2

I'm selling three major products on my website. I just recently encountered an issue, however, with how to display the pricing for one of the three products. Two of the three products are easily represented by the pattern $0.00/freq.

The third product, though, is for 5/10ths of a dollar per Megabyte, so: $0.005/mb. The problem is I think that looks good. Here are my attempts thus far:

Attempt 1 - $0.005/mb

Using $0.005/mb

The problem: I don't like how different it looks from the other prices. It doesn't fit in at all.

Attempt 2 - ¢0.5/mb

Using ¢0.5/mb

The problem: While I feel like this is one of the cleanest representations, I feel like it could give people the wrong impression because it also doesn't match the pricing for the products. I think they'll think it says it's $0.50/mb which is 100x higher priced which could scare potential customers away.

Attempt 3 - ¢1/2/mb

Using ¢1/2/mb

The problem: I feel like this one definitely represents it better, but with the per mb below it already, it just makes it look weird like some odd un-simplified fraction.

Attempt 4 - $0.01/2 mb

Using $0.01/2 mb

The problem: After writing up the issue with the last one, I realized maybe I could simplify the expression. I like it, but I think having a frequency that is more than singular could get slightly confusing. I haven't had much time to think about this one so I would certainly like your thoughts on it.

Is there a standard way to handle this kind of representation or do any of you have a clever way that this could work. Do you think one of my methods actually conveys it correctly? Thanks!

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Typically, when you see these sorts of pay charts, you are given pricing relative to the same format. For example, here is what Font Icons uses:

enter image description here

This has the benefit of being easy for a user to internalize and compare since it's one scale with one unit of measurement. In your scenario it's not possible to have one scale since pricing is based on a timeframe and on a capacity. So instead you can at least give the user a single unit of measurement: dollars. Now you can also improve the user's comprehension of your plans by making Product 2 and Product 3 share the same timescale, either months or yearly. Suddenly you're left with the simplest possible system where you have the minimum of 2 scales and only 1 unit of measurement. It would look something like:

mockup

download bmml source – Wireframes created with Balsamiq Mockups

I also increased your mb count because it's easier for people to calculate long-term costs using powers of 10.

Improve this answer
4
  • 2
    While from a UX perspective I like increasing the mb to 10 for better formatting, it may have problematic business implications. He charges on a per mb basis not per 10mb, if the user uses 11mb they might think they'll only get charged for 10mb or perhaps rounded up to 20mb, neither of which is correct.
    – DasBeasto
    Aug 14, 2015 at 16:18
  • 2
    I only formatted it that way because in one of his examples he changed the value to 2mb, so I am assuming it is an acceptable change. If there really was a business concern, however, it could be remedied by a disclaimer or explanation on the purchase screen.
    – tonytrucco
    Aug 14, 2015 at 16:21
  • 2
    Yah it can be remedied with even a simple "charged per mb" subtext somewhere, just pointing it out as something to be weary of +1
    – DasBeasto
    Aug 14, 2015 at 16:22
  • Oh, I love your idea of doing it in powers of 10. Also, I'll definitely be switching the other two products to months now. That was also a great idea.
    – Freesnöw
    Aug 14, 2015 at 17:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.