Pricing on ThoughtStreams started off unusually (at least for a site built by Eldarion)...

We offered three **annual** plans ($20/yr, $50/yr, $100/yr)  with initially no feature differentiation and with **no free trial**.

We were honest that, as an early user, you were basically help back the potential of this site.


----
Then after a year, we decided to test if switching to a **freemium model** would better pay for development.

The idea was that the free plan would be sufficient for trying it out but regular usage really needed a paid plan ($3/mo, $6/mo, $9/mo).

----
The freemium model has been less than successful so we're thinking about alternatives.

One thing is clear: we're **not interested in ad-based revenue**. We don't believe in building a great site to advertise on, we believe in building a great site for you to capture and share your thoughts.

I'm not sure I'm that interested in just replacing the freemium model with a **free trial** on the monthly plans.

There are two ideas I've seen elsewhere that intrigue me more.

----
One, which I have known about for a while, but of which I was reminded by early ThoughtStreams user, [Joel Dueck](https://thoughtstreams.io/joeld/), is the **one-off charge that increments by number of users**.

Pinboard has used this with much success.

Now, Pinboard charges $0.001 per user that preceded you and they're now up to $10.35 at the time I write this.

Some have expressed concerns about the linearity of this so one variant would be to go **logarithmic**.

Without any multiplicative constant, the natural log actually has some nice characteristics here. The tenth user would pay a one off $2.30, the hundredth $4.60, the thousandth $6.90 and so on.

Of course, this does raise the question of how people who have already paid more than this would feel. This site is what it is because of the great thoughts the early users have posted and I don't want to screw them in any way.

----
Another idea is **pay what you want (one-off) but if you pay more than the average, you unlock more features**.

This approach has always intrigued me and it seems a great way of letting the market set the price.

However, I have concerns as to whether it works on a constantly evolving site. What if you elected not to pay extra because none of the extra features at the time interested you but then we launch an extra feature you'd like.


----
Of course, even as I typed the above, I realized one way around that was you can opt-in at any time to **pay the difference** necessary to take your one-off payment above the average.


----
What do you think? What are your thoughts on where the pricing model should go?


----
As joeld [points out](https://thoughtstreams.io/joeld/thoughtstreams-pricing-models/4158/) one big difference between ThoughtStreams and Pinboard is that Pinboard was effectively a clone of a site people were familiar with but abandoning. In other words, Pinboard didn't really have to worry about people needing to try it first to "get it".

The same is true of App.net. People knew it was basically a Twitter clone that was subscription-based rather than ad-based so it was an easy sell for people looking for an ad-free alternative to Twitter.