Analyse experiment results

Recommendation: Do not ship Variant B. Keep Variant A live and do not roll B out to 100% on Monday.

While Variant B delivered an initial +1.3pp lift in trial-to-paid conversion, it violates both pre-agreed guardrails, creates bill shock, and delivers no statistically significant revenue upside.

Here is the reasoning to defend this decision on Monday:

1. Both Pre-Agreed Guardrails Were Blown

We agreed on strict risk thresholds before launch. Variant B failed both: * Day-30 Retention: Fell −4.5pp (down to 79.5%), more than double our maximum allowed drop of 2pp (95% CI: −7.9 to −1.1). * Refund Requests: Surged +42% (301 vs. 212), four times our 10% ceiling.

Overriding guardrails after the fact sets a dangerous precedent and invites compounding churn.

2. The Conversion Lift Is an Illusion Driven by Bill Shock

Variant B hides the monthly tier and frames the annual plan as “$9.99/month.” Users clearly believe they are committing to a flexible monthly rate, only to be charged $119.99 upfront. The 42% spike in refunds and immediate drop in 30-day retention prove that these are not high-intent, qualified subscribers—they are confused customers who churn or dispute the charge as soon as they review their statements.

3. Long-Term Economics Are Flat to Negative

• Day-30 revenue per trial start is statistically unchanged: $9.61 for B vs. $9.42 for A (CI crosses zero).
• When factored against the operational cost of processing 42% more refunds, payment dispute fees, customer support load, and downstream LTV decay from lower retention, Variant B will be net-negative over a 12-month horizon.
• App store ratings and brand trust will also suffer if users perceive our checkout flow as deceptive.

Next Step

Iterate on Variant C: keep the focus on annual plan value, but make the upfront billing explicit (e.g., “$9.99/mo, billed annually at $119.99”) and test clear annual vs. monthly side-by-side positioning rather than hiding the monthly option.

Recommendation: Do not ship variant B to 100% on Monday. Keep A live while we investigate and revise B.

B did improve trial-to-paid conversion: 13.1% vs. 11.8%, a +1.3pp lift with a 95% CI of +0.6 to +2.0pp. But that gain comes with two problems against the guardrails agreed before launch:

• Day-30 retention fell 4.5pp (95% CI −7.9 to −1.1), exceeding the maximum tolerated 2pp decline at the point estimate.
• Refund requests rose 42%, well above the 10% limit. With an equal split, the raw counts also imply a higher request rate in B; we should confirm the rate and uncertainty before treating the size of the increase as settled.

The revenue case does not offset those risks. Day-30 revenue per trial start was only $0.19 higher in B, and its confidence interval crosses zero, so we don’t have clear evidence of a revenue gain.

That matters because B foregrounds the annual plan’s $9.99 monthly equivalent while hiding the monthly plan behind “See all plans.” The results are consistent with the concern that this framing may lift initial purchases while leaving more customers dissatisfied or less likely to remain. We should not trade clear retention and refund guardrail breaches for a conversion lift whose revenue benefit is unproven.

For Monday, I’d recommend holding A, reviewing refund reasons and plan mix, and testing a revised B that makes the $119.99 upfront annual charge and monthly option equally clear. Ship only if a follow-up test meets the pre-agreed retention and refund guardrails.

Subject: Pricing variant B — recommend we don't ship Monday

Priya,

Recommendation: don't roll B out to 100%. It breaches both guardrails we agreed before launch. Run a corrected variant (C) instead.

Why B fails

• Refunds: +42% against a 10% limit. This is the clearest breach, and it isn't close. (212 → 301 requests.)
• Day-30 retention: −4.5pp against a 2pp limit.² The confidence interval runs from −7.9 to −1.1. Most of that range is past the line, and none of it is positive.
• The upside isn't real in revenue terms.¹ Conversion rose 1.3pp, but revenue per trial start at day 30 ($9.61 vs $9.42) isn't statistically different from zero. We'd be taking on the harm for no demonstrable gain.
• The day-30 revenue number flatters B. Annual plans bill $119.99 up front, so a shift toward annual inflates early revenue. If the extra refunds and churn continue past day 30, B likely falls behind A on lifetime value.

What's probably happening

B leads with "$9.99/month" and hides the monthly plan. Some users think they're signing up for $9.99 a month, then get charged $119.99.³ The spike in refunds and early cancellations fits that pattern: the extra conversions are partly people who didn't understand what they bought. We can confirm this in a day by reading refund reasons and support tickets from B users.

This also creates a regulatory and reputational risk. Showing a monthly-equivalent price while billing annually, with the cheaper-looking commitment-free option hidden, is exactly the kind of pricing presentation the CMA and FTC scrutinise.⁴

How to defend this Monday

• We set the guardrails before seeing results so we wouldn't argue ourselves past them afterward. Overriding them now undermines every future test.
• "Conversion went up" measures the wrong thing. Revenue didn't move, and refunds and churn got worse.

Proposed next step: Variant C

• Keep the annual-first emphasis, which is likely what drove the real part of the lift.
• Show "$119.99 billed annually" next to the $9.99/month equivalent, at equal prominence.
• Keep the monthly plan visible on the page.
• Use the same guardrails, and track revenue per trial through day 60 so annual billing doesn't distort the result.

If C keeps most of the conversion lift within the guardrails, we ship that.

Martin