Skip to content
T1KTheOneKit

t1k:marketing:iap:price-tiering

FieldValue
Moduleiap
Version0.2.5
Effortmedium
Tools—

How to invoke

Section titled “How to invoke”
/t1k:marketing:iap:price-tiering

IAP Price Tiering

Section titled “IAP Price Tiering”

Price tiering is the structural layer of IAP design — it defines how many SKUs exist, what prices they carry, and how they are proportionally spaced. A well-designed tier matrix lets pricing psychology techniques (anchoring, decoy, charm pricing) function correctly; a poorly-spaced matrix neutralizes them even when the copy and offer design are correct. Monetization PMs and product leads own this decision at launch and re-evaluate it at major content releases.

The core insight is that players do not evaluate prices in absolute terms — they compare relative to the other options visible on the same screen. Tier count and spacing define the comparison set. Too few tiers (2 SKUs) removes the decoy effect. Too many (8+) creates decision paralysis and drives purchase abandonment. The industry-validated range is 4–6 SKUs per IAP shop section.

Genre matters significantly: casual games skew toward fewer, lower-priced tiers with a strong entry offer; mid-core and hardcore games support wider ranges and higher anchors because their audiences have higher demonstrated willingness to pay and longer session engagement with the shop.

Decision Framework

Section titled “Decision Framework”

Step 1 — Determine tier count by genre:

GenreRecommended tier countRationale
Hyper-casual / casual3–4 SKUsLow WTP ceiling; large entry pack drives most revenue
Mid-core (RPG, strategy)4–5 SKUsWider WTP distribution; “best value” badge earns outsized share
Hardcore / collector5–6 SKUsHigh-WTP segment exists; anchor SKU justified above $50

Step 2 — Set anchor SKU price:

  • Anchor = highest-priced SKU in the visible set
  • Target: 8–15× the entry SKU price
  • Entry at $1.99 → anchor at $19.99–$29.99 (casual); $49.99–$99.99 (mid-core+)
  • Anchor must not be the largest seller — it exists to reframe value, not to convert

Step 3 — Space intermediate tiers:

  • Each tier should be 2–3× the tier below it in price
  • Price-per-unit (currency/gem per dollar) must improve monotonically up the stack
  • If price-per-unit is flat, players have no economic incentive to buy up; badge copy must carry the load

Step 4 — Assign the “best value” badge:

  • Badge belongs on the tier with the best price-per-unit AND is in the 2nd-highest position
  • Never badge the anchor (looks desperate) or the entry (low AOV)
  • Badge text must be quantified: “67% more gems” beats “Best Deal”

Step 5 — Validate spacing with the breakeven test:

  • For any two adjacent tiers A and B: if a player buys 2× of A, do they get more value than 1× of B?
  • If yes for any pair, the lower tier cannibalizes the upper; adjust spacing or price-per-unit

Benchmarks

Section titled “Benchmarks”
  • Optimal tier count: 4–6 SKUs maximizes revenue per session in the majority of mid-core and casual titles studied (GameRefinery 2023 Top-Grossing IAP Report; Sensor Tower Shop Analysis 2022)
  • “Best value” badge CVR lift: 20–40% higher conversion on the badged tier vs the same tier without the badge, controlling for position (Mobile Dev Memo, Seufert 2022 monetization teardowns)
  • Tier spacing effect: 2–3× spacing between tiers maintains purchase-up behavior; < 1.5× spacing collapses into a single effective tier by perceived value (GameAnalytics Benchmark Dataset 2023)
  • Anchor SKU ratio: 8–15× entry price; anchor price ratio outside this range shows diminishing reframe effect (Ariely, Predictably Irrational; validated in mobile context by Deconstructor of Fun teardowns)
  • ARPPU distribution: in most mid-core games top 5% of paying players generate 50–65% of IAP revenue — tier structure must support their WTP ceiling, not just the median buyer (data.ai 2023 Mobile Game Revenue Report)

Common Mistakes

Section titled “Common Mistakes”
  1. 2-SKU lineup. Two tiers produce no comparison context; the decoy effect is impossible. Even adding a third “vanity” tier dramatically improves CVR on the second tier.
  2. Flat price-per-unit across tiers. If every tier gives the same amount of currency per dollar, there is no economic reason to buy up. Players default to the cheapest tier or the most visually prominent one.
  3. Badging the cheapest tier. “Best value” on the entry tier drives entry conversions but collapses ARPPU. Badge the second-from-top tier to lift AOV.
  4. Too many tiers without navigation. 8+ SKUs presented in a flat scroll with no visual hierarchy cause abandonment. If genre context demands many SKUs, group into “Starter”, “Value”, “Premium” sections with section headers.
  5. Ignoring platform fee in tier math. Apple and Google take 15–30% commission; price-per-unit calculations must use net revenue, not gross, to avoid tier spacing that looks good on paper but inverts on margin.

Sources

Section titled “Sources”
  • GameRefinery Top-Grossing IAP Report 2023 — tier count frequency distribution by genre
  • Sensor Tower Shop Analysis 2022 — SKU count vs revenue per DAU correlation
  • Mobile Dev Memo (Eric Seufert) — badge lift data, anchor sizing, teardown methodology
  • data.ai Mobile Game Revenue Report 2023 — ARPPU distribution, top-spender revenue concentration
  • GameAnalytics Benchmark Dataset 2023 — tier spacing and CVR cohort data
  • Ariely, Dan. Predictably Irrational — anchoring and comparison-set effects
  • Deconstructor of Fun (deconstructoroffun.com) — top-grossing IAP structure teardowns