《考虑市场结构差异的SaaS定价博弈研究》定价策略对比研究（1）

摘要：This post will introduce the comparative study of pricing strategies in the SaaS monopoly market from the intensive reading master

分享兴趣，传播快乐，

增长见闻，留下美好。

亲爱的您，这里是LearingYard学苑！

今天小编为您带来文章

“喆学（124）：精读硕士论文

《考虑市场结构差异的SaaS定价博弈研究》

SaaS垄断市场下定价策略对比研究（1）”

欢迎您的访问！

Share interest, spread happiness,

increase Knowledge, and leave beautiful.

Dear, this is the LearingYard Academy!

Today, the editor brings the

"Zhexue (124): Intensive reading of master's thesis

"A study on SaaS pricing game considering market structure differences"

Comparative Study on Pricing Strategies in SaaS Monopoly Market (1)"

Welcome to visit!

本期推文将从思维导图、精读内容、知识补充三个方面介绍精读硕士论文《考虑市场结构差异的SaaS定价博弈研究》的SaaS 垄断市场下定价策略对比研究。

This post will introduce the comparative study of pricing strategies in the SaaS monopoly market from the intensive reading master's thesis "Research on SaaS Pricing Game Considering Market Structure Differences" from three aspects: mind mapping, intensive reading content, and knowledge supplement.

一、思维导图（Mind Maps）

二、精读内容（Intensive reading content）

(1)研究背景(Background)

中国SaaS市场发展迅速，但厂商分布不均，多集中于一二线城市，三四线城市较少，不过成为区域开拓者的企业也有一定机会。同时，SaaS企业常在细分市场形成垄断，如SalesForce在CRM领域。然而，SaaS定价机制存在盲目性，如“补贴定价”“跟风定价”，缺乏长期战略考量，导致一些企业因定价不当而收益率下降甚至退出市场，如Nirvanix因资金链断裂倒闭。

China's SaaS market is developing rapidly, but the distribution of manufacturers is uneven, mostly concentrated in first- and second-tier cities, with fewer in third- and fourth-tier cities. However, there are certain opportunities for companies that become regional pioneers. At the same time, SaaS companies often form monopolies in niche markets, such as SalesForce in the CRM field. However, there is blindness in the SaaS pricing mechanism, such as "subsidized pricing" and "follow-the-trend pricing", and lack of long-term strategic considerations, which has led to some companies' decline in profitability or even exiting the market due to improper pricing, such as Nirvanix's bankruptcy due to a broken capital chain.

传统SaaS定价模式主要有固定定价和按用量定价两种。固定定价收取简便、成本小，但对低使用量用户价格较高，带来成本压力；按用量定价能降低使用门槛并实施价格歧视，但面临统计用量和客户流失等交易成本。此外，SaaS服务的快速发展也带来了安全风险，如恶意攻击、网络故障、数据泄露等，用户的信息感知逐渐转向安全可靠性，尽管提供商努力消除顾虑，但技术特性决定无法彻底解决问题，风险仍是应用的重要障碍。

Traditional SaaS pricing models mainly include fixed pricing and usage-based pricing. Fixed pricing is simple and inexpensive, but it is more expensive for low-usage users, which brings cost pressure; usage-based pricing can lower the threshold for use and implement price discrimination, but it faces transaction costs such as statistical usage and customer churn. In addition, the rapid development of SaaS services has also brought security risks, such as malicious attacks, network failures, data leaks, etc. Users' information perception has gradually shifted to security and reliability. Although providers have tried to eliminate concerns, the technical characteristics determine that the problem cannot be completely solved, and risks are still an important obstacle to application.

本章结合“用户偏好度”“风险”和“交易成本”等因素，构建完全垄断市场结构下的新市场进入者定价模型，在固定定价和按用量定价基础上提出混合定价机制，以更好地满足客户需求，探讨其优势以及用户行为和社会福利效应，为SaaS市场的健康发展提供理论支持和实践参考。

This chapter combines factors such as "user preference", "risk" and "transaction cost" to construct a pricing model for new market entrants under a completely monopolistic market structure, and proposes a hybrid pricing mechanism based on fixed pricing and usage-based pricing to better meet customer needs. It explores its advantages as well as user behavior and social welfare effects, providing theoretical support and practical reference for the healthy development of the SaaS market.

(2)模型描述(Model description)

在垄断性的SaaS服务市场中，供应商面对差异化用户群体，在不了解每个用户具体偏好类型的情况下，需选择定价机制（固定、按用量或混合定价）及对应价格策略以最大化自身收益，而用户则旨在最大化消费者剩余，决策变量是购买行为（按不同定价机制购买或不购买）。SaaS提供商的定价机制直接影响用户购买行为及自身利润，同时服务风险也是影响用户购买的重要因素。因此，综合考虑用户偏好、风险和成本结构，选择合理定价方式并制定最优定价策略，是SaaS提供商必须解决的关键问题。

In the monopolistic SaaS service market, suppliers face differentiated user groups. Without knowing the specific preferences of each user, they need to choose a pricing mechanism (fixed, usage-based, or mixed pricing) and a corresponding pricing strategy to maximize their own profits. Users aim to maximize consumer surplus, and the decision variable is purchase behavior (buy or not buy according to different pricing mechanisms). The pricing mechanism of SaaS providers directly affects user purchasing behavior and their own profits. At the same time, service risk is also an important factor affecting user purchases. Therefore, it is a key issue that SaaS providers must solve to comprehensively consider user preferences, risks, and cost structures, select a reasonable pricing method, and formulate an optimal pricing strategy.

(3)基本参数假设(Basic parameter assumptions)

1.用户群体偏好度(User group preference)

在垄断性的SaaS服务市场中，用户对SaaS服务的偏好度存在显著差异，这种异质性偏好不仅决定了消费者从服务中获得的效用水平，还间接影响了供应商的定价策略。为了量化这种偏好，本文用α表示用户对SaaS服务的个体偏好度，α在区间[α,α]上连续分布，α值越高，表示用户从相同数量的服务中获得的效用越高。尽管SaaS供应商无法精确识别每个用户的偏好度α，但可以通过市场调研和经验掌握用户偏好度的分布函数。

In the monopolistic SaaS service market, users have significant differences in their preferences for SaaS services. This heterogeneous preference not only determines the level of utility that consumers obtain from the service, but also indirectly affects the pricing strategy of the supplier. In order to quantify this preference, this paper uses α to represent the individual preference of users for SaaS services. α is continuously distributed in the interval [α, α]. The higher the α value, the higher the utility that users obtain from the same number of services. Although SaaS suppliers cannot accurately identify the preference α of each user, they can master the distribution function of user preferences through market research and experience.

2.Saas服务风险(SaaS Service Risks)

随着云计算技术的飞速发展，云系统在开发、运行、调试和配置等环节的安全性问题日益凸显，由于资源的高度集中性，云系统容易成为黑客攻击的目标，相比传统软件部署环境，云系统面临的攻击威胁更大，影响也更严重。这直接影响了消费者采用SaaS服务的意图并降低了使用效用水平。本文用β表示SaaS服务所遭受的风险程度，其在区间[β,β]上连续，β值越高，消费者单位效用越低。消费者效用与使用量q、偏好α及风险β有关，满足边际效用递减规则。

With the rapid development of cloud computing technology, the security issues of cloud systems in development, operation, debugging and configuration have become increasingly prominent. Due to the high concentration of resources, cloud systems are easily targeted by hackers. Compared with traditional software deployment environments, cloud systems face greater threats and more serious impacts. This directly affects consumers' intention to adopt SaaS services and reduces the level of utility. This paper uses β to represent the degree of risk suffered by SaaS services. It is continuous in the interval [β, β]. The higher the β value, the lower the consumer unit utility. Consumer utility is related to usage q, preference α and risk β, and meets the rule of diminishing marginal utility.

3.交易成本(Transaction costs)

SaaS提供商的定价策略受成本结构影响，其中交易成本常被忽略。在固定定价机制下，交易成本较低；而在按用量定价机制下，交易成本较高。混合定价机制则结合了两者的交易成本特点。本文将定价机制设计视为SaaS提供商与用户之间的两阶段动态博弈过程，其中提供商首先选择定价机制和制定价格体系，消费者随后根据付费模式和自身剩余做出最佳选择。用户偏好度、SaaS服务风险和交易成本是决定提供商定价策略的三大关键因素。

The pricing strategy of SaaS providers is affected by the cost structure, among which transaction costs are often ignored. Under the fixed pricing mechanism, transaction costs are low; while under the usage-based pricing mechanism, transaction costs are high. The hybrid pricing mechanism combines the transaction cost characteristics of both. This paper regards the design of pricing mechanism as a two-stage dynamic game process between SaaS providers and users, in which the provider first chooses the pricing mechanism and formulates the price system, and the consumer then makes the best choice based on the payment model and its own surplus. User preference, SaaS service risk and transaction costs are the three key factors that determine the pricing strategy of the provider.

本文分别构建了固定定价、按用量定价及混合定价模型，探讨了混合定价机制相较于单一机制的优势，并分析了用户偏好度、风险及交易成本对SaaS提供商定价决策和利润的影响。在固定定价模型中，提供商根据用户偏好度和风险制定固定价格；在按用量定价模型中，单位价格受平均偏好度、平均风险系数及单位交易成本影响。通过对比三种定价机制，本文进一步揭示了混合定价模式在满足客户需求、提升提供商利润方面的潜在优势。

This paper constructs fixed pricing, usage-based pricing and hybrid pricing models respectively, explores the advantages of hybrid pricing mechanism compared with single mechanism, and analyzes the impact of user preference, risk and transaction cost on SaaS provider pricing decision and profit. In the fixed pricing model, the provider sets a fixed price based on user preference and risk; in the usage-based pricing model, the unit price is affected by the average preference, average risk factor and unit transaction cost. By comparing the three pricing mechanisms, this paper further reveals the potential advantages of hybrid pricing model in meeting customer needs and improving provider profits.

三、知识补充（Knowledge supplement）

固定定价是指用户支付固定的费用，可以在一定时间内不限量地使用服务。这种模式收费简单，成本和收入可预测，适合对服务有持续需求、使用量较稳定的企业。例如，G Suite对每个用户收取固定费用6美元，10个用户每月的费用为60美元。再比如，项目管理工具Basecamp采用统一定价99美元一个月，不限使用人数和项目数量。

Fixed pricing means that users pay a fixed fee and can use the service unlimitedly for a certain period of time. This model has simple charging, predictable costs and revenues, and is suitable for companies with continuous demand for services and relatively stable usage. For example, G Suite charges a fixed fee of $6 per user, and the monthly fee for 10 users is $60. For another example, the project management tool Basecamp adopts a uniform price of $99 per month, with no limit on the number of users and the number of projects.

按用量定价是根据用户实际使用的服务量（如时长、数量）来收取费用。这种模式灵活性高，用户按需付费，使用越多，费用越高。它适合使用量波动大、难以预测的企业。例如，Twilio云通信平台按使用的短信或语音分钟数收费。再比如，Stripe采用“收取金额的百分比+每笔固定金额”的收费方式，客户不必承担固定的月费。

Usage-based pricing charges fees based on the actual amount of services used by users (such as duration and quantity). This model is highly flexible, and users pay on demand. The more they use, the higher the fee. It is suitable for companies with large and unpredictable usage fluctuations. For example, the Twilio cloud communication platform charges by the number of SMS or voice minutes used. For another example, Stripe adopts a charging method of "percentage of the amount collected + fixed amount per transaction", and customers do not have to bear a fixed monthly fee.

固定定价对低使用量用户成本较高，而按用量定价计费复杂，存在客户流失风险，交易成本高。固定定价模式下，交易成本较低，收费方式简单且稳定；而按用量定价模式下，交易成本较高，需要实时监控用户消费数量并计价。

Fixed pricing is more expensive for low-usage users, while usage-based pricing is complex, has the risk of customer churn, and has high transaction costs. Under the fixed pricing model, transaction costs are low and the charging method is simple and stable; under the usage-based pricing model, transaction costs are high and real-time monitoring of user consumption and pricing are required.

今天的分享就到这里了。

如果您对文章有独特的想法，

欢迎给我们留言，让我们相约明天。

祝您今天过得开心快乐！

That's all for today's sharing.

If you have a unique idea about the article,

please leave us a message,

and let us meet tomorrow.

I wish you a nice day!

翻译：谷歌翻译

参考资料：谷歌、Chat GPT

参考文献：丁紫雯.环境税下考虑零售商公平关切的绿色投入水平和定价决策研究[D].东华大学,2022.