How much to pay beta testers for manager development site?

[RF5BPilot]

I have created a new web site/web service to supplement managers' professional development.

StateOfTheArtPublications.com gives managers access to high quality research from business, psychology, etc., in a form that's easy to apply and use.

Subscribers get access to information already in the site and twice a week, will get an email highlighting new content that's been added. If they're interested, click on the link and see the full summary. Extensive reading is not required for testers--just read the topics/articles that interest them.

I want to enlist about 20-30 managers who will give the site a real-world test.

Subscribers get introductory access for 1 cent, then modest monthly charges afterwards. So, testers would need to have the system bill them $10.01 or $12.00 depending on the subscription they choose. After that first 30-day charge -- they can cancel.

After 2-3 weeks, I'd want some feedback about their experience with the site.

So...... How much do I pay them?

One corporate person suggested a $20 bill. That would reimburse them for out-of-pocket costs, buy them a few lattes -- but be low enough that they won't have to go through official reporting that they got money from a potential vendor.

A non-corporate person suggested $50 or more.

I assume that only a modest percentage of managers would be interested in information like this.

What say you? (About the testing or the site itself.)

Thanks.


(Note: I posted on Rennlist as well. I frequent both sites and appreciate the feedback.)
__________________

[MBAtarga]

You can pay up to $600 without having to issue a W9 - which would require the recipient to include when they file taxes. $20 is too low - IMO.

My perspective - the more you pay - the better you benefit. "YGWYPF"

Is the target any particular type of manager? Resource, Operations, Facilities ????

[RF5BPilot]

Originally Posted by MBAtarga

You can pay up to $600 without having to issue a W9 - which would require the recipient to include when they file taxes. $20 is too low - IMO.

My perspective - the more you pay - the better you benefit. "YGWYPF"

A number of organizations make their managers complete forms if they receive anything from an outside vendor or source that exceeds $20 in value. So, it's not filing with the government that's the issue, it's having bosses get concerned that decisions you make are influenced.

Originally Posted by MBAtarga

Is the target any particular type of manager? Resource, Operations, Facilities ????

The research on the website covers a range of topics in leadership, communication, hiring/onboarding, teamwork, etc.

So, it is aimed at managers who lead teams (vs. those who have the title, but solo responsibilities)...not limited to a level/department/industry.

[stomachmonkey]

Unless you have a way of tracking how often they are accessing and whether or not they are really consuming content I would not pay them a penny.

Give them 6 months of free access.

I'm kind of unclear what they would even be testing.

I think you are looking more for usability and value information rather than "this works, that's broken"

I have a lot of questions about what you currently have set up and how much of it is final.

Like the pricing structure. Seems really weird to me.

No one is going to sign up for a $0.01 trial. Either give them free access and hold the credit card or better yet, don't require a card at all for a trial.

The tiers need rethinking. $10.00 and $11.99? That's odd.

More concerning is I can't get a good handle on how much content is already there.

Like I said, I have lot's of questions but in all honesty I saw nothing there that would make me want to give that site my CC info.

EDIT: I don't mean that to sound harsh or pessimistic, just is what it is.

[RF5BPilot]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Unless you have a way of tracking how often they are accessing and whether or not they are really consuming content I would not pay them a penny.

A bit harsh. I am willing to trust a modest number of managers to test the site without extreme following.

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Give them 6 months of free access.

I don't want to wait that long to start promoting the site to area organizations, then work outward. Further, I think someone can form fairly clear assessments in a reasonably short time. See....you did it in a few minutes--and you didn't even have access. Think of what someone could do with full access?

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

I have a lot of questions about what you currently have set up and how much of it is final.

Like the pricing structure. Seems really weird to me.

I believe you.

Nevertheless, this is a startup. As the library gets deeper over time, I will probably increase the price of the Platinum subscription that gives full access to all content. Until then, it will remain close to the price of the Gold, which gives access to current and future content.

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

More concerning is I can't get a good handle on how much content is already there.

I don't think managers will spend a lot of time searching the library for things to read. The main use will be clicking on links in the twice per week emails when they see something interesting. Hence, the idea of supplementing managers' professional (continuing) development.

..............

I firmly believe that the majority of managers will look at this and feel (for whatever reason), it's not right for them. But I am guessing that 5-10% of managers will value high-quality research in a form they can use. (In some organizations, the percent might be high; others will be essentially 0.)

Will see.

But, thanks for looking.

[stomachmonkey]

Not paying them is not harsh. We never pay, in fact we have even started a new way to monetize it called early access. We get people to pay us a discounted price to play broken code. How awesome is that.

We get far better results and a stronger community than when we just do open betas.

Admittedly easier to do in gaming.

Give them 6 months of free access in exchange for the beta testing. That does not mean do 6 months of testing. That means give them access for 6 months for free in exchange for 2 weeks of testing.

It's a startup, why give money away when you don't have to.

As far as the pricing, the tiers are too close. Taking a guess I think your rationale is the 11.99 is not THAT much more and if they are willing to go $10 they'll go $12.

What that does in actuality is devalues the higher tier or inflates the lower tier and confuses the consumer resulting in they are more likely to choose neither.

Do one price, the Gold at $9.99. As your user base grows add the Platinum as an offer and grandfather the early adopters.

With respect to my comment on content, it's not the signed up users who care about it. No one cares whether they search or not. It's about acquiring users.

You need to give them a reasonable value proposition. You are asking them to give you money, you need to provide as many compelling reasons as you can for them so do so.

[RF5BPilot]

Thanks. A more helpful response.