"Under the simple pay-what-you-wish variation, 8.39% of people purchased a photo (almost 17 times more than before), but customers paid only $.92 on average.
The final option — pay what you wish, with half the purchase price going to charity — generated big results: purchase rates of 4.49% and an average purchase price of $5.33"
There is a significant peculiarity here that the author ignores. Yes, pay-what-you-wish generated more money when the purchaser was told that half of the money would go to charity, but the percentage of people purchasing was cut NEARLY IN HALF when they were told that half of the money would go to charity. Doesn't that seem odd? If I tell you you can purchase a photo for whatever price you want, and you are willing to pay $X, and I then tell you that half of the money will go to charity, would you then decide that you are no longer willing to purchase at any price at all?
The final option — pay what you wish, with half the purchase price going to charity — generated big results: purchase rates of 4.49% and an average purchase price of $5.33"
There is a significant peculiarity here that the author ignores. Yes, pay-what-you-wish generated more money when the purchaser was told that half of the money would go to charity, but the percentage of people purchasing was cut NEARLY IN HALF when they were told that half of the money would go to charity. Doesn't that seem odd? If I tell you you can purchase a photo for whatever price you want, and you are willing to pay $X, and I then tell you that half of the money will go to charity, would you then decide that you are no longer willing to purchase at any price at all?