Your most expensive plan is for a team of 40-100 people. For the sake of simplicity, you are talking about a team that is costing a company a minimum of say $1,200,000 a year (assuming $15/hr FTE's) and you are asking them to pay you $300 a year for a tool they are supposed to use throughout the day.
Why have you built such a low value tool?
Take your prices and multiply by 10 and you are probably at a more correct pricing strategy if you are selling to businesses.
How important is it, really, for everyone to know what everyone else is doing at every moment. I see two issues:
1) Daily stand-ups are adequate to communicate what I'm working on each day. Updates more often than that become noise.
2) The issue/task tracking system will let me see who, if anyone, is working on a particular issue. I more often care about who is working on issue X (if X is blocking me, for example) than I care about what Joe is working on right now.
The value here, IMHO, is that this leaves an artifact behind of what's been done in a way that stand ups, at least the way I've experienced them, doesn't.
The "realtime" aspect of it is less important than it seems at first. Our team, for example, updates 3-4 times a day on average, sometimes a bit more if we're just jumping from project to project to cleanup bugs or do general maintenance.
The fact that we've positioned this as a status board just reinforces that perception - that seems to be a common sentiment, and something we're going to have to consider again.
Basecamp, which seems to do a whole lot more than this app, charges $20 a month for a 13 person team (limited to 10 active projects). I never looked at the product at any point in it's existence and made me wonder if they were going to go out business at any moment over that kind of pricing.
Thanks for the feedback. We're still working through the pricing model, but we erred on the side of making it easy to get on board. I hadn't thought about it the way you put it, though, so we may re-evaluate this sooner than later.
The other aspect of this is that we have other features coming that we expect to be able to charge more for. Complicating the pricing matrix was something we're concerned about, but we were thinking something like Github's two-tier pricing model when we got those features out.
But, like I said, the way you explained it was not a perspective I had considered. Thanks for the feedback, was helpful.
But that's like $30 per user per per month, no? (i only saw ONE pricing plan when i opened the link earlier). So that's $360 per user per year. at a team of 50 people, that's $18,000 per year. That's not exactly "cheap" you know...
We changed the pricing page last night (and added a note about it being something actively being thought about). However, it's not $30/u/mon but $3. That puts us in between services like Hipchat and idonethis. I'm compiling a more thorough spreadsheet of competitors in the space and how they break down. Lots of different price points in this space.
Your most expensive plan is for a team of 40-100 people. For the sake of simplicity, you are talking about a team that is costing a company a minimum of say $1,200,000 a year (assuming $15/hr FTE's) and you are asking them to pay you $300 a year for a tool they are supposed to use throughout the day.
Why have you built such a low value tool?
Take your prices and multiply by 10 and you are probably at a more correct pricing strategy if you are selling to businesses.