正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Most founders accidentally train their customers never to pay them. Madhavan Ramanujam (the "pricing guru" of Silicon Valley - having worked with LinkedIn, Uber, and 30+ unicorns) calls it the 20/80 Pricing Trap • 20% of your features drive 80% of the willingness to pay • Founders give that...

215,455 次观看 • 7 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

I just went down this rabbit hole, and it's so fascinating. So apparently, airlines have been selling your data to competitors for years. Strange right? I know, hear me out... It's called dynamic pricing. Dynamic pricing is when a company charges you a price calculated specifically for you, based on what they know about you, rather than a fixed price everyone sees. Nobody called it surveillance. The mainstream take on dynamic pricing is that it's sinister and new. Corporations secretly watching, jacking up prices, exploiting desperation. That anger is mostly right. Dynamic pricing isn't a bug that crept into capitalism. It's the entire architecture of how information asymmetry becomes profit. Airlines have always charged different people different prices for the same seat. Hotels. Insurance companies. Actuarial profiling predates the internet. What changed isn't the behavior. It's the resolution. Your battery at 8% telling Uber you're stranded is a higher-resolution version of the taxi driver who saw you running in the rain and didn't turn the meter off. The new part is the precision. They know you searched the same flight six times. They know you're on a Mac. They know your zip code and how long you've been sitting on the page. Old dynamic pricing responded to demand. Surveillance pricing responds to you. The counterargument from the market side is real. Personalization can mean discounts. But companies optimizing for revenue will use behavioral data to find the ceiling, not the floor. What are your thoughts? Is this fair or pure greed from big corp? That's a wrap. Li is a gallery for the greatest minds in economics, psychology, and history. Follow if that interests you. We are ONE genius away. -- P.S. I'm building a course on how the world actually works. Not the surface story, but the incentive layer underneath it. Who funds what. Who benefits from what you believe? Why the official explanation is rarely the complete one. Comment "yes" if you're interested in something like this. Waitlist opens soon.

GeniusThinking

38,698 次观看 • 3 个月前

Marc Andreessen: “I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices.” “We spend a lot of time working with our companies on pricing,” a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen explains. “It’s really this magical art and science that a lot of companies don’t take seriously enough.” Marc continues: “A core principle of pricing is that you don’t want to price by cost if you can avoid it. You want to price by value. Especially when you’re selling to businesses, you want to price as a percentage of the business value you’re creating.” He gives the example of building an AI that can do the job of a programmer, a lawyer, or a radiologist: “Can you price by value and get a percentage of what otherwise would’ve literally been a person? Or equivalently can you price by marginal productivity? If you can take a human doctor and make them much more productive because you give them AI, can you price as a percentage of the productivity uplift?” Marc argues that high prices are under-appreciated by founders: “The naive view on pricing is the lower the pricing, the better it is for the customer. The more sophisticated way of looking at it is that higher prices are often good for the customer because the higher price means the vendor can make the product better, faster. Companies with higher prices and higher margins can actually invest more in R&D and make the product better. Most people who buy things aren’t just looking for the cheapest price. They want something that’s going to work really well.” Marc also emphasizes this point in an interview in Elad Gil’s High Growth Handbook: “What I hear from companies is, ‘Oh, we have an awesome moat, and we’re still going to price our product cheap, because we think that’s somehow going to maximize our business.’ I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. First of all, raising prices is a great way to flesh out whether you actually do have a moat. If you do have a moat, the customers will still buy, because they have to. The definition of a moat is the ability to charge more. And so number one, it’s just a good way to flesh out that topic and really expose it to sunlight. And then number two, companies that charge more can better fund both their distribution efforts and their ongoing R&D efforts. Charging more is a key lever to be able to grow. And the companies that charge more therefore tend to grow faster. That’s counterintuitive to a lot of engineers. A lot of engineers think there’s a one-dimensional relationship between price and value. They have this mental model of commerce like they’re selling rice or something. It’s like, “My product is magical and nobody can replicate it, and I need to price it like it’s a commodity.” No, you don’t. In fact, quite the opposite. If you price it high, then you can fund a much more expensive sales and marketing effort, which means you’re much more likely to win the market, which means you’re much more likely to be able afford to do all the R&D and acquisitions you’re going to want to do. And so we always try to snap people into a two-dimensional mindset, where higher prices equals faster growth.” Video source: a16z (2026)

Startup Archive

422,892 次观看 • 6 个月前

NEW: Brian Singerman, fmr Founders Fund, now GPx, on why he only invests in *people* SpaceX is the reason he joined Founders Fund in 2008 "If SpaceX didn't work, Founders Fund would not exist." From Elon & SpaceX to Karp & Palantir, to Anduril, Airbnb, Stripe, & Stemcentrx, Brian Singerman's whole framework is one question: Is this the best founder in the world at their particular thing? We get into: - What makes Founders Fund unique: a team of strong-willed, genuinely authentic individuals - Why a 3x fund loses to the S&P - How a lifetime of strategy gaming shapes how he reads founders & now GPs - Why he bets against the end of the world every time - Why he's bullish on N-of-1 human cultural artifacts in an AI world - Why Cyan Banister & Palmer Luckey are genuinely N-of-1 people Thank you to Max Levchin, Trae Stephens & Scott Nolan for great questions 𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐌𝐏𝐒 (00:00) Brian Singerman, Co-Founder of GPx, Former Partner at Founders Fund (00:42) Founders Fund (02:09) Max Levchin's unfiltered questions (05:25) How gaming shaped his investing (06:11) Joining Founders Fund in 2008 (07:34) Silicon Valley's most fascinating characters (09:29) Lessons from Peter Thiel (11:26) Building a culture of conviction (11:59) The art of spotting A+ founders (13:55) Trae's biggest lesson from Peter Thiel (14:41) Is socialism a threat to America? (15:58) Why capital is leaving California (17:03) The obsession with Hawaii (20:59) The Founders Fund playbook (24:51) "If SpaceX didn't work, Founders Fund would not exist" (26:03) Why Elon is one of one (27:30) Why everyone knew Starlink would win (28:42) Inside Founders Fund's biggest bets (31:06) The Founders Fund founder archetype (33:25) Backing fund managers instead of startups (35:22) The new generation of GPs (36:34) The most authentic people in tech (41:38) Why other VCs aren't the audience (44:05) Music, Memorabilia & N-of-1 Artifacts (46:25) The story behind Brian's music studio (49:22) What's next for Brian?

Molly O’Shea

250,304 次观看 • 1 个月前