Scroll to top
Back

Mailchimp: Designing for Pricing Clarity

A redesign of the SaaS pricing experience

2026
Mailchimp

Why Mailchimp?

Mailchimp is a widely used marketing automation platform, best known for its email marketing tools for small businesses. It allows users to design, send, and track campaigns, and is often considered an industry standard in the email marketing SaaS space.

I noticed that even though Mailchimp is an industry giant, their pricing page felt like a hurdle rather than a help. I wanted to see if I could take that massive list of features and turn it into a decision-making tool that actually made sense for a growing business.

The Cost of Confusion

Pricing confusion example 1 Pricing confusion example 2 Pricing confusion example 3 Pricing confusion example 4 Pricing confusion example 5

I scoured Reddit threads, forums and related search queries to understand and look for patterns in how real users discussed Mailchimp's billing. What I found out was that users were forced to reverse-engineer pricing instead of being guided toward a decision. There was also no strong value anchoring to convince the users of the price point and experienced users still needed the community to understand cost implications.

Its pricing page does not help users answer the most basic question: “How much will this cost me as I grow?”

So I chose the primary user as growing small businesses / early-stage marketing teams, with:

Why this segment?

Primary conversion goal: Increase conversion to the mid-tier plan (Standard) by reducing decision friction and strengthening value anchoring.

Secondary goals: Reduce bounce on the pricing page, reduce reliance on the “Find my plan” quiz, and increase confidence at the point of CTA.

Identifying the Friction in the Current Page

With the primary user and conversion goals defined, I performed an audit of the existing pricing page to identify UI-level friction contributing to decision paralysis. The pain points I identified were later grouped together to identify similar patterns.

existingwebpage existingwebpage existingwebpage existingwebpage existingwebpage existingwebpage existingwebpage existingwebpage existingwebpage
😀
Opens pricing page
“Great, Standard plan is 50% off.”
  • Immediate positive sentiment and "price-drop" urgency.
🧐
Sees “overages apply” under Standard plan
“Hmm… not sure what that means exactly.”
  • Overage fees are mentioned only in fine print, creating anxiety.
  • The feature list does not reflect added costs, leading to uncertainty.
😬
Wants a plan for 2,600 contacts, sees it in the same slab as 5,000 contacts
“Wait, does this mean 2,600 is treated the same as 5,000? Seems like wasted space.”
  • Pricing jumps in fixed intervals (“staircase pricing”), not aligned with growth.
  • Users with fewer contacts feel they pay for unused capacity.
🙄
Notices all plans also have 50% off
“Then why was Standard specially highlighted in the hero section?”
  • Creates visual clutter in the plans tab.
  • Decoy plan (Essentials) doesn’t feel meaningfully different.
😣
Looks through plans, confused between Standard and Essential
“Okay… which one should I pick? They look similar.”
  • Features are buried and upgrade justification isn't clear.
  • User has difficulty seeing "winning differences" between plans.
🧐
Mentally compares features, but there are too many listed
“Wow, there’s a lot here… I’ll skim halfway through and try to make sense of it.”
  • Dense lists of technical features feel like specs, not benefits.
  • Checkmarks on everything fail to highlight meaningful differences.
  • The comparison grid feels like infinite scroll rather than a clear decision aid.
😌
Gets a slight idea of which plan to choose
“Alright, I think I’m leaning toward something…”
  • Partial understanding gained after skimming.
⚠️
Considers “Find My Plan” quiz
“Maybe this quiz will help me decide?”
  • Quiz acts as a speed bump, implicitly admitting that the table is hard to understand.
  • Overlay interrupts side-by-side comparison, breaking the mental model.
😬
Quiz overlay shows more options, confusing original idea
“Oh… now there are even more options? I had a plan in mind already!”
  • Original plan selection process is disrupted.
  • Users lose their mental momentum.
😕
Quiz says Standard is best, but Essential looks the same
“Standard is supposedly best, but Essential seems identical… which do I pick?”
  • “Best value” recommendation fails to clarify why Standard is better.
  • Decoy plan effect is weak; differentiation is unclear.
😌
Makes up mind to choose Essential
“Fine, I’ll just go with Essential.”
  • Despite guidance, user bypasses it and chooses on their own.
💤
Sees social proof below
“Okay… I’m already decided, this doesn’t change anything.”
  • Social proof is placed too low, missing its chance to reassure.
😬
Advertised below that personalized product tour is available only for Standard & Premium
“Oh, this would have been useful earlier… but it’s not for my plan?”
  • Info comes too late and is missing for the chosen plan, reducing its utility.
😌
Sees info about <500 contacts eligible for free plan
“Ah, good to know. Makes sense for smaller businesses.”
  • Clear info for small businesses reduces friction.
😕
Reads FAQs but still not fully convinced
“Hmm… these answers don’t really reassure me about my choice.”
  • FAQs fail to fully reduce uncertainty or reinforce confidence.

Planned Design Changes

Plans aligned to business growth stages Instead of tech specs, I framed plans around business milestones: Essentials for "starting," Standard for "scaling," and Premium for "optimizing." This lets users self-identify their needs instantly.
Standard positioned as the natural upgrade I shifted the focus of the Essentials plan to be transitional. By limiting high-growth tools but keeping the price close to Standard, the value gap becomes obvious and nudges users toward the mid-tier.
Key differentiators over feature volume I replaced the "wall of checkmarks" with a few high-impact features per plan. This highlights the actual reasons to upgrade without burying them in technical noise.
Comparison fatigue reduced Using Progressive Disclosure, I surfaced only the "winning" differences upfront. Detailed technical specs were moved into expandable sections to satisfy power users without overwhelming skimmers.
Extra capacity reframed as flexibility I used dynamic messaging to turn "paying for unused contacts" into "room to grow." This changes the perception from overpaying to having a stable, scale-ready foundation.
Hidden costs made explicit early I brought overage explanations out of the fine print and onto the main stage. Surfacing these costs early builds the trust necessary to get a user to click "Buy."

Some Psychological Principles That I Applied

Anchoring: Establishing a Value Floor Anchoring Placing the premium plan as a visual anchor makes Standard feel like a bargain.
The Decoy Effect: Nudging the Rational Winner Decoy Effect Keeping Essentials slightly inferior nudges users toward standard as a rational choice.
The Goal Gradient Effect: Reducing Interaction Cost Goal Gradient Effect Clicking a persona like "I'm Scaling" gives users a sense of progress, increasing likelihood of completing the CTA.
The Framing Effect: Turning "Hidden Costs" into Trust Framing Effect Rewriting overage costs in plain language reduces fear of hidden penalties.
Loss Aversion: The Power of the "Missing" Feature Loss Aversion Highlighting what Essential lacks compared to Standard emphasizes the value of upgrading.
Social Proof & Proximity Bias: Reassurance at the CTA Social Proof Moving testimonials and trust signals near CTAs reassures users at the decision point.

Challenges, Wireframes and Iterations

My biggest hurdle was when I wanted to provide the feature list. I was struggling to give skimmers the speed they wanted without leaving skeptics who need every technical detail in the dark. I eventually decided that winning differences must be the only thing visible at first glance, and the rest could be progressively disclosed when users expanded all features.

Wireframes
Key Iterations
Iteration 1
Firstly I moved the position of the personalized product tour message to the hero section, so it lets users know and naturally points it to the standard plan beside.
Iteration 2
I added choice architecture beside the find my plan button to make users feel 20% done.
Iteration 3
Shifted trust tokens and social proof near high CTA areas at the top.
Iteration 4
Removed the staircase pricing and let users naturally enter their preferred contacts. Rephrased better so users feel they have ability to scale with the extra growth space.
Iteration 5
Finally I went through all the features offered and chose the features to display that would help users directly jump to Standard plan, and the rest put behind the compare all features button.

Final Redesigned Screen

Final High-Fidelity Redesign

Reflections

Marketing can’t solve a product problem The 50% discount was a great hook, but it couldn't convert users who were fundamentally confused by the pricing logic. I learned that urgency only works if the value is clear first.
Curation is better than deletion I realized that some users need technical details to feel safe, so I couldn't just remove them. The solution was progressive disclosure, showing the most important info first and keeping the deep details one click away.
Addressing the fear of change and not just price Users aren’t just worried about the cost; they’re afraid of outgrowing the plan or the system breaking. By showing that their business never stops during a switch, I gave them a safety net that made upgrading feel less risky.
Open in Figma →