our product was and therefore were uncertain about what they should bid.
  4. Finally the most important factor for why the auction model wasn’t the runaway success that we had envisioned was that our customers weren’t used to doing business that way.

What We Changed

We needed to find a way to sell to the people who didn’t “get” the auction model for one reason or another, i.e. the majority of our potential customers! We introduced featured listings with fixed annual pricing at four different price points. This was an immediate success and required a substantially shorter sales cycle as the product is already well understood by the customer base.

There were a lot of disadvantages to doing this, particularly for our customers. In an auction model, the risk they took on was linked directly to the value they received, i.e. they received leads or enquiries at a cost that they determined themselves. By paying a fixed annual fee irrespective of the number of enquiries generated, the link between the risk and the value was broken. However, the fact that the annual fee product was easy to understand and sell outweighed all of the disadvantages, for us at least. We still maintain the auction model as a premium feature on top of our featured listings for the customers that can see the value in it.

Could the auction model be applicable to your market? Have you tried it already? Let us know what the key determining factors in setting your prices are in the comments below.

Why Would You Pay 5,000 Times The Price?

If you want some good examples of how to optimise your company’s revenue, you only have to look as far as mobile phone operators and low cost airlines. I recently had the pleasure of experiencing both during a brief business trip to the UK.

Having booked my Ryanair flight at the last minute I ended up paying roughly three or four times what I would have normally paid if I’d just booked a few weeks in advance. The problem was, I didn’t know a few weeks in advance that I needed to travel. Even at this inflated price though, Ryanair were cheaper than the competition and won my business on price based on when I wanted to travel.

Then, when I arrived in the UK, I got the following text from O2 Ireland:

Data abroad costs €4.98 per MB. Each day you are charged for what you use up to 4MB and then usage to 50MB is free

I stared at the message in amazement. At home I buy my mobile data for €10 per GB but for the privilege of using data a mere 350 miles away they were going to charge me roughly 5,000 times the price. What I did next is even more amazing. I promptly switched over to my email application and blithely checked my email.

Why Pay More?

In this instance it wasn’t the price that mattered to me. Sure, the price matters to O2 – it’s their revenue after all – but what matters to me is the value. As long as the value exceeds price and there aren’t any easily available alternatives then I’m likely going to pay it. In this case being able to check my email with no other access to the internet was worth paying 5,000 times what it costs at home.

It was only later that I took the time to analyse the care and attention to detail that O2 had taken when coming up with this pricing plan, which no doubt maximises revenue but doesn’t exactly achieve price transparency.

O2 Ireland Data Roaming Pricing

Let’s take a look at how O2 arrange their pricing for data roaming. Even though the data is priced per KB, this pricing model encourages you to keep using it once you’ve started; otherwise you never get to the “free” data between 4MB and 50MB. Go over this magical 50MB limit, and you’re back to €4.98 per MB all the way up!

So why have O2 decided that the price / value dynamics tap out at €19.92? I reckon there are two reasons for this:

  1. Reducing Sticker Shock. When customers come home and get a €59.76 charge for three days of roaming data they get what is called sticker shock. This typically results in an angry customer ringing the support desk and shouting at an innocent operator. This ends in two ways. Either the operator has to swallow the cost or the customer is further enraged and switches provider at the first available opportunity. Either way it is in O2 Ireland’s interest to minimise the occurrence of sticker shock. By setting their normal daily ceiling at €19.92 they think they have achieved this.
  2. Front Loading Charges. The rather obvious reason that O2 engage in front loading is to get as much of the money as possible as quickly as possible. In this case O2 reckons €19.92 a day is most of the money. The think that most people will only use a small amount of data, so they make the first chunk as expensive as they think the market can bear. Then they “reward” heavier users who have already incurred a €19.92 charge with some “free” data. Finally, they really milk the heavy business users who go over the 50MB daily limit.

There are things to learn from both Ryanair’s constantly increasing prices as the day of departure arrives, and from O2 Ireland’s data roaming pricing structure depending on how they apply to your business. If you know that people are going to have to use your product at some point, making it cheap to buy in advance but expensive to buy on the day makes a lot of sense. If you have a large user base that only pay small amounts each, front loading can be an effective way of maximising revenue from this group, and there are usually a small number of heavy users at the other extreme who will pay a lot more than the average each.

Have you ever been caught out by last minute ticket prices? Have you ever paid €4.98 per MB for data abroad? Most importantly, what pricing models did you learn from when you set your prices?

© 2010 WhatClinic.com Blog