Prospect theory’s reference points, loss aversion, and diminishing sensitivity shape how people react to usage fees. Test how framing, caps, and pre‑commit options change perceived pain of paying.
Under prospect theory, why do per‑use fees often feel ‘painful’ compared with a prepaid bundle?
Flat fees remove all opportunity cost of usage.
Bundles always cost less in objective terms.
Loss aversion makes each charge salient relative to a zero‑pay reference point.
People never track small expenses in mental accounts.
Which framing reduces perceived loss from usage spikes in pay‑per‑use?
Random surcharge days with surprise fees.
Obfuscating meter readouts entirely.
Soft caps with rollover or bill protection thresholds.
Per‑minute micro‑charges without summaries.
What reference point most strongly shapes satisfaction with a per‑use taxi price?
Average price of unrelated groceries that week.
The driver’s weekly earnings goal.
List price of a yearly transit pass.
The expected fare for that route formed from past trips or quotes.
Which design best applies diminishing sensitivity to encourage higher consumption?
Randomised prices to ‘keep it exciting’.
Volume discounts where the marginal price falls after thresholds.
Flat connection fees with no usage component.
Escalating surcharges for every extra unit.
Why can itemised micro‑charges lower satisfaction even when total cost is equal to a flat fee?
Because flat fees always include free refunds.
Because micro‑charges violate antitrust law by default.
Repeated loss frames multiply perceived pain via mental accounting.
Because people cannot remember any prices.
What pre‑commit structure often raises usage while keeping churn risk acceptable?
Unlimited plan priced below marginal cost.
A monthly allowance bundle with moderate overage fees.
Non‑refundable multi‑year term for new users.
Daily pay‑as‑you‑go with randomised pricing.
Which message lever most reliably increases acceptance of a per‑use surcharge during peak demand?
Highlight sunk costs to justify future payments.
Cite competitor prices from unrelated markets.
Transparent framing of the reference point and temporary nature.
Avoid any explanation to reduce attention.
How can bill‑time summaries reduce churn in metered SaaS?
By charging additional ‘statement fees’.
By aggregating usage into categories that show delivered value.
By hiding all usage history to avoid questions.
By switching to quarterly billing without notice.
Why do pre‑paid top‑ups often outperform strict post‑paid meters for small transactions?
They remove any price signal for heavy use.
They convert many micro‑losses into one planned payment.
They disable all usage alerts by design.
They always guarantee lower total spend.
Which fairness cue helps sustain pay‑per‑use adoption after an intro period?
Stable rules with advance notice for any price changes.
Punitive lock‑ins with hidden penalties.
Opaque invoices that deflect questions.
Frequent surprise fees to maximise revenue.
Starter
Review loss aversion, reference points, and mental accounting.
Solid
Nice—polish framing, caps, and bill summaries to reduce churn.
Expert!
Expert—your designs blunt pain of paying while preserving signals.
