I am not sure what you mean by a moral issue. Money and goods exchange hands (or not) in a mutually agreed on transaction. I don't think there is an issue so long as there is no intentionally targeted discrimination.
If someone is unhappy with their purchase and lets me know, I nearly always give a refund (where possible; the App Store prevents this). Sometimes I've given my software away for free if someone asks nicely.
I have never had any backlash to running pricing A/B tests.
About once a year I will run prices at 0.5 and 1.5 the normal price for a week or two to make sure I am still on the right point of the demand curve. Sometimes it moves and I will stick with a new price.
> I don't think there is an issue so long as there is no intentionally targeted discrimination.
Is random discrimination fine? I'm genuinely asking. I don't know the answer, but somehow it still feels morally shaky to me or unfair.
Yes, we do give refunds or discounts retrospectively in many cases, and try to be nice and fair and open. But there's just something a bit awkward with randomly charging people more (or less) for the exact same product, at the exact same time. I think most people will feel manipulated if they discovered it, even if they eventually paid the lower price.
Given my approach; a single A/B test once a year, one week at 0.5 price and one week at 1.5 price, less than 2% got a half-off discount, and less than 2% paid the higher price (actually, since sales usually drop for the 1.5 price, it's likely closer to 1% of sales pay the higher price).
If someone is unhappy with their purchase and lets me know, I nearly always give a refund (where possible; the App Store prevents this). Sometimes I've given my software away for free if someone asks nicely.
I have never had any backlash to running pricing A/B tests.
About once a year I will run prices at 0.5 and 1.5 the normal price for a week or two to make sure I am still on the right point of the demand curve. Sometimes it moves and I will stick with a new price.