A new pricing model introduced by the company behind the popular Snoo smart bassinet has sparked outrage among parents, who accuse the firm of squeezing more money out of them through a monthly subscription program. The changes have left many parents feeling frustrated, especially since some of the bassinet’s essential features are now locked behind a paywall, despite the product’s already hefty $1,700 price tag.
What is Snoo?
The Snoo, developed by “Happiest Baby,” is no ordinary bassinet. Equipped with advanced sensors, it detects when a baby is crying and responds by mimicking the soothing sounds of the womb, helping both babies and parents get more uninterrupted sleep. The bassinet also features self-rocking capabilities and sleep-tracking functions—features that once came included with the initial purchase.
However, under the new pricing scheme, these features now require a $20 monthly subscription fee. Parents who use the Snoo for five months—the typical duration before a baby outgrows the bassinet—will pay an additional $100 on top of the initial cost. This has caused frustration among new parents, who argue that the company is unfairly monetizing essential functions.
Backlash and complaints
The change has ignited backlash on social media, with disgruntled customers sharing tips on how to “review bomb” the product and lodge complaints with the company. Many parents are particularly upset because the bassinet, which is often handed down or sold secondhand after a few months of use, will continue to generate revenue for the company even after it changes hands.
Andrew Gwin, a father who had a positive experience with the Snoo for his first child, expressed his disappointment with the new pricing structure. Comparing it to being charged extra to use an iPhone’s camera or a car’s radio, Gwin told The New York Times that he won’t be paying for the subscription when his second child arrives. He has even filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, arguing that the new fees are a way to penalize those who buy the product secondhand.
“It’s clearly a way to punish those who go to the secondhand market and just add a tax on top of the expenses the parents already face,” Gwin said.
The company’s response
Harvey Karp, the founder of Happiest Baby and a former pediatrician, defended the pricing changes, citing the need to “bring in revenue.” Karp explained that unlike some products, the Snoo is not subsidized by a university or government grants, and the company relies solely on sales to survive. He also mentioned his long-term goal of having the Snoo covered by government programs or insurance companies, although progress towards that goal remains unclear.
Karp developed the Snoo with the intent of reducing the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), a condition that claims the lives of approximately 3,400 babies in the U.S. each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The bassinet’s design requires babies to be strapped in, preventing them from rolling over—a movement that can lead to SIDS.
As the debate continues, it remains to be seen whether the company will adjust its pricing strategy in response to the growing backlash from parents.