They made founder packs look so bad that most people would disagree with. Then they “sweetened up” the deal to make it suddenly seem more agreeable, so more people would pay in the end.
It’s a legitimate business strategy. In psychology, this is called “door in the face” - a two-step compliance technique in which the influencer prefaces the real requests with a request so large that it’s likely to be rejected and make the real request seem more reasonable. For example, in a past study, researchers asked a group of students if they would volunteer at something for two years. Not surprisingly, everyone turned it down. Subsequently, they asked them if they would instead be willing to volunteer for just 2 days. 50% of them agreed to it. Then they asked another group to volunteer for 2 days right away without mentioning 2 years, only 10% of them agreed.
Applying this principle, IMC would make more sales by introducing the three-month EA first, then this “option B” than they would have if they showed you the latter right away.
Anyone think I’m crazy?