Este Prompt Transforma Tus Costos y Competidores en Tres Modelos de Precios
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.
La mayoría de los fundadores fijan el precio de un nuevo producto copiando el número de un competidor y ajustándolo ligeramente, para luego preguntarse seis meses después por qué los márgenes no funcionan o por qué los compradores empresariales siguen pidiendo un nivel que no existe. Decidir el precio de esta manera es una suposición disfrazada de hoja de cálculo. El siguiente prompt obliga a aplicar el mismo razonamiento estructurado que un consultor de precios cobraría realmente.
Como todo prompt en IRCNF, sigue el formato Rol + Contexto + Tarea + Restricciones + Formato de Salida. Lo que hace que este funcione es que se niega a devolver un solo número: genera tres modelos de precios distintos y te hace ver las compensaciones entre ellos uno al lado del otro.
Por qué modelos basados en costos, competidores y valor, específicamente
Estos tres enfoques fallan de maneras diferentes y complementarias. El basado en costos protege el margen pero ignora lo que el mercado realmente puede soportar. El basado en competidores te mantiene visible en las tablas comparativas pero limita tu potencial de ingresos a lo que cobre el competidor más perezoso. El basado en valor captura la mayor cantidad de ingresos pero requiere la mayor confianza en tu posicionamiento — y es del que los fundadores se acobardan incluso cuando es correcto. Generar los tres obliga a una mirada honesta sobre qué modo de fallo te expone más.
Por qué el prompt exige primero tus unidades económicas reales
Observa que la sección de Contexto pide números reales — costo por unidad, margen objetivo, costo de adquisición de clientes (CAC) — no descripciones vagas. Una recomendación de precios construida sobre 'aproximadamente lo que nos cuesta' en lugar de un número real no es una recomendación, es una suposición con pasos adicionales. Si no conoces tus unidades económicas lo suficientemente bien como para completar el prompt, ese es un problema más urgente que el propio precio.
Por qué pide un modelo de monetización, no solo un número
El Formato de Salida separa explícitamente el precio del empaquetado — por asiento, basado en uso, por niveles o tarifa plana. Dos productos pueden tener el mismo precio principal y funcionar de manera completamente diferente según cuál de esas cuatro estructuras utilicen. Un prompt que solo devuelva '$49/month' sin abordar la estructura responde solo la mitad de la pregunta.
Adaptándolo
Si estás fijando el precio de una categoría completamente nueva sin competidores directos, el modelo basado en competidores resultará débil — eso es una señal para ponderar más el modelo basado en valor en tu decisión final, no un fallo del prompt. Para productos basados en uso, reemplaza el lenguaje de 'por unidad' en la sección de Contexto con tu unidad medida real (llamadas de API, asientos, GB procesados) para que el modelo razone en los mismos términos que tus clientes verán en su factura.