Please lower in app purchase prices?
Hey CG, I want to give you money.... really, I do. I like the game, but the per character cost to advance is prohibitive, thus I stay mostly FTP. I do buy something every so often, just to encoura...
Forum Discussion
There are plenty of would-be whales who, like many, simply don't find/feel/see the value in most if not all purchase options.
Anyone recall that first time you bought a single-character shard pack only to get the minimum or just above it, and perhaps experienced that semi-sick feeling that you received no value for the money you just spent? And subsequently felt spending that much (or any) money on a mobile game is a waste, at least for a while?
Sure, you can see the probabilities when you buy a pack, but even if fully aware of them, those no-value experiences affect the consumer psyche far more than a pleasant experience, so they overwhelmingly tend towards having lasting negative effects on spending. Even more interestingly, these kinds of packs are often offered as the sole way to obtain particular shards at the time, so by offering no other options, they're pushing customers into making a purchase that has a high likelihood of reducing the amount and frequency of said customers' future purchases, if in fact they do bite. Again, not a good way to go; customers spend (repeatedly) when their purchases are rewarded and they see value, whether consciously or subconsciously.
(Simple version of the solution in that example: increase the minimum reward and/or decrease the price until you're in a zone in which you're not devaluing your product and customers are highly likely to feel they've received value even with the minimum possible reward.)
Sorry for rambling, but this stuff jumps out at me because it's what I do, and it's amazing how much revenue and customer satisfaction can increase for the relatively tiny cost of hiring outside experts to consult on such matters. I'd love to see some sales data...
While I'm rambling, a couple other points:
* The football ticket example is horrid because it mentions selling out the stadium either way, meaning lowering ticket prices flat out equals less revenue. This is a game with digital goods and no cap on the number available, so it IS possible that lowering prices and/or tweaking what's offered can in turn bring in more revenue. In other words, this is a stadium with unlimited capacity, and the decision is whether the company is open to adjusting its pricing so it can make money from the person who is willing to either continue spending $0 to watch from home or spend x% of the current price to get tickets.
* I have no idea what EA does or does not do with its sales data. Personally, I've played for years and haven't identified much in the way of significant change in pricing structure/model - at least not in the way that jumped out to me as likely to expand its base of paying customers, frequency of purchases, etc.
"It's profitable therefore we're doing it right" mentality is lazy, irresponsible, and self-defeating. It often results from basing goals and expectations off of what seems feasible assuming things continue to be to done a certain way, even if there's nothing to indicate that way is ideal in the first place. One could call it a form of tunnel vision, and it's a problem that often requires outsiders to correct. It leads to heightened fear of change and limited risk-taking, even if said risks are borderline trivial and/or there's significant research to indicate significant improvement is likely. The question to be asked is not whether this is good enough, but whether it can improve (and to what extent). Based on several clear and persistent violations of tried-and-tested, widely-accepted, research-based "best-practices" that can be identified without even seeing sales data... there's room for improvement here.
You can only gather so much direct data on things you don't implement, and if the options you can try are solid, high-percentage ones based on decades worth of research and data on sales principles (sales in general, digital sales, microtransactions, sales specifically in the genres of gaming and even mobile gaming, etc.), consumer psychology, etc., "risk" is very low. This is especially true considering reversion back to the existing sales model can happen almost instantly since we're dealing with a digital storefront and no actual physical products.
Anyone recall that first time you bought a single-character shard pack only to get the minimum or just above it, and perhaps experienced that semi-sick feeling that you received no value for the money you just spent? And subsequently felt spending that much (or any) money on a mobile game is a waste, at least for a while?
Sure, you can see the probabilities when you buy a pack, but even if fully aware of them, those no-value experiences affect the consumer psyche far more than a pleasant experience, so they overwhelmingly tend towards having lasting negative effects on spending. Even more interestingly, these kinds of packs are often offered as the sole way to obtain particular shards at the time, so by offering no other options, they're pushing customers into making a purchase that has a high likelihood of reducing the amount and frequency of said customers' future purchases, if in fact they do bite. Again, not a good way to go; customers spend (repeatedly) when their purchases are rewarded and they see value, whether consciously or subconsciously.
(Simple version of the solution in that example: increase the minimum reward and/or decrease the price until you're in a zone in which you're not devaluing your product and customers are highly likely to feel they've received value even with the minimum possible reward.)
Sorry for rambling, but this stuff jumps out at me because it's what I do, and it's amazing how much revenue and customer satisfaction can increase for the relatively tiny cost of hiring outside experts to consult on such matters. I'd love to see some sales data...
While I'm rambling, a couple other points:
* The football ticket example is horrid because it mentions selling out the stadium either way, meaning lowering ticket prices flat out equals less revenue. This is a game with digital goods and no cap on the number available, so it IS possible that lowering prices and/or tweaking what's offered can in turn bring in more revenue. In other words, this is a stadium with unlimited capacity, and the decision is whether the company is open to adjusting its pricing so it can make money from the person who is willing to either continue spending $0 to watch from home or spend x% of the current price to get tickets.
* I have no idea what EA does or does not do with its sales data. Personally, I've played for years and haven't identified much in the way of significant change in pricing structure/model - at least not in the way that jumped out to me as likely to expand its base of paying customers, frequency of purchases, etc.
"It's profitable therefore we're doing it right" mentality is lazy, irresponsible, and self-defeating. It often results from basing goals and expectations off of what seems feasible assuming things continue to be to done a certain way, even if there's nothing to indicate that way is ideal in the first place. One could call it a form of tunnel vision, and it's a problem that often requires outsiders to correct. It leads to heightened fear of change and limited risk-taking, even if said risks are borderline trivial and/or there's significant research to indicate significant improvement is likely. The question to be asked is not whether this is good enough, but whether it can improve (and to what extent). Based on several clear and persistent violations of tried-and-tested, widely-accepted, research-based "best-practices" that can be identified without even seeing sales data... there's room for improvement here.
You can only gather so much direct data on things you don't implement, and if the options you can try are solid, high-percentage ones based on decades worth of research and data on sales principles (sales in general, digital sales, microtransactions, sales specifically in the genres of gaming and even mobile gaming, etc.), consumer psychology, etc., "risk" is very low. This is especially true considering reversion back to the existing sales model can happen almost instantly since we're dealing with a digital storefront and no actual physical products.
