Founders who haven't launched yet — did you have a pricing method, or did you pick a number and hope?
I'm pre-launch and genuinely stuck on this one. I keep opening the pricing page, typing a number, deleting it, and closing the tab. Every framework I read says something different and most of them assume you already have customers to test against, which I don't yet.
So I'm trying to figure out something basic: is "figure out pricing properly after launch, just ship with a guess for now" the normal, sane move — or is it a trap that quietly costs you later because you anchor everyone to the wrong number?
For those of you who've launched: did you actually have a method for landing on your first price, or did you pick something that felt right and adjust later? And if you adjusted — was it easy, or did the early number stick to you in ways you didn't expect?
Not looking for "charge more" (I've read that thread). More curious about how you actually decided, when you had nothing to go on.
I’d avoid treating the first price as one test, because a “no” can mean three different things: wrong audience, unclear value, or genuine price resistance. I’d use three gates: first qualify that the prospect has the problem now; then ask them to restate the promised outcome before showing price; only then show the same fixed-scope pilot at systematically rotated prices. If they cannot restate the value, discard that result as price evidence. What product, buyer, and urgent outcome are you pricing?
Going with "pick a number and hope" honestly — though in my case it's more "give it away free and figure out monetization later." StackPilot (AI tools directory) launches July 29th, free at launch, with affiliate revenue as the first real signal before I think about pricing anything directly. Curious if anyone here regrets not pricing from day one vs. validating free first.
The free-at-launch route sidesteps my exact problem but probably trades it for a different one. you skip the "what number do I pick" paralysis, but you defer the harder question — will these people pay anything — until you've got a base of users who signed up precisely because it was free. that's a tough crowd to later convert, since "free" was part of why they came.
affiliate revenue as the first signal is interesting though, because it tells you something real (people clicked through and bought) without you having to set a price at all. but it's measuring a different thing than direct willingness-to-pay — someone happily using a free directory and clicking an affiliate link hasn't told you they'd pay you for the directory itself. those can point in opposite directions.
So I guess my honest answer to your question: I don't think it's regret-or-not, it's that free-first and price-first are answering different questions. free-first asks "does anyone want this." price-first asks "is this worth money to them." you're choosing which uncertainty to resolve first. which one's actually keeping you up at night for StackPilot — whether people want it, or whether they'd pay?
Honestly, neither framing quite fits, because StackPilot was never going to charge users directly — it's free, monetized through affiliate commission on the tools we recommend, not a subscription. So "would they pay me" isn't really the question.
What's actually keeping me up: will people trust a recommendation enough to click through and buy. That's closer to your willingness-to-pay axis than to "does anyone want this," because clicking an affiliate link is a real commitment of attention and trust, not just a free signup. Right now that number is small and I'm watching it closely rather than treating traffic as the win. If people show up, browse, and never click through on anything, that tells me the badges/accuracy angle isn't actually earning trust — it's just a nicer-looking list.
I think the bigger decision isn't choosing the "right" price—it's deciding what evidence you want your first price to generate. An initial price is partly revenue, but it's also an experiment. If it helps you learn who buys, who hesitates, and why, it's done its job even if you change it later. The real trap is picking a number without knowing what question you're trying to answer.
This reframes it in a way I hadn't — price as the thing generating evidence, not just the thing capturing revenue. which means a "wrong" price that teaches you something beats a "right" one that tells you nothing.
the part I'm chewing on: how do you actually read the evidence cleanly pre-launch? if I set it at X and three people balk, I can't tell whether X is too high, or those three were never my buyers, or the value just isn't landing yet. the price moved but I've got four possible explanations and no way to separate them. did you have a way of designing the first price so the signal came back legible — like deliberately pricing to test one specific question at a time — or is it just messier than that early on and you accept the noise?
That's exactly the distinction I was thinking about.
Reading your reply, I think there's one strategic business decision sitting underneath that question which becomes much more significant as the product develops, but I don't think I can do the reasoning behind it justice in a thread.
Happy to explain what I mean if it's useful. What's the best email to reach you?
Appreciate that — but honestly I'd rather keep it here if you're up for it, half the value of these threads is everyone else reading the reasoning too. what's the strategic decision you're pointing at? even a couple of sentences would probably land, and if it sparks a longer thing we can figure that out from there.
The strategic decision isn't what price to launch with.
It's deciding what kind of evidence your business will trust when making pricing decisions.
Those lead to very different pricing strategies, even if the starting price is identical.
I don't think I can do that distinction justice in a couple of sentences because the reasoning is the important part, not the conclusion.
If you're open to it, I'm happy to send the full reasoning by email.
This comment was deleted 3 months ago