Update to Ecommerce Skills

{
  "description": "Use when setting or reviewing the full price of a product, plan, or add-on for an online store — e.g. \"should this be $199, $200, or $197.50\", \"what should the add-on cost\", \"should we do a flat rate or pay per use\", \"where should the price go on the page\", \"how should I price this for a Japanese audience\".",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "reference.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 9197
    }
  ],
  "name": "pricing",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: pricing\ndescription: Use when setting or reviewing the full price of a product, plan, or add-on for an online store — e.g. \"should this be $199, $200, or $197.50\", \"what should the add-on cost\", \"should we do a flat rate or pay per use\", \"where should the price go on the page\", \"how should I price this for a Japanese audience\".\n---\n\n# Pricing\n\nChoose the digits, structure, and placement of a full price so it sends the signal you want. The last digits of a price tell people whether to think about quality or about cost, complex prices get read as expensive, and where the price sits on the page changes how big it feels.\n\n## When to use\n\n- Deciding whether a price should be rounded ($200), just-below ($199), or precise ($203)\n- Pricing add-ons, upgrades, and per-unit components\n- Choosing flat-rate vs pay-per-use\n- Placing and coloring prices on a product page\n- Setting an opening price for a negotiation or auction\n\n## When not to use\n\n- Working out *how much* people will pay → the `price-research` skill\n- Wording a sale or coupon → the `discounts` skill\n\n## Inputs\n\nCollect, or state your assumption:\n\n- Product, candidate price, currency\n- What the buyer is optimizing for (quality/risk vs price); brand positioning (premium vs value)\n- Whether this is a promotion price or the everyday price\n- Whether the price will be negotiated, and whether the counterparty is an expert\n- Market (Japan/China change the lucky ending)\n- Audience gender mix, if known\n\n> **Classify the product first.** *Hedonic* = bought for enjoyment, pleasure, or the experience (chocolate, fashion, decor, travel, spa, perfume). *Utilitarian* = bought to do a job, judged on function and value (detergent, appliances, insect repellent, tools, accounting software). If it's mixed, decide by what the buyer is optimizing for at the moment of purchase.\n\n## Procedure\n\n1. **Default to rounded** ($80, $200, $35) when the decision runs on feeling or quality: premium or luxury goods, hedonic products, most services, a premium brand image, or when you want an effortless choice. Note the boundary: the roundedness study found *non-rounded* prices did better when buyers evaluate analytically (typical utilitarian purchases) — for those, rounded earns its place only as a low-price-image avoidance (a 99-ending signals bargain) or for simplicity, not from that study. The risky-purchase examples (medical, safety) are a practitioner extension. † Also when the price may be bid *up* (a hot auction, tight housing market). When in doubt, round.\n2. **Use just-below** ($199, $4.99) only when the left digit actually drops relative to the price you'd otherwise charge ($2.99 instead of $3.00 works; $3.49 instead of $3.50 doesn't) and one of these holds: it's a promotion price; buyers are price-focused; you want a low-price image; the item is cheap and low-risk. Lower left digits (1, 4) feel like bigger savings than high ones (7).\n   - **Four figures or more** (common in ¥, ₹, ₺): repeat a low digit in the last three places instead — ¥2,111 beats ¥1,999. †\n   - **Japan and China:** an 8 ending is the convention (prevalence evidence, not a measured lift), not 9.\n   - **Upgrades:** if you want people to step up to a dearer option, keep both prices on the same left digit ($40.50 → $48.50, not $39.99 → $48.50).\n3. **Use precise** ($2,865; $53,832/month) when you need to signal expertise and calculation in a big decision (B2B quotes, renovations) or when the buyer will negotiate *down*: precise anchors pull counteroffers into smaller steps, so you get fewer but higher offers. With expert buyers, stay moderately precise ($23,750, not $23,721.85) or justify the number with a cost breakdown. Evidence for precise as a \"slightly above rounded\" everyday price is weaker than for just-below.\n4. **Prefer a flat rate** that covers what most customers want ($50/month, all-in; unlimited revisions), priced *above* the pay-per-use equivalent — a $6,000 fixed fee beat $50/h × 100 h. Keep pay-per-use only as a low-commitment entry tier.\n5. **Keep components simple** when you must price separately: rounded amounts ($0.10/min, not $0.07), the same ending across components, no service charge tacked on, options easy to compare side by side. Add-ons follow the same rule ($15, not $12.35).\n6. **Place the price below the product** image, not above; the same price reads lower.\n7. **Color:** mostly male audience and a routine, low-scrutiny purchase → every price in red; the effect disappears for expensive or important purchases. Mixed red and black backfires. Audience unknown or mixed → black.\n8. **Hand off:** sale prices → `discounts`; validating the level → `price-research`.\n\n## Output\n\n| Item | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Recommended price | $200 |\n| Digit style | Rounded — premium hedonic product, quality is the decision driver |\n| Add-ons / components | Monogramming $15 (rounded, same ending as core price) |\n| Structure | Flat rate / pay-per-use / n.a. |\n| Placement & color | Price below the product image; black (mixed audience) |\n| Alternatives rejected | $199 (just-below reads as price-led; save for promotions), $197.50 (precision signals nothing here) |\n\n## Common mistakes\n\n- Picking $195 or $225 \"for confidence\" with no rule — the choice is rounded *because* quality is the driver; state the reason.\n- Using $9.99 everywhere by habit — just-below cues price-focus and undermines a premium image; use it for promotions and price-led categories.\n- $1,999 in a four-figure currency — the just-below effect is overridden; use ¥2,111-style low repeating digits.\n- Setting the upgrade tier across a left-digit boundary ($39.99 vs $48.50) when you want people to upgrade.\n- Underpricing the flat rate to match pay-per-use — people will pay a premium for the cap on spend.\n- Fiddly component prices ($4.61/GB plus a $6 fee) — people assume you're the expensive option without calculating.\n\n## Quick reference\n\n| Situation | Digits |\n|---|---|\n| Premium, hedonic, risky, service, unsure | Rounded |\n| Promotion, price-led, cheap and low-risk | Just-below (left digit must drop) |\n| Four-figure prices | Low repeating last digits (2,111) |\n| Japan / China | 8 ending |\n| Want upgrades | Same left digit on both tiers |\n| B2B quote, negotiated down | Precise; moderate with experts |\n| Bid up (auction) | Rounded |\n| Usage-based service | Flat rate, priced above pay-per-use |\n| Components / add-ons | Rounded, same endings, no service fee |\n| Page layout | Price below the product |\n| Mostly male audience, routine purchase | All prices red |\n\n† No primary citation on file for this rule — a practitioner tip, not a measured finding.\n\nEvidence and effect sizes: see [reference.md](reference.md).\n"
}