The problem with mobile apps priced at $99 is price anchoring. If every other app on the app store is $1 - $10, then putting yours at $99 is going to make you seem really expensive.
Its like here in the UK, Marks and Spencer Food (a premium food supermarket) doesn't compete on price with ASDA, Tesco, Sainsbury's etc, because they'd lose, instead their ads are Dine in, for two, £10 [1], which is meant to make you compare it to a restaurant, because then it feels like a very good deal. Its all about context.
Search for Rory Sutherland on YouTube [2], absolute genius, he talks about this kind of thing as well as other absolutely brilliant ways to apply behavioral economics to advertising and business.
> Its like here in the UK, Marks and Spencer Food (a premium food supermarket) doesn't compete on price with ASDA, Tesco, Sainsbury's etc, because they'd lose, instead their ads are Dine in, for two, £10 [1], which is meant to make you compare it to a restaurant, because then it feels like a very good deal. Its all about context.
It "works", but I've never found those adverts convincing. People don't eat at a restaurant every day, and the food from a restaurant will be better than whatever M&S is offering.
It's best not to try and trick your customers into spending more money for an inferior product. It tends to backfire over the long term.
Its like here in the UK, Marks and Spencer Food (a premium food supermarket) doesn't compete on price with ASDA, Tesco, Sainsbury's etc, because they'd lose, instead their ads are Dine in, for two, £10 [1], which is meant to make you compare it to a restaurant, because then it feels like a very good deal. Its all about context.
Search for Rory Sutherland on YouTube [2], absolute genius, he talks about this kind of thing as well as other absolutely brilliant ways to apply behavioral economics to advertising and business.
[1] http://www.voucherexpress.co.uk/volatile/ProductBannerImage/... [2] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rory+sutherland