How to Price Your App – Learning from Basecamp

by Robert Dempsey on February 27, 2009

Figuring out how to price your SaaS application is no easy task. If you with the majority of online apps that are entering a market with competition, you can see what they are charging, and go from there. You can also do market research, among other techniques. For the past few months I have been talking about our upcoming addition to the ADS AppSuite – scrum’d. Scrum’d is a project management application for teams using Scrum, which happens to be how we roll.

In figuring out how to price scrum’d, I started by doing a bit of research. Being the often belligerant Rails developer I am, and a very happy user of Campfire, I started at the 37signals Basecamp product site. While I don’t view Basecamp as competition – our product is very niche where Basecamp is not – I hold 37signals in high regard as a very successful company. The Basecamp pricing pages have changed over the years, and I wanted to see the progression. Thanks to the Internet Archive’s Way Back Machine, I compiled screenshots of the Basecamp pricing page from April 15, 2004, until today. Please note that all content from their site is copyrighted 37signals, and belongs to them.

One of the things that I noticed is that their pricing has been quite stable since the beginning. They’ve added features and storage with merely a blip in their pricing scheme. What else do you all notice?

April 15, 2004

04-15-2004

December 9, 2004

12-09-2004

February 7, 2005

02-07-2005

December 14, 2005

12-14-2005

June 10, 2006

06-10-2006

July 6, 2006

07-06-2006

November 8, 2006 – Nav (added Forum)

12-08-2006

December 8, 2006 – Nav (added FAQs)

11-08-2006

December 25, 2006

12-25-2006

January 11, 2007

01-11-2007

January 27, 2007 (SSL name update)

01-27-2007

March 24, 2007

04-24-2007

From then until the date of the next screenshot, 37signals added to the amount of storage for each plan, but did not raise the price.

September 21, 2008

09-21-2008

February 27, 2009

02-27-2009

Follow me on Twitter.

Bookmark and Share

Other Posts That Might Interest You

  1. Why We Love Fixed-Price Contracts
  2. Scrum’d Update: Stakeholders, Better Burndowns, And More
  3. Scrum’d Updates and Getting Involved
  • BTW, it looks like you switched the two images that introduce the forum and the FAQ.

    Great post!
  • Good collection... some of these I hadn't seen before.

    For the latest design they actually trialled it on Highrise's signup page first, and even wrote a post on Signal vs. Noise about how the design came into being:

    http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1496-design-...

    Pretty interesting to get the "inside scoop" on the thought process behind this.
  • That's a great catch Al.
  • One thing I noticed is that the release on February 7, 2005 was when they switched from the standard left-to-right increase in pricing to go from right-to-left instead, which they've kept until today. It's a smart and unconventional strategy that places their most expensive plan first.
  • You are the man Robert . . . thanks for sharing.

    FYI: KISSmetrics tweeted a link to a Flickr shot, that linked this page.
  • Thanks for letting me know how you arrived Chris, and thanks for the king words. I hope it helped.
  • Bill Lapcevic
    What I found interesting here is that there is a clear progression of pricing strategy in terms of maturity and market adoption. While I'm not sure exactly what was going through 37signals collective minds at each stage, I think some reasonable assumptions can be made.

    April 2004 - Provide a simple pricing scheme that gives an on-ramp for customers. Make it as simple as possible. Price such that the middle tier is probably the best value/money (likely based on the usage of their current beta customer list).

    December 2004 - Probably had some level of adoption, but needed a way to create future customers. In a SaaS model, I've found that trying is believing. In other words, if you can get your potential customer to try the product, even for free, it means a much higher conversion rate to a paying customer in the long (or even short) term. Thus the introduction of the Free and Personal pricing levels.

    Feb 2005 - A price increase. My guess is they started realizing that people would pay more for their service and saw it as another way to increase revenue (more leads, higher price). But note that at the bottom of the matrix, they put price comparisons with similar products to show they were still the low cost leader, in effect justifying the raised price.

    December 2005 - That same "justification" of the higher price is gone. The market has accepted the new "standard" price point. No need to justify anymore.

    June 2006 - after 18 months from the first chart, an "enterprise" or "max" version comes out with a higher price point. This is to capture full value from customers who have the money to "have it all" and perhaps are "having it all" at the premium price level.

    June 2006-Sept 2008 - As their product matures, they keep filling in the matrix with additional features, focusing on enhancing the value of the upper tiers while keeping fresh the value in the lower tiers.

    Sept 2008 - Price adjustment. Maybe based on the cost of supporting the personal and free customers...or perhaps the personal and free customers seem to be purchasing Basic...or most likely, the cost of supporting a personal or free customer vs. the conversion rate isn't lucrative enough...they eliminate those product categories and hike the price of Basic. They'll have fewer customers, but more revenue per customer, and lower overall expenses/cost at the low end.

    I loved the comments here about heading back to a simple model. So true. Note too the addition of a 30 day trial to allow adoption. The product is mature enough that they likely feel within 30 days they can show enough value to get people to pay.

    Feb 2009 - Last, they add back in the Premium offering at $99, probably to smooth out the price point gap between $149 (Max) and $49 (plus) to maximize revenue per customer.

    Anyway, apologies for the length of this comment, but Robert, you've hit on a very cool way of looking at pricing.
  • eRIC
    From what I see their price evolution mainly included:
    * Moving up the minimum plan
    * Moving up the unlimited plan
    * Increasing the disk space significantly - no wonder, since they use S3 and Amazon invested in them

    The biggest impact is on the low level plans, where each dollar in price change transforms in big $$$ (since that's where most of the users are). As the plans go up - the impact is less and the clients care less.

    I think the lowest level plans are the ones to watch for.
  • @Danail: that's up to you. The purpose of the post is to show an example of how 37signals is pricing Basecamp. Ultimately, pricing is determined by a number of factors, including competition, operating costs, desired profit margins, the market you're going into, and more.
  • Great comparison, it is thought provoking to see that as they built more they also were expanding the packages-contrary to the keep it simple mantra. But in the end went back to a Good, Better, Best strategy.

    This post from last year shows how they were thinking of selling just a flat annual plan but couldn't get their merchant bank to approve it and that gave way to the subscription model: http://tinyurl.com/28a6s7

    Reminds me of the original salesforce.com pricing model: $50/user - No Options. http://tinyurl.com/d77pp,
    then they quickly figured out that different users wanted different options, service levels and plans.

    I recall the founders of Writely said the one thing they wished they had done more of was experiment with pricing levels and strategies. They felt that there are too many ways to meet customers desires.
  • Danail Nachev
    So, how I should price my online app?
  • That was neat to see, thanks for posting this.
  • The first and last screens look almost identical. Things went from simple to complex back to simple.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: