I've been seeing conversations about why some Skool communities aren't getting visibility through Growth Boost. And I think we're missing a much bigger conversation. Does your pricing model actually support your growth goals? Let's do the math. 👇 If your Premium membership is $5/month and your goal is $10K MRR, you need 2,000 ACTIVE paying members. Now let's look at the traffic required to acquire those members: - 2% visitor-to-paid conversion = 100,000 visitors - 5% conversion = 40,000 visitors - 10% conversion = 20,000 visitors - 20% conversion = 10,000 visitors That's BEFORE cancellations, failed payments and trial drop-offs. Now let's talk about Growth Boost and paid traffic. Imagine it costs $2 to get one visitor to your community. If 10% become paying members, your customer acquisition cost is $20. Here's how long it takes to recover that $20: 💰 $2/month membership = 10 months 💰 $5/month membership = 4 months 💰 $49/month membership = less than 1 month 💰 $99/month membership = less than 1 month And that's assuming members stay, payments succeed and there are no other costs. Now consider this from Growth Boost's perspective. If Skool is spending money advertising communities, wouldn't the economics of acquiring and retaining members matter? We don't know exactly how Growth Boost determines which communities receive advertising exposure, so I'm not suggesting pricing is a confirmed factor. But it raises an important question about the financial sustainability of advertising low-ticket communities to cold audiences. Here's what I have come to learn: ✅ A low membership price doesn't necessarily make your community easier to grow. ✅ It can actually make it MUCH harder to scale profitably. ✅ Because the lower your price, the more members you need, the more traffic you need, and the longer it takes to recover acquisition costs. ✅ I'm not saying everyone needs to charge $99/month. ✅ I'm saying your pricing, traffic strategy, conversion rates and retention need to work together.