Pay-what-you-can is not the same as free
Free events have an attendance problem. When there is no financial commitment involved in registering, the no-show rate can be very high, the audience self-selection is poor, and the event can attract people who are present because they have nothing better to do rather than because they specifically wanted to be there. The psychological research on this is consistent: even a small payment changes the relationship between the registrant and their commitment to attend.
Pay-what-you-can pricing is not free ticketing with a different label. It is a deliberate pricing structure that maintains the commitment mechanism of a financial transaction while removing the fixed-price barrier that prevents specific audiences from attending. Done well, it produces better attendance rates than free events, a more committed and self-selected audience, and a sense of organisational integrity that resonates with audiences for whom values alignment with the event matters.
Done badly, it produces confusion, under-pricing by attendees who assume the lowest option is the appropriate one, and a misaligned expectation about what the event will be like. This guide covers how to set it up so the first outcome is far more likely than the second.
The three-tier structure that works
The most practical implementation of pay-what-you-can pricing on ShowRave is a three-tier ticket structure where each tier has a distinct name, a specific price, and a description that explains what the price represents without being either moralistic or vague.
Community rate: The lowest tier. Priced at the minimum that maintains the commitment mechanism: enough to signal that the event has value and that the buyer is making a real choice, but low enough that financial constraint is not a meaningful barrier to anyone in the intended audience. In the description, be direct about who this rate is for: "For those who need to manage costs. This rate is for you if the standard price would be a genuine barrier to attending."
Standard rate: The middle tier. Priced at the level that covers the event's costs at a realistic fill rate. This is what most attendees will pay, and the description should confirm this clearly: "The standard rate covers our costs and is appropriate for most attendees." Making it clear that this is the default removes the awkwardness buyers feel about whether choosing the middle tier is somehow less generous than it could be.
Supporter rate: The top tier. Priced above the standard rate, with a description that explains what the additional amount contributes: "If you can pay more, this rate helps us offer community rates to other attendees and cover the full cost of the event." The supporter rate should be a genuine invitation rather than a guilt mechanism: some attendees who believe in the event's purpose will actively want to pay more, and this tier gives them a clean way to do so.
Name each tier in a way that matches the event's tone. Community, Standard, Supporter is a neutral set that works broadly. Other events might use Subsidised, Full Price, Patron. The names communicate the same structure; what matters is that the description for each tier is honest and specific, so buyers feel informed rather than confused.
How to communicate sliding scale pricing without making buyers anxious
The most common problem with pay-what-you-can events is that buyers do not know which tier to choose and default to the lowest one, regardless of their financial situation, because they are not sure what the normal or expected choice is. This is a communication failure, not a pricing failure.
The event description should address the question buyers are actually asking: "Which option is right for me?" The clearest way to answer it is to be specific in each tier description rather than leaving the choice entirely open-ended. An open-ended invitation to "pay what feels right" produces under-pricing. A structured three-tier description with honest framing for each level produces an audience that largely self-selects appropriately.
In promotional materials, describe the event as a "sliding scale ticketing" or "pay-what-you-can" event with a brief explanation of the structure. Something like: "Tickets are available at three price points to make the event accessible. Most attendees pay the standard rate; community and supporter rates are also available." This frames the event's accessibility positively without signalling that the standard rate is optional or that the cheapest option is somehow the right choice for everyone.
When pay-what-you-can pricing is the right choice
Pay-what-you-can pricing serves specific event contexts well. It is particularly well suited to: events run by nonprofits or community organisations for whom financial accessibility is a core value; arts and culture events that want to reach a broader audience than a fixed premium price allows; educational events where the content has genuine community value and excluding price-sensitive attendees would reduce the quality of the learning community; and events where the organisers believe strongly in the cause and want attendance to be determined by interest rather than income.
It is less well suited to: events with a strong commercial premium positioning where the price is part of the quality signal; events with tight cost structures where under-pricing by a significant proportion of attendees would make the event unviable; and events where the organiser's cost base requires a specific revenue per head that the community rate does not cover at realistic take-up rates.
Before configuring pay-what-you-can pricing, calculate the break-even scenario: if a defined proportion of buyers choose the community rate, a defined proportion choose the standard rate, and a defined proportion choose the supporter rate, does the total revenue cover the event's costs? Run this calculation with a realistic distribution across the three tiers, not an optimistic one. If the community rate tier proportion that makes the event commercially viable requires more than about 70% of buyers to choose the standard or supporter rate, the pricing structure may need adjustment.
Setting it up on ShowRave
Configure each tier as a separate ticket type on ShowRave with its own name, price, description, and quantity limit. The community rate tier can have a quantity limit to prevent the event from filling entirely with the lowest-priced tier: a limit of 25 to 30% of total capacity on the community rate maintains the financial viability of the model while keeping the access commitment genuine.
The standard rate ticket should have the highest quantity allocation, reflecting that this is the expected choice for most attendees. The supporter rate can be uncapped or set at a broad limit; the volume of supporter rate buyers is typically low enough that a cap adds unnecessary complexity without meaningful benefit.
For events where pay-what-you-can pricing is part of the organisation's ongoing programme rather than a one-off model, review the tier distribution after each event. The proportion of buyers choosing each tier changes over time as the audience becomes familiar with the structure and more confident about which tier is appropriate for them. An event that runs the same pay-what-you-can structure four times per year will see the distribution stabilise after two or three editions as the community develops a shared understanding of what each tier means in context.
Create your event at /create/create-venue-event and configure the three-tier structure in the ticket section before any promotion begins. The tier names and descriptions are what buyers see at checkout; invest the time in writing them clearly before the first sale happens.
Handling the no-show rate for sliding scale events
Pay-what-you-can events, particularly those with a community rate that is very low, have a higher risk of elevated no-show rates than fixed-price events. The commitment mechanism of a small payment exists but is weaker at the community rate level than at the standard rate. For events where physical capacity management matters, such as seated performances, intimate workshops, or catered gatherings, an elevated no-show rate has direct operational and financial consequences.
Two practical approaches reduce no-show rates for community rate tier buyers without undermining the accessibility principle. First, configure the community rate with a confirmation step: after registering, community rate buyers receive a confirmation email that specifically references their reservation and asks them to confirm attendance if they are still planning to come, two to three days before the event. This does not cancel their registration if they do not respond, but the act of re-confirming activates the commitment they made at registration. Second, communicate pre-event information proactively to all buyers, including community rate registrants, with the specific logistics, what to bring, and a genuine reason to be there that goes beyond the financial transaction.
Accessibility and the event's stated values
Pay-what-you-can pricing communicates something about the event's values. For events run by organisations whose values include accessibility and community participation, the pricing structure is a public statement that matches what the organisation says about itself. When the pricing structure is consistent with the organisation's public communications, the event's credibility with its target audience is higher than an event that says it values accessibility but prices in a way that is inaccessible to a significant portion of the community it claims to serve.
This alignment between stated values and actual pricing is worth making explicit in the event description and promotional materials. "We believe this event should be accessible to everyone in our community, regardless of financial circumstances. That is why we offer tickets at three price points." This is not marketing copy. It is an honest explanation of a deliberate choice that the organiser made. Audiences who share the values respond positively to that honesty, and it sets a clear expectation about what the community rate is for before the buyer chooses it.
Reviewing performance and adjusting the model
After each event using pay-what-you-can pricing, review the tier distribution in the ShowRave attendee export. What proportion of buyers chose each tier? Did the distribution match your expectation? Was the event commercially viable at the actual distribution? If the community rate tier was oversubscribed relative to what the financial model required, consider whether the standard rate price needs adjustment upward, or the community rate limit needs tightening. If the supporter rate saw unexpected take-up, the standard rate may be slightly below what the audience is willing to pay, which represents an opportunity to adjust pricing without reducing accessibility.
This data-driven review is what separates a pay-what-you-can model that is refined over time from one that runs indefinitely on the same structure regardless of whether it is producing the intended outcomes. The pricing structure should evolve based on how the audience actually uses it, not remain static because it was set at launch and no one thought to revisit it.
