• Science Says
  • Posts
  • Case Study Special: How I optimized Science Says sponsorship pricing

Case Study Special: How I optimized Science Says sponsorship pricing

How we optimized Science Says newsletter sponsorship pricing to make bigger package purchases more appealing.

Author

Thomas McKinlay
July 11, 2024

Topics: Pricing
For: B2B. Can be tested for B2C

👤 Question from

Myself! This is a Science Says special - a case study on how we apply the latest research to improve our own performance.

❓ Question

How can we optimize our newsletter sponsorship pricing?

Sponsorships in Science Says’ newsletter are booked out (almost) 2 months in advance. At the same time, we haven’t increased prices to reflect subscriber growth in quite some time.

So a change in pricing has been a long time coming.

But when my attention went to our sponsorship prices, I realized they were barely optimized with the latest scientific evidence. It was still largely the scrappy pricing model I used to ‘test things out’ when first offering sponsorships in the newsletter.

Until now there were two sponsorship slides.

Prices for a primary sponsorship (at the top of the newsletter):

Note: “Science Says” used to be called “Science Says“

And prices for a secondary sponsorship (in the middle of the newsletter):

Note: “Science Says” used to be called “Ariyh“

Not only is that information fragmented (in part because secondary sponsorships were introduced later), but there is little obvious reason to book more than 4 placements at a time. 

Bookings of larger packages means less time spent looking for or managing sponsors, and a lower risk of running empty placements. So it’s worth it to offer larger packages at a better price.

So how can we encourage that, and communicate it to make it as attractive as possible?

We dug in and found a solution, let’s go through it together.

🎓 Answer

It’s a high involvement purchase

Buying a sponsorship typically involves several thousands of dollars and calculations about whether the expected cost-per-click (CPC) aligns with the sponsor’s campaign and return on ad spend (ROAS).

That means it’s a relatively high involvement and calculated purchase. So techniques typically used for impulse purchases (e.g. easily divisible package prices) - are unlikely to have much effect.

Simplicity and convenience are key, to avoid overwhelming

There are also multiple choices happening at the same time: whether to book primary or secondary placements - and how many of each.

That means that one of the highest priorities, before anything else, is clarity and to avoid information overload. 

So we want to keep prices simple, for example by avoiding just-below (.99) prices (also most research on .99 prices is done on lower-priced items, their positive effect is likely much weaker in this situation). [Science Says insight]

Even, simple, numbers are easier to process, and people think of them as more fair. [Research paper] Rounded numbers also feel more convenient, which may reduce fears that the sponsorship will require a lot of time, or back and forth. To add to this, we’ll add a convenient CTA button too. [Research paper]

Now that we know the digits, let’s go to the actual numbers. And how to present them.

Anchors, decoys, and price sizes

We want to anchor people to a higher number, so we start by showing the highest price ($1000 for secondary placements, $2000 for primary), which is when someone books a single placement. [Research paper]

But we also want prices to seem as low as possible. To do so, we highlight the per unit price (how much each placement costs in a package), rather than the total cost of the package (for example, $7k for a package of 10 secondary placements). For the same - but inverse - reason, we highlight the savings of the bigger, most common packages.

For a similar reason, we start by showing the secondary placement prices (which are lower) on the left, and the primary placement prices on the right. This makes prices seem better. [Research paper]

We also don’t include any commas when writing the prices in thousands, and write the total prices as short as possible (e.g. “14k” for the Campaign sprint pack of 10 primary placements). This will make the prices seem smaller [Research paper]

People rarely choose extreme options, so we introduce an extreme ‘full year’ option of 50 placements. It’s very unlikely that a new sponsor will book this without first testing a campaign. But it comforts long-term sponsors to know the prices they can look forward to, and sandwiches between it the middle, moderate options - effectively making this a decoy option. [Research paper]

To further attract attention to the middle options (Testing bundle of 4 and Campaign sprint of 10), we highlight the savings they give and tag them showing how they are popular with others or great value - as powerful social proof [Science Says insight]

Add all of that up - and voila! Here is our new sponsorship pricing!

Note: “Science Says” used to be called “Aryih“

Of course, there are other possible options and inclusions we could have had. For example, we tried to use quantity-based discounts (e.g. buy 3 placements, get 1 free), but that greatly complicated calculations, especially if people wanted to mix and match primary and secondary placements - and we wanted to keep it as simple as possible. [Science Says insight] 

I hope you enjoyed this special! And if you ever want to sponsor Science Says just shoot me a message. As an Science Says Pro member, I will be sure to give you priority over other sponsors!

📖 Research cited

Remember: Peer-reviewed, scientific evidence is the best knowledge we have - by far. But that does not mean it is guaranteed to work in your situation. If it’s a risky change, always test it on a small scale before rolling it out widely.