Latest / Community Marketing with Fexingo: Discord, Slack Groups, and Brand Communities / How a Brand Community Picked Its Own Pricing Tier
Transcript
- Lucas: So there's this thing that happens when a brand community gets big enough to matter, and it's that the community starts making decisions that used to be the product team's job. But the one decision I rarely see handed over is pricing. Everyone's afraid of that one. Luna: Right, because pricing is the one thing that touches revenue directly. You let the community pick the price, and suddenly you're leaving money on the table. Or worse, you price it too high and the community revolts. Lucas: Exactly. And that's why I was so interested in what a mid-sized SaaS company did this spring. They were introducing a new premium tier, and instead of running it past a focus group or just launching, they put the decision to their three thousand member Discord server. The catch was, they had three different tier designs, and they let the community pick. Luna: That's bold. But how do you even structure that without it turning into a mess? I mean, people will argue about pricing forever. Lucas: Well, they had a specific structure. They created three separate channels, one for each tier design, and each channel had a full breakdown of what you get, the price, and the rationale. Then they ran an anonymous poll, plus an open discussion thread. The idea was to get both the private take and the public debate. Luna: And what happened? Did the community pick the cheapest one to be stingy? Lucas: Surprisingly, no. They picked the middle tier. The cheapest one was actually voted second, and the most expensive one came in last. But the real value wasn't the final vote. It was the discussion that revealed why they picked the middle one. Luna: What was the reasoning? Was it just the price, or was it something else? Lucas: The thread was fascinating. A lot of members said the middle tier felt like the 'fair' option, not just the best value. They said the cheapest tier felt like it was missing features they'd actually need, and the most expensive felt like overkill for their use case. But they also trusted that the team wouldn't price something unfairly. There was this real sense of 'we're in this together'. Luna: So the community didn't just pick a price, they picked a positioning. That middle tier became the story. Lucas: Exactly. And the team leaned into that. They launched with the middle tier as the headline, and they highlighted the community's role in the announcement. They even put a line in the launch email saying 'you picked this'. Luna: I love that. But did the process actually change anything in the final product? Or was it just a rubber stamp? Lucas: Good question. Because the team had already designed three tiers, so they had a plan. But the community discussion flagged something they hadn't considered: a lot of people wanted a pay-annually option that wasn't just a discount, but a different commitment level. So they actually added a new billing option that wasn't in any of the original three tiers. Luna: That's a concrete change. So the community genuinely shaped the offer, not just greenlit an existing idea. Lucas: Right. And that's the difference between asking 'which one do you like?' and asking 'help us build the right offer.' The latter opens a different kind of conversation. Luna: Now, a lot of people would say 'my community isn't big enough to make that work.' But this company had three thousand. Does the size matter? Could a smaller community pull this off? Lucas: Size helps, but I'd argue it's not the key variable. What matters is the quality of the engagement. If you have a hundred really engaged members who understand your product, that can be enough. The tricky part is making sure those hundred aren't just the loudest or the most extreme. Luna: And that's where the anonymous poll comes in. Because the open thread can be dominated by a few voices, but the poll gives everyone an equal say. Lucas: Yes. And that's something they did really well. They had the open discussion for the reasoning, but the final vote was anonymous. That way you get the best of both worlds: the nuance of the debate and the honesty of the ballot box. Luna: So what did the team do with the discussion? Did they just read it, or did they actually analyze it? Lucas: They took it seriously. They had two community managers and a product manager read every single comment in the main thread, and they coded them into themes. The theme that kept coming up was 'trust' — members saying they trusted the team to price fairly, and that's why they didn't just vote for the cheapest. Luna: That's a powerful signal. If your community trusts you, they're less price-sensitive. That's not something you can buy with a discount. Lucas: Right. And that's actually the meta-lesson here. The process itself was a trust-building exercise. By inviting the community into the decision, the team signaled that they value their input. And the community responded by being more reasonable and more engaged. Luna: But there's a risk too, right? What if the community had picked the most expensive tier, and the team would have been on the hook for something they couldn't deliver? Lucas: That's a real risk, and you have to be careful. The company set clear guardrails. They said the three tiers were the options, and they'd commit to the winning one. But they also reserved the right to adjust pricing details, like the annual option, based on the feedback. So it wasn't a blank check. Luna: So you're giving the community a real choice, but you're also setting boundaries. That seems like a good model. Lucas: It is. And the launch results were strong. They saw a forty percent higher conversion rate on the new tier compared to their previous launch, which was a flat offer. And the community churn rate actually dropped by five percent in the following quarter. It's not a huge number, but it's a signal. Luna: That's a nice concrete result. And what about the community itself? Did the vote energize them or did it feel like a chore? Lucas: According to their engagement metrics, the vote was one of the most active events they'd run. They had a participation rate of over sixty percent, which is huge for a community that usually sees maybe twenty percent in polls. And the general sentiment was overwhelmingly positive. People felt heard. Luna: So the real win is that the community became more loyal, more engaged, and more likely to stick around. And that's not nothing. Lucas: Exactly. And that's the thing about community-driven decisions. They compound. Every time you involve the community in a meaningful choice, you're not just getting input, you're building a relationship. And that relationship pays off in ways that are hard to measure but impossible to ignore. Luna: I'm curious though, what if the vote had gone the other way? What if they'd picked the cheapest tier and the team would have made less money? Would they have honored it? Lucas: That's the hard question, and I think the honest answer is they would have honored it, but they would have worked to make it work. They had enough margin that even the cheapest tier would have been profitable. But it would have been a harder sell internally. They would have had to explain to the board why they gave up revenue. Luna: So there's a real trade-off. You're trusting the community, but you're also putting your financials on the line. Not every team can do that. Lucas: Right, and that's why this isn't a one-size-fits-all playbook. You have to have a certain level of trust in your community and a product where pricing isn't the only thing that matters. If you're a low-margin business, this might not be the right move. Luna: But for a SaaS company with a strong product-market fit, it seems like a smart way to de-risk a launch. You're not guessing, you're asking. Lucas: And you're getting more than just the answer. You're getting content, you're getting engagement, you're getting advocates. The whole thing becomes a story you can tell in your marketing. Luna: That's a good point. And it's a different way of thinking about marketing. It's not about pushing a message out, it's about pulling the community into the process. Lucas: Absolutely. And that's what makes this episode about community marketing. The pricing vote wasn't a pricing exercise, it was a marketing exercise. The community became the channel, and the product became the story. Luna: And honestly, if you're a marketer listening to this, the lesson is clear. The next time you're about to make a big decision about your product, ask your community first. But do it the right way, with clear options, anonymous voting, and a real willingness to listen. Lucas: Yeah. And I think that's a good place to leave it. If today's conversation sparked an idea you might actually use, that's exactly what we hope for. And if you ever want to support the show directly, the smallest gesture is always appreciated. There's a link at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure, just a way to keep these conversations going. Luna: Well said. And I'd add, the fact that you're listening to this, that you're thinking about community in this way, that's already a step ahead. So go try something small. Run a vote on something low-stakes, see what happens. Lucas: That's the best advice. Start with something small, build the muscle, and then when the big decisions come, you'll be ready. And your community will be ready too.