How to insult your prospects? A lesson from Supercut

Supercut's free plan made me angry.

Imagine you’re checking out Tesla’s or BMW’s website. You see their pricing page. You look at the pricing and think, “Wow, I can’t afford that right now.”

You then see a link that says, “For those with budgets of $10,000 and below.”

You get excited. That’s something you can manage to spend.

You click on it and see a message: “Go and buy a used car.”

How offensive is that?

Supercut did the same thing, but for software.

Their pricing page has a Free option. When you click on it, you see this message:

“Looking for a free, basic video messaging tool? Use Loom’s free tier.

Or maybe it’s time you raise the bar?”

I see several problems with this section. Let’s list them one by one.

A fake free plan isn’t cool. It’s insulting.

When you add a “Free” option to your pricing page, you’re giving hope to someone who can’t afford $18 per month. That person might be from India, Africa, Thailand, or South America - people who want a tool like Supercut but can’t afford it because of their currency.

Users who’ve tried software before know that freemium models are limited. But freemium gives them room to explore and see if it meets their needs. If they grow using your product and can’t live without it, they eventually upgrade.

Showing a free option and then telling them to check out Loom’s pricing page is insulting.

Don’t include the free option at all. Apps like Superhuman and Motion don’t have free plan.

They have higher-than-normal prices, but they justify it by telling the users how much money it can save for them.

Supercut and Loom are priced the same

It’s not like Supercut is cheaper than Loom. Loom also costs $15 (billed annually)—the same as Supercut.

There’s a good chance people who go to Loom from Supercut’s fake free plan will end up using Loom’s actual free plan and eventually upgrade to their business plan.

Why not refer tools that are actually free!

If you want to be truly selfless, do your leads a favor and refer them to a useful free tool like Cap.so, which free and open-source. And, it’s on par with apps like ScreenStudio in terms of quality.

Why refer Loom?

Because the monthly pricing of Supercut ($18) is less than Loom ($24)? Because Loom’s free plan offers video export only up to 720p? Hmm…

What they could’ve done instead?

Supercut could have approached this in multiple ways.

Option 1: Remove the fake free tier. They could have removed the three-tier section from the pricing page entirely. We understand that having a Pro plan and an Enterprise plan is standard—nobody would question it. Apps like MyMind makes a case on their website for why their app doesn’t have a free plan. I love it. Follow the same. Don’t create a fake free tier just for UX aesthetics and then scramble to fill it with something that insults your prospects.

Option 2: Offer a real free plan with limits. They could have offered a genuine free plan with limited video generation. Let users create videos with all the features, but cap it at one or two videos. If they want to create a third video, they’d need to upgrade to a paid plan. This approach works because it lets users try the product without entering credit card details, which lowers the barrier to entry.

Option 3: Create a referral program for free users. They could have offered free users a way to earn credits through referrals. For example, give 3 video credits to users for every person who upgrades through their referral link. This creates a win-win situation: free users get to create more videos, and Supercut gains paying customers through word-of-mouth growth.

I understand the concern that free plans can prevent upgrades. Everyone has different beliefs about how to sell their software—whether through a free version, open source, freemium, or paid-only models. That’s fine. But don’t add a fake free tier just for the sake of it.