Eight questions that test whether a price change is built on evidence and rehearsal, from willingness-to-pay data to rollback criteria, before customers see it.
Score the specific pricing decision on the table: an increase, a restructure or a new model. The questions and scoring are fixed, and nothing you answer leaves your browser.
Last reviewed 3 July 2026 · Free and ungated
Selected senior operators who have repriced businesses like yours can challenge the plan confidentially before the announcement.
Pressure-test this decisionAnswer for the price change as currently planned, not for pricing strategy in general.
On these answers the price change is an internal financial decision about to be tested on external customers. The willingness-to-pay evidence is thin, churn is a hope rather than a model, and the people who will defend the price in customer conversations have not been prepared to.
The commercial logic is in place but the execution scaffolding is not: typically sales readiness, grandfathering terms or a measurement plan that stops at the revenue line. Price changes in this band usually survive the announcement and then leak value through inconsistent discounting and improvised exceptions.
Most of the preparation is genuine: evidence exists, segments are differentiated, the team is briefed. The remaining exposure is usually at the edges: the competitor response that was discussed but not planned for, or rollback criteria that everyone assumes and no one has written down.
Evidence, segmentation, enablement and measurement are all in place, which puts this change in a small minority of pricing decisions. What preparation cannot supply is the market's actual reaction, and well-prepared teams have their own failure mode: reading early noise as vindication because the plan deserves to work.
Most major decisions fail slowly; pricing fails at announcement speed. A transformation can be re-scoped without customers noticing, but a price change is public the moment it ships, and reversing it teaches customers to wait out the next one. That asymmetry is why pricing readiness is worth scoring even when the analysis looks finished: the cost of being wrong is concentrated in the first weeks, exactly where preparation pays.
Customers reliably say prices are too high and reliably keep paying them; the gap between stated and revealed willingness to pay is where pricing decisions are won. Evidence here means behaviour: how customers responded to the last change, what they pay competitors for less, where value is consumed but not charged for. Internal cost pressure is a reason to want a price change. It is not evidence that the market will accept one.
Eight questions at 0, 5 or 10 points, normalised to 100 and mapped to four readiness bands. The score measures preparation for the change you have designed; it does not judge whether the new price is right, which is a question the evidence in your answers should be settling.
Yes. Decreases and model changes carry the same readiness questions with different weightings: rollback criteria matter less, while competitor response and churn modelling matter more, because a decrease you cannot sustain and a model customers cannot understand are both expensive to unwind.
It is a justification your customers did not agree to fund. Cost pressure explains why you need the increase; willingness-to-pay evidence tells you whether the market will carry it. The businesses that reprice successfully in inflationary periods are the ones that can answer both.
Written criteria, agreed before launch, naming the metrics and thresholds that would trigger adjustment, and the person who decides. An unwritten willingness to reconsider only guarantees the decision will be relitigated under pressure by whoever shouts first.