You suggest increasing the price because "If outcomes from using your app compare favorably to a therapist, shouldn't your pricing reflect that?", but then the next two points on brand and stigma suggest opening it up to all people who want to feel great.
I think you need to choose one. You are either a niche therapy compliment/competitor (price insensitive) or a mental wellbeing tool for a broad audience (super price sensitive).
I personally hope you keep to the lower price point. I think overall you will do more Good and reach more people. Even if you don't make a unicorn, $4/month from 5% of your market, is still $20M/month.
Also, final note, many people suffering from mental illness can not afford therapy. Even $4 would be hard, $50 is impossible.
I second your final note: $4/month can be a lot for someone with depression with nothing saved up. If they have insurance that's willing to cover it, then that might be one avenue, but then there are people without insurance. I don't have any suggestions that would be helpful while being sustainable economically.
Regardless, I'm glad that 'flaque are trying to make the world an objectively better place for some, and I wish 'flaque all the best in this endeavor.
One unrelated suggestion that I might have is to have a fixed buyout price for those that don't want to subscribe, but are willing to pay a higher one time price.
I wouldn't call therapy a niche market. Therapy apps might be currently, but if they can disrupt the current therapy model to a meaningful extent, they won't be niche for long.
'A similar poll released in May, "Therapy in America 2004," and co-sponsored by Psychology Today magazine and PacifiCare Behavioral Health, found that an estimated 59 million people have received mental health treatment in the past two years...'
59 million people (in just the US... in 2004) is not a niche market! And these people are paying a lot.
The problem with trying to be a "mental wellbeing tool for a broad audience" isn't just the market being super price sensitive, it's the market being unwilling pay anything whatsoever, which leads to ads and selling personal data (yuck).
"Even if you don't make a unicorn, $4/month from 5% of your market, is still $20M/month."
Right, but how will you reach 5% of your market? I don't see much virality here, and $4/mo gives you no room for customer acquisition costs.
"Also, final note, many people suffering from mental illness can not afford therapy. Even $4 would be hard, $50 is impossible."
I agree, but an unsustainable business can't help anyone at all in the long run.
> I agree, but an unsustainable business can't help anyone at all.
10000%. This has basically been my learning experience (Koby's much more knowledgeable than I am). It's amazing how many people you can help if don't die.
Also 100% agree with all of your points! Though, you'd be surprised about how viral it currently is and also how cheap the customer acquisition costs are. (That said, I don't expect those trends to continue as we grow, they tend to get harder.)
I think he's definitely correct that we're too cheap right now, but I agree that you can still make quite a company and still be dramatically cheaper than any reasonable option. There's definitely a middle ground.
You suggest increasing the price because "If outcomes from using your app compare favorably to a therapist, shouldn't your pricing reflect that?", but then the next two points on brand and stigma suggest opening it up to all people who want to feel great.
I think you need to choose one. You are either a niche therapy compliment/competitor (price insensitive) or a mental wellbeing tool for a broad audience (super price sensitive).
I personally hope you keep to the lower price point. I think overall you will do more Good and reach more people. Even if you don't make a unicorn, $4/month from 5% of your market, is still $20M/month.
Also, final note, many people suffering from mental illness can not afford therapy. Even $4 would be hard, $50 is impossible.