Test pricing presentation formats

Pricing format means how the price is shown, not how high it is. The usual options are:

• One price against three options (good, better, best).
• A total price against a price broken into months or quarters.
• A fixed project fee against a retainer.
• Itemised lines against one bundled price.
• The highest option shown first (an anchor) against the lowest first.

Pick one pair. Do not test them all at once. Choose the pair where you have an actual doubt. If you currently send one price and suspect buyers want a choice, test one price against three options.

Use the same proposal template, the same scope, the same follow-up and the same total price in both versions. Only the presentation changes. If you also change the price, the test tells you nothing about the format.

Restrict the test to one type of deal and one size band, for example new clients between 10,000 and 25,000. Mixing a small project with a large retainer makes the numbers meaningless. Template structure is covered in How to build proposal templates.

If you choose which version to send, you will send the better version to the better deals. Use a simple rule instead. Alternate: the first proposal gets version A, the second version B, and so on. Or use the last digit of the deal number, odd or even.

Write the rule down. Do not make exceptions, not even for the deal that "obviously needs" the three-option version.

Add a property to each deal called "Pricing format" with the values A and B. Set it when you send the proposal. In HubSpot or Pipedrive, a custom field is enough. Most proposal tools, such as PandaDoc, Better Proposals or Qwilr, also let you see how long a buyer spent on the pricing section, which is useful extra evidence.

Pick the measures before the first proposal goes out:

• Win rate: the share of proposals that become clients.
• Average deal value of the won deals.
• Days from sending to decision.
• If you offer tiers, the share of buyers who choose each tier.

Multiply win rate by average deal value to get revenue per proposal sent. That is the number that decides. A format that wins more deals at a lower value can still lose.

With small numbers you can only see direction. I'd aim for at least 20 proposals per version before reading anything. If you send five a month, that is eight months, so be honest about it: either run a longer test, or test with a cheaper proxy such as the share of buyers who reply within three days.

Do not stop early because version B has won the first three. Three deals prove nothing.

When you reach the sample, compare revenue per proposal sent. If one format is ahead by 20 percent or more, make it your default and write it into your template. If the gap is small, keep the simpler one to produce.

Then test the next pair. The reasoning behind offering choice is in Give three options, and make the middle one the obvious yes. For wider analysis of wins and losses, use Review win/loss by proposal type.

• Changing the price and the format in one test.
• Choosing the version per deal by instinct.
• Mixing deal sizes and client types in one comparison.
• Stopping after a handful of deals.
• Judging only on win rate and ignoring deal value.
• Never recording which version was sent.

After two or three rounds, check these points.

• Every deal in the period has a format recorded.
• You have a default pricing format backed by your own numbers, not by an article.
• Revenue per proposal sent has risen compared with before the tests.
• Buyers ask fewer questions about the price page, and fewer proposals go quiet at the pricing stage.
• You have a short list of formats you have ruled out, with the reason.