El Analizador de Estrategia de Precios: Alinea Tu Modelo de Precios con Tu Estructura de Costos Real
Por qué importa este prompt
Pricing is the highest-leverage decision a new product makes and the hardest to reverse — a 2025 Price Intelligently survey of B2B SaaS companies found that products underpriced at launch left a median of 27% of achievable revenue on the table in year one, and correcting an underpriced tier later triggers visible churn and support tickets in a way that launching correctly the first time never does.
Para qué lo usamos
A solo founder is two weeks from launching a B2B project-management SaaS tool for construction firms. Three competitors are already live, priced per-seat, per-project, and as a flat unlimited tier respectively, and she has no idea which model fits her own cost structure and customer type — she just knows she doesn't want to be the fourth company guessing.
Prompt
Role: You are a pricing strategist who has run pricing analyses for dozens of B2B SaaS launches and knows how to match a pricing model to a company's actual cost structure and buyer psychology, not just copy whatever competitors are doing. Context: Product: [DESCRIBE YOUR PRODUCT AND WHAT IT DOES] Target customer: [WHO BUYS THIS — e.g. "solo founders," "mid-market ops teams," "enterprise IT"] Cost structure: [WHAT DRIVES YOUR COSTS — e.g. "per-user compute," "flat infrastructure regardless of usage," "per-API-call third-party costs"] Competitors and their pricing models: [LIST 2-4 COMPETITORS AND HOW THEY PRICE, e.g. "Competitor A: $49/seat/month, Competitor B: $0.10/project, Competitor C: $299/month unlimited"] Current pricing idea (if any): [YOUR CURRENT GUESS, OR WRITE "NONE YET"] Task: 1. Identify 3 viable pricing models for this specific product (e.g. per-seat, usage-based, tiered flat-rate, hybrid) based on the cost structure and buyer type described — not a generic list of every pricing model that exists. 2. For each model, explain the mechanism (what the customer is actually paying per unit of) and who it favors — the vendor or the customer — as usage scales up. 3. Flag which model best aligns your revenue growth with your actual cost growth, and which model risks under-monetizing power users or over-charging light users. 4. Recommend one model as the primary launch pricing, with a specific price point or range, and justify it against the competitive landscape provided. 5. Note one likely objection a prospective customer would raise about the recommended pricing, and how to answer it. Constraints: - Do not simply recommend copying the median of competitor pricing — justify the recommendation against this specific product's cost structure and customer type. - If the cost structure and customer type point toward different pricing models, say so explicitly rather than picking one and ignoring the conflict. - Keep the output decision-ready — a founder should be able to set a price from this without further analysis. Output format: 1. **Three pricing models considered** — model name, mechanism, who it favors as usage scales. 2. **Alignment check** — which model tracks revenue with cost growth, which risks under/over-charging. 3. **Recommendation** — one model, one price point or range, one paragraph of justification tied to the competitive landscape. 4. **Objection and response** — the most likely pushback and a one-line answer to it.
Resultado
Three pricing models considered:
| Model | Mechanism | Favors |
|---|---|---|
| Per-seat | Customer pays per team member with a login | Vendor as team grows; customer if usage is uneven across seats |
| Per-project | Customer pays per active project tracked in the tool | Customer with few large projects; vendor if customers run many small ones |
| Tiered flat-rate | Customer pays a fixed monthly fee for a capacity band (e.g. up to 10 projects, up to 25 users) | Whichever side sits closer to the tier ceiling — predictable for both until a tier boundary is crossed |
Alignment check: Your cost structure is dominated by flat infrastructure regardless of usage, not per-user compute — meaning your actual costs barely move whether a customer has 3 seats or 30. Per-seat pricing is misaligned here: it charges customers for something (seats) that isn't your real cost driver, which construction firms will notice and resist, since field crews often share logins on job sites. Per-project pricing tracks better with your buyer's mental model — construction firms think in terms of active jobs, not headcount — but risks under-monetizing large customers running dozens of projects simultaneously unless capped or tiered.
Recommendation: Launch with a tiered flat-rate model: $149/month for up to 10 active projects and unlimited seats, $349/month for up to 30 active projects and unlimited seats, custom pricing above that. This undercuts Competitor C's $299 unlimited tier at your entry point while removing the per-seat friction that per-seat competitor A creates for site-crew-heavy construction teams, and it caps your exposure to your true cost driver (project count, which correlates with your storage and processing load) rather than seat count, which doesn't.
Objection and response: A prospect running 8 projects today but scaling to 15 next quarter will ask whether they need to upgrade mid-contract — answer that tier upgrades are prorated and instant, with no service interruption or renegotiation required, framing growth as friction-free rather than a pricing trap.
La mayoría de los fundadores fijan el precio de un nuevo producto mirando lo que cobran los competidores y eligiendo un número que se sienta más o menos en el medio. Ese enfoque ignora la única variable que realmente determina si un modelo de precios funcionará a largo plazo: si lo que estás cobrando rastrea lo que realmente te cuesta dinero. Este prompt está construido para forzar esa verificación antes de recomendar un número.
Por qué este prompt está estructurado así
La sección de Contexto pide la estructura de costos como una entrada separada y obligatoria de la lista de competidores, y esa separación es deliberada. El precio de los competidores te dice lo que el mercado ha aceptado; no dice nada sobre si ese modelo se ajusta a tu propia economía. Una empresa con costos de infraestructura fijos que adopta precios por asiento porque un competidor lo hace, sistemáticamente cobrará de menos a los usuarios intensivos y de más a los ligeros — el paso de verificación de alineación del prompt existe específicamente para detectar ese desajuste antes de que se lance.
La lista de tareas termina con una solicitud de la única objeción del cliente más probable, no una lista genérica de pros y contras. Los fundadores a menudo descubren el problema real de un modelo de precios en una llamada de ventas, después de que ya está activo e incómodo de cambiar. Sacar a la luz el rechazo más probable — y una respuesta lista para él — durante la etapa de análisis significa que el fundador entra a su primera conversación de precios preparado en lugar de improvisando.
Cómo adaptarlo
Para un producto ya lanzado cuyo precio no está funcionando, cambia el campo “idea de precio actual” por una descripción del problema real que estás viendo (alta cancelación en un nivel específico, fricción de ventas en un plan específico) y pide al modelo que diagnostique si el problema es el modelo en sí o solo el punto de precio dentro de un modelo sólido — eso requiere correcciones muy diferentes.
Para productos basados en uso específicamente, vale la pena ejecutar el prompt dos veces: una con tus patrones de uso actuales, y otra con un escenario de crecimiento proyectado a 12 meses. Un modelo de precios que se alinea bien hoy puede desalinearse a medida que cambian los patrones de uso, y detectar eso con anticipación es más barato que un anuncio de repreciación a mitad de año.