Simple Pricing

The New York Time recently announced their new pricing strategy.   Several people have pointed out that it is way too complex for mere mortals to understand.  I especially enjoyed this blog post from John Gruber where he emphasizes that when pricing is complicated for customers to understand they are less likely to purchase.  I absolutely agree.  John also held up Apple as an example of nice simple pricing.  A great example.

However, this does not mean that you should not segment on pricing.   Let me restate that sentence without the double negative.  You should still segment on pricing.  The lesson from the New York Times and Apple is that we want to present simple pricing to our customers.  When customers see simple pricing they are more likely to make a decision, resulting in a sale.  When they see complex pricing they are less likely to make a decision, meaning no sale.  However, presenting simple prices and price segmentation are not mutually exclusive.

Even though Apple’s pricing appears simple, they are still segmenting.  Apple is clearly segmenting on price using the versioning technique.  They may also be segmenting in ways we don’t see.  Are they offering bulk purchases to some companies at discounted prices?  Are they offering lower (or higher) prices in other regions of the world?

Think about shopping for something on’s web site.  What you see is the item and a price.  Very simple.  Amazon may have extremely complex algorithms that look at their customer’s purchase history, their zip code, maybe even the credit limit on their credit card to determine what price to charge each customer, but in the end Amazon shows only one price to their customer.  Complex segmentation, simple price presentation.

The New York Times seems to have violated this keep it simple stupid (KISS) rule for their pricing.  The lesson we should learn is that we need to follow KISS when presenting prices to our customers.  Don’t take the wrong lesson.  Continue to segment on price.