I mean, is this really a concern? I think this adds a whole new layer of complexity because it’s unclear what “too easy” means. I was assuming a fixed rate - I guess I just don’t see the rate changing as a function of the pledge. I just think the analysis is way too complicated if you add that in.
The rate is what the user puts in as what they want to accomplish - it seems a bit paternalistic to challenge that. We should define success/awesomeness in terms of the user meeting their defined goal.
Besides, even if they start with a low rate, they’ll increase the rate over time.
What makes you say it doesn’t work? I think it works once people commit - but I can see how people would be reluctant to commit.
I’m hesitant to say “you’ll definitely never pay.” No one is perfect, which is why my table maxed out at 99% success. Under that assumption, as you increase the pledge, awesomeness plateaus while revenue continues to increase.
Yeah, I can tell you really want to believe there’s a strict correspondence here. I think if you step back a bit, it’s really the other way around - the more useful Beeminder is, the more people are likely to continue to use it, upgrade, and refer others. So really, long term, the best way to maximize revenue is to maximize awesomeness.
But if you look at the choices that either the user makes or that Beeminder makes in order to maximize awesomeness for the user in the short term, those are not necessarily going to maximize revenue in the short term.
For instance, if a user pays more pledges in the short term, they’re derailing more, and Beeminder is less useful to them, and so they’re less likely to continue using it. So that’s more revenue in the short term but less in the long term.
Whereas if a user is paying fewer pledges, yes, that’s less revenue to Beeminder in the short term, but it’s more awesomeness, which means they’re more likely to continue using it, which means more long-term revenue.