EvalOne$-$time user onboarding charges. BC$3$ could be priced so that, once the commitment to purchase was made, customers paid a one$-$time fee for different $$buckets$$ of users $(5,10,15,20,$ etc.$).$ Some argued that this would create a feeling of investment in the product, increase retention, and also reveal the size of user$-$groups that customers derived the most value from.

Monthly fee per number of external contacts. The Clientside feature allowed BC$3$ users to include external parties in the project management software, a feature especially valued by high$-$ROI

$12$

Basecamp: Pricing $817-067$

users like ad agencies, professional services and design firms, and others. BC$3$ could charge an additional monthly fee based on the number of external clients being used in Clientside $($e$.$g$.,$ different monthly fees for $10+,25+,50+$ and so on$).$ One person argued that this approach $$avoids per$-$user$-$per$-$ month charges that might inhibit adoption, but helps to better align prices with value received.$$

Identify and target more $$Big$$ customers, based on usage. There was evidence that a number of BC$3$ customers chose the $$79$ Basecamp With Clients plan for user and project volume levels more suited to the $$3,000$ Basecamp Big tier. Could Basecamp target customers with lots of users and$/$or projects running on Basecamp With Clients and proactively reach out with online campaigns or account managers to encourage upgrading to Basecamp Big? A team member noted that the price difference would easily support the incremental costs of a campaign or dedicated account support.

Reduce annual payment. Unlike most other SaaS firms, Basecamp did not offer a $$discount$$ if a customer paid upfront for an annual contract. This improved cash flow, increased LTV by reducing the number of accounts that churn early after adoption, and so helped forecasting as well. One person added, based on his experience at another firm, $$that sunk cost also motivates some customers to use the product more intensively, see the value$-$in$-$use, and re$-$buy after the current contract expires.$$

Any of these options could have a significant and positive financial impact. Lorang considered which $($if any$)$ he might recommend to Fried, Hansson, and the leadership team of the venture.