Litmus

There are lots of great tools out there, that are just the right price. I'd use Flickr as a prime example of this, that I've recently experienced.

We'd really like SiteVista to be 'just the right price'.

We've linked to the competition from this blog already, and we believe that we've already offered better usability at a lower price. With the feedback we've recieved from Beta testers we think we can make it even better.

I will offer my opinion as one of your potential weekly rate customers, but this is what i'm here to discuss.

Here is whats wrong with the pricing structure that I see. Sometimes when working on a design I really just want to look at my pages quickly in other browsers to see if I spot any problems. Debugging a design is usually done in a matter of minutes-- not hours nor days. There are some cases where it would take you a good part of the day to debug a problem, but I find this very rare.

Your eliminating a big part of your market due to the fact your pricing structure doesn't cover the most common form of 'browser debugging', it doesn't support the little guy.

While I agree $12.00 is a decent price, you'll find a lot of people will not pay this because they don' _know_ if a bug exists to warrant the $12.00.

While your 'busy Designer' will greatly benefit from a $12.00 a week plan, your average up-and-comer will not.

Now that I've outlined the problem, here is what I propose as a solution.

If you think of the service as a parking meter or prepaid phone card then you start covering all bases.

A users buys 'credits' (similar to istockphoto.com). When that user needs to use your service he either:
a. Buys a batch of 'credits' that can be used at any time an at any burn rate.
b. Uses existing credits he purchased before hand.

Now, the problem that this solves:
a. The user isn't stigmatized with a expiration date.
b. It supports both the little guy and 2-3 comps a day guys. If you need more credits, you just buy more.
c. Your not left with the feeling that you need to design and build as many sites as you can within a week to earn a return on your investment. In other words "After a week, your screwed buddy!".

Well, back to work ;-) , but I hope I offered some food for thought.

Cheers

Justin, thaks for your comments.

I see exactly what you mean. The "credits" model is something that we kicked around a while back.

For me, you see, the $12 price would be perfect. I find that when I'm working on a new design, I spend 2-7 days getting my Photoshop comp into html/css. During this whole process I want to keep testing in different browsers, but once my design is ready and I'm just pouring in content, I don't really need to keep testing it.

You said "a lot of people will not pay this because they don't _know_ if a bug exists to warrant the $12.00". It's tricky because the way I see it, you're paying $12 for exactly that reason - because you're currently unsure if there are browser inconsistencies, and you want to check.

Another option to address your concerns could be a 24-hour plan, for say $4. How would you feel about that?

I'm leaning more toward charging by time rather than tests because I think it's clearer and simpler (plus having unlimited testing means you don't need to worry about checking how many credits you've got left etc etc).

I must say though, I'm really enjoying this debate!

Also, I think we had to consider the effects of people running on credits.

Say you have 10 credits on your account, what does that mean? Does that mean you can hit the "test" button ten times (and tick as many options as you'd like), or does that mean you can test 10 different aspects (eg. Internet Explorer 6 1 Credit, Safari 1 Credit)?.

Probably the clearest thing to do in this case, would be to say a credit is used each time you pressed the "test" button. But then, as a user with 10 credits, wouldn't you be inclined to test absolutely everything you could for that 1 credit? This way, people running on the credit system could potential hog all of SiteVistas testing resources by testing things that may really be necessary (Netscape 4/IE 5 etc) for their project.

We'd prefer users to not feel pressured to test on all platforms all at once, and take it at their leisure. This way, all our users would get the best experience.

What I do think is coming from this discussion, is a clear indication to us as to what our customers need. It is clear that Justin needs some kind of "pay as you go" service to cater for his light demands.

I have an idea forming in my head that I'll have to talk over with Paul. Thanks for your comment, it certainly helps us a lot.

Just so I don't come off as a cheap skate here.. ;-) , the pricing isn't bad at all. I don't see $12.00 a week as a dent in my pocket, but how can you beat 'rollover minutes'!

I think David hit the nail on the head when he said "pay as you go" service. I'm really not sure exactly _who_ is your target market here, but I'm sure you'd be delighted to cover all bases.

I guess what I'm after is some way to 'stop the clock' when I'm not actively using your service.

Just to toss around some other ideas in terms of the credit system:

What if credits represented units of time, rather than a test. This answers the question David posed as to "How many times can you press the test button?". It also gives me the feeling that I have the potential to get a good ROI, Why? It really goes back to the point that I don't feel pressured to hurry up and test. If I wanted to go fishing for a few days, the clock isn't ticking while I'm away.

Of course this is easier said than done, managing a system like this would be a lot harder than managing one that just said 'deny access after this date'.

I'd really be interested to hear what other front-end people have to say about this because I'm sure my opinion is only that.

-Cheers

Justin - with regard to "stopping the clock"... Perhaps I haven't made it clear, but the $12 price is a one-off fee (no rebilling). The $29 fee would however rebill automatically every 30 days, to give unlimited, uninterrupted access for heavy users.

With that in mind, the $12 option is effectively "stopping the clock", as you'd probably only pay for it occasionally when you needed a to do some testing - with no obligation to keep paying when you weren't using it. I apprechiate that $12 for a week is perhaps a bigger unit of money/time than you had in mind, though.

After your previous post David and I considered the 24 hour option, for $4. To put it plainly, we came to the conclusion that at this stage taking such small payments wasn't going to be practical, and providing support for a large number of users who are paying so little could be very time consuming for us - a big consideration as we're just a "two man band".

As a webdesigner I would like the option to pay a fixed price per domain to be checked, for a certain period of time (half a year, of a year).

Often, the process of building a sites takes 1-3 months. During that period I often want to do a browser check, first to see how the homepage code/css performs, lateron the subpages, and in the end of the project I want to check a few different styled pages. And also again after the last changes from the client are being implemented.

It would be acceptable for me to pay $40 to $50 for only one single domain, for a period of 6 months. With unlimited or 10+ subpages.

How does this sound?

Stevijn: Thanks for your input. I like that idea. I'd say $49 for 3 months would probably be nearer the price we'd go for, with unlimited pages tested under a single domain. I am concerned, however, about making the pricing too complex. Each additional choice we offer needs to be listed, explained, and the backend needs to support it. I'm keen for the pricing to be as straightforward as the service itself.

I like Stevijn's idea as well. I like the 3 month period, however I am unsure if the price is a good idea. I know that I can get my company to pay for the service - even if it is more than $49/3mo, however for an individual (although the service is worth it) it may be too high.
Not sure if you've used megaproxy.com at all, but they have a nice pricing structure with accounts that accommodate to 1)individuals 2)corporations and 3)education/non-profit. Because your customer base will probably be very broad, you may have to get complicated with your pricing (in a organized way).

I suggest (or support) pay-per-use. One free trial, then one buck per test, only available in $5 or $10 packages. Sounds reasonable to me.

Just another idea (not particularly thought through) - what about applying some of my one day purchases to the purchase of a month. For example - I don't know how severe my issues on site X are so I just buy 1 day of testing. I find that they are a little more complex than I thought so I buy a second day of testing. The third day I realize that I'm going to need a week to finish this so I apply 80% of what I have already paid for the past two days toward the full price of a week. The next week I am working on site Y and realize that this month I am really going to need a full month of testing so I can apply 80% of the total I have paid so far toward purchasing a month long account. Just a sort of gentle up-sell while making people feel like they haven't wasted their money on previous purchases.