SSubida Skills

Esc to close · results from all notes, skills and people

Mobile apps›Monetization

Setting your first subscription price

Start higher than feels comfortable — Ravi Mehta's $20–30/month "high waterline" doubles as a PMF test — then anchor on competitors, cost-plus-perceived-value (AI apps), ROAS/payback math and the value of the user's whole problem; text-AI wrappers cluster at $30–40/year, niche custom-prompt chat apps get $20+/month.

Updated 2026-10-24·4 sources·monetizationpricingproduct-market-fitai-apps

Setting your first subscription price

TL;DR

  • Founders under-monetise. Someone using your app is already highly motivated; start with a “high waterline” (e.g. $20–30/month where the market frames that price) and optimise down/around it.
  • If nobody pays at a market-framed price, you have a PMF problem, not a pricing problem — paying is the most revealing PMF signal.
  • Price against the value of the whole system the user is in: Tinder whales spending $100+/month saw it as cheap vs $400 for a couple of dates.
  • Practical inputs (Vahe Bagdasarian): competitors’ prices; a ROAS-positive / ~1-month-payback price from your CAC; for AI apps, per-user cost + perceived-value margin; optional Van Westendorp survey later.
  • Market anchors (Jonathan Parra, early 2026): text-AI wrapper apps ~$29.99–40/year; image/video AI higher; niche custom-prompt chat apps charge $20–22/month.
  • Non-round prices can feel more honest: $3.33/month (≈ $40/yr) reads as “$3” yet earns more than $2.99.

Details

High waterline. Ravi Mehta argues users have endless alternatives, so if they’re in your app they’re motivated and have willingness to pay; set the first tier high ($20–30/month framing), not a system of $1 items that needs extreme engagement for decent ARPU. If no one will pay that where the market already frames such prices, work on PMF.12 Jacob Eiting adds: pricing in the market at a competitive rate is the best way to measure PMF; early founders often think “it’s not worth that much yet”.3

Price the system, not the feature. Tinder found Platinum-type users rationalised $100–200/month because dates cost $400; think about the value of the system around the need, not “$20 because everyone charges $20”.4 Under-priced examples cited: Granola (Ravi uses it daily, never paid — vs Wispr Flow’s paid trial), Riverside ($100–200/month vs RevenueCat’s ~$100 mics per guest).56 Scanner apps make real money by layering workflow value (storage, OCR, sharing) on a commodity scan — Adobe’s scanner app ~$6.3M/month per David Barnard.7

Vahe’s methods. (1) Copy competitor price points (most common); (2) if running paid UA, compute the price that keeps you ROAS-positive or pays back within about a month at current conversion; (3) for compute-heavy AI products, estimate annual cost per user (e.g. $20) and add perceived value (e.g. to $40/year); (4) price-sensitivity surveys are optional when starting. Then run price tests.8910

AI app anchors. Parra: $30–40/year is standard for text-inference AI wrappers; $29.99/year became the copied market price that’s still profitable. Image/video generation costs more, so prices are higher.1112 A niche chat app billing $20–22/month works because its prompt and flow are tailored to one problem — users pay for the “custom prompt” and not having to build it; apps targeting an insecurity (looksmaxxing, dating-reply apps) can charge most.1314

Charm pricing. Vahe: $14.99 usually beats $15 in A/B tests, but consumers increasingly see .99 as a trick; an odd number like $3.33 feels authentic. Joseph Choi’s math: $3.33/month ×12 = ~$40/year vs $36 at $2.99 — $4 more per user to spend on ads.1516

Start simple. BoldVoice launched with just ~$10/month + 7-day trial to keep focus on product; today it leads with ~$150/year.17

Disagreements / caveats

  • Ravi’s $20–30 waterline suits high-value problems (dating, health, careers); Parra’s AI-wrapper anchors are ~$3/month — category and perceived value dominate.
  • Apple shows the billed amount most prominently; odd monthly breakdowns are secondary display (How many plans to show and how to display prices).

See also

Footnotes

  1. How Tinder Captures More Value With Tiered Pricing and Consumables — Ravi Mehta @ 22:06 — Ravi Mehta ↩

  2. How Tinder Captures More Value With Tiered Pricing and Consumables — Ravi Mehta @ 23:31 — Ravi Mehta ↩

  3. How Tinder Captures More Value With Tiered Pricing and Consumables — Ravi Mehta @ 26:24 — Jacob Eiting ↩

  4. How Tinder Captures More Value With Tiered Pricing and Consumables — Ravi Mehta @ 26:24 — Ravi Mehta ↩

  5. How Tinder Captures More Value With Tiered Pricing and Consumables — Ravi Mehta @ 23:31 — Ravi Mehta, David Barnard ↩

  6. How Tinder Captures More Value With Tiered Pricing and Consumables — Ravi Mehta @ 25:04 — Jacob Eiting ↩

  7. How Tinder Captures More Value With Tiered Pricing and Consumables — Ravi Mehta @ 27:59 — David Barnard ↩

  8. Our No-Code Apps Made $50M Using THIS Paywall @ 36:47 — Vahe Bagdasarian ↩

  9. Our No-Code Apps Made $50M Using THIS Paywall @ 37:38 — Vahe Bagdasarian ↩

  10. Our No-Code Apps Made $50M Using THIS Paywall @ 38:28 — Vahe Bagdasarian ↩

  11. I made 4,000 app paywalls and learned this @ 14:32 — Jonathan Parra ↩

  12. I made 4,000 app paywalls and learned this @ 20:39 — Jonathan Parra ↩

  13. I made 4,000 app paywalls and learned this @ 22:13 — Jonathan Parra ↩

  14. I made 4,000 app paywalls and learned this @ 23:23 — Jonathan Parra ↩

  15. Our No-Code Apps Made $50M Using THIS Paywall @ 30:37 — Vahe Bagdasarian ↩

  16. Our No-Code Apps Made $50M Using THIS Paywall @ 31:49 — Joseph Choi ↩

  17. Why BoldVoice charged from day 1 and ignored the Duolingo freemium playbook — Anada Lakra @ 14:35 — Anada Lakra ↩