i'm not annoyed for 4.99$
Simpler Membership Pricing & Inflation
Sort:
Np :)
Using 4.99 instead of 5.00 is a good marketing trick, whatever helps get new premium members (within reason) I am in favour of. So whether you think 4.99 or 5.00 is better for chess.com as a whole, I am happy to go along with.
btw I have never thought of the $ 4.99 price as annoying or decieving.
Oct 19, 2010
0
#5
3% increase is fine. . . .
$4.99 instead of $5.00 takes advantage of the left-digit consumer bias (tendency to focus on the left-most digit and therefore perceive the price as closer to $4 than to $5) . . . .
You can raise diamond to over $99 and probably not experience a great deal of churn to the next lower level . . . .
Now is the time to start thinking of your holiday season gift subscription promotion and find a way to get it into the hands of parents and chess instructors...
Just some thoughts.
Oct 19, 2010
0
#7
I'd happily pay $87.14 -- paying less is never annoying. 
I will not be upset by a small price increase on my membership, though.
erik wrote:
We're considering making a few minor changes to membership pricing.
First off, is everyone annoyed by $4.99? Why not just call it $5, right?
Thoughts on this simplification: http://grab.by/6WUw ?
That would leave monthlys alone (increased by 1 penny). Gold yearly would drop by 88 cents. Diamond yearly would go to $99 (a 3% increase), and Platinum yearly would go up by $1.20 (a 2% increase).
When you consider that we created our prices 4 years ago, and inflation has been 10% during that timeframe (see http://grab.by/6WUF ), do you think it is OK for us to have a 2-3% increase on a few of the prices in the name of simplicity?
Just trying to get your thoughts!
Erik
Chess.com
Making Diamond Membership $99 defeats the whole purpose of the price readjustment. A round $96 or $108 would be a better idea (at the current rate if it were adjusted to exactly $8 or 9/month). If you want to raise the price, do so by a dollar at a time on the MONTHLY basis so all rates remain round (without cents, dollars only). If you'd like to make the price other than this, change the Premium Memberships and Subscriptions page so that instead of "Annual #/month" say simply "Annual #/year" so that the yearly rate is always round and the monthly rate doesn't affect it. Just my thoughts.
A 3 percent increase?? Are you kidding me? That's B.S., man!!!
Big, rich, mean, old website owner taking my hard earned 3% so he can buy another yacht...
I'm quitting this evil site and going to pogo.
CBA wrote:
I need this in proper money.
http://www.xe.com/ucc/ << " proper money " converter
As to the question, I think that you're either going to believe chess.com is an entertainment steal ( which it is! ) or you're going to ask " why pay for a free site? ". I don't think the proposed increase would affect which side of that fence you're on.
The yearly diamond would still be just over 27 cents per day. Unlimited access to the videos, chess mentor and tactics trainer ( on your iphone even ) easily makes this a bargain. If you're not interested in those features, the annual star is about 8 cents per day to avoid waiting for disconnects ( just start another game ) and eliminate the 30 second wait on chat posts. Why pay for a free site? How much is your time worth?
With the price of a movie,dinner,or anything else worth having,there is nothing wrong with the increase.Everything else is going up,some may not be able to afford it,some may not renew,but I for one enjoy this sight.
Oct 19, 2010
0
#14
..this is a very minor increase for the premium membership prices ...
..of course no problem at all ..
Oct 20, 2010
0
#15
I like the proposed rounded $5 over $4.99 ... what I don't understand is: how you can afford to REDUCE the annual membership for Gold members?
Oct 20, 2010
0
#16
I think the proposal is entirely reasonable. And I much appreciate Erik for asking for this feedback from us!
As someone already pointed out before me, this small increase is unlikely to affect which side of the fence one stays: believing that this is (a) a bargain site for the wealth that you get in return; or (b) a free site for which no pricing would work. As a paying member, it is clear which option I believe in and support.
artfizz wrote:
I like the proposed rounded $5 over $4.99 ... what I don't understand is: how you can afford to REDUCE the annual membership for Gold members?
Shhh!
$4.99 doesn't annoy me but neither does chess.com having to review their fees as value for money is still superb. I also love the option of being able to swap between the membership levels as and when I need to without any penalty. This is really useful when life takes over and I don't get chance to watch all those videos until the following month.
Also, big thanks to Erik for asking for feedback in the first place. Keep up the great work chess.com!
Yes, a small price to pay for what we get in return.
We're considering making a few minor changes to membership pricing.
First off, is everyone annoyed by $4.99? Why not just call it $5, right?
Thoughts on this simplification: http://grab.by/6WUw ?
That would leave monthlys alone (increased by 1 penny). Gold yearly would drop by 88 cents. Diamond yearly would go to $99 (a 3% increase), and Platinum yearly would go up by $1.20 (a 2% increase).
When you consider that we created our prices 4 years ago, and inflation has been 10% during that timeframe (see http://grab.by/6WUF ), do you think it is OK for us to have a 2-3% increase on a few of the prices in the name of simplicity?
Just trying to get your thoughts!
Erik
Chess.com