Pricing is the one decision founders are most uncertain about and most likely to wing.
I almost winged it. I had $99 on the deck for 4 weeks. My advisors said $149. My gut said $89.
Then I ran a survey. The survey said $129. I went with the data. This post is the methodology and the math, so you can run it yourself.
The survey design
Single question. Seven price points. 800 respondents.
The question: "Would you pay [PRICE] per month for the ENCORE Studio tier described below."
The description: 4 sentences describing the Studio tier features. Library Mode. Twin Mode 30 minutes a month. Brand Brain v2. Analytics + AI scheduling. Multi-format export.
The price points: $29, $49, $79, $99, $129, $149, $199.
Each respondent saw one price (random assignment). They answered yes or no.
Sample size per price point: about 115 respondents.
The raw conversion data
Here is what came back:
- $29: 89% yes
- $49: 82% yes
- $79: 73% yes
- $99: 67% yes
- $129: 63% yes
- $149: 51% yes
- $199: 34% yes
A founder reading this might say "set the price at $29, you get 89% conversion." That is the wrong math.
The right math is expected revenue per visitor: price multiplied by conversion rate.
The expected revenue per visitor curve
Same data, multiplied through:
- $29 × 89% = $25.81
- $49 × 82% = $40.18
- $79 × 73% = $57.67
- $99 × 67% = $66.33
- $129 × 63% = $81.27
- $149 × 51% = $75.99
- $199 × 34% = $67.66
The curve peaks at $129.
This is the price where you make the most expected revenue per visitor to the pricing page. Below $129, you are leaving margin on the table. Above $129, you are losing too many conversions.
The decision was easy once the curve was visible.
Why this matters
Three reasons the methodology is worth the 36 hours it took to run.
One. Founders are notoriously bad at pricing intuition. The investors in my round had wildly different recommendations ($89 to $199). My own gut was $89. The data was $129. The data was right.
Two. The math compounds fast. The difference between $99 and $129 is 22% more expected revenue per visitor. Over a year, that is the difference between $1.2M ARR and $1.46M ARR for the same audience and same product. A 36-hour survey added $260k of expected ARR for free.
Three. It de-risks the launch. I now know the price is in the optimal zone. If I had launched at $99 and the data said $129, I would have either lost $260k of ARR or had to do a public price increase later (which is hard).
What the survey did not tell me
Three honest limitations.
The survey overestimates conversion. People say they will pay more than they actually pay. Real conversion at $129 will be lower than the survey's 63%. I expect 25 to 35%. The expected revenue curve still peaks at $129 even after that haircut.
The survey is at a moment in time. As competitors enter, the curve will shift. I will rerun the survey at month 6 and month 12.
The survey does not capture annual vs monthly preference. I added an annual tier ($1,290 for the year, a 17% discount) based on a separate analysis. The annual tier is now 28% of new sign-ups in the private beta.
The full operator story behind these decisions is in the 11 weeks post.
The marketing implication
The 63% number is the marketing line.
Every time we say "63% of surveyed creators pick Studio," we are anchoring to the data. It is a defensible claim. It is also a strong social proof signal because the implied math is clear.
Most pricing claims you see ("most popular," "best value") are unsubstantiated. Ours is the actual survey conversion at the actual price.
This builds trust. Creators do not feel like they are being upsold. They feel like they are joining a clear majority that already made the call.
The other tier math
Three tiers, all set by data, not by gut.
Pro at $29. This is the conversion ceiling tier for creators who are unwilling to commit to Studio without trying the product. We expect 30% of Pro signups to upgrade to Studio within 90 days. That is the bet.
Studio at $129. The expected-revenue-maximizing tier.
Agency at $349. Set by interview data with the 22 agency leads. They averaged $400 to $600 a month as their "what would you pay" answer. We anchored at $349 to leave room for per-seat add-ons.
The Agency tier features detail is here.
What this implies for your purchase decision
If you are debating Studio versus Pro, the math says Studio for most creators.
The 90-second ship time, the Twin Mode access, the Brand Brain v2 access, the AI scheduling. Each one is a feature creators in the survey valued highly. The composite is what makes Studio the right call for most creators in our ICP.
If you are a casual creator (less than 3 posts a week), Pro is fine. If you are shipping 5+ posts a week or running multiple channels, Studio pays back in week 1.
See the pricing page for the full feature breakdown.
What to do with this
Three things.
If you are a founder pricing your product: run the survey. Seven price points. 100+ per point. The 36 hours pay back forever.
If you are an ENCORE evaluator on Pro thinking about Studio: the math says upgrade. The break-even is at 4 to 6 hours of saved time per month. Most creators hit that in the first week.
If you are on the waitlist: the cap closes at 10,000. After that, the price might rise (we will rerun the survey). Right now $129 is the locked anchor.
Reserve your spot → or start the 14-day Studio trial when access opens.