Recommend · Assess & Decide · Analysis & Finance
Skim, penetration, or neutral launch-pricing strategy
I get a defensible launch-pricing call (skim, penetration, or neutral) that follows from an explicit read of the decision factors, so the strategy is not a guess.
You receive: A JSON object { recommendation, factors: [{ factor, assessment, favors }] } where recommendation is one of skim / penetration / neutral.
Part of Set My Price
Example
A sample of what this play produces. Your result is generated for your inputs.
penetration
Factors
| Factor | Assessment | Favors |
|---|---|---|
| cost-structure | STUD's modeled gross margin is about 87% (estimated, 85 to 90% at launch prices): a play costs 250 to 1,000 credits ($10 to $40, most plays 500 credits or $20) against a $0.04 credit peg, so marginal delivery cost is a small fraction of the price of a play. A low-marginal-cost structure means volume at a low price still yields contribution, the classic penetration precondition. | penetration |
| economies-of-scale | The product compounds with use: every run leaves the workspace knowing more, and the 265-play catalog amortizes authoring cost across every buyer. Unit economics improve with adoption, so buying share early with price is rewarded. | penetration |
| segment-price-sensitivity | The target buyer is a solo or early-stage founder staying small on purpose. This segment is highly price sensitive: the reference alternatives are a $20/mo chat assistant or their own unpaid time. A skim price above that anchor would exclude most of the segment; the 500-credit pack ($20, and purchased credits never expire) sits deliberately at the anchor, so the typical play costs what one month of the alternative does. | penetration |
| competitive-response-threat | The nearest competitors, general-purpose AI chat assistants, already price at roughly $20/mo and can bundle agentic features quickly. A skim price invites them to frame STUD as an expensive wrapper; a penetration price at their anchor neutralizes that response and forces competition onto the living-system mechanism (workspace facts, structured deliverables, acceptance checks) where STUD differentiates. | penetration |
| capacity-constraints | Fulfillment is currently concierge: one founder-operator with roughly 30 plays/week of capacity (illustrative launch scenario). A hard near-term capacity ceiling is the one factor that argues for skimming: pricing high rations scarce capacity to the highest-value buyers while supply automation matures. | skim |
| product-differentiation | STUD is differentiated (a living system that knows the business, does the work, and learns from every result) but the category is young and buyers cannot yet verify that difference before purchase. Real but not-yet-provable differentiation supports a neutral, value-parity price rather than a premium. | neutral |
Opens soon
Cost50 credits
ProtectionSpent when the run starts · returned only if STUD is at fault
STUD opens runs for everyone soon, on every play at once.
Get early access to STUD the day it goes live.