"A La Carte" pricing structure change?

[Grump35953]

I've noticed that there's a new structure for the per-shoot charge for members like me who just buy the shoots that catch their eye instead of getting a monthly plan. They used to be $2.49 US regardless of format. Now, G/G shoots are $3.49 US, up $1...but solo shoots stayed the same and IM shoots (both single-model shoots and DIMs) are $1.49 US. (I didn't mind paying $1 less for Juliana and Katharina, mind you. ) Can anyone at AWHQ give any insight as to why this was changed? I'm not mad, I'm not going to storm away in a huff, but I am curious. Thanks.

[garionhall]

When we first released pay-per-scene (PPS), we set the prices of all scenes to be the same. It's been on the list for a while to enable variable scene pricing, to reflect what it costs us to produce a scene.

It makes sense to charge more for scenes that cost as more to produce, and less for those which cost us less to produce.

in the future, we may work more on this, have more flexible pricing by time period (for example, IM's are cheaper on our lowest-traffic days, to spread the load on our servers out; or "It's Chloe B week, all her scenes are 99 cents!" promotions). Or we may not.

[Lebojan]

You could give a permanent 50 % discount to all old scenes with low resolution only ...

[garionhall]

indeed, there are many possible price variations.

For now, we're going to let these changes settle and see how they work.

[havijack]

I agree with Lebojan, although I don't mind paying the extra $1 for new g/g hardcore video's (especially those with the increased video quality), I do sort of mind paying extra for any g/g video's I find that are 2/3/4 or more years old, maybe these could have stayed at the old rate of $2.49.

Don't worry, just like Grump35953 I'm not going to run away as AW is the best porn site I've come across for a long time (and yes I've tried a few).

[Grump35953]

Garion, thanks for the reply. I thought it might have been pricing based on demand - assuming the G/G shoots are the most popular - but your explanation makes a lot of sense. I also like the idea of sales - "All G/G just $2.49! All ginger solo shoots just $1.99! All Mirai shoots"...oh, wait, I have them all already.

I did think at first that I'd be buying a few less G/G shoots...but I buy a lot of IMs and DIMs, so it'll level out anyway.

And I'll join in with the general chorus of not wanting to be charged more for older shoots, especially the earliest ones with bad resolution.

[AarontheMoor]

Interesting that you're pricing based on cost rather than on value. Have you considered a pricing model that charges partially based on popularity? A historical analysis of tags would help you set prices based on the attributes that are most highly demanded. I'm guessing a tattoo-laden brunette model generates less revenue than a blonde model with pubic hair. You could set prices using the AW-assigned set of attributes that appear before a shoot is released.

To combine this with pricing based on cost, start with your base price. Then + (10c * most popular attributes) - (5c * least popular attributes). To determine which attributes fall into which category requires an analysis of the last year's sales vs. each tag, which is something you could do once to set pricing, then check after one month to see how it impacts sales.

[Frans]

I'd be careful pricing shoots on popularity. Changing prices based on age or video-quality (tech) is fine, but I wouldn't want a model to see her shoot valued less than one from another model. That'd be just not nice

[AarontheMoor]

Yeah, I figured that would be the concern. But arguably, pricing based on attributes are a step removed from popularity pricing. Anyway, there's tons I don't know about the business and the customers that could invalidate my suggestion; I just happen to like dynamic pricing. But most people don't - consider Uber surge pricing which I see as a greater way to ensure I get a ride but most people see as price gouging.