Pricing a Software Product
prostoalex writes "Eric Sink from SourceGear shares his experience on software pricing. Whether you're developing open-source or proprietary software, the money has to come into the business in some form, and the article suggests several strategies as well as the pitfalls for managing software pricing. Sink claims it's tough to compete on price, dangerous to run seasonal promotions and almost impossible to avoid criticism on being over-priced."
better color
Volume Pricing has its snag in how you handle customer Support. I didn't see that addressed (other than lightly under Tech Support), the higher the volume of sales the more need for customer support. Only so much can be down with a website FAQ. (Personally, I'm wary of products which don't come with printed manuals or a pdf with only a light treatment of the subject matter, back in the day manuals were your saviours, now they're some kind of afterthought that vendors seem uninterested in putting effort into.)
With inexpensive stuff you may lose all your profit on customer support, with pricing of support and/or a higher price nd lower volume there's less need for a large customer support team, or it grows as needed.
Granted, I've worked for people whe shelled big really big zorkmids on stuff and when it turned out to be crap, it wasn't the vendor to blame but headcount.
There's some discomforting truth to many of those Dilbert strips.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Sometimes I place more value on the service I get that on the product itself (software or not). A lot of software is moving to a hosted environment, and a lot of companies are starting to like the idea. Now you can use your service from your mobile device as well as at the office. So, instead of charging for the software, charge for the hosting. Develop and open source the product, then charge people to use the service in your hosted environment.
What I want to know is, whatever happened to supply-side pricing. You know, figuring out your cost to supply, and charging a reasonable markup based on that?
It's because of this that companies have to create artificial market distinctions, and why there is the prevalance of after-market modification. (Things like overclocking.)
I know it's a bit of an anti-establishment thought, but I'm not sure demand-side pricing is ethical. The whole idea of trying to take your customers for everything you can sounds so much colder when you look at it from their side.
And on taop of that, if you're a publicly owned company, not doing so might be considered criminal...
Unless of course you run a company, and have employees to pay. In that case, you can't always make a living off of service and support.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
It was then a simple matter in Excel to figure out how to maximize our income, at what price point did we make the most money. It looked pretty much like the first chart in the article.
Then management ignores and sets a price accordingly!
Hate to be the part of the money-grubbing capitalist here, but money makes the world go 'round. If all software was free, why would anyone bother developing it? I know there are great free software products out there, and I know there are ways to make money off of software other than by selling it, but making all software free really doesn't seem to be a viable option. Let me put it another way...you're a software developer making a product - the final piece of software represents the work you've put in to devloping something unique and useful....how much is this effort worth? Nothing?
...no two people are not on fire.
Pricing software is more complex than my human brain can handle. There's a stunning conclusion.
Seriously, though, he makes a lot of very good points cheif of which is asking "how much is too much?" The author also makes a good point about not selling your product for much less than its actual worth. I'm more than happy to pay a premium on a product if I think it's valuable to what I do and it has a distinct advantage over competing solutions. (Case in point, I donated $100 for Trillian before Pro was released. Why? Because I used it every day and it was much better than any of the individual IM clients.)
It's hard to really draw a line in the sand about pricing, though. I think that's the greater point to be made.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
So how should I price Hello World? I just wrote it in C.
Hmm, competition? No competition! You can find some software books that show you how to make your OWN Hello World, but who has time for that?
Some of those books cost 100 Dollars or more... So that I dont look like an "underdog" im gonna charge $250 dollars. Even better, I could convert Hello World, into Hello World for Workgroups, change the font to something a little more professional, and sell it for $325 plus maintenance and security fees.
Service, support, advertising, publicity, and brand-name recognition, for starters. By giving away software for free you are reducing one of the biggest barriers to entry in your market. Those who charge money for a similar product cannot compete, except by their own brand recognition and goodwill. By making a product that is sufficiently well-known you make a name for yourself which supports your business in other regards: winning development contracts, consultation, and hits to your web-site, which can be monetized with internet advertising for what can sometimes be surprisingly lucrative sums. Noone would use Internet Explorer if they had to pay a fee to go download and use the newest version each year.
Uh, for Windows you are correct. For office, you're partially correct. But for all of their other programs, Microsoft has direct competition from many sides. Sink even gives an example...where an ISV has created a product that competes with Access built on Open Source technologies.
"So what is the right price range?
This question is the point where most small ISVs will wimp out. "We don't have the Microsoft name." "Our product is less mature." "We feel inferior, so obviously our price has to be lower than theirs."
Bzzzt! Wrong answer. The right answer is: "A lot more than $229."
Basically, Sink is telling ISVs to grow a backbone and realize that the first step isn't competing with Microsoft on price (mostly for the reason you're talking about, MS can just drop the price and thus drop the usefulness of your software) but finding the area in which their product is SUPERIOR to Access and leveraging that.
It's good advice. Because by doing this, you encourage people to move away from Access while at the same time increasing itnerest in your product.
We have a local car dealer who did a commercial claiming that the Hyundai luxury sedan looks "just like" the Jaguar only it costs much less. Needless to say, we laugh our ass off at that commercial. A Hyundai is not a Jaguar only cheaper...it's a Hyundai attempting to LOOK like a Jaguar. Too many low-cost programs suffer from trying to look like a Jaguar, when what they really need to do is analyze what it is about the Jaguar that makes it attractive and what can be gleamed from that and added to that to approach the market from a different direction.
Our company writes software for a saturated niche, but does alright because we look at things from a different perspective. Rather than just allowing our customers to enter and store data with a weak search engine, we allow them to enter it quickly, search it powerfully and associate it meaningfully. Our price is higher for that reason -- and yet we have more customers.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
A good price depends on your target audience.
For the average Joe: $20 or under will get impulse buys ("Not that much if it ends up sucking"); over $50 means they'll only buy it if they already know they want it; Over $250 will only get those who really need it and have done some decent research into alternatives. Over $1000 means you can guarantee that everyone will pirate it without even feeling bad ("At that price, I didn't count as a potential customer anyway").
For teens and older kids, drop those to $5, $20, $50 (yes, the average price of a game) and $100, respectively.
For business customers, the scene changes a bit. A very small business may behave like a somewhat more well-to-do average Joe. Once layers of accountability start appearing, though, the low and high categories vanish - No impulse buys, and no piracy. For that reason, as the business gets bigger, the potential price does as well, almost without limit. Keep in mind that the higher the price, the fewer your potential customer base, though.
Yes it takes a lot of work to come up with original ideas. But not so surprisingly you can give away ideas, and most people wouldn't know what to do with them. Then you turn around and charge them to show them how it works. :)
I'm not a money grubbing capitalist- I have to say that to make software that I create free you have to somehow magically provide me with food, clothing, shelter, medical care, water, my MSDN subscription and a net connection.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
This is the fantasy Open Source business model and it doesn't work. Except when the software is hard to use. But then the business model is "give away crappy software and charge people to actually get it working."
If you want to make money on GOOD software... software that actually empowers people to be self-sufficient, you need to charge for the software.
One other note. It takes vastly different mind sets to develop in a product environment than in a consulting environment. Your best product developers are going to be people you would never throw in front of a client.
Software pricing = (DC + RC + P)/EUS ...where DC = Development Costs, RC = Residual Costs (support, maintenance, etc), P = Profit, and EUS = Expected Unit Sales.
Obviously, if you are selling to a wider audience, the software can be cheaper. This is why niche software like AutoCAD is so expensive.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Gee, I can't think of anyone who would develop software without getting paid for it...
But seriously, there are several reasons people would write software whose price is 0:
There are lots of motivations for people's actions besides money.
All's true that is mistrusted
I used to work on a server data replication product.
There are many tales to tell about this debacle (I think the vendor has long since cancelled or put it on maintenance mode) - but there was a point where we raised our price from $250/server to $5000/server, and the ONLY change in the product was a name change. No new features were added. Hell, we didn't even update the GUI. Saled jumped 20% that quarter. (unfortunately it was not to be sustained).
The reasoning was, the Market didn't take us seriously at $250/server because all of our competitors were priced in the $5000/server range.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
An oldie but a goodie (and humorous too) from Chuck McManis on software pricing for the little guy.
The whole scheme is repeated while increasing the good text file quote by 100. When the donation link reaches $20, I hire some people from India, China, or Glxbltistan (via MSN messenger) to do some more serious marketing and probably maintain some parts of my product code or maybe add plugins for it which I can sell for $15.
Pricing depends on your goal.
If your goal is to maximize profit, that's one thing.
If your goal is to maximize distribution, that's another game altogether.
If your goal is to penetrate a particular niche market but you want the headaches of supporting customers outside that niche, that's another altogether.
If I want mass distribution and can afford to do so, I'll sell it for under $20 or give it away.
If I want niche distribution, I'll research my niche and price accordingly.
If I want to maximize profit, I'll look at the overall market and price where I think I can meet that goal.
There's more to sales than price though. There's your company's reputation, and of course marketing, marketing, and more marketing. But not the overly annoying kind, that typically backfires.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I think it would be interesting to look at the price
and sales of something like Eclipse vs. VisualStudio. Then if you throw MyEclipse into the mix and see how they do vs. Eclipse. MyEclipse costs about $30 and I have had no problems getting that approved from any company I've contracted for. They've even been so impressed they dropped their other IDEs and moved most of the developers over. Is $30 the right price for an IDE? Is free? Eclipse, as great as it is, can be a bit of a pain to integrate the various plugins you need to do real development. I have no problem paying $30 for that. I even bought my own copy to use at home because I like it so much.
On the flip side you have Visual Studio. That seems a bit much for an IDE. Luckily, the company I work for is also MSDN, so it isn't that much for me to get it. If I went into a company and told them I needed a copy of Visual Studio and it would cost them about $1500, I think some might not be too happy. Heck, I could probably get some places to drop MS for Java on server side development based on that cost differential alone.
It seems like the same thing is starting to happen on the Office front now--Star is cheap and Open is free and places are just starting to realize that maybe this is exactly how MS sets prices. It can't compete on cost so it ups the price to make people think it is better. Funny, but I think more and more CIO/CFOs are starting to see this.
Yes, but if you price your software at a low value then the cost to retrain everyone looks even worse. Which proposal will your PHB prefer to take to the CEO:
Scenerio One:
PHB "I'd like to buy a new database with five licenses for $699. It will help our productivity incrase and reduce crashes"
CEO "What about retraining?"
PHB "For all six users, $5,000, including downtime"
Scenereo Two:
PHB "I'd like to buy a new database with five lecenses for $18,500. It will help our productivity incrase and reduce crashes"
CEO "What about retraining?"
PHB "For all six users, $5,000, including downtime"
Given the two options, most CEOs (who know even less about IT than PHBs) will question the investment of $5,000 in training for a $700 product. For $700, how good can it be? But $18,500 for the licenses seems about in line with $5000 in training. Its all psychology.
Oddly enough, there's a program I want which has a pricing scheme that just doens't sit well with me. It's $1200 for the first license, and five licenses are $1995. As a small shop, I see that as an $800 "litte guy" surcharge, so I've not bought it. I have a (free) vendor sponsored copy that's old and I'd like to upgrade, but not for that kind of money. It's a nice program, but not that nice.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Joel Spolsky (of Joel On Software) published his views on software pricing a little while ago too. Worth a look to see how someone else thinks about the topic.
How do you price software? The same way you price any other product. Duh!
This isn't rocket science, people. If your total revenue drops when you raise/lower your price, then lower/raise your price. Do a bit of market research to narrow in on the correct price. If sales don't work, don't have sales.
Software is a product just like any other, so don't go throwing our all of your sales and marketing knowledge because your not selling forks and spoons. Some of the details will be different, but most of it will be the same. If your product is Open Source, you're probably going to have to sell it at a low price. If it's proprietary software for a niche market with no competition then you can charge a lot more.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
He'd like to believe that the pricing follows that nice bell curve, and that would be true if there weren't a monopoly skewing the graph to nearly a flat line. MS can charge whatever they want up to a point, their demand is inelastic due to their monopoly.
You completely misunderstood the graph.
#1 The graph is not of a bell curve. It's most likely a parabola.
#2 The graph is of revenue as a function of price, not as demand as a function of price.
#3 If demand were inelastic as you say, Microsoft would be charging $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000 for their OS.
I think it's more likely that their software is priced to maintain their monopoly.