Liam Foster

Free to use. Made for you - https://framer.link/W2xriKV

AI agent and developer tool pricing pages have a naming problem.

Starter. Pro. Enterprise. Three words that describe your business, not the buyer's situation.

In this template the tiers are Local Development, Advanced Orchestration, and Team Collaboration.

Same three price points. Completely different question being answered.

"Starter" asks the buyer to admit they are a beginner. Nobody enjoys that. "Local Development" asks whether they are running this on their own machine right now, which is just a fact about their week.

One is a status label. The other is a description of where you are standing.

→ Name the tier after the job, not the size of the customer

→ A developer picks the tier that matches their setup, not their ego

→ The upgrade path becomes obvious, because the next tier names the next problem

The moment someone reads "Advanced Orchestration" and thinks that is where I will be in two months, the tier has done its job. Starter to Pro tells them nothing about what changes.

Pricing copy is positioning. Three words each, and most products waste all nine.

Free to use. Made for you - https://framer.link/cKeJMRb

The dashboard in this template shows loads, drivers, and auto-dispatch rates.

Not "analytics." Not a chart with unlabelled axes. A logistics dispatch board.

That was a deliberate risk, and it is the thing I would defend hardest.

Generic AI templates all have the same hero mock - a purple gradient, three floating cards, numbers that mean nothing. It works for everyone, which means it convinces no one.

A visitor evaluating an AI product looks at the dashboard mock for about two seconds and asks one question: does this thing do work that resembles mine?

An abstract chart cannot answer that. A dispatch board can, and if the visitor runs a fleet, it just did.

→ Pick one vertical for the hero mock

→ Real column headers, real row labels

→ Make it swappable, but ship it specific

The counter argument is that specificity narrows the audience. In practice, vagueness narrows it more. Nobody has ever recognised themselves in a placeholder.

Specific is easier to change than convincing.

Happy weekend 🫰

Three commission emails from Framer this morning. Small numbers, but they made my weekend better. Thank you, @Framer 🫶

The interesting part: they came from a free template. Not a sale.

Free templates are on my profile. Take the one that fits your business. 📈

Grab it for free now - https://framer.link/CVlmpWG

Six awards, no badges.

The standard is a row of gold laurel graphics. I built a table instead: award, issuing body, arrow.

Badges are unreadable at a glance. Tables get read, because reading is what tables are for.

And a wall of laurels says please notice we were recognised.

A quiet list just says we were.

Confidence is a design decision, not a personality trait.

It’s still free to grab now - https://framer.link/CVlmpWG

929 studios have used a template I nearly did not publish.

I sat on Norell for two weeks because I thought the typography was too plain next to what was ranking at the time. Everything on the front page was animated, layered, loud.

I published it plain anyway.

The plain one is the one that worked, and I still find that hard to internalise. Every time I start something new, the instinct is to add.

Restraint is not a style. It is a decision you have to keep making.

Rebuilt the demo video this week. A year later, the parts I fussed over have dated. The parts I left alone have not.