Mux.com pricing page improvements

Problem and context:

Conversion numbers were low for Mux.com’s pricing page. Anecdotal feedback from sales indicated that some visitors found our pricing confusing, and didn’t know what plan was appropriate. I was asked to provide some rapid improvements that could be experimented on that would drive up interaction for signups and sales outreach, which would hopefully increase conversion.

Key challenges:

Stakeholder alignment: Historically, the pricing page was notoriously challenging to get stakeholders to agree on messaging and how to move forward.
Setting expectations around “experimentation”: At the onset of this effort, the project sponsors expected that we would A/B test multiple pricing page designs, see results, and pick which one was the most successful. I had to set expectations that in the short amount of time we had, and the number of visitors, it would be nearly impossible to identify what actually “moved the needle,” not to mention the development time and costs that would be involved. Instead, I suggested we address a small set of prioritized problems 2 week cycles, measure with clear goals in mind, and iterate.

Approach:

Even though I had limited time to do any kind of research or data-gathering, I chose to do a quick scan of competitive and other SaaS pricing pages, in order to quickly get a sense of what worked well and what didn’t.

Because I couldn’t actually know which pages were successful, I developed some evaluation criteria:

If there are multiple plans offered, including a free trial, is it clear what’s included in each?
Are visitors able to get a general sense of what their total costs would be for their anticipated level of usage, including any optional add-ons?
Are there clear calls to action to get started and/or contact sales? Are any terms that might be unfamiliar explained?
Does the pricing page convey product value using content that appeals to both end users and decision makers?
Is the page designed in such a way that it’s not overwhelmingly dense with information, but uses design techniques such as progressive disclosure to optionally reveal more information?

At the same time, I did a series of internal interviews with sales, marketing and other stakeholders to really get at who we wanted the pricing page to speak to, and how we could better convey the value proposition of Mux.

I also worked with our analytics team to get baseline metrics for interaction that we could review weekly as we began experimentation. We decided to remain focused on the most important metrics: signups (what we referred to as self-service customers) and sales contacts.

This led to being able to quickly identify problems and solutions, which I then worked with stakeholders to prioritize.

How my solution addressed the problem:

The competitive scan helped emphasize what the pricing page was missing. Mux’s pricing page lacked clear delineation of what was included in each plan, and value and benefit statements that would appeal to decision-makers, not just developers. Having clear evidence to point to was huge in getting quick stakeholder alignment.
Stakeholder interviews helped prioritize the problems we wanted to solve. In lieu of actual conversations with customers or visitors, this helped reveal some problems with the page that we could improve. Thankfully those aligned nicely with the findings from the competitive scan.

Solution mockups:

Value delivered:

Provided a set of prioritized problems and solutions for pricing page experimentation in 2 week sprints, along with measurable goals, that all stakeholders were fully aligned on.
Updated design that addressed the prioritized problems to solve