Value for Money Messaging

Users saw the team seat price and left. The fix wasn't hiding the price — it was contextualizing it. "68% cheaper than an individual subscription."

Price block with 68% savings message — team seat is 68% cheaper than individual subscription
68% Cheaper messaging
3 Plan tiers
A/B Test in prep
3 wk Timeline
Don't hide the price. Explain why it's a deal.

Overview

Role
Product Designer
Timeline
Mar 12 — Mar 31, 2026
Team
Head of Product, Marketing Lead, UX Writer
Status
Design complete, preparing A/B test

Problem

When users reached the invite widget's payment step, they saw the team seat price and abandoned. The price felt expensive in isolation — there was no context, no anchor, nothing to compare it to.

A previous attempt showed too little emphasis on the charge — which caused refunds from users who didn't realize they'd paid. The new design needed to be honest about the charge and frame it as a good deal at the same time.

Solution

The team seat price is actually significantly cheaper than buying the same toolkit as an individual subscription. Users didn't know this because nobody told them. The fix: add a single contextual line in the price block that makes the comparison explicit.

The line "68% cheaper than an individual subscription." Visible at the moment users see the price — before they decide to leave.

Key Design Decisions

Payment state only

The free trial flow already emphasizes "free" prominently. Adding a price comparison there would be confusing. The savings message appears only when the user is about to pay.

Dynamic percentage per plan

The discount isn't the same for every plan. Pro, Guru, Business each have different individual vs. team pricing. Hardcoding "68%" would be wrong for most users — the percentage is calculated and injected dynamically.

No additional icon

The widget already had enough visual elements. Adding an icon for the savings message would increase visual noise without adding clarity.

Marketing Lead alignment

Copy that claims a percentage discount needs to be accurate and approved. Worked directly with the Marketing Lead to validate the framing and exact wording.

Process

  1. 01

    Sync with Head of Product on paywall mechanics

    Understood how pricing works across all plan tiers. Discovered the dynamic percentage requirement — different savings per plan. This was a detail I missed initially and caught in review.

  2. 02

    Connect with Marketing Lead

    Price comparison messaging is a marketing claim. Involved the Marketing Lead early to validate the numbers and approve the framing before it went to design review.

  3. 03

    Multiple text placement iterations

    Tested placement options: above the price, inline, below. Settled on inline within the price block — closest to the moment of decision.

  4. 04

    Full flow documentation

    Documented the complete invite flow with pricing context: top menu → popover → suggests → price → success. Video walkthrough for stakeholders.

  5. 05

    A/B test setup with analytics team

    Defined the test: value framing vs. price-only. Success metric: conversion from price step to completed invite.

Head of Product Feedback

On seeing the final design "Улала, мне нравится! Оч клево!" — Head of Product

Key Learning

The dynamic percentage was the detail I missed initially — I prototyped with a hardcoded "68%." The Head of Product caught it in review. Now I treat any pricing-related design as having dynamic values by default until proven otherwise.

This is a small lesson about the gap between what looks right in a static mockup and what needs to be true in production.