Skill: charlie-morrison/saas-pricing-auditor (version 1.0.0)

--- name: saas-pricing-auditor description: Audit a SaaS pricing page and return a scorecard, specific rewrites, and an A/B test priority queue. Diagnoses tier psychology (3-tier vs 4-tier, where the anchor sits), price points (charm vs round, currency formatting, decoy effect), feature-gating logic (the right and wrong reasons to gate a feature), the freemium-vs-trial decision, value-metric selection (per-seat, per-usage, hybrid, outcome-based), expansion-revenue mechanisms (overages, add-ons, tier upgrades, seat sprawl), monthly/annual toggle defaults, comparison-table clarity, and social-proof placement. Outputs a 1-10 score per dimension with specific rewrites and a ranked test backlog. Use when asked to review a pricing page, redesign tiers, raise prices, fix poor conversion, choose a value metric, decide between freemium and trial, or prep for a pricing repackage. metadata: tags: ["pricing", "saas", "monetization", "conversion-rate-optimization", "packaging", "pricing-strategy", "growth", "revenue"] --- # SaaS Pricing Auditor Most SaaS pricing pages were drafted in a tab once and never revisited. They feel reasonable, convert below industry median, and quietly leak 20–40% of potential ARR through bad gating, weak anchoring, and a value metric that punishes power users. This skill audits the page on nine dimensions, scores each one, and ships specific rewrites plus a ranked test backlog. ## Usage **Basic invocation:** > Audit my pricing page: [URL or paste] > Should I be 3-tier or 4-tier? > Help me pick a value metric — I'm currently per-seat > Free trial or freemium? > Repackage from $19/$49/$99 to higher ACV **With context:** > B2B SaaS, $40k ARR, single $49/mo tier, no annual > PLG product, 8% free→paid, want to lift to 12% > Mid-market sales-led, $25k ACV, comparing to Salesforce > Vertical SaaS for dental clinics, 3 tiers, low expansion revenue The auditor returns a scorecard, prioritized rewrites, and the next 3–5 tests to ship. ## The Nine Audit Dimensions Each dimension scored 1–10 with notes and a fix. 1. **Tier architecture** — number, names, anchor placement 2. **Price points** — charm pricing, round vs odd, currency display 3. **Feature gating logic** — what's gated and why 4. **Free trial vs freemium** — which model, parameters 5. **Value metric** — what you charge per 6. **Expansion-revenue mechanisms** — how revenue grows post-sale 7. **Monthly/annual toggle** — default, discount, framing 8. **Comparison table clarity** — readability, visual weight 9. **Social proof placement** — logos, quotes, numbers, near CTA The order is the priority order. Architecture errors swallow everything below them — fixing button color while your value metric is wrong is rearranging deck chairs. ## Dimension 1: Tier Architecture ### 3-tier vs 4-tier vs 5-tier | Count | When it works | When it fails | |---|---|---| | 1 tier | Self-serve under $50/mo, dead-simple product | Anything multi-segment | | 2 tiers | Pure PLG with one upgrade path | Mid-market+ | | 3 tiers | Default for SMB SaaS — Good/Better/Best | When segments diverge dramatically | | 4 tiers | When Enterprise needs custom pricing on top of 3 | Otherwise; adds choice paralysis | | 5+ tiers | Almost never; only with strong segmentation | Most SaaS — analysis paralysis | **Default recommendation:** 3 tiers + custom Enterprise = 4 visible "options" without overwhelming. ### Anchor tier (the most-read tier) The center tier in a 3-tier display gets ~60% of visual attention and should: - Be marked "Most popular" with a colored border - Contain the features the median customer needs (so they don't have to upgrade for table stakes) - Be priced at the sweet spot of your contribution-margin curve - Hide enough power-user features to leave room for the top tier **Anchor errors to flag:** - "Most popular" badge on the cheapest tier (signals to prospects that paying more is rare) - "Most popular" badge on the most expensive tier (read as upsell theater) - No badge at all (you're letting the visitor pick blind) ### Tier names Names that work: *Starter, Pro, Business, Enterprise* / *Free, Plus, Pro, Scale* / *Solo, Team, Company* Names that don't: *Bronze, Silver, Gold* (cliché, no signal); *Basic* (sounds like punishment); *Premium* (vague); *Tier 1, 2, 3* (reads as internal ops). The middle tier name should imply *"this is the right answer for normal businesses"* — that's why "Pro" and "Business" outperform "Standard" and "Plus." ## Dimension 2: Price Points ### Charm pricing (.99) vs round vs odd | Format | Where it works | Why | |---|---|---| | $19 | Self-serve, low end | Reads cheap and confident | | $19.99 | Consumer / very low end | Squeezes loss-aversion bias | | $29 / $49 / $99 | SMB SaaS sweet spot | Round = serious; odd = approachable | | $49 | Common anchor SMB | The "tax floor" perception break | | $50 | Slightly worse than $49 | Round numbers are processed as estimates | | $499 / $999 | Mid-market | Charm pricing in 3-digit range still moves the needle | | $1,000+ | Enterprise | Round numbers; charm pricing reads cheap | | Custom / Talk to sales | Above ~$30k ACV | Forces qualification | **The decoy effect:** when tier B is meaningfully better than A and *almost* the same price as C, B captures most volume. Common pattern: - Tier A: $19/mo — 5 seats, basic features - Tier B: $49/mo — 25 seats, full feature set ← decoy-driven anchor - Tier C: $99/mo — unlimited seats, integrations Tier B is the trap. Make sure the *delta* from A to B is large enough that A looks bad-value, and the delta from B to C is small enough that C looks like overkill for most. ### Currency display - Always show currency symbol explicitly (`$49`, not `49`) - Show "/month" or "/mo" with every price; never assume the period is obvious - For per-seat pricing, show "per user/mo" — never just "/mo" (creates sticker-shock at checkout) - For annual: show monthly-equivalent ("$49/mo, billed annually") — annual lump sum scares small buyers ## Dimension 3: Feature Gating Logic The hardest pricing decision. Wrong gating either leaves money on the table (everyone gets the upgrade feature for free) or kills conversion (must-have features hidden behind enterprise tier). ### Good reasons to gate - **Power-user-only features** — API, SSO, audit logs, custom roles. Most users don't need them; those who do pay for them. - **High variable cost** — features that cost you per-use (AI calls, transactional emails over a threshold) - **Compliance/security** — SOC 2 reports, BAA, custom DLP. Buyer of these is enterprise; gate accordingly. - **Volume scaling** — seats, projects, storage. Linear cost = linear gate. ### Bad reasons to gate - **It feels premium** — gating UI polish (dark mode, custom themes) annoys people without driving upgrades - **Competitor does it** — they may be wrong; copying gates copies their conversion ceiling too - **You spent engineering time on it** — sunk-cost fallacy; gate value not effort - **Table-stakes features** — gating CSV export, basic search, or 2FA punishes everyone and signals greed ### The gating decision tree ``` Is the feature's marginal cost > $0? → Gate by usage (overage or tier) Is it a power-user / admin feature? → Gate to higher tier Is it a compliance/security feature? → Gate to enterprise Is it consumed in a measurable unit? → Use as the value metric (don't gate; meter) Otherwise → Don't gate; ship to all tiers ``` **Specific anti-patterns to flag in audits:** - SSO behind enterprise-only when the rest of the product is $99/mo (the "SSO tax" — well-known pricing sin) - API access at the highest tier only (cuts off integrations that drive expansion) - Hard caps on seats with no overage path (forces a contract negotiation for +1 user; high friction) - Feature counts as the differentiator instead of usage (drives feature-comparison fatigue) ## Dimension 4: Free Trial vs Freemium ### Decision matrix | Factor | Freemium wins | Free trial wins | |---|---|---| | Time-to-value | Long (days/weeks) | Short (minutes) | | Network effects | Strong | Weak | | Marginal user cost | Near zero | Non-trivial | | Buyer is end-user | Yes | Mixed | | Sales motion | Pure PLG | PLG + sales-assist | | Aha moment requires data | Yes (real workspace) | No (demo data fine) | ### Freemium parameters that work - Free tier should solve a *real, narrow* problem completely — not a crippled version of the paid product - Limits should hit at the moment users stop being hobbyists (number of projects, seats, integrations) - Convert at the *aha moment*, not at month boundary - Expect 2–5% free-to-paid conversion as median; 5–10% is excellent ### Free trial parameters that work - 14 days is the default; 7 days for simple products; 30 days only for complex products with onboarding - Require credit card if conversion intent is high; don't if you're top-of-funnel - Trial-to-paid conversion: 15–25% no-CC, 40–60% with-CC - Reverse trial (full features for N days, then downgrade to free) increasingly common; works for engagement-led products ### Anti-patterns - Trial that requires CC + auto-charges silently (= chargeback magnet, bad reputation) - Freemium with no path to paid (the "free forever" trap) - 30-day free trial on a $19/mo product (you've given away ~10% of annual revenue per signup) ## Dimension 5: Value Metric The single highest-leverage decision in pricing. Get it right, expansion revenue is automatic; get it wrong, you cap your account growth at "reset the contract." ### The value metric test A good value metric: 1. **Scales with customer value** — when they get more out of the product, the metric grows 2. **Is predictable to the buyer** — they can estimate their bill before signing 3. **Aligns incentives** — your growth doesn't punish their adoption 4. **Has expansion built in** — accounts naturally grow on the metric ### Common metrics, ranked | Metric | Pros | Cons | Best for | |---|---|---|---| | Per-seat | Predictable, SaaS-default | Caps at team size; punishes adoption | Collaboration, internal-tool SaaS | | Per-usage (events, API calls, runs) | Scales with value, unbounded | Unpredictable bills, sticker shock | Infrastructure, AI, analytics | | Per-record (contacts, customers) | Clear ROI mapping | Customers prune to save money | CRM, marketing | | Per-revenue | Truly aligned | Hard to verify, requires trust | Payments, embedded fintech | | Flat tiers | Predictable | Zero expansion mechanism | Very early or very low ACV | | Hybrid (seats + usage) | Captures both | Complex to explain | PLG with team sprawl + power-use | | Outcome-based | Maximally aligned | Hard to attribute, slow sales | Performance marketing, AI agents | ### How to choose - If usage *causes* customer value (calls made, jobs run, data ingested) → meter it - If a team is the unit of value → seats - If a power-user does 10x what a casual user does → hybrid (seats + usage) - If your customer is a small business and predictability matters → flat tier with usage caps **Repackaging from per-seat to hybrid** is the most common 2025–2026 move; AI features have value-per-call that breaks pure-seat models. ## Dimension 6: Expansion-Revenue Mechanisms Net revenue retention >110% is the difference between a 4x and a 10x business. The pricing page is where you build the mechanism. ### The four levers 1. **Overages** — soft caps with metered overages (e.g., "10k API calls included; $0.001/call after"). Best when usage is variable. 2. **Add-ons** — separately priced modules (extra storage, premium support, additional brands). Best when there are clear segments. 3. **Tier upgrades** — natural progression as the customer grows. Requires tier deltas to feel earned. 4. **Seat/license sprawl** — auto-add seats when invited, with admin approval. The most reliable expansion mechanism for collab tools. ### Expansion audit checklist - Does any tier have a hard cap with no overage path? (= contract friction) - Are there add-ons visible on the pricing page? (= optional, non-disruptive expansion) - Does the metric grow naturally with customer success? - Is there a clear upgrade trigger (UI nudge when nearing a limit)? - Does annual billing kill expansion? (Quarterly true-ups solve this for usage-based.) ## Dimension 7: Monthly/Annual Toggle ### Default state Default the toggle to **annual** if your business depends on annual cash. Defaulting to monthly is leaving 20–30% of contract value on the table for buyers who would have taken annual if it were the default option. ### Discount sizing - 10% off annual: too small to motivate - 15–20% off annual: industry standard, works - 25%+ off annual: strong signal; use when cash flow matters - 2 months free (≈17%): same as 17% but feels more concrete ### Framing - "$49/mo, billed annually" reads as $49/month - "$588/year" reads as a big number - Always show monthly-equivalent next to the annual price - Show the savings explicitly: "Save $118/yr" ## Dimension 8: Comparison Table ### Common errors - Every feature row checked for every tier (no actual differentiation visible) - Cryptic "✓" / "—" / "Limited" with no explanation - Long feature lists (>20 rows) that no visitor reads - Hiding meaningful limits in tooltips - Putting the cheapest tier on the left (visitors read left-to-right; anchor on the right) ### What works - 8–15 rows max; group into sections - Use numbers, not just checks ("5 projects", "Unlimited", not "✓") - Bold the differentiating features per tier - Sticky headers on long tables - Mobile collapse: each tier as its own card ## Dimension 9: Social Proof Placement Where it goes determines whether it converts. | Placement | Effect | |---|---| | Hero (above tiers) | Brand legitimacy; helps prospects believe pricing | | Just below CTAs | Closes the deal; place the strongest quote here | | Inside enterprise tier | Reinforces the "real companies pay this" cue | | Footer-only | Wasted; nobody scrolls there before deciding | ### Types ranked 1. **Logos** of recognizable customers — fastest credibility 2. **Numerical proof** ("Used by 12,000 teams", "$2B processed", "ROI 4.2x") 3. **Specific quotes with title and company** — beats generic testimonials by 3–5x 4. **Case study link near tier** — for sales-led mid-market ## Scoring Rubric Score 1–10 per dimension: - **1–3**: actively harmful or missing - **4–6**: present but unoptimized - **7–8**: solid; minor improvements - **9–10**: best-in-class; nothing to fix A typical SMB SaaS audit lands around 5.5 average. Above 7.5 average = strong page. Below 4.5 average = repackaging project, not a CRO project. ## A/B Test Priority Queue Tests ranked by typical lift × ease of implementation: 1. **Default annual toggle** — 5–15% ARR lift; one CSS change 2. **Add "Most popular" badge to anchor tier** — 5–10% mix shift to anchor; trivial 3. **Reorder tiers (anchor in middle, expensive on right)** — 3–8% conversion; layout change 4. **Move SSO out of enterprise-only** — 5–15% conversion lift on mid-tier; pricing change 5. **Add usage overage instead of hard cap** — 10–20% NRR lift; product+billing work 6. **Replace "Talk to sales" on enterprise with starting price** — increases qualified inbound; one-line change 7. **Replace generic testimonial with named-company quote near CTAs** — 3–7% conversion 8. **Switch to charm pricing on the anchor tier** — 1–4% conversion; trivial ## Output Format The auditor returns: 1. **Scorecard** — 1–10 on all nine dimensions with one-line rationale per 2. **Top three architecture issues** — the highest-leverage problems first 3. **Specific rewrites** — exact tier names, prices, headlines, feature names to change 4. **Value-metric recommendation** — current metric, recommended metric, migration path 5. **Test backlog** — ranked queue of 5–10 A/B tests with hypothesis and lift estimate 6. **Repackaging plan (if needed)** — when fixes can't be done via tests; phased rollout 7. **Quick-wins list** — changes that can ship today without a meeting


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)