This Prompt Turns Your Costs and Competitors Into Three Pricing Models
Why this prompt matters
Underpricing by even 20% compounds silently for years — a SaaS company that launches at $39 instead of a supportable $59 doesn't just lose $20/month per customer, it trains its entire customer base to anchor on the lower number, making a later price increase far harder to justify without churn.
What we use it for
You're two weeks from launching a new SaaS tier and the founding team has been going back and forth on a single price point for days without a structured way to compare the actual tradeoffs between charging based on cost, competitors, or customer value.
Prompt
Act as a senior pricing strategy consultant who has priced products for [INDUSTRY] companies at the seed-to-Series-B stage. Context: My product is [DESCRIBE PRODUCT/SERVICE]. My cost per unit (or per customer, per month) is [YOUR COST FIGURE]. My target gross margin is [TARGET MARGIN %]. My known direct competitors and their prices are [LIST 2-4 COMPETITORS AND THEIR PRICES, OR WRITE "NO DIRECT COMPETITORS"]. My target customer is [DESCRIBE BUYER — e.g. solo freelancer, SMB, enterprise procurement]. My customer acquisition cost is roughly [CAC FIGURE, OR "UNKNOWN"]. Task: Produce three distinct pricing models for this product: 1. Cost-plus pricing — price built up from unit cost plus target margin 2. Competitor-based pricing — price positioned relative to the named competitors, with a stated rationale for pricing above, at, or below them 3. Value-based pricing — price anchored to the quantifiable value/savings the customer receives, independent of cost or competitors For each model, specify: - The recommended price point - The monetization structure (per-seat, usage-based, tiered, or flat fee) and why it fits this model - The single biggest risk of using this model for this product Constraints: - Do not default to competitor-based pricing as the "safe" answer — evaluate all three with equal rigor - If unit economics are missing or unrealistic, flag this explicitly rather than proceeding with a guess - Recommend which of the three models to actually use, with a one-paragraph justification Output Format: Three labeled sections (one per model) with the four bullet points above, followed by a final "Recommendation" section.
Result
1. Cost-Plus Pricing
Recommended price: $34/month. Based on a unit cost of $8/month (hosting + support) and a target 75% gross margin. Monetization structure: flat monthly fee — cost-plus works best with predictable, low-variance usage, which a flat fee reflects most transparently. Biggest risk: this price ignores that two named competitors charge $59-79/month for materially similar functionality, meaning this model likely leaves significant revenue on the table if the market will bear more.
2. Competitor-Based Pricing
Recommended price: $49/month, positioned below Competitor A ($59) and Competitor B ($79) but above the lowest-cost option ($29). Monetization structure: tiered (Starter/Pro/Team) — matches how both named competitors package their offers, making side-by-side comparison easy for buyers already shopping the category. Biggest risk: this price is reactive, not strategic — if a competitor cuts prices or a new entrant undercuts everyone, this model has no independent floor and forces a reactive repricing cycle.
3. Value-Based Pricing
Recommended price: $89/month. Based on the stated value driver — this product saves the target customer (a solo freelancer managing 15-20 active clients) approximately 6 hours/month of manual invoice reconciliation, worth roughly $300-450/month at typical freelance billing rates. Monetization structure: flat fee with an annual discount option — value-based pricing performs best when the price is simple to justify against a single clear ROI calculation, not fragmented into usage tiers that obscure the value story. Biggest risk: this price requires the sales/marketing message to clearly communicate the time-savings calculation; without that framing, $89 will look expensive next to the $49 competitor price with no justification visible.
Recommendation
Use value-based pricing at $89/month, but position it as a mid-tier option alongside a $49 Starter tier that caps the freelancer at 5 active clients. This captures price-sensitive users at the competitor-matched price point while letting the target power-user segment (15-20 clients) self-select into the tier where the real ROI story lives — the 6-hours-saved calculation only becomes compelling once someone actually has enough clients for manual reconciliation to hurt. Pure value-based pricing at a single price point risks pricing out the exact users who'd become power users later; the tiered structure solves that without abandoning the higher-margin value anchor.
Most founders price a new product by copying a competitor's number and adjusting it slightly, then wonder six months later why margins don't work or why enterprise buyers keep asking for a tier that doesn't exist. Pricing decided this way is guesswork wearing a spreadsheet. The prompt below forces the same structured reasoning a pricing consultant would actually charge for.
Like every prompt on IRCNF, it follows Role + Context + Task + Constraints + Output Format. What makes this one work is that it refuses to hand back a single number — it produces three distinct pricing models and makes you see the tradeoffs between them side by side.
Why cost-plus, competitor-based, and value-based models, specifically
These three approaches fail in different, complementary ways. Cost-plus protects margin but ignores what the market will actually bear. Competitor-based pricing keeps you visible in comparison tables but caps your upside at whatever the laziest competitor charges. Value-based pricing captures the most revenue but requires the most confidence in your positioning — and it's the one founders chicken out of using even when it's correct. Generating all three forces an honest look at which failure mode you're most exposed to.
Why the prompt demands your actual unit economics first
Notice the Context section asks for real numbers — cost per unit, target margin, customer acquisition cost — not vague descriptions. A pricing recommendation built on "roughly what it costs us" instead of a real number isn't a recommendation, it's a guess with extra steps. If you don't know your unit economics well enough to fill in the prompt, that's a more urgent problem than pricing itself.
Why it asks for a monetization model, not just a number
The Output Format explicitly separates the price from the packaging — per-seat, usage-based, tiered, or flat fee. Two products can land on the same headline price and perform completely differently depending on which of those four structures they use. A prompt that only returns "$49/month" without addressing structure is answering half the question.
Adapting it
If you're pricing a completely new category with no direct competitors, the competitor-based model will come back thin — that's a signal to weight the value-based model more heavily in your final decision, not a failure of the prompt. For usage-based products, replace "per unit" language in the Context section with your actual metered unit (API calls, seats, GB processed) so the model reasons in the same terms your customers will see on their invoice.