The Messy Monetization Test:
price testing analysis
revenue optimization
influencing leadership decisions
“The pricing strategy that drives our business today came from your analysis during one of the messiest testing periods we’ve ever run.”
I was brought in to analyze conversion rates across pricing experiments for a health tech startup's first revenue model, but discovered that sequential testing, mid-stream product changes, and incomplete churn data made clean analysis nearly impossible.
My role was to extract actionable insights from imperfect data, model tradeoffs between price points despite methodological limitations, and deliver pricing recommendations that leadership implemented with confidence, increasing customer LTV by 30%.
The Problem
The startup had operated as a free product for over two years before launching its first paid subscription model. Six months into monetization, leadership wanted to understand users' willingness to pay and optimize pricing across three subscription tiers: monthly, quarterly, and annual. I was tasked with analyzing conversion rates across 12 different price plans tested over 13 weeks to calculate customer acquisition costs and lifetime value. The challenge was that nothing about this testing was clean. Every price change happened sequentially rather than through A/B tests, making it nearly impossible to isolate causality. The onboarding flow changed twice during the testing period. Free trials were eliminated midway through. Each change introduced new variables that confounded the data. Churn data was incomplete because users hadn't stayed long enough to observe full retention cycles, forcing me to project lifetime value with partial information. Leadership acknowledged the situation was messy but needed to move forward, operating under the assumption that users acquired week-over-week were roughly comparable and that we could extract enough signal to make informed decisions.
The Solution
I segmented cohorts by entry date and subscription plan, treating each pricing period as a mini-experiment. I triangulated partial churn data by analyzing both cohort-based retention curves and average subscription lengths, then projected 12-month lifetime value using observed behavior and reasonable assumptions based on the six months of data available. Where product changes like free trial elimination showed no significant impact on conversion, I treated cohorts as comparable to maximize sample size and improve estimate reliability. I modeled tradeoffs between price, conversion rate, and retention across all 12 plans. The analysis revealed that $7.99/month had the highest conversion rate at approximately 6% but poor lifetime value, while $14.99/month offered the best balance of conversion and retention among top performers. I recommended $14.99/month, $29.99/quarter, and $89.99/year, prioritizing sustainable revenue over short-term signup rates. Leadership implemented the pricing structure, which remained in place for about a year and drove the business model until the company pivoted to a different approach. When presenting my findings, I walked leadership through my methodology, explained the tradeoffs, and framed the decision as a strategic choice about what mattered most to the business at this stage, ensuring they understood both the evidence and the limitations.
Core Skills Leveraged
-
This project required operating in conditions where traditional analytical best practices simply weren't possible. There was no control group, no randomization, no ability to isolate variables — just a series of sequential changes happening in real time as the business evolved. I recognized that perfect data was never coming and that the cost of inaction was higher than the risk of imperfect analysis.
When the onboarding flow changed or free trials were eliminated, I assessed whether these shifts meaningfully affected conversion rates. When they didn't show significant impact, I made the pragmatic call to pool data across those periods to increase sample size and improve the reliability of my estimates.
When churn data was incomplete because users were too new to observe full retention cycles, I combined what I could observe with reasonable projections, ensuring my methodology was consistent so that relative comparisons between price points remained valid even if absolute figures carried uncertainty.
Throughout the analysis, I operated with a clear understanding of what I knew, what I didn't know, and what I could reasonably infer. I didn't let ambiguity paralyze decision-making. I found ways to extract signal from noise, made transparent assumptions, and delivered recommendations that leadership could act on despite the uncertainty.
-
When I saw that $7.99/month had the highest conversion rate, I could have simply recommended that price and considered the analysis complete. But I looked beyond the surface metric and recognized that conversion without retention would undermine long-term revenue. That's why I modeled the tradeoffs between acquisition and lifetime value, ultimately recommending $14.99/month despite its slightly lower conversion rate. This was a business judgment: I prioritized sustainable revenue over short-term signup rates because I understood the business context — that pricing impacts projections supporting operational forecasting and fundraising — and what leadership needed to move forward with confidence. I also made judgment calls about how to communicate my findings. I was transparent about constraints while framing my recommendation as the best-supported path forward given the available evidence. I wanted to build confidence without creating false precision, so I explained my methodology clearly and walked leadership through the tradeoffs rather than simply presenting a number and expecting them to trust it.
-
One of the hardest parts of this project was explaining messy analysis to non-technical leadership in a way that built confidence rather than confusion. When I presented findings to the CEO and Chief Product Officer, I wanted to avoid burying them in caveats or overwhelming them with methodological detail.
I structured my presentation clearly: I acknowledged limitations upfront to establish credibility and ensure we were aligned on how to interpret results, then explained how I'd handled each challenge: segmenting cohorts, treating comparable periods as pooled data, projecting lifetime value based on early retention signals. I made sure they understood not just what I did, but why those choices were reasonable given the constraints. I framed $7.99/month as the "high-volume, low-retention" option and $14.99/month as the "balanced growth" option, giving them a clear decision framework rather than expecting them to interpret raw data.
I gave leadership what they needed: a clear recommendation with transparent reasoning, so they could make an informed decision and move forward without second-guessing whether they had enough information to act.