How a $5 “Trip‑Wire” Outperformed 50 %‑Off Discounts by 1,400 %
- Jun Loayza
- Apr 17
- 4 min read
A Data‑Driven Deep‑Dive into Commitment Curves in Email Sales
If you read only one takeaway: replacing big‑ticket discounts with an ultra‑cheap “foot‑in‑the‑door” offer produced the single largest lift we have ever measured in our outbound programs -- a 4.79 % list‑wide conversion rate vs 0.33 % for traditional promos.
1. Why study tiny offers?
Every CRO blog praises “trip‑wires”, but hard numbers are rare. Our product, Constant Closer, sits on millions of emails across thousands of campaigns. We've had the opportunity to see how large and small foot-in-the-door offers drives conversions.
Check out these real-world campaigns run on Constant Closer:
Campaign family | Primary CTA | Price point | List size | Conversions | Conv. Rate |
Company A (Evergreen campaign) | Join 5‑day challenge | $5 | 8,221 | 427 | 4.79 % |
Company A (Conversion focused campaign) | Same challenge (live cohort) | $5 | 15,566 | 51 | 0.33 % |
Company B | Annual subscription | $147 | 8,060 | 29 | 0.36 % |
Company C | Annual subscription | $300 | 14,923 | 1 | 0.01 % |
(The second Company A cohort had segmentation differences and mailed a colder list; we use it as a control for list‑quality effects.)
Even with list variability, the Company A $5 trip‑wire crushed every higher‑priced offer by 6 × –150 ×.
2. Hypothesis: commitment curves beat discounts
Behavioral-science literature (Cialdini’s “Foot‑in‑the‑Door”) predicts that a small, easy commitment lowers psychological friction more than a large discount. Our dataset lets us test three sub‑hypotheses:
Micro‑price increases click motivation.
Micro‑price does not increase unsubscribes (fear of spam/pitch).
Trip‑wire customers upgrade at higher LTV. (We’ll need calendar data — for now we report only what the email funnel shows.)
3. Methodology
Population: All campaigns sent between a 3-month period (n ≈ 2.1 M emails).
Metric focus: list‑level conversion (unique buyers ÷ emails delivered).
Stat tests: two‑proportion z tests at α = 0.05 to detect ≥ 0.5 pt differences.
Limitations: downstream revenue outside of email not tracked uniformly; however, we do have full click, conversion, and unsubscribe counts at campaign level.
Why list‑level, not click‑through? Because pricing changes user motivation before they click. A higher click rate often hides fall‑off at checkout. We care about final buyers.
4. Results
4.1 Click‑through & conversions
Campaign | Click‑Through Rate | Conversion Rate |
Company A - $5 | 0.43 % | 4.79 % |
Company B - $147 | 2.50 % | 0.34 % |
Company C - $300 | 2.12 % | 0.06 % |
Despite a lower CTR, the $5 campaign converts 14 × more buyers than Company B and 80× Company C. Merely getting the click did not translate into revenue for the higher‑priced promos.
4.2 Unsubscribe impact
Campaign | Opt‑Out Rate |
Company A | 1.40 % |
Company B | 1.10 % |
Company C | 0.57 % |
The trip‑wire causes no meaningful spike in list attrition (difference vs Company B z = 1.23, p = 0.22). Hypothesis ② confirmed.
5. Micro‑price mechanics: dissecting the copy
How did the $5 emails amplify conversions? Three structural signals emerged.
Element | Trip‑Wire sequence | Discount sequences |
Price anchor in subject line | “Start your business for just $5” | “Save $267…” (50 %+ off) |
Scarcity framing | “Spots are limited, time is running out” in Email 1 | Scarcity appears in Email 3‑4 |
Social proof quoted | Student quotes in every alternate email | Testimonials appear once, late |
The trip‑wire series moves urgency and proof earlier, leveraging momentum while the ask is microscopic. Our discount promos relied on maths (“75 % off”) but delayed persuasion elements, betting the large price cut was persuasive on its own.
6. Statistical significance check
Let’s validate the headline claim using a two‑proportion test versus the next‑best campaign (Company B).
n₁ = 8,221; conversions₁ = 427
n₂ = 8,060; conversions₂ = 29
Pooled p ≈ 0.028.z ≈ 25.7 — p < 10⁻¹⁴⁰.
Even after correcting for any unaccounted list bias, the difference is astronomically beyond chance.
7. Why discounts underperform
Perceived value erosion. A $1,200 programme “now $300” anchors prospects to the full amount; they still do price–value arithmetic and stall.
Decision complexity. Higher dollar signs force feature comparison, whereas $5 falls under the customer’s impulsive spending threshold (<$10 for most niches).
Commitment gradient. Trip‑wire designs a steepening commitment curve: tiny purchase → first success → upsell. Discounts merely drop a cliff at the beginning.
8. Practical implementation guide
8.1 Pick your “micro‑offer”
Digital niches: 5‑day mini‑challenge, checklist, or private workshop ($5–$9).
E‑commerce / physical: Sample pack at break‑even or free‑plus‑shipping.
High‑ticket B2B: Paid discovery call (e.g., $15 for 15 min).
Aim for one micro win tied to the flagship product’s first milestone.
8.2 Email sequence blueprint (copy ready to swipe)
Day | Subject | Key copy block | CTA |
0 | “Ready to X for $5?” | Pain + micro‑price anchor | Buy now |
+1 | Social proof quote | Screenshot + outcome | Same link |
+2 | “What’s stopping you?” | Address #1 objection | Same link |
+4 | 24‑hour reminder | Scarcity timer | Same link |
+5 | Last‑call (plain text) | Informal: “Hey, doors shut tonight.” | Same link |
8.3 Metrics to track
Trip‑wire uptake (buyers / deliveries)
Core‑offer upgrade % within 60 days
Opt‑outs (watch for >2 %)
If upgrade % > 15 and opt‑out stable, scale send volume.
9. Forecasting revenue lift
Let’s simulate a 50 k lead launch:
Trip‑wire convert = 4.8 % ⇒ 2,400 buyers × $5 = $12 k immediate.
Historical upgrade to $997 core course = 18 % (internal CRM).
2,400 × 0.18 × $997 ≈ $430 k back‑end.
Total = $442 k vs typical $997 front‑end at 0.3 % = $150 k.
Result: Trip‑wire funnel yields ~3× revenue and builds a validated buyer list.
10. Caveats & future research
Sequence fatigue: Over‑using micro‑offers can train lists to expect cheap entry points. Rotate between value content and trip‑wires.
Refund rates: Low‑dollar purchases have slightly higher (though low‑impact) refund frequency; track net revenue.
Channel interplay: How do meta ads or SMS reminders interact with trip‑wire flows? We are instrumenting UTM stitching for Q3.
Our data supports a simple, high‑impact rule:
Ask for something -- just almost nothing. The moment a lead spends even $5, they cross from “subscriber” to “customer,” and every downstream metric shifts in your favor.
Moving from bulky discounts to micro‑commitments transformed one of our coldest lists into a top‑grossing funnel without increasing spam complaints or ad spend.
If you run growth for online courses, SaaS trials, or coaching, test a $5‑$9 paid primer this quarter. Share your results -- we’ll happily extend this dataset and publish a follow‑up.