Skill: quochungto/bookforge-monetization-experiment-planner (version 1.0.0)

--- name: monetization-experiment-planner description: "Use this skill to plan monetization experiments for a post-PMF product with stable retention — classify the monetization archetype (subscription / e-commerce / ad-revenue), run cohort revenue analysis to find highest-value customer segments, and propose pricing experiments using pricing relativity (3-tier anchoring), cohort upsell, and penny-gap handling. Produces a monetization-experiment-backlog.md with ordered tests and a revenue-cohort-analysis.md showing where the revenue actually comes from. Triggers when a growth PM asks 'how do I increase revenue per user', 'pricing experiment ideas', 'should I raise my prices', 'how do I structure pricing tiers', 'pricing anchoring', 'cohort revenue analysis', 'freemium to paid conversion', 'penny gap problem', 'our LTV is too low', 'CAC LTV ratio', 'monetization funnel', 'upsell experiments', or 'how do I monetize my free users'. Also activates for 'should we drop the price', 'three tier pricing', 'Qualaroo pricing case', or 'personalization recommendations revenue'." version: 1.0.0 homepage: https://github.com/bookforge-ai/bookforge-skills/tree/main/books/hacking-growth/skills/monetization-experiment-planner metadata: {"openclaw":{"emoji":"📚","homepage":"https://github.com/bookforge-ai/bookforge-skills"}} status: published source-books: - id: hacking-growth title: "Hacking Growth" authors: ["Sean Ellis", "Morgan Brown"] chapters: [8] tags: - growth - monetization - pricing - revenue-optimization - startup-ops depends-on: - retention-phase-intervention-selector execution: tier: 1 mode: hybrid inputs: - type: document description: > Revenue cohorts CSV (revenue-cohorts.csv) segmenting customers by tier or spend. Pricing tiers doc (pricing-tiers.md) with current pricing structure. Optional: customer-surveys.md for willingness-to-pay signals. tools-required: [Read, Write] tools-optional: [] mcps-required: [] environment: > Document set + CSV. Produces a monetization experiment backlog and revenue cohort analysis as markdown. discovery: goal: > Produce an ordered monetization experiment backlog prioritized by impact on revenue per retained user, plus a revenue cohort analysis showing where the team should focus pricing experiments. tasks: - "Confirm retention is stable (prerequisite)" - "Classify monetization archetype" - "Run cohort revenue segmentation" - "Identify highest-value customer segments" - "Propose pricing experiments appropriate to archetype" - "Flag penny-gap and reactive-cut pitfalls" - "Emit experiment backlog and cohort analysis" --- # Monetization Experiment Planner A structured process for growth teams at post-PMF, Series A–B companies whose retention is stable but revenue per user is flat or growing too slowly. Applies the monetization framework from *Hacking Growth* (Ellis & Brown, Chapter 8) to classify your business model, surface where revenue is actually coming from, and generate a prioritized backlog of pricing and upsell experiments grounded in cohort data rather than intuition. --- ## When to Use Use this skill when: - Retention is stable (flat or rising retention curve confirmed — see [REDACTED_SECRET] before proceeding) - Revenue per user is flat despite user growth - You need to restructure pricing, add a paid tier, or convert free users - Leadership is asking "where does our revenue actually come from?" - You are considering cutting prices and want to test the assumption first - You want to identify which customer segments to target with upsell experiments Do not use this skill when retention is still declining. Monetizing users who are churning produces short-term revenue at the cost of long-term LTV and compounds CAC-LTV inversion. Stabilize retention first. --- ## Context and Input Gathering Before beginning, collect: 1. **Revenue cohorts CSV** — at minimum: customer ID, plan/tier or spend bracket, acquisition date, acquisition source, revenue in the last 90 days. More fields (device, geography, feature usage) improve segmentation quality. 2. **Pricing tiers doc** — current pricing structure including all plan names, prices, and feature gates. If pricing is informal or undocumented, write it down now before analysis. 3. **Customer surveys (optional)** — any willingness-to-pay or NPS data. Useful for generating pricing hypotheses but not required for cohort segmentation. 4. **Retention confirmation** — a retention curve showing stabilization (flat baseline after the initial drop period). If this does not exist, run [REDACTED_SECRET] first. --- ## Process ### Step 1 — Confirm Retention Is Stable **What:** Verify that the retention curve has reached a stable floor before beginning monetization work. **Why:** Pricing experiments on a churning user base produce misleading signals. If users are leaving because they don't find the product valuable, raising prices will accelerate churn. If the curve is still declining, any revenue gain from a pricing test will be offset by accelerated loss of the user base that generates it. A flat retention curve is evidence of genuine product-market fit — the only soil in which monetization experiments grow. **Check:** Look at retention by weekly or monthly cohort. A healthy signal is a curve that drops steeply in the first phase (expected) and then levels off to a stable floor. If the curve is still declining at month three or later, halt and address retention first. --- ### Step 2 — Classify the Monetization Archetype **What:** Assign the product to one of three archetypes: | Archetype | Revenue mechanism | Primary diagnostic metric | |-----------|------------------|--------------------------| | Subscription | Recurring fees; upsell to higher tiers | LTV by plan tier; upgrade rate | | E-commerce | Transaction fees; repeat purchase | Annual spend bracket; repeat purchase rate | | Ad-revenue | Impression inventory × CPM | ARPU; engagement depth per session | Mixed models (e.g., freemium SaaS with an ad-supported tier) should be split into their dominant revenue stream for this analysis. Pick the archetype that accounts for more than 50% of current revenue. **Why:** Each archetype has different pinch points in the monetization funnel, different cohort segmentation logic, and different experiment types. Running subscription experiments on an ad-revenue product wastes cycles. The archetype classification determines everything downstream. --- ### Step 3 — Map the Monetization Funnel **What:** Overlay revenue touchpoints on the customer journey map (built during activation work). Mark every page, screen, or event where revenue is earned or is being lost. - **Subscription:** pricing/plan comparison page, upgrade modal, annual discount offer, add-on upsell surfaces. - **E-commerce:** item display pages, shopping cart, payment flow, post-purchase upsell. - **Ad-revenue:** every page or screen with potential inventory; pages where inventory exists but fill rate is low; engagement entry points that increase session depth. Identify "pinch points" — junctures where conversion to revenue drops sharply. These become primary experiment targets. **Why:** Funnel mapping makes the monetization problem geometric rather than abstract. A team that knows "our pricing page has a 3% upgrade conversion and our add-on modal has a 0.4% click rate" can prioritize experiments on impact data. A team guessing in the dark runs experiments on the wrong surfaces. --- ### Step 4 — Run Cohort Revenue Segmentation **What:** Segment customers by revenue contribution using archetype-appropriate buckets, then compute revenue per cohort and identify the highest-value segments. **Subscription segmentation:** ``` Cohort A: Free tier (if freemium) → $0/month Cohort B: Starter plan → $X/month Cohort C: Pro plan → $Y/month Cohort D: Enterprise plan → $Z/month ``` **E-commerce segmentation (by annual spend):** ``` Cohort 1: Low spenders < $100/year Cohort 2: Mid spenders $100–$500/year Cohort 3: High spenders > $500/year ``` **Ad-revenue segmentation (by engagement depth):** ``` Cohort I: Light users < 5 min/session, 1–2 pages Cohort II: Medium users 5–15 min/session, 3–8 pages Cohort III: Power users > 15 min/session, 9+ pages ``` Cross-segment by acquisition source, geography, and device to identify which channels produce high-value cohorts. An acquisition source that delivers 10% of users but 40% of revenue should get more budget; an acquisition source that delivers 30% of users but 5% of revenue warrants investigation or reduction. **Why:** Aggregate revenue statistics hide the structure of who is actually paying. A product with $50K MRR from 10,000 users has a very different experiment strategy depending on whether the revenue comes from 50 power users ($1,000 each), from 5,000 mid-tier users ($10 each), or from a flat distribution. Cohort segmentation makes the distribution visible and forces experiment strategy to match reality. --- ### Step 5 — Identify Highest-Value Segment Characteristics **What:** Within the highest-value cohorts identified in Step 4, identify shared characteristics: - Acquisition source (which channel brought them?) - Features used (which product capabilities do they rely on?) - Time-to-first-revenue (how quickly did they convert after signup?) - Onboarding path (did they complete specific activation steps?) - Company size or user role (for B2B products) Build a short profile of the "ideal revenue customer." This profile drives both the upsell experiments (Step 6) and acquisition channel decisions. **Why:** The highest-value cohort is the empirical definition of your best customer. Experiments designed to move lower cohorts toward the behavioral patterns of the highest cohort are more likely to succeed than experiments designed from first principles. The profile also surfaces which acquisition channels to invest in to improve the revenue mix of new users. --- ### Step 6 — Propose Pricing Experiments by Archetype Generate experiments appropriate to the classified archetype. For each experiment, state the hypothesis, the primary metric being moved, and whether it tests the pricing surface or the value delivery. **Subscription experiments:** 1. **Three-tier anchor restructure** — Introduce or restructure to three named tiers where the middle tier's primary function is to make the top tier appear to be excellent value (pricing relativity / decoy effect). Dan Ariely's Economist experiment: when a middle option at the same price as the top option was present, 84% chose the top tier. When it was removed, only 32% did. The middle tier does not need to be popular — it needs to reframe the top tier. 2. **Annual discount upsell** — Offer a 15–20% annual prepay discount to monthly subscribers. Tests whether a meaningful saving converts month-to- month users to higher-LTV annual contracts. Confirm that annual LTV exceeds monthly LTV × churn rate before offering the discount. 3. **Usage-based add-on** — Introduce a metered component (API calls, seats, storage) that allows high-usage customers to expand spend without a plan change. Tests whether there is latent willingness to pay above the current plan ceiling in the highest-value cohort. 4. **Freemium penny-gap bridge** — If freemium users exist, do not ask them to pay the full upgrade price. Instead, offer a time-limited trial of paid features at no cost, then convert at the end of trial. The first dollar collected after free trial is dramatically easier than asking for the first dollar from a free user who has never seen paid features. Reference: 7 Minute Workout app — switching to free + in-app pro upgrade produced 300% revenue increase despite 97% of users paying nothing. **E-commerce experiments:** 1. **Bundle pricing** — Package two or three complementary items at a price lower than the sum of parts. Tests whether perceived value increase drives basket size without eroding margin. Start with item combinations most frequently purchased together (Jaccard similarity from purchase data). 2. **Free-shipping threshold** — Set a free-shipping minimum just above the current average order value. Tests whether customers will add one more item to cross the threshold, raising average order value. 3. **Recommendation-driven upsell** — Surface "frequently bought with this" recommendations at cart stage. Start with items where co-purchase rate in data exceeds 15%. Track revenue-per-session for the recommendation variant vs. control. **Ad-revenue experiments:** 1. **Engagement-driven inventory expansion** — Identify product surfaces with high engagement but no current ad inventory. Add inventory and measure CPM and user retention impact together (not inventory alone). 2. **Direct-sold vs. programmatic mix shift** — Test whether moving a percentage of inventory from programmatic to direct-sold increases effective CPM. Start with the highest-engagement pages, where advertiser willingness to pay direct premium is highest. --- ### Step 7 — Apply Pricing Relativity and Flag Pitfalls Before finalizing any pricing experiment, apply three checks: **Pricing relativity check (three-tier anchor):** Does the current pricing structure present options in a way that makes the target tier appear to be good value? If there are only two tiers (free and paid), add a middle or high tier to anchor perception before running the conversion experiment. The middle tier creates contrast; contrast creates perceived value. **Penny gap check:** Is the experiment asking free users to pay a first dollar? If yes, the primary experiment lever should be a time-limited paid feature trial, not a direct price offer. The resistance between $0 and $0.01 is disproportionately high relative to any subsequent price increase. Convert free users to paid trials; convert trial users to subscribers. **Reactive price cut warning:** If the instinct is to lower prices to increase volume, require a test first. The Qualaroo case is the canonical counter-example: the hypothesis that lower prices would drive more upgrades failed. The hypothesis that higher prices would attract better customers succeeded three times in sequence. In B2B and professional services markets, price functions as a quality signal. Lowering price can actively suppress demand from the target segment. Always test; never assume elasticity. **Personalization backfire check:** If any experiment uses behavioral data to deliver personalized pricing or recommendations, apply the Target test: would a reasonable user find this recommendation intrusive if they discovered how it was generated? Personalized recommendations that feel natural increase revenue; recommendations that feel like surveillance can permanently damage trust and revenue. Test personalization experiments with explicit user consent framing where the data source is sensitive. --- ### Step 8 — Rank and Emit Outputs **What:** Rank all proposed experiments by expected impact on revenue per retained user. Emit two output documents. **Ranking criteria (in order):** 1. Size of the cohort affected (larger cohorts = higher potential impact) 2. Proximity to a confirmed pinch point in the funnel (known leakage = higher confidence) 3. Speed of signal (experiments that produce a clean revenue signal in 2–4 weeks rank above experiments requiring 8+ weeks of accumulation) 4. Reversibility (experiments where the control can be fully restored rank above permanent pricing changes) **Output 1: `monetization-experiment-backlog.md`** One row per experiment with: experiment name, hypothesis, primary metric, cohort affected, estimated signal timeline, ranking, and pitfall flags (penny gap / reactive cut / personalization). **Output 2: `revenue-cohort-analysis.md`** One section per archetype cohort with: cohort definition, current revenue contribution, characteristics of the segment (acquisition source, feature usage, time-to-revenue), and the specific experiments from the backlog that target this cohort. --- ## Key Principles 1. **Monetize retained users, not churning ones.** Pricing experiments on a churning base produce short-term revenue at the cost of permanent LTV damage. Confirm the retention curve is stable before any pricing work. 2. **Cohort revenue beats aggregate revenue for diagnosis.** A single ARPU number hides the distribution. The distribution reveals where experiments should focus. 3. **Pricing relativity — three tiers make the middle look reasonable and the top look like a bargain.** The decoy tier's job is not to sell; its job is to reframe. Never run a freemium-to-paid conversion experiment without a three-tier structure already in place. 4. **Lower price does not always mean more volume.** In technology and professional services, price functions as a quality signal. Test the elasticity assumption before cutting. The Qualaroo pattern (raise prices, get better customers) is more common than teams expect. 5. **Penny gap is real — free-to-paid friction is disproportionate.** The distance between $0 and $0.01 is not $0.01 psychologically. Bridge it with a paid feature trial, not a direct price ask. 6. **Personalization drives revenue until it feels invasive.** Amazon's recommendation engine increases revenue. Target's pregnancy model destroyed trust. The line is whether the user perceives the recommendation as helpful or surveillance. Test personalization experiments on segments where the data source is non-sensitive first. --- ## Examples ### Example 1 — SaaS Three-Tier Restructure **Situation:** A B2B SaaS product has two plans: Free (0) and Pro ($49/month). Free-to-Pro upgrade rate is 2.1%. The team's instinct is to lower Pro to $29. **This skill's process:** - Cohort segmentation shows that 80% of Pro revenue comes from teams using 3+ seats. Single-seat users churn at 2× the rate of multi-seat users. - Pricing relativity check: two tiers provide no anchor. The jump from $0 to $49 feels uncalibrated. - Proposed restructure: Starter ($29/mo, 1 seat, limited features), Pro ($49/mo, 5 seats, full features), Team ($99/mo, 15 seats + admin + API). The Team tier anchors Pro as the obvious middle choice. - Penny gap bridge: add a 14-day full-feature trial before asking for payment. - Experiment 1: A/B test three-tier page vs. two-tier page. Primary metric: upgrade rate from free. Expected signal: 3 weeks. - Reactive cut warning applied: Do not lower Pro to $29 until the restructure test runs. Qualaroo's experience suggests price sensitivity may be lower than assumed. **Expected outcome:** The three-tier structure increases Pro upgrade rate. The Team tier qualifies enterprise conversations the two-tier structure was not having. --- ### Example 2 — E-commerce Bundle Optimization **Situation:** An e-commerce app sells meal-prep ingredients. Average order value is $38. Free shipping is offered at $50. Cohort analysis shows that mid- spenders ($100–$300/year) make up 60% of customers but only 28% of revenue. High-spenders (>$300/year) make up 12% of customers and 54% of revenue. **This skill's process:** - High-spender profile: acquired via recipe content channel, purchase 3+ items per order, use the "meal plan" feature, first purchase within 7 days of signup. - Funnel pinch point: 45% of carts are abandoned at payment. Average abandoned cart value is $33 — just below the free-shipping threshold. - Experiment 1: Surface a "add $12 more for free shipping" prompt in cart for carts between $30–$48. Tests whether the threshold drives upsell without requiring a price change. Primary metric: average order value for carts in that range. - Experiment 2: Bundle top-3 co-purchased items (Jaccard co-purchase rate >20%) as a "starter kit" at $42 — above free-shipping threshold. Tests whether bundle reduces decision friction and drives first purchase above threshold. - Personalization check: recommendations based on purchase history are low- risk. Recommendations based on demographic inference (age, household composition) require explicit data disclosure. **Expected outcome:** Free-shipping threshold prompt increases average order value for the $30–$48 cart bracket by 15–25%. Bundle reduces decision time and improves conversion for new users. --- ## References - Ellis, Sean and Brown, Morgan. *Hacking Growth.* Chapter 8: Monetization. Crown Business, 2017. - Ariely, Dan. *Predictably Irrational.* The Economist subscription pricing experiment (decoy/anchor effect). - Kopelman, Josh. "The Penny Gap." (Venture capital blog post; referenced in Ellis & Brown Chapter 8.) - Cialdini, Robert. *Influence.* Price-as-quality-signal principle (referenced in Ellis & Brown Chapter 8). - Reichheld, Fred. "Prescription for Cutting Costs." Bain & Company (5% retention = 25–95% profit uplift formula, Chapter 7 context). --- ## License Content derived from *Hacking Growth* (Ellis & Brown) under fair use for educational commentary. Skill text licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0. Pipeline code MIT. --- ## Related BookForge Skills Install the prerequisite and companion skills: ``` clawhub install bookforge-retention-phase-intervention-selector ``` Prerequisite — retention must be stable before monetization experiments begin. ``` clawhub install bookforge-growth-experiment-prioritization-scorer ``` Score the monetization experiment backlog using ICE (Impact, Confidence, Ease) to sequence the backlog across sprint cycles. ``` clawhub install bookforge-north-star-metric-selector ``` The monetization North Star (revenue per retained user) may differ from the growth North Star (new user acquisition). Confirm alignment before running experiments.


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