What changed in our numbers after we simplified pricing and rewrote the hero

The 7% to 9.4% visit-to-signup improvement from simplifying pricing is interesting, but I think the bigger finding is hiding in the free-to-paid number.

2.8% free-to-paid means 97 out of every 100 signups never pay. That gap is usually not a pricing problem. It is a value-realization problem. The user signed up, poked around, and either did not reach the moment where the tool clicked for them, or hit a gate before they got there.

Two things that have moved that number for me in the past:

1. Instead of gating features, gate usage volume. Let everyone use the full product, then charge when they hit a threshold that proves they are getting value. If someone is actively using a feature enough to hit a limit, they already understand why they need it. That is a very different psychology than "pay to unlock something you have never tried."

2. The $20 to $90 jump works if the $90 plan maps to a different job-to-be-done, not just "more of the same." If $20 is individual analytics and $90 is team/agency analytics with client reporting, that is a natural expansion. If $90 is just higher limits on the same dashboard, most users will game the $20 tier instead.

On the hero rewrite: leading with outcome instead of description is correct. The acid test I use is whether the hero would still make sense if you deleted the product name. If it reads like a benefit someone would search for ("see where your revenue comes from"), it will perform. If it only makes sense with the product name attached, it is still a description wearing outcome clothing.

The hero rewrite lesson maps hard to mobile utilities: users need to know what action changes in the first five seconds. For Kinetic Override I’m testing plain wording like “record taps/swipes, replay timed loops, no-root Android 15+” instead of broad automation language.

Numbers are stronger than you're framing. 7% → 9.4% visit-to-signup × 1.9% → 2.8% free-to-paid = ~98% improvement in visit-to-paid conversion. That's doubling end-to-end conversion from positioning and pricing alone, not modest.

Upsell-offset question depends on category. Bottom-up prosumer SaaS (where you sit) — simplification wins because friction kills self-serve adoption. Lost upsell paths probably minor relative to conversion gains.

Extensions:

$20 → $90 jump is 4.5x. Mid-tier probably future revenue but right not to over-complicate now.

Free-to-paid is your biggest lever. 300 customers / $430 MRR means free dominant. Each 1% improvement in free-to-paid worth ~$430 MRR. Getting from 2.8% to 5% doubles revenue without adding a visitor.

"Removing friction > adding value" is the most under-appreciated lesson in bootstrap SaaS. Most founders default to building features. Clearer positioning + simpler pricing + better onboarding usually unlock more revenue.

What's your current free tier limit, and what's the most common feedback when users hit it?

Removing the annual toggle was the right call — at your stage the upfront cash doesn't offset the decision paralysis it adds before someone converts. On your question about whether simplification offsets the revenue hit: with $39 ARPU you're buying yourself a clean signal on what to optimize next, which is worth more than the slight compression. The harder thing coming up is that the hero and pricing are a one-time lift; the funnel grows new leaks as the product evolves and you typically don't notice for months. The recurring version of that problem is what I'm solving with Velyr — it sits on top of PostHog and opens one PR a week with the highest-impact fix it finds, you approve or reject on Telegram.