Pricing College Podcast – Details, episodes & analysis

Times-stamp Notes:

[00:00] Introduction to developing pricing strategies
[00:32] Developing pricing strategies amid rising complexity and cost pressures
[01:34] Challenges in developing pricing strategies within current systems
[03:57] Structural issues in developing pricing strategies
[05:48] Example of misalignment when developing pricing strategies
[08:47] Improving and developing pricing strategies through better design
[10:18] Conclusion: Key takeaways on developing pricing strategies

00:00 Been a big week in Australia and in the world. Pricing is back in the spotlight. And in the news we're reading that major retailers are under scrutiny again for how they're applying discounts. The ACCC are questioning retailers for price transparency. And at the same time, many businesses are dealing with rising input costs driven by fuel, supply chain pressure and global instability fundamentally created by the war we find ourselves in.

00:32 Now, what this highlights to me is something deeper. Pricing is becoming harder and more complex, not easier, unfortunately. And that's not just a consumer issue. I'm seeing this same thing across B2B and trade businesses: inconsistent pricing, heavy discounting, growing pressure to justify decisions. And yet more reliance on short-term fixes. Things like surcharges and minimum order thresholds and now the new trend, just to recover costs.

01:13 Unfortunately, though, many are dropping strategic pricing in favour of these short-term fixes because they feel this will recover margin quicker, better, faster, etc. Which really does beg the question: Is your pricing system actually working for you or against you?

01:34 Hello and welcome to Pricing College podcast. My name is Joanna Wells and I'm the founder and director of Taylor Wells Advisory. And we help businesses improve margin through better pricing strategy. Now, this episode is going to be part of a series on pricing transformation. And the reason being is because many Australian B2B and trade businesses right now are under pressure.

02:04 Pricing just isn't under control and it's at a turning point. We've got legacy models that are struggling to keep up with cost changes, commercial teams who are relying more and more on exceptions to get deals done. And leaders who are asking for more control, more margin and more consistency and often at the same time and teams that can't deliver that. And that creates a huge disconnect. The pricing system says one thing but the business and the team and the culture behaves quite differently. So this series is about unpacking that gap. Not just what's going wrong but what's actually needs to change to make this better for everyone.

02:53 And we'll start with a common assumption: Is pricing isn't working, it must be because of the sales team or the pricing team. The default response is usually: "Let's tighten up the rules and then we'll see things improve quickly." More controls, more approvals, stricter compliance. But if your pricing only works when everyone behaves perfectly, is it really a strong model?

03:57 I see this all the time. A business will request and then roll out a new and improved pricing structure. It's got more refined segmentation, tighter discount bands to ensure margin recovery, clearer rules for the teams to follow. Everything's really well documented. And for a few months it looks really, really good. But then things start slowing down, momentum sort of dies out, bit underwhelming. Exceptions start to creep back in, sales teams start pushing the boundaries again and the system gets worked around yet again and you see increasing pricing records and configurations and complexity. New complexity starts to build upon old. Not because sales and pricing teams are trying to be difficult, no, not at all. It's because the model that they're working with doesn't actually reflect how the business actually sells and customers actually buy from you. This is the key shift. A lot of pricing problems are not merely execution issues. They're actually design structural issues.

04:45 Now, I just want to be clear about this: Sometimes, capability, team structure, organisational design and talent are a part of the issue. They are. And I'll look, I'll come back to that in the next episode. But in many cases, the bigger problem sits in the model itself.

05:09 At this point, it's usually the poor old sales team that gets the blame. "Oh, they're discounting too much, they don't follow process, they're going back to what they know, they're not following the rules. They're leaving margin on the table. They shouldn't have given away that deal at that price. They don't know how to sell on value." But take a look closer. Sales aren't ignoring pricing or the pricing system that you're trying to create, and you've spent a lot of money on. They're trying to make it work.

05:48 Let me give you an example. Okay, so there was this B2B business that I worked for. It was a B2B industrial business, and they were halfway through a business transformation, and they had already engaged with pricing consultants, but had a few questions and so brought me in just to get a third-party objective view about the work they had invested in with this consultancy. And fundamentally, they were concerned because they had their running trials on the new price structure, and they were finding that sales, they just weren't using it. And rather than just not using it, they they were the kept pushing for exceptions and complaining that they needed to do, you know, come up with better pricing themselves, that the system wasn't giving them what they needed. Obviously, you know, leadership backed the pricing model because they'd invested in it and, you know, the diagnostics and all the prototypes and blueprints that the consultants had shared with them seemed to fit with their objectives for wanting more EBITDA.

06:58 However, you know, they were perplexed: well, what's happening? Deals obviously still got done, but what we found was that they got done through workarounds and outside of the system. Fundamentally, after a month or so of reviewing everything, you know, logically, the price structure looked okay, but the model itself didn't match how customers were actually buying from this business.

07:26 And we see this quite a bit. When the business doesn't listen to the team, the sales team, the pricing team, the customers, exceptions increase, trust in the pricing system drops, and pricing becomes much harder to explain and control. When pricing doesn't reflect commercial reality, teams will find a way around it. And over time, inconsistency increases, margin becomes less predictable, and pricing becomes much harder to defend.

08:06 So why isn't your pricing working? Why is pricing so complex? Why is pricing so difficult? It's not because your sales team or your pricing team isn't capable or competent enough, or your sales team and pricing teams are out of control and doing their own thing. It's because your pricing structure was built for a way of selling that no longer exists. And trying to fix it by tightening rules just makes the gap more obvious and teams' lives so much more difficult.

08:47 Are you asking your team to follow a pricing model or to work around one? If pricing relies on constant exceptions, it's not a control issue. It's actually a design signal. You don't fix pricing by adding more rules. You fix it by making it usable, practical, realistic. That means simplifying structures, aligning to how deals actually happen and designing flexibility properly in your system. Not leaving it to exceptions or ignoring the problem.

09:30 This is where pricing transformation starts. It doesn't start with new systems or more complexity, but with a fundamental shift and focus on the core problem and how business actually operates. Designing a pricing model that reflects how the business actually operates and can be used consistently by the teams. Why? Because we want to make people's lives easier. We want to enable our customers to understand the value that we offer, to perceive value correctly. Where structure provides clarity, flexibility is intentional, and outcomes are really easy to explain.

10:18 So if your pricing team feels difficult, onerous, broken, complex... before you blame the sales team or point fingers at the pricing team, ask yourself this: Is our pricing model helping our sales team to sell or is it just getting in the way? Because in most cases, the problem isn't the sales or the pricing team, it's the model that they've been given to work with.

10:50 And in the next episode, I'm going to tackle the other side of this. Because sometimes it is the pricing team, or the sales team or how the functions have been set up. And that's really where pricing transformation gets real. Not in theory, not in systems, but in the choices we make about how pricing gets designed, accountability and ownership. Who owns and drives pricing? How do we support our teams to be the best that they can be? And how do businesses, we, how do we respond to what's actually happening in the market? Do we bury our heads in the sand? Do we react? Do we go gung-ho? Do we listen or do we blame? Because pricing isn't just a number, it's how your business shows up commercially every single day.

11:46 And right now, that's exactly what's under pressure. Thank you for listening. I'm Joanna Wells, I'm the founder and director of Taylor Wells Advisory. And we help businesses improve margin through better pricing strategy.

TIME-STAMP NOTES:

[00:00] Introduction: CEOs Under Cost Pass Through Pressure
[01:44] Cost Pass Through in Highly Volatile Markets
[04:04] Cost Pass Through Must Be Disciplined, Not Reactive
[08:20] Cost Pass Through Without Losing Customers
[10:48] Conclusion: Pricing Is a Team Effort

[00:00] Across Australia this week, fuel prices have jumped up sharply again.

In Sydney and Melbourne, for instance, we've seen increases of 30 to 50 cents per litre in just a few days.

And outside the capitals, the gap is even wider. In regional areas, for instance, prices are like two to six cents higher on average, and in some remote locations, 30 to 50 cents more again.

[00:30] And it's not just price; we're now seeing supply disruption on a huge scale. Shipments are delayed; stations are running low in some areas. I drove past a station in the metro area; it was closed, pumps empty. This isn't a normal price cycle; it's a supply shock.

And for many businesses in Australia, this isn't just a headline story; it's a real cost that's hitting the P&L immediately. But most companies are still pricing like the market is stable. Many are just still debating whether they should do something about this additional cost. And that gap, that gap right there, is where margin is being lost.

[01:21] Hello and welcome. I'm Joanna Wells, founder of Taylor Wells Advisory, and we focus on helping organisations improve margin through better pricing strategy.

Now, in today's session, this isn't going to be about long-term strategy. No, it's going to be about what CEOs need to do this week.

[01:44] Now, today, we've learned that Iran has refused the 15-point ceasefire plan from the US. This has created even more instability in the global stock markets, and we're seeing global disruption flowing directly across the world, and that's impacting Australian businesses as well.

Now the conflict in the Middle East has disrupted key shipping routes, including the Strait of Hormuz, which carries a significant portion of the world's fuel. And that's flowing through quickly; fuel prices are rising, shipments are being delayed or redirected, and Australia is particularly exposed.

We import most of our refined fuel, and many businesses are being bought in US dollars and euros. So even when nothing changes operationally, costs still move on, and they're not moving gradually; they're moving in steps, and faster than most pricing processes can respond.

[02:46] But here's what's really interesting: most leadership teams in Australia are still asking the same question: "What price increase should we take?" But is that the right question to ask in this environment? I think it's the wrong question.

The real issue here isn't the price increase itself; it's how that decision is being made. In many businesses, cost structures aren't current, FX isn't fully reflected in cost structures, commodities aren't tracked closely or even at all, and decisions are based on fundamentally internal costs and historical data.

In some cases, cost inputs are seven to nine months old before a business takes an increase. But as we already know, in that time, costs have already moved on, especially today. So what happens? The increase is set too low, and it's implemented way too late. So even when prices go up, margin doesn't recover.

[04:04] I'm seeing that right now in the waste industry. One of our clients operates a high-capex business: large fleet, high fuel exposure, and tight margins. As fuel prices have moved recently, their costs have shifted almost day by day, and their pricing really wasn't set up to move that way. It was set up for more stable markets.

So what's happening now? They're absorbing more of that cost increase. At first, it didn't seem to be a big issue; it looked manageable. People thought, "Oh well, you know, the crisis will end, things will change, there will be peace." But that's not happening. So what's happening financially? Costs are compounding, margin's declining, and now at an accelerated rate. And the issue really isn't margin anymore; it's become a question of sustainability.

And this is the shift most companies haven't made. They are still pricing on a schedule. They still think they are in a stable market. They are not. There are annual reviews, annual reviews! When costs are increasing this quickly: Planned increases, long lead times, but costs are no longer moving on a schedule like this. They're moving continuously, day by day.

And most B2B businesses still adjust pricing annually, or now I'm hearing maybe we'll do it twice a year, as if that's a big breakthrough. Well, let's think about this: your costs are moving monthly, weekly, and I've just explained daily when it comes to fuel. So there's a gap; costs are moving quickly, prices are moving slowly, and that gap is where your margin is fundamentally disappearing.

[05:58] So here's the question for leaders: Are you setting prices based on how the market used to move or how it's moving right now? And how quickly can you respond when things change?

[06:15] In many businesses today, pricing decisions are very, very slow. Cost inputs are fundamentally outdated, and teams really are firefighting and reacting after the fact rather than anticipating and leading on the front foot. And that creates a compounding effect. You underestimate the increase, you delay the timing, and what happens? Well, costs continue to move, and so margins erode without a single obvious decision.

[06:54] So what should CEOs do this week? Let me make this practical and simple. From what I've seen, the companies managing this well right now, today, are doing things differently from most other businesses.

They're not debating fuel every time it moves; they've already built it into pricing, often as a separate line item linked to an index with clear rules. So when fuel moves, pricing moves. They're not relying on historical cost data alone; they're tracking what's happening now by commodities, FX, and key inputs. And in some cases, they're using forward views.

They are not smoothing increases across the product portfolio; they're being much more precise. They're not relying on legacy contracts; they've built in new clauses, they've built new mechanisms that allow pricing to move. They're preparing customers early and explaining the rules before the outcome.

But it's not as simple as just passing everything through. I've seen businesses try that and lose volume and very, very quickly. So the goal isn't just pass-through; it's controlled pass-through.

[08:20] I was speaking with a CFO recently who said, "Oh, we could have achieved the same result that you did with a simple 5% blanket increase."But that's not what we did when we helped this client. We actually segmented the increase by customer, by product, by channel, by cost exposure. And what happened? We recovered margin safely.

Passing through costs is easy, well, if you use a blanket cost increase approach. But passing them through across hundreds of thousands of SKUs, and without losing customers, is the real skill.

[09:09] In unstable markets, margin is lost fundamentally in the gap between cost movement, pricing decisions, and time. This isn't about reacting to global events; it's about recognising that the market has changed, and pricing needs to change with it. In stable markets, pricing is planned, but right now, pricing needs to be planned but also managed in real-time.

There are two very significant outcomes from this disruption at the moment: either your pricing keeps up with your costs, or your margin funds the difference. So if there's one thing to do right now, bring your cost position forward today if you can. Because if you don't, you'll be making pricing decisions based on costs that no longer exist.

And if you forward-project two weeks, if this continues, you'll set prices too low, you'll move too late, and you'll absorb the difference. And once that margin is gone, you just don't get it back. And if your business runs on slower cycles, long lead times, legacy pricing schedules, annual contracts, etc., that risk is even higher. Because by the time your pricing moves, your costs will have already moved again. You don't just absorb one increase; you absorb multiple. That's how margin is lost, slowly at first, and then all at once.

[10:48] If this episode was useful, feel free to share it with someone in your team who's dealing with these types of challenges right now. Pricing decisions don't sit in one function; they sit across the business. And pricing teams and whoever's dealing with these types of pricing challenges need all the help they can get.

If you or they would like more insights, help and advice, feel free to follow along or connect with me. Thank you very much for listening. I'm Joanna Wells, founder of Taylor Wells Advisory, and I look forward to seeing you in the next episode. Goodbye.

In today's episode, we want to explore the world of startups and I supposed at Taylor Wells we got asked or approach by quite a few startup businesses and the early stages of development with questions about pricing advice and pricing strategy and how start-ups should price. And I suppose we just really want to explore some of those ideas today and maybe just discuss some ideas.

TIME-STAMPED NOTES:

[00:00] Introduction

[03:00] What's our advice on issues regarding pricing for start-ups?

[12:19] How can we advice start-ups in discovering value in pricing?

[16:57] Would you advice implementing various pricing strategies for start-ups?

[22:01] Pricing Advice For Start-ups: Don't lose data. Keep learning, testing, and trialling.

Especially quite recently. We've had a number of questions and inquiries from startups. And we're talking about startups, people that are literally coming up with new business ideas. And often, it's the first time that they've done that and they're trying to launch either a new product.

Now, this could be ranging from, you know, an FMCG good product or you know even a Saas type product and you know, they come with legitimate concerns often they've heard the podcast and there's thought, you know what, I never really considered any other approach to pricing, other than thinking about costs and putting a markup on the cost to give me that margin that I need to cover my costs and get revenue in through the door.

And I never really thought about value-based pricing but it really did change my viewpoint, not just on the price point, but also it gave me a new perspective on what I'm trying to do in the market, my business model, how I'm going to generate revenue, what the sources of value are that are going to help me do that and cover my cost, how I'm going to work with suppliers who my target customers are.

All these new and very important ideas came almost flooding in people's heads after thinking about value-based pricing and, you know, we just going to explore today, you know, a little bit more about pricing for startups and a few techniques just to help people make those first few steps because it doesn't have to be a difficult journey or long drawn-out journey, you can start pricing immediately, even though sometimes you think "God I've got so much else to do. I'm just going to get money through the door", type of approach.

You know, if you make one item, you know they're your cost base is going to be higher than if you make a thousand. So, you know, as you grow in scale, do you intend to reduce prices? So, that makes no sense.

But clearly a start-up even number of issues that will make pricing more difficult: A) there is no right price for your product. At the beginning, you don't know what a value provides to your customers you might have an idea, you might have you know obviously you've got your pitch deck and you've got your ballpark figure and your idea, your elevator pitch let's say, you know and you thought about why you're getting into the business and where you fit in the niche. But realistically what's that old saying?

Everyone's got a plan until they're partially on the nose. I think Mike Tyson said and you know until you go out there and made customers and really get into the market you don't really know, you look at statistics, how many companies, how many start-ups pivot?

They are, you don't have enough information at the beginning, there's no saying that trying to get some customers, trying to get out there with some customers. Realistically, I don't think the price of the beginning, we'll get into this a bit later, but just winning customers is very important. Because then, you can explore value, it's a value discovery process.

Almost look at it as a subsidized value discovery process where a customer is almost paying you, it may be too much, or it maybe too little, but hopefully they're paying you and then you can explore and learn about your own business. So that's the first thing I'd say, clearly, It's very important to get customers on board. The second thing I say, unless you have funding and we'll talk about, you know, series A or a large amount of funding, it is highly unlikely to have a pricing manager.

Let's be honest. Most startups at the beginning have very limited revenue, and a good pricing manager's salary probably will be quite expensive. So, you're going to be doing an ad hoc, you'll be doing it in-house. Probably the startup. The founder would be doing the pricing and so, you know how much attention you can really give the pricing at the beginning is limited.

In my experience even consulting with major corporates, medium-sized businesses, even you know, blue chip companies, often the surprising point is they don't even have a plan when it comes to pricing or even their business strategy.

What they've actually got is a very flimsy outline of what they kind of want to do. Often the key question of, Why are we selling this product? How do our customers value this product? How do they perceive and value us? What are important in the eyes of our customers? How good are we at delivering what customers value? Are things that are hot, not addressed in, I would say, 98% of business strategies, even though that's the most important questions you should be asking.

So, I would say, most startups don't have a plan either to be fair. And really, there's a little bit of hope and a prayer that this product, this new business is going to solve a gap in the market without actually, as Aidan said, approaching customers and seeing, you know, giving it that, you know, testing our assumptions.

Because essentially, if you're going to get investment from private equity, seed investors, they'll be asking that. I mean, because it's the central aspect of a business, a new business model and operation system or it should be.

And if you haven't got clear answers on that, you're not going to get the funding and that brings me back to what I was saying before. You know, a lot of startups have come to us and even with you talking about value-based pricing, it made us think about value.

And it made us think that there was that major Gap in our business thinking, and our strategy, which has, in turn, delayed other things, not just pricing, but even you know, how we go and approach, our customers, our pitch, what do we say to them? You know, what is that compelling message?

All of these things, you know, were sort of underbaked and then have been preventing people from launching. So like Aidan was saying, let's go back to basics.

Can we think about the personas of these customers, that would want to buy the products we're trying to sell? How are we going to communicate that offer to them? How are we going to make it easy for them to buy from us? Now, these are the questions, like you're not going to have the answers and don't fear not having all of the answers.

When you approach your customers, the key here is to have some hypotheses in mind about what you're doing, and what the value of the offer is, right? When you go in to speak with a customer. But then ask the questions and then listen. Listen, very very carefully to what they're saying to you. What you will find, is that some customers that you're talking to are really not your target market.

Even though you thought they were whereas other people really are potentially changing your viewpoint on your initial business model and plan and then iterating from there. This is the fundamental aspect of value-based pricing and as Aidan mentioned we call it a value discovery process, but really it's essential. It's an activity that leads to profitable revenue growth and it's one that's often ignored and skipped but it's the central aspect of any pricing model and of any business strategy.

For anyone who's ever started a business, every single interaction with a customer, feels like life and death. You know, you stressed about them.

You dig into too much, you know, all those are those interactions statistically valid, you know, is it over time when you scale up your business, you know, will that apply across a larger number of customers? Those questions have to be decided. I suppose at the beginning you have to have a ballpark figure.

As to what value you're providing, you know, are you aiming to be the cheapest in the market and undercut traditional operators because of your cost of operation, you know, is that your model? If that is the case, likely, then you probably will be cheaper if you're cutting costs; if you're value-added or you're cutting costs? If you're value-added that you're offering, we're more features and benefits, you know, then you probably can be charged more than other people. Big questions.

So many startups, Online businesses try to get onto a subscription. There's a huge movement towards recurring revenue, showing recurring revenue. You have to really think. Does that suit your business? Is that really the type of business that you want to be operating? It gives investors confidence but you know, is it actually plausible into what you're doing?

So that also has to be considered. I suppose you're fundamentally, you have to really dig into what your business do. And what is the best way to charge for it? Just pick the best that you can think of at the beginning. Over time of course you can optimise, you can go into it once you get more professionalised, once one customer becomes ten, becomes one hundred and hopefully becomes thousands.

Then over time, you can start to optimise potentially bringing pricing expertise and pricing analyst over time and optimise that stuff. But you know you really got to think about what you know, I suppose companies will go through different strategies at different periods of their life cycle and development, you know, at the beginning.

I'm assuming that you'll be wanting to try and grow the business and potentially to try and grow. You might be offering freemiums, or you might be offering lower quality, you know, tester versions of that. So again, all have to be considered, but you have to be, I suppose you put on the old saying a cart before the horse.

You know, what are you actually trying to sell? That's the fundamental thing, pricing is not, it doesn't separate, it is your commercial strategy. And the point I'm trying to make is, what is your business trying to do?

In an ideal world, let's say, obviously you're not going to do everything perfectly but is trying to do something and then once it's doing that and a customer is, you know, bought into that and want that service or product or whatever it is, you know, how are you, what's the best way to charge that customer for that while some shaving, your objectives of growing, you know, over kidding solvent until your next funding round? You know, that is the question.

I mean, you make a good point that you know, is a value discovery for one or two customers statistically valid? Obviously not, it wouldn't be, but it gives you a starting point. And I think it's an important point to note here, that value discovery is ongoing, it never stops. You've constantly got to do it.

So actually, in a way, it's a very scientific approach to understanding value and has to be set up as such for it to be meaningful in a statistical way.

And to give you insights that inform your strategy over time in regards to, when I was listening to Aidan there, you know, I agree, though there is certainly an evolution of pricing methodology that Startups and even big businesses, go through, starting with the rudimentary cost plus, knowing your cost and adding a simplistic markup going through that competitive benchmarking scenario.

When you line up all your competitors' prices and then you go, "I think I'm going to be somewhere around here", so you go, you pick lowest-highest and you go, "All right, I'm going to be here in this bit in this price bandwidth". That's what they call it. I'm not going to evaluate these methodologies will do that later on. And if you listen to other podcasts, you probably have heard us evaluate them.

I just talked about evolution and then I think Aidan was going on about SAAS businesses, using subscription models, now that's a revenue model.

You know, good-better-best essentially or decoy pricing based on those features and benefits, you know, evolution from there, you know, obviously got Dynamic pricing looking at, you know, inventory and capacity utilisation and demand and forecasting, and things like that.

And then in terms of evolutions of the subscription model, they go into like consumption-based pricing, where basically, you charge customers for how much they use different plans, that's becoming particularly popular at the moment, and then from there, you know, a more sophisticated one is based on outcome-based pricing, but basically what a customer gets from using your service, your plan, your product.

Now, that's a newer one. And all of these as Aidan says, it's not like "Oh, that sounds good. I think we'll just use that .", even though 90% of SAAS businesses do that, they just go with trends.

And if they're out of sync with the market and the business model, they're not going to generate profitable revenue growth, then, in turn, you're actually going to lose probably more money than you make and overtime. So you've got to be right.

And this is why Aidan was talking about pricing expertise. It's quite important to get that pricing expertise on board, but obviously, as a startup, you've got to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of these different pricing methodologies. And what we're trying to say is, the best way of doing that is, understanding your business model, thinking very closely and how it connects with the market.

And then thinking about, how you're going to capitalise on the value that you're offering based on the perceptions of the market, your customers and how they perceive and use that value. What do they get from working with you, in a very simplistic way.

And what value do they actually generate in terms of, you know, do you help them lower cost, do you help them generate more revenue, I'm using your plan, your products, whatever. Are you helping mitigate some risk in a way for them? And those sorts of questions really give you a head start, when it comes to evaluating the best pricing model for your business.

I think everyone when you're starting a business clearly you have to be a jack of all trades. You want to know a little bit about everything. But the thing about pricing is, I suppose people come and they go "Oh tell me, a pricing strategy" and we hear that a lot. The reality of it is, there's no right or wrong pricing strategy.

There are many potential strategies you could implement. Some may be better than others clearly, obviously, how you implement them. There's some science behind that, there are approaches, but you could have meant for many businesses.

When they haven't proven anything you could tweak certain things in the trajectory that business will go in that are very different. So you could pick different ones at the beginning. Clearly, because they're not tested by the market, they haven't got many users and you haven't got feedback. Clearly, some are more likely to be successful than others. And you have to visit.

There's an art to picking that one. You know, the actual pricing strategy that commercial strategy used. Clearly, a lot depends on so many moving parts, you know your funding, you know, do your funding, or do you have to actually make profits from day one and grow boost route. You know, you look at MailChimp.

I think they never took on funding and grew pretty much organically by being profitable and then adding additional features over time, but not, you know, jumping massively, just growing gradually, Canva, probably the most famous Australian unicorn, fundamentally they grew at the beginning, by giving free service to huge numbers of people.

Every month over 1% of the world's adult population uses canvas which does seem unbelievable. But apparently, those are statistics. So clearly they're not all paying for this service but a significant proportion are.

So you know you're thinking clearly they had funding and a lot of these startups are clearly lost making for many years. You're thinking, Amazon, you're thinking Uber, they're clearly lost making for a very long period of time.

So those questions have to be asked and if your business needs skill to operate, to be profitable in three years time, then clearly you need to grow that scale and potentially, it could be, you know, using pricing strategies such as you know, skimming or like being even a loss leader or, you know, going in cheap and then over time adding additional services.

And you know upselling, so really look, the answer is,it really depends, but it all stems back to the beginning to having a clear view as to what your business does, having a rough idea is to what potential value it has and the longer term business model, focus on the business model.

And once you have that and confidence and backing in your team behind that business model, then you start charging forward and working out, putting in place, a model that can: a) keep your business solvent long enough until that's achieved and, b) making as much profit as possible along the way. I think those are my comments today.

I like that. Don't be afraid to try new pricing methodologies and revenue models. You've started your business now with a great proposition, you went with it, you're already going in with an experimental sort of mindset, and you're keen to learn. So just do the same thing with your pricing. I actually say, even in big businesses, it's much better to learn quickly and fail quickly.

It's okay if you make mistakes, as long as you learn from them, same applies, with startups, just learn and do exactly what you do when you're passionate with your own product when it's very the same mindset apply, so keep doing that and I hope along the way, we've given you some overview of all the different types of approaches that you can take.

That value-based approach mixed in with more of the technical sort of methodology that potentially is out there for you to utilise as you experiment and learn. Key to all of this is if you've got a number of different products and plans often, that means there would be different types of pricing approaches and models.

You don't always use the same type of approach for everything, that's sort of like when markets are more stable. So, having that creativity and thinking, a very granular level, when you have time about different products because every product has a different type of price sensitivity, and different value profile.

You don't lose all that learning. You apply it, feed it back and you continually update and learn and test and tweak, that really is pricing like it is with product development. It's the same type of thing and same approach. I think overall I'll leave it there. But feel free to ask any more questions about some great feedback from you guys recently. So keen to hear more, well thank you for listening.

[00:00:00] Aidan: Hello and welcome to another edition of Pricing College with your host Aidan Campbell 

[00:00:06] Joanna: and Joanna Wells 

[00:00:07] Aidan: Often at Pricing College, we find new ways to show that we live in the past. And so today we are going to talk about cinemas, cinema pricing, and I predict somebody will say movies are not as good as they were in the old days.

[00:00:21] So I'll let Joanna kick-off . 

[00:00:24] Joanna: I think we we're talking about cinema pricing, partly as response to that Bruce Springsteen, dynamic pricing scenario that occurred a few weeks ago. I'm sure we discussed it in a podcast few weeks ago, but it's been throughout the press and, you know, it reminded us of, you know, back a few years ago, when cinemas were sort of, I mean, struggling with their business model, less people going, demand for cinema and movies going down, rising of Netflix, all that sort of stuff. But, so they were thinking about, you know, how can we make more money and more margin as a cinema? What new pricing methods could we use?

[00:01:03] And they're really toying with the idea of dynamic pricing. So yeah, when I look at that now, that strategy and you think, Oh, well, it seems to be working in the ticket industry for other entertainments. Why is networking so well for cinemas? Well, partly, I mean, through the pandemic, you know, it's been very difficult for, you know, cinema to even test new pricing methods like dynamic pricing, because simply people weren't going out or allowed to go to the cinema for a long time.

[00:01:37] And still, you know, there's that, that knock on effect, on demand levels, you can see they're dropping. Very few people still going. Before we go onto that, let's think about how cinemas really do make money? How are cinemas still open today, considering very few people go?

[00:01:52] Well, the sales model really is based around the distributors really funding a lot of cinemas. Cinemas pretty much give way about 20. Well, let's say 80% of ticket sales in the first two weeks to distributors for movies. And after that point, they pretty much keep all their sales. So for them movies like Avatar are great because what they can do, they can bring out the old avatar movie, the first one.

[00:02:22] Because they sort of own the rights to that one. Now they don't have to pay the distributors anymore. Well, they don't own the rights of it as well. They've got, they can keep all of the sales revenue from that in preparation and then move on to, you know, forward forecasting for Avatar two.

[00:02:41] And that's a great way for the cinemas to make money, at which point they could potentially use dynamic pricing, you know, as they build demand for that movie, however, the customer experience and demand levels have to be optimised to be able to do that, and I really don't [00:03:00] think at this point cinemas will be able to test dynamic pricing. Hence, it's not really been tested. 

[00:03:08] Aidan: Yeah, like I find there's a lot of interesting pricing things we can look at with cinemas. You know, I think there's been an arms race, at least in Australia with the quality of the cinemas themselves, like the actual rooms, the buildings, not so much the locations because they've probably moved away from of market, red carpet style, CBD areas to, you know, malls on the edge in suburban malls.

[00:03:31] But one thing that, you know, we've seen in this Australia Gold class, I don't think there might even be a platinum class, almost like very leather beds. Fully flat seats. It's almost like the peripheral has really invested in that. And usually that's something we really push with or we promote here in Pricing College, talking about the value adds that they offer.

[00:03:51] You know, you're gonna have drinks brought to your seat. Some cinemas will have buttons you can press and a waiter will come up and bring you stuff, which all sounds very luxurious. But, you know, [00:04:00] I think almost can we argue that, And I think I'll be the first one to say that, you know, maybe the core of what they're offering has decreased, you know, the quality of movies, I think a lot of people admit that it isn't as good as it used to be.

[00:04:11] I think the only movies that are selling out now, there seem to be disney style movies or the never ending stream of Marvel, and DC comic sort of action hero movies. But I think cinema in general, you know, the normal cinema goers, I think that market has decreased.

[00:04:26] And to some extent you have to argue that the core value of the cinema, which is the actual movies, you know, there is a real risk there, a real issue there with what's being produced. Obviously the cinema owners don't have an influence on that. So that's the first thing I'll add. Second thing, I just think, we often talk on this podcast about, you know, revenue management and capacity constrained, like, and to a large extent, cinemas are capacity constrained also, there are number of seats watching a screen, but like, I cannot remember ever being in a cinema in the last 5, 6, 7 years and seeing a cinema full or even having difficulty in buying a ticket. So there's [00:05:00] clearly that revenue management aspect isn't been optimised. You know, and we're not arguing that you should be selling those tickets at 1 cent or two 10 cents, but, you know, maybe that is a question people should be asking.

[00:05:11] What is the revenue management model behind these screens? Look, I was at a movie maybe two weeks ago, midweek Thursday night, which used to be regarded as, you know, midweek shopping night. And I think we were the only people in the cinema, and it was potentially a 500 seat cinema.

[00:05:25] So you're really questioning the model there. Another thing I will add is, I think we'll get into a later on this podcast, but some things I'd like to look at are loyalty programs that they have that they try to get you into, you know, the rationale behind that. I'd also like to look at the geographic variation in pricing, where they charge you different to go to different locations.

[00:05:46] And I personally experienced that, which I find a little bit strange. You know, the actual differentiator is huge. And then the third one I think is, sometimes they try to sell you a subscription model whereby you can go infinite times for a flat fee, [00:06:00] which traditionally was in with students and maybe even later school students.

[00:06:04] So those are models that I think are interesting that maybe have they been fully developed and of course the classic of do movies, just, it's more of a conspiracy theory that I personally like the popcorn. Do cinemas favor bad movies in the teenagers because they eat more popcorn than old people. It's an interesting one. 

[00:06:21] Joanna: Well, if they look at their sales model, yeah, they really do. That's where they make their profit is. It's on the concessions on the food. It's literally pure profit for them. And I think a while ago there was some price tests being done on dynamic revenue management, on the concessions as opposed to the tickets.

[00:06:38] People didn't like the dynamic pricing on the tickets so much, but they optimised by a few cents on the food, which is already profitable for them. Now I can see, you know, potentially their backtracked cinemas are backtracked from that and they're now utilising more, like bundles using tiered pricing to upsell to, [00:07:00] you know, the large popcorn, based on price, because there's very limited price difference.

[00:07:04] So why not get the larger version and the theater makes more money? That's one that we all know. In terms of that, I just wanted to circle back to the customer experience that we were touching on before. I'm sure, consultants have come into major cinema businesses and said like, really the number one thing to think about before you look at optimising price or testing different pricing methodology is to really work on your customer experience.

[00:07:31] Because that in term will enable you to utilise and test these different pricing models like subscription pricing. The problem is you're not driving enough traffic to the theater and that's feedback from the market has said because we don't enjoy the experience and Aidan touched a point a lot of the theaters got.

[00:07:52] Quite run down and there wasn't enough money being invested into the cinema, the room itself. Some [00:08:00] cinemas got these nice, lovely leather seats recliners, reducing the number of seats in the cinema, thus reducing potential for that capacity constraint idea through dynamic pricing.

[00:08:12] Other cinemas then thought, Well, let's not improve the cinema. Let's look at how we can implement dynamic pricing by potentially looking at when people buy their cinema tickets, if they buy it closer to the cinema. The movie date or time, then we'll charge more. People didn't like that.

[00:08:31] And then really all of those things, if they didn't really help boost the experience, it took it away from the experience. So thinking about customer experience, often cinemas. That do well. And I'm thinking very much like the petrol stations, gas stations, they do well not just cause of, you know, the product or what they're selling in the store. It's actually the site where they are, where they're situated. Are there restaurants nearby? Are there like entertainment late at [00:09:00] night? Aidan made the point of most of the cinemas that are doing well at the moment, it's because they're showing, movies for kids, but potentially if they built a customer experience for adults. And by thinking about, you know, what's around that cinema? Would that actually bring more adults into the cinema because you think, Oh, you know, I'm not just gonna get, you know, I'm not, it's not just a, you know, gonna watch a film cause I can just watch a film at home. I'm gonna, you know, have something to eat.

[00:09:30] I might, you know, have a nice like drink before I go in and not the drink in the cinema. Do you know the gold class membership in the cinema? Rarely see anybody really in there, you know, taking in a nice drink before they go in. People prefer to have a drink with the dinner outside, then come in.

[00:09:48] So maybe I'm thinking here and boosting, you know. The customer experience by thinking a little bit outside of the walls of the cinema. And you know, partnering with [00:10:00] entertainment businesses, you know, partnerships, loyalty cards that look at how connecting, building a community outside of it, you know, that sort of stuff.

[00:10:09] It just requires a bit more creative thinking. And then once that's done, once you're bringing the people that you want to attract into your cinema, then you can start testing pricing models. 

[00:10:21] Aidan: I think that's a great point. I'm thinking some of the local cinemas, you know, in my area, and to be honest, they're deserts in the evening time. It's like you'd have to get in a car and drive at least 10 minutes to have a restaurant or somewhere. So the idea of having an evening out. It takes that away. It strips that away and when I think of the more successful ones I know of there's restaurants and some of the more recently renovated Westfield big shopping centers, they do have restaurant options, bar options near the cinema and reducing to be more of a buzz and it can create a date night atmosphere or stuff where people would go for an evening without having to plan a second location. So, you know, that is a big thing. Like the other thing I'd say is [00:11:00] cinemas, they've almost dumbed down.

[00:11:02] Like obviously people's society is dumbed down hugely, but I think with cinema and entertainment, and it is a bit like music. If you all go to the middle and we covered a bit of this in Bruce Springsteen where if you want people to pay top dollar and really be a addicted to watching bands.

[00:11:17] It's because it's not one size fits all. Some people love Bruce Springsteen. Some people love dance music. Some people love whatever rap music, et cetera. It's the same cinema. But in the mainstream cinemas, it's gone towards the popcorn selling, you know, rubbish in the middle spectrum.

[00:11:34] And the more art house or that sort of aspect, there doesn't seem to be appetite forward, or is it just that it's not provided? So potentially that is decreasing the attendance as well. When you minimise the offer. You know, again, in the pricing stuff we talkabout you optimise the tail. I don't see the tale of what's been provided being optimised really.

[00:11:54] And even the peripheral, not just you know, there's a cruise ship element to the cinema of course, too, whereby they've got you [00:12:00] captured once you come in the door, you know you're not supposed to bring in external food, et cetera. There's an opportunity to upsell you clearly. And I don't think the rate that really is developed much in the last, you know, 10, 15, 20 years, and to some extent it's even become more middle of the road.

[00:12:15] It fundamentally is in the main cinemas, it's popcorn, it's a Diet Coke or a Coca-Cola and a large bucket style container, you know, an a limited selection of lollies or sweets. I think even the pick and mix, which kids used to love hasn't really seemed to come back post covid.

[00:12:31] I haven't seen that really. And again, kids used to love that. And that was an element of stuff, but I just feel it's almost like in a shut or a slowdown of the cinema industry, you know, I think there's clearly opportunity for upselling on, you know, more, you've got them captured. So more ancillary services. Clearly you can be provided and creating more of an atmosphere. Building more of a community. Clearly it's like, cinema at least it used to be fans, it used to be, you know, people would [00:13:00] diehard of certain genres, they would go to the cinema on a regular, weekly basis.

[00:13:04] You know, you'd have season tickets, you'd have reduction. I just don't really see that happening. I know Hoyts, one of the cinemas where I'd be most used to going to. They have a loyalty program like that, to be honest, doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me. It almost like, you know, they're giving you a lot of value back immediately just from signing a former pay. I think it's $15 you pay annually and then you see, you know, x percent of every ticket sale. But it doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense to me. It seems to be almost. You know, they just want that 15 bucks up front, and then they're giving you back the 15 bucks immediately. So it's a strange one. And again, I'd be open to people telling me that there is method behind this, but to me it doesn't often stack up. 

[00:13:43] Joanna: I sometimes think, people go, Oh, you know, this generation's different. All they wanna do is stay home, watch the screens, and watch Netflix. They don't really wanna go out. It's a bit about the defeat attitude. Like, I'm thinking about this one restaurant. I know it's in the middle of nowhere. It's next to a [00:14:00] lovely beach, but it literallyhas nothing else around it, but they've made this restaurant a destination point in itself. And then after that, people can go to the beach, and it's a new business, right? But prior to them taking over the business, it wasn't at a destination. There was tons of different types of restaurants going in that really hadn't focused on how they could create this wonderful customer experience. So really what they did instead is like, it was an awful experience. People just went and they didn't even go to the beach, even though it's a gorgeous beach.

[00:14:31] They just were like, I just wanna leave. But they did it. And people go and even, you know, millennials and the whole lot of young people, they get out of their bedrooms. They go to this place because it's giving them something in return, right. Cinemas can do the same thing.

[00:14:49] And I do think it's a cop out for business to going, Oh, you know, things are changing. We can't keep up. Yes you can. You just got to think carefully and strategically about [00:15:00] what your customers want, how you can connect and partner with different businesses to correct, create an experience that is worth staying around for.

[00:15:09] You don't just go to the cinema to sit in a lonely, dark, dusty, old room to watch a poor film. And that's where we've got cinemas and distributors in the whole industry have to think differently. Now, thinking about that on the other side, What's happened to cinemas, they've been captured within the Westfield Mall type experience, which, as Aidan was saying, shuts down, especially in Australia at like six o'clock.

[00:15:38] It's a dead zone, partly because Westfield rent is ridiculously high and they can't attract niche and creative businesses in there for a long term before they shut down. So there's something with the whole ecosystem, with, you know, having cinemas in malls and reliant upon landlords who [00:16:00] charge too much, in which in turn negate the experience that bring customers in, because the rent's too high.

[00:16:07] But then they argue, well we need the rent to maintain such a big complex, Well, maybe this is the end of the mall and we know that this is happening in America. . However, what's happening in America isn't great either because that's just breaking down community at the same time. So like, are we going back to the old school way of, you know, high streets, independent businesses just clustered around actual areas that people congregate, they congregate around beaches , in metro city, you know, where there's life, people go, So rather than think we all go where there's life. Let's get into the creative zone and create life and bring traffic to you, rather than the passive reactive. Oh, I'll only go when I know there's a business case to set up a business, and everyone goes to malls. They don't go to malls anymore. It's a dying [00:17:00] business model. I think that's, I don't wanna rent anymore, but I think you get my gist here.

[00:17:05] I think we just gotta think completely different. Get our creative hats on, start to reach out and connect with businesses, not these major malls. That's not the answer anymore. It's the niche players, it's the startups and its partnerships. And from there you can build loyalty plans and pricing plans that are absolutely spot on.

[00:17:28] Aidan: Look, I think we're talking about a creative industry In a previous one. We, we covered that. Like, I think Hollywood often goes through these cycles of, you know, the big corporates, and then you have, you know, the new wave, the French movies where you have even in the seventies where it was like the alternative movies came through.

[00:17:43] And then you had in the nineties where you had like the Quentin Tarantinos and this new wave of directors. Like, I think that's Hollywood's crying out for at the minute. Like, clearly everything seems to be produced by committee and by what do you call it, focus groups, you know, whereby, so you, you get movies that are [00:18:00] basically cookie cutter and that appeals to the middle section.

[00:18:02] But when you appeal to the middle section, you don't get high emotions or you don't get, you know, people going to watch the movie twice or unmissable. There aren't really movies that you cannot miss anymore. There aren't movies that people talk about much, and I suppose it all spreads down from there. You know, at the end of the day, if people aren't overly fostering going to the movie, you know, the paraphernalia around it and all that, it then is a habit that if people are out of that habit, you know, maybe they won't get back into it. So, like, I would argue, you know, there's fundamentally, and you need better movies to be watching is the first thing.

[00:18:34] And secondly, there's clearly a pricing element about the peripheral around that, creating an evening out, creating an experience for people. And then it's trying to somehow charge them by optimising the pricing, which to me, you know, doesn't seem to really be happening. It just, you know, is it like, at the end of the day, if people don't want to see the movie, they're not going to pay less or more depending on the day. So fundamentally, you need the movie first, but then there's gotta be an optimisation process, that[00:19:00] is the ticket too high? Are people not going cause it's too expensive? Or, but at the end of the day, should a cinema be sitting empty, you know, during a peak time?

[00:19:07] And if that's the case, there's a severe issue. And are we facing a blockbuster video scenario where no pricing change? When no pricing strategy change will rescue what is, you know, a defunct business model. I'm not saying that, but you know, I think there should certainly be warning signals that people should be looking at this immediately and asking is the existing model, like, does it work or not?

[00:19:29] Joanna: Yeah, agreed. And I don't think it's a defunct model. I just think they need to do a complete mindset change. There's no point doing tactical price changes, and implementing new methodology. If you just don't have enough traffic to optimise a revenue based on demand, there is no demand. That's because as we were discussing, The whole proximity location is often wrong. There's no experience. There's no connection with other businesses. The movie itself is middle of the road and not drawing in enough traffic in and of [00:20:00] itself, and the experience around the cinema is dull. It's lifeless. The cinema itself is tatty tired. Leather seats will not compensate for that.

[00:20:09] However, the model in itself, the whole industry could be better. We know there have been great movies before which have driven in traffic. We know that when you put a cinema near a great restaurant, people go, Oh, the restaurant's great. Let's catch a movie after that too. It works. It's not rocket science, but you've got to start thinking differently and maybe breaking outside of the Westfield Mall premise, because I think that's capping revenue potential. And people are simply just not going to those sort of things anymore. So yeah, look, fear, like repeating ourselves, I think that's kind of what, what I've gotta say on that. And yeah, really keen to hear what you guys, are thinking about this particular topic. Well, thank you very much for listen. 

[00:20:55] Aidan: Yeah, just as a last point, like I wonder is there the opportunity for small, [00:21:00] regional, local, you know, niche cinemas, you know, to restart , it used to be that every major town had 10 or 15 cinemas showing with one screen, showing one movie or one genre, you know, is there room for that again, could you open a cinema in Sydney or Melbourne showing just horror movies, are showing just the latest, you know, international movies or French movies or Italian movies, is there an appetite for that? Would that model work? At the minute it's dominated by the big players, the Hoyts, the events, the major corporations, the Warner Villages. The small operators have left the market. Is there room for, you know, we've seen popup bars reappear to create life again in CBDs. Is there a popup cinema? And I'm not referring to council run open air cinemas showing 1980s movies, see if middle the ground for families. I'm not talking about slightly more challenging, slightly more things that people might, you know, make people think. Is there room for that? But obviously that's entrepreneurial. It takes risk building, it takes love of cinema and I don't know if love of cinema is there at the moment. So that's it for me [00:22:00] today. Have a great weekend.

[00:22:01] Joanna: Thank you. Bye.

In today's episode, we are going to cover something that's very close to our heart. If you just listen to our podcasts, you may think we are just pricing gurus, but we are also incredibly ripped.

And so we're going to cover, gym memberships and gym pricing. A subject that I think a lot of people, both consumers and businesses can learn from. So I think we'll let Joanna kick-off. 

Yeah. But firstly, starting with that, Aidan apparently goes to the gym five times a week. Not so sure. Maybe. Uh, anyway, aside from that gym pricing, gym pricing, now we wanted to speak about that yet.

Look, we do go to the gym, but I've actually worked with like a couple of gym companies with pricing. But I don't really see improvement overall in the industry. Like really, Can anyone really think of a gym that has one clear price point for different plans? It seems as if, yeah, they've got millions of different price points.

To me it's pricing, chaos and indicative of discretionary pricing led to predominantly by the franchisees, the owners, but more particularly by the individual sales people that are driving that sales. You know, they're sort of dressed up as, you know, personal trainers. They wear the shorts, but really they really go for the hard sell.

And like from my experience, going to a gym and working for gyms for pricing. It seems like the maturity of pricing is still dominated by that person who wants a sale for their commission. There's very little price transparency and to my thinking like. Is it fair? Is it very, It's very promotional driven.

It's always targeted on, you know, time based, promotions, getting people in , driving traffic to meet a sales quota. I'm thinking very much, it's very similar to like the recruitment model . As a result of doing this over many years, it has led to a lack of trust in gym pricing, a lack of transparency, and you never really know what you're gonna get.

 And sometimes the plans can even change as well. So you're thinking what's the value of this particular plan? In my opinion, I really don't think I'ved looked at customer segmentation at all well, they're really just driving traffic to get sales through the door for cash flow purposes, and I think it's no wonder that gym profitability is declining as a result.

Like to some extent I think , I'm gonna disagree with this. I think, I actually think we can learn a lot from gyms. There's a lot of interesting stuff happening in the way they do stuff. You know, it's a subscription model. Before most things were like, I think it's probably almost impossible to go in and pay just for a workout, in a gym.

You know, they'll have an onboarding system and all this sort of stuff, which to be honest, is probably some health and safety aspect to that, but I'm sure it's also just a barrier to actually letting you just, you know, work out once, et cetera. Say if you're, you know, do wanna work out this week and then next week, so they get you on a subscription model, which is almost way before the, the whole SaaS revolution.

So where it's a service. They also have a weird, they make it almost impossible, as Joanna mentioned, to compare pricing, virtually no gym will have a, a price on the internet. You have to go in, meet someone, chat to someone, you know, invest time and effort, shoe leather cost before you even get a price.

And so your willingness to shop around would be very low, clearly. You probably just go to the first one you get. You get to, you'll decide based on, I don't know what criteria, you know, we'll get into the value drivers, but I think your ability to shop around is low. Unless they really try to rip you off or charge way above market rate.

But that aspect, your lack of ability to shop a around or compare is interesting. Also, the promos they offer tend to always be focused on like a fake joining fee. You know, joining fee wave for this week or joining fee 50% for this week. And in reality, joining fee for a gym is clearly preposterous.

The joining fee often is so low, it's like maybe $15. It's really just. I think it really is just used as a method to let them advertise something because they don't wanna reduce their subscription fees. The other thing before I pass back to Joanna that I think is very interesting about gyms is they try to price at a level whereby, I think some of the stats we've read, the majority of people don't visit the gym every month.

They take out memberships maybe in January or dry July or whatever, whatever the month is where you're on a new health kick and people have all these great aspirations. We're gonna work out every week, you know, and it sounds great value. And then they, of course, human nature. They stop and they don't go back.

But then you've gotta think if you know, there's a psychological aspect too. You wanna stop your gym membership cuz in theory that is quitting and giving up. Or do you just wanna keep that aspirational, Oh, I'll start again next week. And so basically they have that subscription model set at a level whereby really , it's almost designed just to be under the radar, not to cost too much pressure on people so that the letter keep ticking along.

I don't know what the actual occupancy rate of a gym is based on their, you know, how many the sell, but clearly it's a bit like an airline. Clearly they're selling more tickets than there are seats on the plane. Clearly not everybody can do the, you know, the bench press, et cetera, at the same time. So it's an interesting approach. 

I think that may be applicable for gyms that don't have many, like gyms within the firm, like they don't have like a large transactional. Sort of capability they may have, you know, a couple of gyms dotted around. Then they're more likely to understand what their price bandwidth is and to get that more optimal price bandwidth that you were talking about, and then promote within that range.

However, with gyms with a number of different gyms and franchises within. Or geographically dispersed throughout the country, that may be more tricky, in terms of finding that optimal price bandwidth. And that's what we've learned from research and to the point where, you know, it's very difficult to price shop because there's a lack of transparency. Is that a good thing? I mean, you just have to go on social media and see the reams and reams of complaints about that very topic. And looking at the data, what does that indicate? Yes, they probably attract customers using price point, which is, you know, one could argue with a great thing at the beginning, but then they lose profitability because the customer churn rate is actually quite significant. And although the customer doesn't price shop at the beginning of the journey, because yes, there's pretty much hard sold to the offer. Told to sit down like an naughty boy and girl and fill in their paperwork and pay an additional , membership fee on top.

They do so. But then aftera while you know, they do start to shop around because the value of that gym is not appealing anymore. Or the fact that they didn't like the pressure, the price point, and the whole shady aspect of the model. And you can see that in social media and in data the churn rate is huge.

 And for those type of businesses where they're sort of selling premium type of services, but actually delivering the value in a very shady manner. There's some discrepancy in misalignment, and customers are onto it. On the point of subscription models, I think they're actually quite interesting from a psychological perspective in that for gyms in particular, The fact that it comes out of customer's bank accounts every month could, and research shows could be considered a good thing because it reminds people why they're going to the gym.

And in fact, contrary to what you, you, you think even though it's a lower amount of money coming out of the gym, people actually do notice it. And especially in times of inflation where. The first things to go are things like gym memberships because people are under pressure that they're spending less and they're thinking and evaluating consciously, what they're going to spend.

So things like newspapers, things like gym memberships, things like software as a service models. They're really gonna be hit. Streaming services, video streaming, music. That's the sort of thing, expenditure that people start to evaluate. And so then when they see it, So the pro of this, the psychological pro is if you actually are committed to your fitness and you see that going out your bank account, you go, yeah, you're reminded to go.

However, if you're sort of lack a day or so about your fitness and you see it going out of your bank account, you probably think, Do you know what? I probably will give it a miss. And that's also reflected by the churn rate. Most people fit into that latter segment. The non-committed to gyms except Aidan of course, is highly committed.

Which makes you think, Okay, are we charging enough for the, the value that we offer to the more premium segment, the people that do actually value the gym, people that do utilise the gym and get the money's worth. And are we undercharging the other segment. So what I think needs to be , that price value, profit equation still needs to be ironed out, especially for the bigger gym networks.

On that point, like I think there is probably more willingness to pay, you know that value discovery. What do people really value in a gym, that aspect? I don't think, you know, I think I've, a couple comments made before I forget them. The first one. I I actually, the payment, they nearly always take a direct debit is something I wanted to add.

It's a very, it's almost impossible or not available to pay on invoice in a gym. There's almost an, an entire industry of payment facilitators who basically focus on gyms because a lot of gyms fall below, at least in Australia, fall below the level of where the big banks, the big four banks would allow direct debit facilities.

So there's a whole echelon of companies who are in that space just cater for the gym industry. So it's quite interesting that, you know, they're smaller businesses sometimes, you know, mom and pop style and they are direct debiting. So that is interesting. I also believe the fear of direct debit obviously seems a lot in bad collection and It that aspect and improves their cash flow.

But I also think if an invoice was arriving every month, people would be much more aware of what they're paying when it goes direct debit, it sometimes goes onto the radar. The thing about value discovery, what do people really value in a gym? Clearly, you know, the tangibles, the number of machines, you know, the weights.

Does the gym smell? You know, simple stuff. Is it clean? Is it hygienic? Is it nice? Then there's other stuff. Is it aspirational? You know, is it in a good location? Is it open? What hours of the day? Is it open? Is it 24/7? Can you go in public holidays? Does it open early in the morning?

And then other stuff like the real, the value add capability that gyms have, you know, those sort additional, the luxury aspects of like swimming pools and, you know, is it more of a health club. Can you have play racketball like in a movie set in New York, like Wall Street, you know, where Gordon Geco goes to play racketball?

I think even the first time I became aware of gyms was, I suppose when we were a kid and you'd see Princess Diana in Britain and she'd be going to this fancy health clubs in Chelsea or wherever it was, or Kensington. And you know, and I'm assuming those gyms are charging top notch, you know, very high prices.

I'm assuming they're capturing the value they offer, but are they, are the regular gyms really even digging into that value discovery? You'd have to argue not, but again, because of the lack of clarity on gym pricing, it's hard to know, but what really drives people to, and these things, the drivers probably change.

You know, with working from home, there used to be big chains that would, you know, publicised. You can work out in our gym at your, in your suburb. Then you can work out in the gym at lunchtime in the cbd, you know, when you're at home on holidays, you know, if go up to Queensland for sunshine, and winter, you can work out at our gyms there too. Like those drivers have probably decreased with working from home, I assume. And I wonder how that's played around into the different value driver. One aspect I really like about gyms is, you know, we talk about ecosystems and building ecosystems and buyers to entry and ability to upsell.

Like in a gym, it's almost like a perfect little enclosed, air conditioned hopefully air conditioned world. And they're always trying to upsell you with personal training, with extra classes, you know, all different things added on, like from massage machines. To body dexa scans and everything else.

So it's almost once they'll capture you, they are trying to move you along that sales funnel into the next thing, which is a great opportunity for these businesses. It's almost like being on a cruise ship to some extent. They have you where they want you to some extent, and they can, you know, they can sell you additional stuff.

I was just thinking about there, there's actually a proliferation of new types of very niche gyms. Ones like, for instance, I've seen, like for those who really like pump to really into weight lifting, they're appealing to a very target market. Everyone goes there or like into the same thing.

They lift way above the average weights, dead lifting and all that sort of stuff. And they choose those gyms very consciously. According to a lot of research out there, even though smaller niche players are using price and promotion, to drive traffic into their gyms because obviously they're reacting to the pressure of, you know, having to pay the bills, mass inflation, churn, because it still happens in those gyms too.

So even though they understand the value, sometimes I feel that they're not confident in the value that they offer and often resort to price. And like I say this, like it's a surprise. We see this in every business from B2B to B2C, even when there's a clear and delineated value proposition and people are willing to pay and people do go, there's still that propensity to backtrack and default to price and promotion as a way to drive cash flow 'cause cash flow to smaller businesses, smaller gyms with a niche audience means a lot. And it also means a lot to those sort of big low budget, let's call it sort of maybe more members that go to them, but low budget gyms who maybe we completely ignore.

Even looking at value drivers, it seems because they're using price and promotion to drive traffic, they've understood their churn rate to some degree and know that the replacement of that customer is cheap. If they, if they drive more promotions. However, is it really cheap? Could they be nurturing customer lifetime value, their customer base. That would be more profitable, especially at a time like this, I  would argue it would. And also, you know, you would give them much better reviews and credibility online and a more sustainable business model. So are they looking for sustainability? Are they looking for, you know, cash, quick cash now and sell on the business? So I feel it's probably the latter for a lot of the budget gyms, they're here today, gone tomorrow, sort of thing and then customers have to find another alternative because they're not truly committed to the gym memberships. And those that are, go to the, the more specialised premium gyms, niche gyms, and unfortunately, they are the people that we should really be thinking about because they're committed. They've been going for a number of years and maybe business owners in that position. Should be really reaticulating reminding their customers, not just through price, but through their marketing and the people that sell their, their plans and offers, through their sales, their marketing, their operations, renewing the gyms and all that sort of thing. The value in use and the value at risk concept. So, I suspect that even with the lady Diana gym, they probably could be charging a lot, but they probably are not charging the full amount optimal price point or exploring that. But I'm hedging my bets there to think that based on what I've seen in gym pricing.

Cause I imagine Princess Diana really shopped around for pricing and she really went, she probably did invest quite a few, you know, days in just checking out pricing and could you see if a few pounds here and there? One thing I say about gyms, the ability to charge an upsell, Like there is a large amount there.

I know we should talk about the price, consciousness of people, you know, but clearly people care a lot about their fitness. Health is wealth is an old saying and clearly people will pay big money and you can just see that by, you know, these gym, you know, one on one coaching and you'll see people paying, I dunno what it is, I think it's like 60, $70 plus an hour in Sydney to get someone to tell you to do your press-ups.

You know, And obviously I'm underplaying what they're really doing there. There's obviously some really good ones and some probably not as great, but if it works, you know, people are willing to spend big money. The other, there's been innovation in the sector in the last couple of years, which is probably.

Trying to address some of the, you know, the boredom, the monotony, that aspect that gyms have been criticised. , you know, and we've seen, is it CrossFit, which has been a, a big phenomenon. And then , this other one, um, is the name has just slipped my mind. It's the one promoted by Marky Mark, Mark Wallberg.

And it's huge. It's more like individual classes they run. The name just slipped my mind, but you know, the one I'm talking about, it just being on the stock market. The share price has fallen recently, but those have been innovations that are sort of catered more to, I suppose, making it more competitive thing, making it more, you know, bit more camaraderie potentially in the gym to drive people on, you know, to counteract some of those criticisms people have had.

But look, it is, gyms are not going go away. You know, I think one of the, even during the Covid restrictions, which we're all trying to forget, one of the things that people really looked forward to when they ended was for a certain percentage of people it was getting back to the gym. Some people wanted to go out for dinner, some people wanted the movies, and a lot of people just wanted to pump some iron.

And so that is, gyms will never go away. Clearly there's, it's like a spectrum. , clearly there's a huge opportunity for optimising pricing by tailoring things and all that stuff, but I think it is a sector that we can learn a lot from. And, you know, even small businesses, et cetera, If you're running a business, you know, one gym like that is by definition to small business.

But in reality, you're facing a lot of the challenges that a big business has. Also, you know, hundreds, potentially thousands of customers collecting debts from them, offering, tailoring your service to them, competing with other gyms in the local neighborhood. So yeah, it's a microcosm of, I suppose, pricing challenges that even, you know, mega corporations.

I suppose just a quick one. I, I was just thinking there that even between the plans that they offer, I find that the price, the pricing is, and the relativity between those, like the difference in pricing between the plans, good-better-best is often very like narrow. Also indicating that really they're thinking about the features and benefits of their plans as opposed to really the full value of, each plan. So that's something that I potentially would address, as a quick and very important fix because when you see that, really, what does that show? It shows a lack of understanding of the basic price and fundamental price model and structure and promotional structure, discount structures are just not there. It's just ad hoc. That's what that indicates. So, you know, that's something potentially to fix. I suppose the last thing that I probably would want to mention here is that there is a clear difference between people that are committed to going to the gym and people that see fitness as part of improving their life, their health, and it's like their medication, that they're committed to a healthier life. Now, I'm not saying here that we overcharge the ones that are committed, but there is a point here of, you know, why, of the people that are not committed here. And what I'm thinking is you can make that market more profitable. Aidan mentioned right at the beginning of this podcast that they have removed sort of that ad hoc usage of gyms.

Why is it a highly profitable market if people want to go once or twice? Charge them for it, they're probably willing to pay. And in that way, , they're actually making money from a highly price sensitive and non-committal audience because they want to pay at that point. So what I can see, there's really some really good pricing, quick wins, as well as long term wins that they'll get from building a sustainable value base in customer focus pricing architecture, but a slight changes to the model that won't, disrupt the flow of business and they can make money at the same time.

Almost like feel like here we've, even in a tough time, we're still making money and it's profitable. Okay, well I think that's what I'm gonna, what I've got to say on that in the moment. 

Okay, Thanks. Have a great weekend everyone. Bye.

#PricingPodcast #PricingCollege #ChiefRevenueOfficer

In today's episode, we want to talk about probably a new addition to the C suite, which is called CRO which stands for Chief Revenue Officer. And this is probably a role that we're seeing more in SaaS companies, software as a service, more startups, more tech, probably more in America, I suppose. And it's someone whose focus is on all the revenue in the business, customers, profitability, revenue, selling, marketing, sales. It's a real catch all term. And I suppose we want to discuss today, is it really just a rebranding of an old fashioned pricing strategy director?

Yeah, well, I suppose you could argue it is, but then you'd have to say that the pricing manager role is set up properly. And often the problem with the pricing manager role and executive role is that it isn't set up correctly. And often it just looks at one or two tasks like price setting or price administration or pricing systems in a business. It doesn't look at pricing holistically. And to many degrees, I think this new Chief Revenue Officer role can learn a lot from the mistakes of the evolving pricing function and ensure that it doesn't fall into the same traps, because I do foresee that happening. But looking at the role in itself, it is a huge role. It looks after sales, which is a specialisation in itself. It looks after marketing. And if it is an SaaS business, there's huge amounts of work to do in marketing. You've got the website build, you've got the technical side of it, you've got the content creation, you've got the alignment with marketing to product. And also they oversee products, they oversee product innovation. They have to match product to market. They have to understand their customers.

They've got to utilise huge amounts of data to price, to develop products to market correctly. And these are just some of the aspects of revenue generation, as you can see. As I explain it, it's a huge remit. And yet I know in prior podcasts that we often argue that pricing has to consider all of these things to be able to price. However, there are some drawbacks. You've got such a huge remit if you can really oversee all of that. Are you doing it properly? And I think from what I've seen, based on a lot of the SaaS pricing, I think it exposes the business to risk principally because it spreads itself too thin. And I think a lot more, I think effort and resources have to be put into pricing. When you've got such a big remit, can you possibly do that all yourself? So I believe maybe that the remit is okay if it oversees big teams and specialist talent to do specific areas of the job well. However, I still think that the role is way too big and often doesn't change because often people in those sort of businesses startups still have that start up mentality and as they grow, don't change and morph the role. So I think there's some organisational design issues at the heart of this that need to be addressed now to make this role even better.

I'm actually surprised by Joanna's view there, being honest. I think it's a great thing. I think it's what we've been arguing for in this podcast since day one. Often when we look at companies and we look at people trying to recruit a pricing manager or a pricing analyst or implement a pricing function, and then you go, who will this person report to? And it gets lost and falls between the cracks and it becomes reporting to sales, reporting to marketing. Fundamentally, I think this is great because it basically means you're bringing commerciality,it chief commercial officer is another way you could describe it. And you're bringing them up to the top table where they get to say we often complain that businesses are run by finance, they're run by operations or marketing, and sales don't work together. And that often happens because there isn't a head honcho to push them together. That's why I think this is a really good step. Clearly, I depends on the size of the company. Even a small company, one person can't do all this, but with the team, they need to be flowing in the same direction and there needs to be someone at the top.

So I think it's a good thing overly backed up by the right teams and the right expertise. Clearly once a company gets a bit bigger, once it gets multiple revenue streams, once it becomes you're operating in different markets, clearly this becomes harder. But again I think that makes it even more reason to have this senior leader, whatever you want to call him, a CRO, chief commercial officer, pricing director, strategy director, blue-sky thinker whatever it is, I think it's a great thing. I think as long as they're being backed up by the expertise, obviously under those categories, clearly if this person is running sales, marketing, value pricing, clearly they want experts in all those areas under them. Imagine this is a company big enough to afford these roles. So this is the upper, the C suite and then you'll have to probably directors beneath. Clearly those are a lot of salaries but obviously marketing and sales are different functions, pricing is a different function and as long as they're backed up by those people but they're all flowing in the same direction, they're reporting to the same person on the board, I think it's a really good thing and I see a lot of potential for it. 

I'm going to argue a lot of companies aren't going to implement this purely because they don't think in this way. And again it's no surprise that it's coming from Silicon Valley, it's coming from those sort of startups where they're focused on revenue and venture capital funding backing them. So I'd love to see more of it, I'd love to see it heading into B2B industries and yeah, I think it's great.

Well I think you've misunderstood me though. I see it as a great opportunity and for all of those reasons, as I said, I think principally there could be issues with the role, if the organisational design and the role structure isn't aligned to a very quick and evolving business model and a changing market, you simply just can't have one person doing all of that work. It's an oversight, you should have one person overseeing it, hence it's an executive level recruit here. Obviously they're overseeing it. So the manpower, the choice of team mix and skills is vital to ensure that you're overseeing all that revenue safely. My point was that often things like organisational design, team structure, role design have not been considered well in pricing functions and I fear that could happen in SaaS businesses as well. And the reason I think that is a possibility is I think with the nature of the business, I think the startup mentality stays with a lot of sets businesses and the emphasis is always on customer acquisition, finding those new customers, finding that revenue, and often through that pure focus on just getting more customers, you forget what the real value of the business is.

It's almost a reactive type of mindset and then you don't put those strategic things in place and over time you start to expect one person to oversee and do all of those different things from marketing, sales, product, and not give them the recognition for it, and then end up blaming them when things go wrong. And really it's been set up incorrectly. I say this from experience. I see it happening. I see it happening everywhere in pricing. It happens all over the place. And I have so many pricing managers and executives saying, I want this to change its business model issue. They're not understanding the role of pricing and the business. So here I just want to say, if you're in a SaaS business, don't fall into the same traps. One of those things, if you think, how will I know if I'm in that sort of lap trap? Well, if you're thinking about that customer acquisition and you're not really thinking, and you've acquired lots of customers, and you're not thinking about customer lifetime value, that's an indication potentially that you're setting your revenue officer up for failure. Because really, it's not just about making money in the instance now, right now, what do you do when you've got all these customers that love what you're doing but potentially don't love the pricing or don't like the product anymore? How are you going to pivot and how you're going to respond to that? Because you want to lose all those customers. You spent a long time generating all the marketing, setting up your business, et cetera, et cetera, and then just lose them by not pricing correctly, by not marketing correctly, but not treating them correctly. So what I'm doing is, don't spread yourself too thin as my point here, and make sure you don't overlook things like planning, organisational design, thinking about your new value metrics and pricing metrics carefully, and potentially really thinking about how you're going to change your pricing and revenue model or potentially have you even thought that you may need to do it? Is a adhoc price rise strategy really enough to generate profitability? Maybe it is now but it may just churn through a whole lot of customers tomorrow. And these are the sort of strategic things I would like a Chief Revenue Officer to consider as they're starting a new job in a SaaS company because those things will come around and bite you if they're not addressed. And if you see in the business and culture that there's a lack of recognition and awareness of the customer, of the product market, fit and all of that sort of stuff, customer lifetime value is just a buzzword and not really part of the pricing culture, then you probably got to be aware that this role may not be set up correctly.

I think it's a good thing. I clearly think it's a very tough job in some way. You're actually cannibalising other people's jobs. Like if the Chief Revenue Officer is doing all this, what's the CEO doing is the CEO just speaking to investors, what are they really doing? Because in theory if we're looking at there's so much of that remit in the business, what the business does, it's pretty much the entire commercial focus. So I completely recognise it's a very tough job. Nobody can be hands on and know every detail. Like very few people are marketing experts, sales experts, pricing experts, customer onboarding experts, customer experience experts, especially when the company gets even small sized it'd be very difficult. But I still think it's a great step. I think it will help people align things going the right direction I would say. I think it is the right step. I think it's going to still know it will never get over. The other issues with, are we sort of saying that then finance and all other aspects are not working in the same sheet or are we just making one big silo and then the other silos are separate.

So our operations and finance sort of separate to this and we'll even become more siloed if we do that. Clearly for the business to really work well, everything needs to be working together. I assume that the CEO needs to be driving everything. At the end of the day, the CEO needs to be the person who you know and again when you get into a very big company it becomes very difficult. But at least they have to have a real understanding in at least broad terms on every area of the business and they need to prioritise and they need to make sure that the entire business is operating with a commercial focus, with a business with a value focus. And realistically, the CEO should be the chief revenue officer or at least have that, wear that hat at least most of the time as well. But I think it's getting one step closer. It's ensuring that someone who has pricing knowledge is at least getting a say on the top table. And I think that's one of the biggest problems that we often see when you see a pricing team set up to feel it's one reporting into this department or into finance or into something else.

It's when marketing and sales are running off doing their own thing without discussing stuff together. And it's when no one really seems to know what the company is actually doing. So I personally think it's a good thing. I would love to see more of it. Obviously it's going to be interesting. Clearly whoever takes these sort of jobs is signing up for an awful lot of work. So we wish them well. But yeah, I think pricing is certainly a string to their bow that they should have. And we'd love to have more discussions about this in the future. I'm sure we'll cover this in future podcasts.

I think it would be a great role, but it has to be set up properly. And you mention the point about the CEO. Is it sort of taking on the CEO kind of the same thing? I don't think so. I think it's an oversight role. It works like pricing across multiple functions. I suppose the chief revenue officer actually recognises that in a sense the pricing manager role still is going no, pricing people are just responsible for pricing and thereby siloing pricing people to just that when really surprised properly. You need to think about sales, marketing, products, customer service, the whole lot. But really revenue officer role doesn't take on anyone else's job and really it's an oversight role. It's actually not responsible for revenue generation. And this is why I feel it's another reason why it's set up incorrectly. There needs to be almost like this centralised mini structure of all people coming together. You've got your marketing director, you've got your sales director, you've got your CEO who oversees all of that, and you've got your revenue officer very much like the pricing officer sitting into the pricing committee. Just because the pricing manager and the revenue officer may be managed and have the expertise in pricing doesn't mean they own it.

This is very much a multidisciplinary decision. Making a pricing decision isn't just for the revenue officer. And sometimes when you haven't set up the role well, people assume that's what it is. And it's not like that. This is mine, this is your remit. It's very much a collaborative effort. But because of that, this is why organisational design and structure of the teams and how different teams work with each other are very important to actually generating profitable and sustainable revenue growth in a business. And that's the point I'm getting at here. So make sure you spend a lot of time thinking about the role in context to your offers, your plans, your business model, where you want to take your business strategy, your team structure. Now, the evolution of that team structure, your customer base, your segmentation, your price structure, your architecture, your marketing plan, how it feeds into that pricing strategy. These are key considerations into how you're going to set up and design a role and how you're going to set up a great role for success. Yeah, so I suppose that's my final thoughts on that.

Yeah, my final thoughts is really when I first heard about startups in Silicon Valley, the only job I wanted was one where you get to wear casual clothes, play a fuzz ball all day and get catered food. And this rule does not sound like that, so it's not for me. OK, we'll leave it there today. Have a great weekend. Bye.

In today's episode, we want to ask a question about some of the creative industries and the best way to charge for graphic design creativity, like designing logos. This is a question that somebody asked us recently, so we want to explore it today.

We asked this question essentially, a question that a lot of people ask us how do we charge for a particular service or our products? Often the debate goes " Oh, should we use a cost plus, especially for all time and materials billings, especially for professional services?" for things like design, logos, websites, all that stuff. Or should we make the bold move and try and charge based on value-based principles? And often, we, being from a value-based pricing firm, would strongly advocate choosing that particular method or methodology. But listening to the feedback from designers and practitioners, we'd like to explore how sometimes value-based pricing may not be feasible, and how sometimes cost-plus pricing, if cut and sliced differently, can deliver profitability.

Do you think you want a new logo for your website? I think there are a few concepts and issues we need to discuss here. So say you want a new logo for your website and someone decides how are they going to charge you. Are they going to charge you based on time and effort? Or is it based on the value this logo will provide? It's very difficult to work out what value a logo would provide in advance, certainly, especially if you're a graphic designer, you probably don't know anything about the company you're dealing with. You don't know how big it is if it's a startup, so there's a real issue. And also, as a graphic designer, are you dealing directly with the person or are you going through a website? So if people have all the materials and that's how they bill it, you've got real issues there. Because in the new Internet era, you're competing against people. If you're based in a high-cost environment, like Manhattan or Central London etc. People in cheaper areas would have a much lower sale price potentially than you would. So are you dragging yourself down to that level? The other thing, of course, you're saying is, if you get quicker like how do you price the fact that you're getting better at your artwork you're getting more experience, your quality is for increasing. Even if you could do the artwork quicker, does that mean that you charge less for it? It really, logically doesn't make an awful lot of sense. The only way I think that would work is if you're using a fake method. So to some extent, you're just you're doing a fake medical notice, five hours on average, just as a justification methodology, but the reality of it is the person who's buying it from you. It's not like you're a lawyer in a big firm who can talk about their hours and how many hours they're working like the person buying the product has no concept or idea or realistically doesn't care how much time you spend spent on this or not.

It's funny, you should say that because even lawyers use time materials as the basis for their price calculations with customers and customers don't care. There is a little bit of scepticism about how time is calculated in that regard, hasn't been overinflated because both sides of the equation don't think that the price is justified. Maybe on one side, the lawyers are thinking we should have gotten a higher price for this. The problem is more complex than we scoped out, etc. And the customers refuse to sort of listen to that, and they just want the outcome. Regardless, the same things happen in design. And when I think about it and the feedback from designers, a lot of them, especially the new designers, are saying, "Ah, cost plus might be better for us because we are not really that familiar and comfortable." sort of justifying the value of our offer to customers. Maybe selling is not their skill set. They haven't thought about the value that they provide. And some even argue that we don't have a huge portfolio. We haven't got that track record to be able to showcase to our customers. Here we can see that there's sort of a lack of confidence in their ability. Potentially not in the skill set, but potentially in the business acumen. And also, there's a lack of confidence that may or may not be true being communicated to the customers. Again, since you are new, you may not be good at this. So why would I give you the money for that? But again, this is business. A little bit of like resilience training, you have to take that with a pinch of salt, because like really, what is the value of a logo? Well, if it's a good logo, you'll instantly know it's a good logo. It meets expectations that capture the essence of your business and your brand and that feeling that it is all in one visual glance and it attracts people that you want to be drawn to your business. So it has that segmented type of appeal to it. A designer can't show this before the actual engagement but during the sales process. I'm thinking of 99 designs here a customer can go, look, this is what we're thinking to designers and then they deliver the sort of an idea or a sketch just to outline how they think and capture what you've just communicated to them. And from that, you get a good strong sense. Whether they are seasoned professionals, designers or newbies, whether they can do what you want and a customer can get surprised and delighted and overwhelmed by other people's ideas. It supersedes their imagination, and that's what you're paying for. That's the real value of the transaction. And sometimes, if you limit that transaction to time and materials, you just end up commoditising the value that you offer pretty much because you're not confident in your ability or your business skills.

I think back to when I was one of our previous existences. I was an accountant and I worked at Deloitte and Touche. I got to what revenue would be globally, but it must be in the billions. Then they went through this process of rebranding and came up with a wonderful idea for Deloitte Green Dot. Deloitte full stop or a period of wherever you want to call it. Has a company brought in any extra revenue due to that new logo? I don't know, maybe they have, but it seems far-fetched. But I remember the time I think the story was that they'd spent over a million dollars or a million pounds sterling on that rebrand, clearly an attainment material basis. What are the required materials? Is it the research? Is it the analysis? Is it the learning? You're getting into the old story with Nikola Tesla and Henry Ford, where there was a rattling in the wall and Henry Ford brought Tesla in to try to fix it. And he walked down the lot of the wall, spent two minutes finding a hole in the wall and giving it a tarp, and the problem was solved. And then he charged $10,000 to Henry Ford. And Henry Ford says it only took you two minutes and he goes, "Yes, but it's the expertise, the knowledge, that's where the cost goes." I think, again, I gotta get into the idea of, like, also, if you think about the concept of another creative industry, which is architecture, People like Norman Foster, who is probably the most famous architect in the world, I assume, is one of them. Calatrava will be another one to win a lot of major prestige projects. They get paid more than other designers. Keeping in mind that they probably don't do any work on these projects at all. No, they probably have teams of young architects working on them. But clearly, they're winning these things based not always on design but often based on celebrity status and the value that we peripherally value, such as prestige status, confidence aside, that the company is moving in the right direction. Realistically, if you're a McDonald's or a major corporation who's looking at a rebrand or a new logo, they're not going to give it to someone just based on being cheap. I don't think cheapness is even going to come into it. You're looking at the segmentation of your market who you're catering to, you know, and if you're going on time, that cheapness, maybe that's the right approach mark to market at the lower end of the market. But if you're hoping to rebrand Qantas or British Airways or do the logo for something else, then you need to give the people confidence that it's the best in the world. That you're prestigious, that people will know where it's come from and have confidence in that and buy into the project. So it's almost like high quality or luxury product. There is a luxury product aspect to it. My view would be that if you want to have a sustainable career in this business, you have to build your career. It's the thing you have to build your prestige, build your market knowledge, or boost your reviews on your website. So people come to you and they are coming to you for a reason. Not just because you're cheaper or you can do the job, but they're coming to you because they believe in interest in the product you're making.

I think it's a mistake to think that you need the experience to gain confidence to get more customers. I often think that experience in itself, like it's an indicator of potentially that you're able to potentially generate value for clients, but it's based on past precedent. Customers that look at CVS are looking at them to gain a little bit of confidence in you, but the confidence will happen when they see your ideas or SEE YOU THINKING and working through problems with them, and they'll see where you're going with it. I think there's confidence in your ability to be able to discuss that type of problem with your customers rather than thinking others are better than you. Are you the cheapest in the market? It is very commoditised. You're wasting your time with that type of thinking. You have to be focused on the customer's needs. And you'd have to be honest with yourself sometimes. Am I able to serve that customer because you may not have a clue about what they're getting? If you're just playing along with that, then you're wasting everybody's time. So yeah, there's an element of honesty and confidence in your ability to read the situation and know your target market. If you don't feel that you've got the skills to do it. Then you've got to think about where you can be best served and build up that competence and resume if that's where you want to go. If you're going to use cost-plus just be very, very careful. It's going to commoditise your offer and it's going to decide that the relationship with your customer is very transactional. What is value-based pricing? It's a conversation based on value. What value can you generate for your customer? Through your design, through your logos, and if you know that you can generate a lot of value, then charge that premium for it. If the customer is still not sure and or you're not sure that you can do the job. Maybe the scope or the brief is still quite confusing, then potentially think about a new revenue model as a way of charging. Not that you can charge using value-based pricing, but think about maybe a retainer model or a different type of subscription model just to lower the risk from both ends. That potentially would help, and then they could see you in action and you're contracted for some money. That way, you both gain experience with each other. You lower the risk and you can show what you can do for them. And then you can It's sort of motransparent, you can build a relationship and trust in the end product.

You have to consider again, in value-based pricing, what are you delivering? Sometimes people don't just want a logo. Maybe they want the marketing team who are working on this project that they want to feel special. I remember another time I was working at a company, a waste company, and they were developing a new website. And they had a whole team of creatives come in to talk about the colour scheme and all this stuff. I remember one guy was wearing a beret, and it was just preposterous that they were throwing people at something that one person could do. You have to fit the criteria that the people want, that they're looking to buy. Big companies potentially if there are a lot of people working on it. Think about this, if you're a big company and you have a big rebrand, if it goes wrong and then the chief executive finds out that the logo only cost 500 bucks. You can be pretty sure that the market executive is going to be in a lot of trouble with that or the branding person. So there'll be a high price hike, which will give some assurance also, those peripheral values. Given that, you think about what people want. They want the product and the logo. But the chance that the perfect logo will come up on the first go is very low. People may hit the first logo, they may want to slightly change it. So there'd be so many things like infinite reruns, turnarounds overnight, throwing them in different shades, being available at all times. Making sure that it's done in the way they wanted. Good people can be very demanding. And if that's demanding, are you able to provide that? If you can provide that, there's a higher price tag and ticket with that. I think that the ins and outs of the basics of actually doing the logo, and we're using the term "logo," but this can be used in different contexts, also in the fashion industry. Theoretically, you could buy an item from Chanel that might cost 100 or 1000 times the price of something cheaper and sharper like H & M or somewhere like that to the educated eye, and might even be identical, but it's those small nuances that provide infinite differences and the infinite different ability to sell. Admittedly, someone or Coco Chanel, they don't come along every day and that expertise that's what makes people real business leaders and successes. And just because you're the best local designer certainly does not indicate that you will be a great business and you need that marketing skill. You need that selling ability and you need everything

I suppose this is the difference between just designing the logo and creating a business. It's a different skill set. Often people start businesses without really identifying their core market and understanding sources of value in the market. They have no clear value proposition and then they build a business. Literally through panic and fear. Just go I'm going to sell anything to anybody at any price. Just because I sort of need the money and that is not a sustainable sort of way to run a business and customers don't like that. Using pricing methodology as a way to or if you're going to use cost-plus, by adding on hours to the overall project, just to get charged customers more, it's just not a great way of doing business because you side tracking away from the true value of your offer. And that's because you've brushed past your value proposition and you just shooting anything, you just want any work Business is tough, that's why confidence and hard work and learning business skills will come in handy just to de-risk the whole model and might give you confidence that you need to take to get better at that because have confidence in your delivery skills. You're a designer, you thought you could do it when you started when we started the business so just remind yourself of that and think carefully of what your core area and niches are and where you want to go with that. Often in design, It's where your passion lies. So think about that. What excites you about that? Why are you doing what you're doing? And that will help you and then you can see and then that sort of helps you in a way that segments the market because other people will be attracted to that attracted by that particular skill as well. And then over time you're going to niche and be known for that particular thing. 

I would also think stuff like payment terms you could offer. You don't stop until the customer is completely happy with the project. Those things are de-risking for the buyer like a lot of people buying a logo or brand name but they're coming to you because they're not creatives they want them to blow them away. You have to maybe guarantee to get from there in that sort of thing you want to you probably want to be working exclusively with people do you want to be putting in a huge amount of effort and not getting the sale. That's something you want to consider also, but I would suggest you find some method of de-risking it for the buyer. Once you build your portfolio at the beginning, you have to have a portfolio, you probably don't have cheaper you're probably broke for lower quality customers. And then you're moving up into the big leagues. If you're successful, bigger companies and hopefully at the end of the day, you're doing AmEx and you're doing United Airlines and all this sort of stuff. So, but you got to start somewhere and you can't know value. The peripheral value is built up over years. But you got to start somewhere. unclearly building a portfolio having logos and brands out there. That's very important, but it's step by step.

In today's episode, we want to look at a news article that appeared today, 8 September 2022. I think it almost suggests that more people should listen to price in college because I suppose fundamentally it looks at some of the most very basic pricing thoughts or strategies that I think that anyone in business or even the media should know. So, I think I'll just give a brief intro to it. On a radio station, 2GB in Sydney, the presenter Jim Wilson grilled the pub entrepreneur Justin Haimes on the new Allianz stadiums beer prices and said that they're too expensive because they were more expensive than in the largest bar and discount off license store or bottleshop as they call them in Australia. So I think we just want to look at that and discuss what we can draw from it.

It was an interesting one because I suppose the radio host, Jim Wilson was trying to act as the voice of the customer. In some way was trying to sort of accuse Justin Haimes sort of, like, overpricing the beer at the stadium. In a way overcharging because he knew we had a captive audience that couldn't go anywhere else. And often, in pricing, you hear that sort of that fear, that sort of allegation being cast upon the pricing manager and also the reason for discounting. Oh, we think we're overcharging our customers and therefore, its price overrides in the system and discounts occur and go down, more and more until one asked, " what is the right price as we undersell offers?" So interesting in that way. They thought it was representing the voice of the customer giving examples that the customers thought the beer and the hot dog were way too expensive. Why was it $9 I think the base price of $9.50 and he was charging $10.20? And how extortionate that was for his beer. In Australia is supposed to be in every man's type of beer. It's the standard drink and he was weighing that is way too much for that the average punter to pay. Especially I suppose in a way that they're paying for the football prices that what they're going to see it's not a cheap night. You can hear the justifications and they're fair. I suppose in response Justin Haimes was like saying "well, the cost of operations for my business to be able to supply the stadium, the production, the staff involved, is not similar to that of Dan Murphy". It's a different business model. Dan Murphy's is the like a supermarket for sort of fairly standard drinks, very different business model. But what I thought was interesting is that they both resorted to justifying the prices by looking at the cost. Justin Haimes was like applauded for his response there, but I thought it was quite limited.  Who cares what his cost of operations is? Should customer care? Surely he should have been justifying the higher prices by the value it brings to the customer, and neither of them went there. I think though, that Jim Wilson, the radio presenter was trying to get, that you shouldn't charge based on willingness to pay. But I don't think he had a thorough understanding of the principles of pricing to be able to say that quite clearly to Justin Haimes. But I just thought it was really interesting how they just both devolved into the age-old oak cost, or different business models a bit limited. So I didn't think it was a great response.

I suppose it highlights a lot of the very low-grade journalism that I suppose Australia has and, and other countries. I think if people are asking dumb questions, you're gonna get dumb answers. I think we've seen that certainly through COVID and over the last number of years. I think society is yeah, it's almost like people are just scoring points with ridiculous questions and you won't get a good answer. There's certainly not going to be any intellectual rigour with these debates. Look, I think clearly, anybody in the right mindset will understand that if you go to a fancy restaurant, if you go to the Ritz Hotel or the fancy hotels like Carlton or fancy hotel names, clearly you're gonna pay more for a drink, a gin and tonic etc than you would in a dive bar. There's cater to different establishments. There's a different value being provided. This new football stadium is being built. I think it's the one in Moorpark that replaced the old city football stadium. And I think clearly like a billion dollars or more spent on this facility. It's to be the best and the brightest and to attract international acts, and international sporting events. To create an atmosphere of the real off-market, a real great night out international standard. I don't know if I agree with the bulldozing of a perfectly fine stadium and rebuilding another one on the same site. But  I think they're competing. They're not just competing now with Satan in Sydney or Australia. They're competing with facilities in North America.  People to talk about some of these big American football stadiums or the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in London, where they're trying to attract international events, international concerts. Justin Haimes doesn't run dive bars. He runs the Maryville Chain and they own those upmarket and fancy establishments in Sydney. They're not selling fancy drinks. Is it drinks they're selling or is it an experience? Is it exclusivity? What is the value they're selling? And those are the questions that I suppose you want to look at. The question I suppose you could ask is, Is that the right person to be? Is that the right style and value to be selling drinks? What is a football stadium in theory, whereby traditionally at least football, different versions of football were the everyman sport? That everyone could go bring their kids and have a beer whatever it was a social sizzle you noticed cheap and accessible. Is there an incongruence there that Copiah valid point, but like at the end of the day, once you bring in a fancy of market business, such as that don't expect to get Hungry Jacks or it's not just selling a hotdog at the back of a truck. So, what is the value we're selling? What is the value people are buying? There's a whole number of questions that aren't even being acknowledged that they exist, let alone discussed.

So the stadium itself could have more of a premium pricing strategy. Life in Sydney is good, it's sort of trying to increase it's in a nice area of town. It's very exclusive and they're just trying to align with the city and where it's going in the future. Then you've got the customer, the fans who maybe travel quite a few miles out from suburbs into the city. May have a completely different lifestyle. Don't have that type of spend, but they frequently go to like football, and they're surprised. So there's a dissonance there between his business strategy, their market, and the customer. Have they looked into that segmentation? Or, are they just trying to hope and migrate people into that sort of more premium pricing strategy by just dazzling them with a great shiny new stadium or a large ray of drinks and food that potentially they don't want? They just want the standard. They don't care as much maybe for the more premium lagers and ales. You're right, it could be the choice of vendors, and the business strategy potentially is misaligned with the market. The people that are going are average families. They're thinking it's hard enough to pay for the tickets because those ticket prices are going up, as we've discussed before as well up and down using dynamic pricing. And now on top of this, we've been given this premium pricing strategy for an offer that we don't want. Now, this could be all signs that trying to educate the customer about this new business strategy, or it could be dragging them into it. It's kind of a difficult one to discuss now. Because families are under huge amounts of pressure with interest rates, increasing inflation, food prices increasing and now even leisure prices or just doing something, with your family, everything's just going up. So it might be the wrong timing. But in terms of this particular article, I would have liked to hear the justification for a higher price point is about the value it delivers to customers. The convenience of having a nice beer at the stadium has the option to have a beer and a lovely burger as you sit to see your favourite team play. I mean, for some people, they're willing to pay for it, for others they're not. They'll just bring their flask bottle of water and the sandwiches, I suppose. I mean, that's a segmentation of sorts, but a total disregard for if, let's say, Jim Wilson was speaking on behalf of the customer. Whether it aligned with your business strategy or not or whether you agree with it as a business leader, it doesn't matter. There's an element of truth and untruth in everything that we hear. And it should be recognised that potentially, willingness to pay isn't as high as they thought. So what are they going to do to change that? That'd be an interesting transition plan. Maybe change their assortment, change their range, maybe change the menu, who knows? But hopefully, a radio presenter will ask better questions and maybe speak on behalf of the customer in a more educated fashion.

I'm going to disagree on this I think he answered it in the best way for him. The 2GB is not a shock jock station but as a talkback tends to be a little bit right-wing, tends to be popular, and tends to know at all journalists want to who have a certain core audience who likes to complain about the world. Again, that's a little bit that's just my personal views. There's some good stuff on it too, from time to time. But realistically, if you're trying to hold yourself up, Jim Wilson, as the populace, the everyman that champions of the people, like I don't know if Haimes coming on and talking about the value. The listeners on that show probably aren't his audience. They're probably not the people who will be buying drinks on Saturday night at the nightclub or one of these other bars. And so I suppose it's a political protect yourself. Maybe writers to defend themselves. He's not there to educate because clearly, that's not something he can do. He clearly understands value, he is doing very well and understands the value of hospitality. You know, is that the argument of the discussion that this show wants to have? I think you're probably better off arguing along these lines. You're not going to sell any more products, so I think it's better to get out of that ambush by playing the game that they want you to play. Fair enough he is completely legitimate costs would be infinitely different. They're not even chalk and cheese. It's just a completely different life form from running quite a bit of supermarket for alcohol versus a fancy place that sells drinks for football games and concerts. So his point is completely valid. I think he clearly understands the value of stuff. I think he clearly understands segmenting his market. I think those are sort of my views on it. I don't think just sort of highlights a little bit of like some of the common in some certainly in businesses that people think everyone thinks they have a pricing view, and this is what happens, people think they know everything about pricing, when in some ways that don't even know the first thing. You have to get that lightbulb moment where you can move this person from. They want is very uneducated communication to something that's starting to move them along the line to be educated on the topic that is an expert environment. But again, I say who's running the multimillion-dollar business as Jim Wilson or is it Justin hammers?

I suppose it can be a bit typical sort of response that we hear in boardrooms all the time. Like, if you're going to talk to customers, you're going to appeal to them and make them think differently, especially if you've got a different business strategy than using the old my cost structure versus your cost structure leads to that.  I'm just thinking about procurement here. It's like,  "oh we think your prices are too high or show me your costs". Okay, my business model is completely different. So I've got a different cost structure so I will show you. Even that was the devolution of the conversation. He was going to show the radio presenter what it was like to run a business in a stadium. I mean, there's like opened up costings. Again, it's a bit tedious. I mean, I actually would like to change the conversation, and break it up a bit. Tell us what is the value here. What are the benefits we're gonna get? Re-educate me on something positive, like, yeah, I want to know why. It's great to go out and have that extra good experience. You tell me you're gonna give me an even better experience. Well, great justify that but that's not only justification is a good marketing opportunity. It just removes the stale sort of conversation around costs. And going back to that it just makes the experience the same old. So actually, we're talking about experience in the stadium. It's all so the price is based on your experience as a business owner, implementing and delivering this service to me I don't care I want this to be about me. I'm willing to pay a higher price if you're telling me that it's going to be exceptional. Is it exceptional? So I think I disagree with you on this one. I think any opportunity is a great opportunity to market and especially based on value because it's always positive. If it's not positive, then you've got something to worry about. And if you're not going to talk about it, the fans will find out and the customers will find out soon enough.

In today's episode, we want to cover I suppose it's a concept, but it's also a new story that we saw recently this week, whereby Disney plus up-and-coming young whippersnapper on the streaming market that's eating Netflix's. I suppose they haven't announced it, but they're suggesting that they will introduce two-tiered pricing whereby you pay less, maybe about $8 US a month, but you might have to watch advertisements, or you can pay more and avoid advertisements. And I suppose this is a little bit like I think it's called "Red" on YouTube, where you can subscribe, you pay a fee per month, and you get to avoid those annoying ads that pop up during your videos. So yeah, what do we think of this?

We thought it was an unusual article for a news story. Firstly, it just seems kind of a confusing sort of pricing strategy. Is it a pricing strategy to introduce new price tiers based on things that customers don't like? So you increase the price to avoid something you don't want to see like ads. So obviously they've done their research.  I just think it's kind of on customers and found out that they don't like seeing ads. They must not like seeing ads, but it seems counterintuitive in a way to price based on that. It sort of sidesteps the value of the Disney plus proposition. I mean, are they suggesting through that that there is very limited value in their offer compared to Netflix and are resorting to going to paying for not seeing the ads? This seems strange because there's value in that Disney plus the selection of movies. Are they suggesting that that is not enough to maintain customers? But if you backtrack a little bit on that, well, it must have been enough because that's what drove customers to the platform. And that's what customers thought, " oh Disney plus movies are worth migrating from something like Netflix or a Stan or one of those platforms". So I just think it's kind of an odd price structure to create and really what I'm thinking is, Is it a price strategy? Or, are they thinking about it,  Is it more like a covert price increase price rise strategy? And if you're going to do that's more of a tactical sort of pricing move. And it's something that you really shouldn't integrate into your fundamental price architecture, which is that price structure. So to me, those are my thoughts what do you think?

I suppose I have a couple of thoughts. Generally when we're talking about value-based pricing and charging for value, usually we're discussing giving additional value, and charging for that additional value we're giving. It's more of a carat than a stick this more seems to be a stick. This almost seems to be pay or we will self-sabotage what we're giving you.  Pay or we will make this product we're providing to you worse, which seems a bit odd to me. Admittedly, they haven't said they're going to do this yet but I've seen and imagined it in a couple of different places. What would that do? Would it drag these services back down to being television? Not very different to actual regular TV, which I suppose was what drove people to stream in the first place. Theoretically, what difference does it make if you're showing adverts on whether it's a streaming service versus whether it's a pair TV system? So I think that was a bit confusing, and I'm not sure that I can see it clearly on YouTube.  I would watch a fair amount of YouTube but I can see that the adverts are annoying. The people who tend to advertise on YouTube also tend to be larger corporates; banks, and building societies. These are even term issues anymore. Insurance companies stuff like that big supermarket chains. The adverts tend to be mind-numbing and they're a little bit too long. I think even television adverts some people used to enjoy them, some of them used to be entertaining. There'll be comical aspects to them. I think maybe that's decreased in recent times, potentially with the costs of TV advertising increasing. But I would argue that YouTube ads are more boring unless you also have the ability to counsel them or go straight to the video after a couple of seconds, which is a bit old. It's an old system. It's an interactive system that goes against what TV is. So I don't know if it's well thought through. I don't know if it's a good idea. The other thought about it was it sort of insinuated cost plus mechanism in Disney or whoever will implement this. Are we saying we want to make this much profit from this show over an hour's viewing per person, and we'll either get that money from the paying public or the advertisers?  It may be that may not be what they're doing but it sort of suggest that and it also remains with the old saying that, " if you're not paying for something theoretically you are the product". If you're not paying theoretically, Disney or whoever it is will be just showing advertisements to you and the paying advertisers will see you as the product and that's how it works. So it's a weird one on it, it leads to something on the one platform, if it stays neat, it would lead to a mixed message I would say from a premium movie enjoyable system to do that. What are the questions I would ask is it clear how the implementation of adverts will make a big difference? Is it going to be adverts during the movie, which will be exceedingly annoying? Or is it going to be an advert before you watch a movie, that is less annoying?

The adverts gonna be customised. So having it customised to what you like as a viewer, are they on to that? Yeah, I mean, Are they using data to customise their ads and all that sort of thing? But I do agree with you. I don't think the pricing strategy is particularly value-based. I don't know it just smacks of a very reactive price increase price hike strategy. And somebody just thought okay, if we introduced this new price to migrate customers, existing customers over to this ad-supported version, even though they were on a no ad version, then essentially get a price increase and increase our profitability there quickly. But my thought here,  well.. Is that very customer focus? How do customers feel about that? Well, it'd be highly annoying if you've signed up for something with no ads and it was a good service and you're quite enjoying it to then having an inferior service. So I don't think just easily migrating on on on a spreadsheet. It looks kind of attractive, but in real life, I am assuming there's going to be some kind of churn from that kind of dissatisfaction from customers. Not necessarily to Netflix, but maybe somewhere else or who knows.  But I also think, here that, as I was saying it's a reactive strategy, looking at the economics of platform-based businesses where it was very egalitarian in their pricing, meaning it was artificially low price, to begin with. And there was always that mission statement around bringing entertainment to the masses. All that broken model such high costs cinemas, and all that sort of thing, bringing the entertainment to your home, having the access to huge amounts of movies and entertainment law at a low, low cost. Now, as we see, Netflix has been challenged by new entrants to the market. This egalitarian pricing model is also being challenged and different platform businesses are competing, we're now seeing price wars, and it's unsustainable. But now we're hearing like, every other business is those slow, dumb, moving, slow-moving corporations that we often talk about that are in that commoditisation, price war trap, the same things now happening with the smart agile entrepreneurial platform businesses. So is this the end of the sort of platform revolution? And is this the beginning of massive increases in price and mass entertainment through platforms? Maybe it's the rise and fall, a very quick rise and fall of Disney plus that that we're seeing in Netflix and I suppose an indication to customers that we're not going to get those nice low prices anymore. Things are going to go up considerably. Looking at the Disney plus price increase in this particular instance, prices for no ads have gone up 37% if they're going to take this new model and new price structure into the market. So that's a quite considerable price hike for something you don't want to see. So let's see how that pans out for Disney plus.

I suppose a lot of this comes down to these platforms, I'm calling them platforms not sure that the right term is streaming services, they try to segment their market. I think they've been quite a purge segmentation up to now.  I think the only real segmentation that I noticed is how many users can be watching the show at one time, which to me is a bit strange. Like is this saying that four people watching Netflix on the same thing in the same house at one point in time is a bit odd as a big house or maybe people should watch movies together more? It almost suggests isolation is a good thing for these people whose company's market share and share price. So that's odd. I suppose they haven't been very good at segmentation. You know, even if you look back at the old Foxtel,  Sky Television, HBO, the sort of companies satellite TV, cable TV, they were quite good at segmentation. You could select the package you wanted, sports, all that sort of stuff. I think with these platforms, to some extent, they haven't moved to that yet. Look even at Disney there are cartoons there are movies, and there are TV shows. How many people watch even a small percentage of them? So I'd argue there's room for segmentation a bit more in that category. Disney's catalogue is so big that they control production a lot better than Netflix does, which is generally redistributed for the vast majority of their product, whether it's the content. So I would argue that segmentation certainly will be increasing because these companies don't want to lose people at the lower end of the pay of eight or nine bucks. They want to keep them but push up their profitability on the higher end. I would forecast that go somewhere in the line. I say Google Play, I used to rent quite a few movies. If there was a movie I wanted to watch, and I only watched one or two a month but I pay $5, $6, or $7 to watch that movie on Google Play. And maybe our forecast that that that would be something that will come back a bit more that we'll move away from the view everything at a certain fixed price to more of you view fewer stuff and you pay a bit more per movie. But potentially it ends up with the same money in the pocket of Disney and whoever else. So I think my forecasts are more segmentation will happen. There's going to be more churned. I can't see Netflix surviving in its current form for more than a couple of years. I think the distributor and the actual production house are Paramount, Disney etc whoever the other ones are, I don't know if MGM is still a big one or not, but they will be producing more they will be growing and it'll be more direct to the viewers with segmentation taking away certain aspects that don't require potentially more pay per view movies. I guess that's my forecast.

Sounds like sky and Foxtel to me. So it seems like they're going down the business Yeah, back to the future that's right Foxtel and Sky. I've been through the rocky road and I've recovered through segmentation. But it's funny like with someone like Disney plus there's an element of segmentation in Disney plus in terms of product segmentation because it's all their movies. So as Aodhan was saying Netflix is a distributor of many different types of movies and producers and directors and all of that, but Disney has only got their movies. So there's a bit of segmentation. How niche can they go with their product segmentation?  So really what I think they need to work on is customer segmentation. Looking at their pricing model, this new pricing model, they haven't done it except for ads. I like ads. I don't like ads. It is a bit simplistic and dangerous for customer segmentation to go out down because it's highly emotive. It's destroying the very experience they're supposed to be producing well. What does that do that ruins the reputation? So yeah, I'd be interested to see how that goes. And the irony is quite clear. Again, another instance of the egalitarian pricing models through platforms and online comes to piece under pressure when there are more entrants and more competition. So yeah, interesting. We'll be tracking that one.

Just my final point is that there could be an element of bait and switch to this old, these disruptors came in, you had a Foxtel and speaking in Australia here, you had a Foxtel subscription. Maybe in the US, it's showtime or HBO and Sky TV in Britain. You have that subscription. Some people were paying 100 bucks a month. And then you had Netflix come in and promised the world 15 bucks a month. But now those prices are ramping up. People now find themselves having four or five six subscriptions plus sports subscriptions. In Australia, you've got several Foxtel subscriptions, and cable subscriptions so many that it's almost hard to keep track of them. So in some regard, we're back at the start. We're back where we began. And is it a part of the delivery system and more of a watch on demand? Is it that different to the old-fashioned Sky TV or Foxtel subscription it is a bit back to the future? And maybe this system needs a disruption. Who knows? Maybe we should just go back to the cinema again once or twice a week. Okay, I think that's it for me today. I'm not sure if Joanna has some more.

I'm just thinking, where's the value in all of this and what I'm seeing through this is faster destruction of value than I've seen in the traditional brick-and-mortar entertainment model business models. So yeah, I suppose that's my last thing so I appreciate you listening.

I also don't know if Disney's catalogue was very valuable. Clearly, those movies are shown on videos and in cinemas. Reruns clearly they will show the video shops, Blockbuster Video, etc. I wonder are they making more money now? Is this improving their perception of their brand? Who knows? But I guess it's enough for the day. So yeah, have a great weekend.

In today's episode, we want to talk about the pricing story that has made the news I guess, the mainstream news media, which is not that common in the world of pricing, and that is related to dynamic pricing for concert tickets. More specifically Bruce Springsteen tickets on a US national tour and the concept that pricing for those tickets has a dynamic element.

Dynamic pricing has some controversy around it because people don't like that there is a range of prices and they don't like that the price is not fixed. People feel a lack of transparency when there's more than one price and more than one price in one segment and more than one price for one product. So we thought this particular story is quite interesting not only because of the controversy around dynamic pricing as a methodology in pricing but also that how it's being introduced formally within the music industry. When there's a lot of people out there that that go, they're thinking of the music, the art form, they think about their favourite artists and they think that there's gonna be some kind of transparency reflected in the price point because they go in there for the love of the music, and now they're finding the artist has very little say around it. It's very commercialised. It's a business enterprise. There's no sort of you don't get rewarded for being a fan. Now you're getting penalised by paying higher prices for being a fan. 

I think music and certainly pop stars and rock stars and the staff like that there is a fan surely the fan element that's how they get to where they are. Bruce Springsteen in the beginning started probably touring small halls. I'm again assuming this, he built up a fan base and those are loyal followers, etc. Admittedly they probably got in there and bought their tickets early, I'm guessing. But some of the points we'd like to make on this dynamic pricing, it's not as if dynamic pricing has not always applied to tickets. The second-hand market, ticket tote, and scalpers fundamentally have operated the infinite, ultimate dynamic pricing model with a standard try that concert hall and try to shift tickets, leftover tickets, or to anybody willing to pay and they will fundamentally charge that price. So that has probably what Ticketmaster here is doing, who is the agency selling the tickets? He's internalising that and giving them to use that willingness to pay. I suppose the old flat pricing model left all that extra profit on the table, the coracoid, the artist and the promoters who are putting cash behind the enterprise, and it was going to ticket tote basically who were who are filling that gap. There are people the day before or the week before who will pay significantly more for these tickets. Whether rich people, whether their superfans, whether even the sort of people in casinos when Elvis used to play in Vegas and you'd have high rollers would get free tickets to those big events and big sports games, etc. So it's nothing new under the sun. Probably to some extent, it's a smart move. I think you're internalising it, as long as you're segmenting it, it's not all tickets. And I think some of the stats we saw or at least because Ticketmaster was forced into defending themselves to some extent. And some of the stats that they did give were that 88% of tickets were sold at set prices below $400 before taxes and fees. So let's be honest, like that still is a hell of a lot of money. 400 American dollars, with the average price paid for the tickets of $200. So that left roughly 12% of tickets the in the market for dynamic pricing.

I think the controversy is more around how there are almost holding seats and tickets for profitability simply for profit. It's not just a little bit of profit quite a huge amount. If you go from a fixed price of say $200 per ticket to something like $5000 that's that's a huge leap in the price relativity price point. So that's number one and that's all being pocketed through the ticket agencies and the artists. I think fans have a right to ask, where is that money going? Is that fair? I think this interests me because generally dynamic pricing is explained by businesses as something to utilise and balance, supply and stock. But here we can see quite simply that stock and the seats are being kept back to push huge amounts of profits for the artists and the industry. So I find that that's an interesting point. Generally speaking, businesses don't really discuss willingness to pay again. And another interesting point that's been introduced with the concept of dynamic pricing, as I said before, you generally it's capacity utilisation that's pushed, not willing to pay. So here we're seeing how you're putting two concepts, pricing concepts together, dynamic pricing and willingness to pay now you can't get confused. They are very different concepts. And you got to be careful how you use them. Because if you start putting them together, you start thinking "okay, dynamic pricing is going to exploit our willingness to pay". And, why are we willing to pay for our tickets?  Because we highly value the artists, we risk, fear of not seeing them if we can't get to see them. So we're being exploited here and to some degree through loss aversion theory, and that's pushing up the ticket prices and our willingness to pay. Then on top of that, we're hearing that the businesses are making huge amounts of profit consciously doing so. So this is why it is in the media, and it really should be explained because if you see a price point of $200, and then $5,000, you kind of know want to know where your money's going.

 I think the music industry is the demographic certainly the United States and most of the world are changing. When a lot of these acts started, it was a concert where kids would go to concerts. Fundamentally, it was teenagers or young adults will go to concerts, and then they use that to buy records and the records were where the money came from. Obviously, with the complete change in the industry. It's almost like music has given us a premium through Spotify or streaming or whatever it is, and very few people buy records. And then the real money comes from the concert. And to a large extent, these acts that we're talking about are to some extent the baby boom act to have very wealthy older people following them. I don't know, again, this could be just pre-judging or whatever, but I assume a large amount of the population going to Bruce Springsteen will be older. I think Joanna touched on the concept of gouging, is this gouging? It's a grey area. Some of the articles we read suggested that Springsteen's getting old, and the band The E Street band or getting old. And so some people think this could be the last hurrah. This could be the last opportunity to see this band. Maybe some people have it on their bucket list or a dream to see Bruce Springsteen. The last two, three years have been very, you know, people feel also they've been excluded or kept away from entertainment and stuff like that. So there's probably pent-up demand also for people. So it can't be gouging because nobody needs to see a concert. Let's be honest about this. It's not like selling, a bottle of water or something to someone in a famine or food to somebody on a farm and it's not to that extent. But it is a grey area whereby to some extent is pushing into the area of, will people have a bad taste in their mouths? At the end of this, they look back and go Why would your view on that? And realistically, the view will not be on Ticketmaster the view will be on Bruce Springsteen. I would argue and maybe a concert even in general, there could be a negative, which I always think the definition of gouging is when after the experience you're committed never to deal with that seller ever again. And I would argue in pop music and rock music where there is you need affinity you need loyalty you need. It's not something in some cases, it is love, but you need a real affinity towards the act. It's not just about the music, it's about the lifestyle, the culture, the movement, and almost what it represents to you. If you're an artist and you're selling, you need to make sure you're segmenting that market because if you burn your base, if you burn your core, you know, your career is not gonna last too long.

I think another interesting point here is how pricing is being used to influence and direct behaviours here you've got quite a clear price cycle. They've kept the tickets low at the beginning of this price cycle to entice people to go to the concert to drive traffic to the concert. Fairly, you know, as I said, it's not a low price point. It's still $400 but it's a manageable price point. So that supposes the fans can go. So [A]  you learn all right at the beginning of the price cycle for ticket pricing, get your tickets early, because you really will be paying so much more towards the end, maybe two weeks after the first launch of the first price tickets. And then obviously, they're sort of they're almost training people to do that like by quickly and also they're training people to accept extremely high prices for being late in the cycle. So you didn't get your tickets early. So it's your accountability for that. So, therefore, you have to pay more, and not just two times more, three, four or five times more for the price and I'm we can change that and you can't ask questions is kind of the conversation that's going on here. So the onus is completely on us. And what is interesting is how a price point can influence huge amounts of people all at once to do so just one or two things, and how the industry in itself can change by a price point. The music industry is changing pretty much because Spotify has changed the dynamics of that industry. But now it's all going Yeah, through two gigs, live music, but it's that price point that is changing how people buy which I find interesting and ticket tech is experimenting has been like for quite a few years now. Some interesting approaches, and now I do see them bringing that dynamic pricing and willingness to pay to the forefront before it was behind the scenes and now they're trying to push that one.

I suppose the final point I'll make on this, I could be completely wrong, but I think some of it reflects on changes in this society. I think entertainment a lot of things used to be much more egalitarian. Certainly, after World War Two, the whole world was to work towards at least the Western world went to much more of an egalitarian system welfare state. Football was the everyman sport. Pop concerts were affordable, and affordable luxuries were certainly affordable for kids and that sort of thing. They didn't break the bank sort of things. I think we're going back to more of a golden age almost, within the Siak less sort of concept where they're super rich are it's fine, no to discriminate. It's fine. This is for the rich, I'm not making a value judgment I'm just pointing out what I see. And I'm seeing this happening more and more whereby price has been used as a method to discriminate against and exclude people from you can't afford it. When the luxuries are there for the rich, and I think you'll see it and I think conspicuous wealth has been pushed probably more now than then. Certainly, maybe the 80s is famous for conspicuous wealth and you know, the yuppies and the Reagan Thatcher years of course. But I think if you go back to the youth movements, the 60s, the 70s. Like I tell you, if you try to put on a dynamic pricing model at Woodstock, I'm not sure what would happen. So I think a lot of it is the market and the time and the age that we're in accounts for a lot of things. It's not a one-way movement. It goes both ways. And I just think this is we are known this is a discriminatory basis, and it's discrimination on money and wealth and, you know, sophistication or whatever else you want to talk about, but this is I would argue this as a sign of it.

It's an interesting point in itself. I mean, you can see that from the channels to market you've got TikTok, you've got Netflix, YouTube, and Spotify, which are all for the masses. It's cheap, it's accessible. Yeah, you got all the options that you want. However, it's not real life. And really, that's where the low price point is. You're not joining real life, you're watching it vicariously through a screen and all that sort of stuff. However, if you want to experience the real thing, the real deal, then you're in that very small segment now and you have to pay and it's not just it's maybe 800 times the normal exit the price more just to be a part of the real world now. So this is quite a virtual reality versus real-world scenario and the price points that reflect that is a really interesting and mind-bending thought, and it fills you sort of with a mixture of feelings. And I suppose there's quite a lot to up to unpack in and of itself, but I think this particular article, it's brought about new price leadership in a way. It's psychological pricing, and it's the division between business and customers but almost through an alignment of value drivers. Yes as an understanding of value drivers but also how you use that information when you set prices, how you use different channels and how you price those channels. Because if you hit see hear clearly if you see music as through Spotify, and in real life in an arena, then you can see the price point is hugely different. Now, in any other business, if it's done in retail, you'd say is that fair? But hear clearly people are saying it's completely fair. How come it's not fair in other industries?

My final point on this one, I think it is fair. It's just you have to be aware of when you're selling, what it says and what it creates and the atmosphere in the mix. I give the example of Wimbledon, the tennis contest. And look it's probably one of the most segmented markets I'd assume. You've got the royal family you've got the Tom Cruises of his world, etc. in the Royal box. But then you also have the I think it's a queueing system. They operate every day where people queue up and buy tickets because clearly when you could access demand for a product, you either discriminate based on price or you use the Soviet queueing system. But this queueing system gives people the impression that everyone can afford it. That everyone can be part of it that it's not completely outside your realm of you getting it and so you have to consider not just the money but what it means to your base and the longer-term impacts of stuff. But I think that's more psychological and for the later podcast, so I'll leave it there today.

I think my last point on this is that ticket Tech has done this over several years. It's not something we're just bringing upon their customer base there. As I say they're training their customers and I think if you're listening to this podcast from different industries, think about that, how you can understand what your customers value? And then think about your brisk business strategy and see how you can align it because that alignment doesn't occur overnight and even today, we've got 90% return ticket tech, in this instance, 90% of the tickets were at a fixed price and they've only introduced about you know, 9% are being dynamic pricing. So I wouldn't say it's 100% Holy accepted even within the music industry, but let's have a look, is that percentage going to grow in terms of dynamic prices versus fixed pricing in the music industry? I would say it probably is but there'll be a balance. And what we can say is ticket tech is trying to find that balance.

Like I try to keep the spirit of the 60s alive. So I'm just gonna jump dance. I'm not paying anything. Okay, we'll leave it there today.