What it sounds like you're driving toward is better documenting the rationale behind the cost. To my untrained eye, the costs scaled with usage in a fairly familiar pattern.

What would you do to better illustrate the logic behind a pricing structure?

> The standard pricing model [1] works. Stick to it. [1] - Use .99, .97, or .95 instead of whole numbers. Use odd numbers. Example: 127.99 or 129.99 for your lowest plan.

When I see "x.99" prices I always think "annoying gimmick" and typically associate it with low cost consumer goods.

Is there any evidence this type of pricing is appropriate for B2B products?

It doesn't have to be .99 cents, but there is a reason people do this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119111051.ht...

It really does. The events and calls are nice round numbers, so it's not like the worked though to match the silly price points.

A bigger problem I thought though was the type of work.. it's an analytics company that couldn't factor their costs + target margin and arrive at a reasonable, marketable price, without resorting to gimmicks.. doesn't fill me with confidence.

Do you find our prices themselves to be unreasonable or unmarketable, upon quantitative analysis? Or is it just because we put them in powers of 2?

I really commend Keen for throwing consulting into the mix - Consulting prices are typically a black box to the customer that sales teams use as bargaining chips. This sort of openness is quite welcome as far as I'm concerned.

Glad you like our published consulting stuff too! Openness is our core value, and it's good to hear that that is getting across to someone in the wild :)

I'm a data scientist, but I'm the first to admit that data isn't always the answer. I'll take sound data-informed intuition over mechanical data-driven decision-making.