经验法则:定价应该简单

许多公司 - 在任何行业 - 都可以从Apple那里学到一点,就是简单定价的重要性If you make it easy for people to understand how much they’re paying, and what they’re paying for, it is more likely that they’ll buy it或者这可能更多地受到反过来的推动:如果人们对他们需要付多少钱感到困惑,他们更可能不会购买决定和支付行为是任何产品或服务的经验的一部分,应相应地进行设计。

不付钱总是很简单。

那些通过复杂定价方案取得成功的公司往往是那些没有竞争的公司(例如:有线电视公司和固定电话服务)或竞争对手数量有限的人,他们都提供类似的复杂定价方案例如新车经销商和手机运营商Car dealers get away with loose, uncertain “try negotiating down from a ‘sticker’ price almost no one actually pays” pricing because that’s how all other car dealers work, too — and because (at least here in the U.S.) a car is something most people need (or at least think they need)手机运营商摆脱了令人困惑的账单,因为只有极少数的运营商(因为时间紧迫,我们需要)手指越少越少- 再次,至少在美国这里),再次,因为手机是大多数人认为必要的东西。

对于非必需品,定价的简单性是关键Apple茁壮成长他们的消费产品倾向于遵循简单的好/更好/最佳定价等级,其中唯一的区别是存储容量iPod,iPad和iPhone都遵循这种模式当他们偏离这一点时,原因相对容易理解例如,普通的Wi-Fi iPad售价为499美元/ 599/699,适用于16/32/64 GB的存储空间如果你想要一台内置3G的iPad,iPad本身需要130美元,并且提供简单的无合同双层定价计​​划:250 MB数据每月15美元,2 GB 25美元在达到数据限制之前,易于注册,易于取消,无隐藏费用和多个警告。

另一个很好的例子:Netflix你支付每月8美元的Netflix流媒体:

For only $7.99 a month, you can instantly watch TV episodes & movies streaming over the Internet to your TV via an Xbox 360, PS3, Wii or any other device that streams from NetflixWatch as often as you want, anytime you want.

真的没有滞纳金和没有截止日期吗?
Yes, it’s true — there really are no late fees, no due dates, and no hidden costs.

注册Netflix帐户后,它适用于支持Netflix的任何设备上的所有Netflix内容除iPhone外,您不需要在iPad上支付额外费用您无需支付更多费用即可从PS3和Xbox 360中使用它您每月支付8美元(在30天免费试用之后),您将获得Netflix流媒体易于理解,听起来很有价值。

这让我想起了纽约时报新的数字订阅它们既不易理解也不听起来很有价值无限次访问纽约时报的费用是Netflix的四倍 - 每四周35美元您可以每四周支付15美元或20美元,但之后您必须选择在智能手机或iPad上使用Times应用程序(分别)有多少普通人意识到,如果你选择15美元的计划,那么你将能够访问时代网站从你的iPad?

Netflix:一个价格,从任何设备访问。

纽约时报:三层,根据屏幕尺寸在设备之间任意划分。

两家公司也都有传统业务Netflix的传统业务是DVD和蓝光光盘的送货上门服务除基本的8美元/月计划外,此服务的起价为每月2美元It makes sense: every Netflix customer gets a digital subscription; those that want a physical product too pay a little more定价引导人们走向数字化的未来。

纽约时报的传统业务是印刷报纸他们收费尽管所有打印订阅都是打印订阅而不是全包数字订阅包括全包数字订阅这毫无意义您支付的费用较少,但却能获得直观的实际成本:全年将数百磅的印刷报纸送到您的家中定价引导人们走向传统业务。

我希望纽约时报能够蓬勃发展它一直是我最喜欢的国家和世界新闻来源但印刷报纸的未来有限 - 也许非常有限 - 而且他们推出的数字订阅计划看起来并不像我的赢家我很确定它太贵了 - 也就是说,我认为“泰晤士报”会通过收取更少的费用赚更多的钱,弥补每个订户中愿意注册的人数的差异但更糟糕的是,它太复杂了此外,通过向所有人免费提供对nytimes.com网站的相对慷慨的访问,“纽约时报”提供了一种吸引力来阅读“纽约时报”。

数字NYT订阅是很少有人会感觉到的需要很多人可能会一个,一个或另一个,但少数将是必要的这意味着应该简单定价(我说,即使是必需品也应该只根据一般原则定价,但它们并不需要为了成功。)

在此事上,我几乎完全同意Khoi Vinh的观点。Vinh写道

The effects of this decision probably won’t be seen in the immediate future, but the long-term damage to the brand may be significantThe amount of notoriety that this new endeavor will receive is sure to be tremendous, but all the subtleties —and complex mathematics— of this new pay model are likely to be lost on most news consumersIts many rules and semantics are simply too complex to be communicated effectively, and what’s more the marketing tends to use blatantly tricky language (e.g., “$15 every four weeks” — just tell me what I have to pay, already)I’m willing to bet that what most people will understand about this new development is that now you have to pay to read The New York Times期With that misunderstanding, it wouldn’t surprise me if users start staying away in droves.

Jean-LouisGassée试图阐明“泰晤士报”关于访问其数字内容的全新规则- 你得到什么免费的,你得到多少钱,你得到多少钱他需要八段350字他的结论是,它太复杂了:

Customers don’t make decisions with their neocortex, an organ that is too easy to bullshitThey decide within deeper, comforting recesses, and they rationalize when the culture demands a seemingly logical, socially acceptable “后园”。

What price do NYT’s execs put on simplicity, on ease, on reader enjoyment vscatering to their own internal discourse? If they不喜欢和乔布斯谈话(and vice versa) they could turn to Jeff Bezos for tips on simplicity.

iTunes has taught us that customers are willing to pay for content if the process is simpleif it’s easy on the mind and the walletOne could argue that consumers aren’t paying for the content, they’re paying for the delivery serviceRegard Netflix on Demand, to use another exampleRestricted content, instant delivery,成功

我不知道一个更简单,价格更低的数字订阅计划对“泰晤士报”有用,但我强烈反对它更倾向于工作比他们宣布的要好我对此感觉不好。

以前: SXSW互动的演变
下一个: Tweetbot 1.0